An Email about Authority and Mathematics

freedom_authority.jpgI get emails —

I’m trying to help a bright young brother, who recently got his Ph.D. in math.

He wrote that the church he was now attending was the only “conservative” church of Christ in the city. I asked him what he meant by “conservative.” He wrote: Continue reading

Posted in An Email about Authority and Mathematics, CENI, Hermeneutics, Regulative Principle | 14 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Wrapping Up Volume 1, Part 2

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

A Summary of Paul’s Worldview

We’ve considered in the recent posts some of the elements that Wright focuses on in Paul’s writings as indicating his worldview — both pre- and post-conversion. In particular, Paul thinks in terms of God’s story (the following is my summary of some of Wrights points) —

* God is one. Wright refers to this as “creational monotheism,” that is, there is but one God and he created the heavens and the earth. He’ll discuss this in more detail in Vol. 2. Continue reading

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why I Joined a Church of Christ (and Why I Might Leave)

ImageIs it only those of us in the Churches of Christ who write articles on “Why I Am a Member” of my denomination? It’s a common theme among us in the Churches, and that is likely not a good sign at all.

That said, here’s a really good one. I can’t tell for the life of me who wrote it, though.

(Why, oh why, do so many of our members put up blogs with no name or identifying information of any kind? Maybe the intent was to be anonymous. The author seems to be a very gifted writer. I’d like to give proper credit.)

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Wrapping Up Volume 1, Part 1

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

The book is written in four parts, with two parts apiece in separate volumes. I’ve just finished reading Parts 1 and 2, that is, Volume 1. And Volume 1 is 570 pages, not counting the bibliography.

Vol. 2 is another nearly 1,000 pages, for a total of 1,519 pages (not counting the index, bibliography, and other tables)!

Parts 1 and 2 address “Paul and His World” and “The Mindset of the Apostle.” In particular, Wright lays a very thorough foundation for Paul’s theology (which is Part 3) to resolve many of the disagreements among scholars about how to read Paul. Continue reading

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Wineskins is Up!

WineskinsbannerThe Wineskins eZine website is now up — complete with fresh articles by Matt DabbsNaomi Walters, John Mark HicksSara Barton, Jonathan StormentPatrick Mead, Les Ferguson, Jr., and Paula Harrington.

This month’s topic: Embracing Biblical Restoration.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Baptism and the Eucharist

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

Beginning at p. 426, Wright briefly considers baptism as a symbol of Christian unity, starting with —

(1Co 12:13 ESV)  13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body — Jews or Greeks, slaves or free — and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

He comments,

The primary point of baptism, then, is not so much ‘that it does something to the individual’, though it does, but that it defines the community of the baptized as the Messiah’s people. Those who submit to baptism are thereby challenged to learn the family codes, the house rules, the way of life that this community is committed to precisely because it is the family of the Messiah, the crucified and risen one.

(emphasis in original).

Wright is not denying that baptism itself does something. That’s not his present topic. Rather, he is more concerned with the impact of baptism, at a worldview level, on the Christian and the Christian community.

And, he concludes, baptism incorporates the convert into the body of Christ — so that the convert must learn to live as a part of this new community, according to its way of life.

He is most  certainly not arguing the Baptist view that baptism adds one to the church but doesn’t save. He is simply not responding to those questions either way. Rather, he is looking pragmatically at how baptism works in the life of the convert.

And, as is certainly true in the Churches of Christ, a baptism (among many other things!) announces to the church that this convert has come to faith and made a commitment to Jesus as Lord. We properly consider someone who’s been baptized as a “member” and subject to the obligations that members must necessarily take on. And the baptized convert realizes that his baptism does these things (but not just these things).

And as Paul — typically — makes clear in 1 Cor 12:13, baptism is into the singular, united body of Christ. There is but one baptism and it is into the one church. Hence, baptism is powerfully a symbol of the united church.

Of course, the same is true of the Lord’s Supper. Paul only speaks to the topic in 1 Corinthians, and there he insists —

(1Co 10:17 ESV)  17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

That is, the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the unity of the church. It’s not so much that there is only one loaf. After all, it’s unlikely that the church in Jerusalem, with thousands of members, all ate from the same loaf! Rather, “the loaf” is synecdoche for the meal itself. We eat at a common table; we share food; therefore, we are family and united.

But as was the custom of the day for families, they ate from a single loaf (to the extent the bread would go that far) and following the Passover tradition, they shared a cup (symbolic of family and a common heritage within Israel).

Of course, the church transformed the Passover so that the Lord’s Supper spoke of the death and resurrection of Jesus and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31.

Thus, at a very practical level, this common meal was intended to help build the church up in love. Hence, the Corinthians’ abuse of the meal was a great travesty and insult to the institution.

It is therefore my view that church leaders should lead their congregations to conduct joint communion services with other churches in town. This is, for a Church of Christ eldership, terrifying, of course, because it forces the leaders to take a position on a matter that is hugely controversial. Exactly.

We cannot claim to honor God’s command to be united unless we practice a visible unity. The Lord’s Supper is a travesty if it does not lead to a visible unity. And unity is not bounded by congregational lines.

The sad truth is that the Churches of Christ — and many other denominations, too — have improperly narrow views of who is and isn’t saved, going back to the error of the Reformation churches in which fellowship was only granted if you agreed on every single point of doctrine.

This is precisely the error that Alexander Campbell and the other Restoration Movement founders sought to correct — and that the later Restoration Movement leaders rejected — all the while pretending to follow in the footsteps of Campbell, etc.

Hence, we went from being a unity movement to a movement that divided over all sorts of strange things — including “grace/unity,” the Sunday school, one cup, and whether a church may provide financial support for orphanages. Strange … and sad.

We cannot put this error behind us — we cannot repent — except by showing visible unity with those who disagree with us on some things but not the main things — most especially faith in Jesus.

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 77 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: The Unity of the Church

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

After reviewing Paul’s reworking of the symbols of the Jewish worldview, Wright considers the new worldview that Paul wants to establish.

It is still common to find ‘the church’ and related topics tucked away toward the back of studies of Paul, the assumption being that what mattered was sin and salvation and that questions about church life were essentially secondary or even tertiary. … No: we are simply asking the question: what were the main symbols, and symbols in action, of Paul’s newly envisaged and constructed world? And we are about to find, large as life, on the basis not of a theological a priori but simply by asking this question, scratching our heads, and looking around, that the primary answer is the ekklesia: its unity, holiness and witness. Continue reading

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Re-imagining the Symbols of the Jewish Worldview (Scriptures)

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

We been considering Wright’s review of the various symbols at the heart of the worldview of the Jews of Paul’s day: Temple, Torah, Prayer, Land, Family, Battle, and Scripture. We finish the series by talking about Paul’s view of the Scriptures.

The Jews of Paul’s day were deeply committed to the Old Testament (or Hebrew Scriptures or Tanakh). It’s likely that many Jews had memorized the Torah. Paul, as a rabbi trained under Gamaliel, surely had. Continue reading

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Re-imagining the Symbols of the Jewish Worldview (Battle)

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

We been considering Wright’s review of the various symbols at the heart of the worldview of the Jews of Paul’s day: Temple, Torah, Prayer, Land, Family, Battle, and Scripture. We pick up with Battle.

Battle

Because the New Testament only records the destruction of Jerusalem in Jesus’ prophecies, we tend to minimize the dynamic of the Jewish rebellion against Rome in our thinking. We remember that one of Jesus’ apostles was a Zealot, sworn to overthrow Rome, but otherwise the destruction of the Temple and fall of Jerusalem do not much factor into our thinking. Continue reading

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Paul and the Faithfulness of God: Re-imagining the Symbols of the Jewish Worldview (Family)

FaithfulnessofGodWe are considering N. T. Wright’s newly released Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God) — a massive and masterful consideration of Paul’s theology.

We been considering Wright’s review of the various symbols at the heart of the worldview of the Jews of Paul’s day: Temple, Torah, Prayer, Land, Family, Battle, and Scripture. We pick up with Family.

Family

Of course, in Paul’s day, the Jews understood that God had entered into covenant with Abraham and his descendents. The family of G0d — “sons of God” — was the physical family of Israel. Continue reading

Posted in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Uncategorized | 1 Comment