The Salvation of the Christians: Answers to Question by Christopher, Part 4

Bible and crossContinuing my fascinating conversation with reader Christopher in the comments. I quote the entirety of Christopher’s comment in the text of my reply.

I very much appreciate Christopher’s questions. Like all good questions, he’s pushed me to think about some very difficult things — important things that we don’t often hear about from our pulpits because … well … these are really hard questions. And those are the very best kind.

Christopher,

You’re putting me to the test! Let’s see … Continue reading

Posted in Theodicy (How God can allow bad things to happen), Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Church 2.0: Part 10.5: Ekklēsia in the NT, Part 2 (Matt 18:17)

Church2We’ve considered church discipline in earlier posts, but there’s an interesting aspect brought up by Jesus’ use of ekklēsia in Matt 18:17 —

(Matt. 18:14-17 ESV) should perish.  15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.  16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.  17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Among the many challenging questions presented by this passage is just how is the decision to disfellowship this sinner to be made? What is the process? Who decides? Continue reading

Posted in Church 2.0, Ecclesiology, Uncategorized | Comments Off on Church 2.0: Part 10.5: Ekklēsia in the NT, Part 2 (Matt 18:17)

Church 2.0: Part 10.4: Ekklēsia in the NT, Part 1 (Matt 16:18)

Church2In the Gospels, ekklēsia is only used twice, both in Matthew. Both are familiar
passages —

(Matt. 16:17-18 ESV)  17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Imagine a Jew overhearing this conversation before the crucifixion. To his ears, “I will build my church” would sound very much like “I will build my nation” or “my Israel.” No student of the Torah would have heard “my religion” or “my spirituality” or even “my denomination.” Jesus chose language referring to a nation in relationship with God. Continue reading

Posted in Church 2.0, Ecclesiology, Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Emily Roig: “Sampler”

Can’t help but be reminded of Joni Mitchell.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Emily Roig: “Sampler”

Church 2.0: Part 10.3: Ekklēsia in the OT

Church2Historically, scholarship has paid very little attention to the use of ekklēsia in the Greek translation of the OT used by First Century Jews, the Septuagint (the LXX). Scholars have assumed that the NT church chose this term with little regard for its OT history. And yet the early church was entirely Jewish, and there were other Greek words that might have been used for “church.” Why this term?

Increasingly, it’s now being recognized that the NT church chose ekklēsia as the preferred term for a congregation or the church-universal because of its OT roots. In fact, its Jewish roots are of critical importance to understanding the early church’s self-understanding. Continue reading

Posted in Church 2.0, Ecclesiology, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Salvation of the Christians: Answers to Question by Christopher, Part 3

Bible and cross

Christopher responded,

As always, Jay, thanks for the thoughtful responses. Here is what I’d say back, not to argue but to advance the dialog:

My response to your second answer is this: Nadab and Abihu may well have been intoxicated (which impaired their judgement and prompted Moses to stipulate that priests are not to imbibe of fermented drink on such occasions) but I think you overstate the case by calling them “spoiled frat boys” who were “slobbering drunk”. If both of the wind up in heaven (a possibility allowed for in your seventh answer), then perhaps there is no real harm – it was more of an object lesson for Israel that sin does indeed lead to death. Continue reading

Posted in Theodicy (How God can allow bad things to happen), Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Salvation of the Christians: Answers to Question by Christopher, Part 2

Bible and crossChristopher,

It’s a good question, one that many have wrestled with.

First answer

And I think the problem isn’t entirely resolvable other than in relational terms. For example, as a parent, while I want my children to feel loved and learn to love, there are times when I play the role of ogre to get the results needed.

My kids are grown up now, but we used to have a young man living with us, not my son, who had ambitions of becoming a youth minister. His parents had divorced and he kind of moved in with us. April 1 was the deadline for college applications, and he hadn’t filled his out. My wife and my sons — his de facto brothers — urged him to turn in his form over and over and over. But he was 18 and unmotivated. I told him — and meant it — that if he didn’t get it turned in on time, I was taking his house key and kicking him to the curb. And so he filled out his form — and I wound up being his “father” at his wedding and he just got a job as a pulpit minister.

So I was a mean, demanding, rules-based, demanding ogre, because that’s what he needed at that moment to grow up a little bit more. Continue reading

Posted in Theodicy (How God can allow bad things to happen), Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Salvation of the Christians: Answers to Question by Christopher, Part 2

The Salvation of the Christians: Answers to Questions by Price and Christopher, Part 1

Bible and crossSome long time ago, I posted a series called God Is Not Fair wrestling with the fact that God’s grace is only available to those who’ve heard the gospel. More recently, I posted a series on The Salvation of the Christians (following The Salvation of the Jews) dealing with the same questions in a more (I hope) sophisticated way. I continue to study and learn.

And then today (Dec 6), readers and commenters Price and Christopher asked a series of questions, which pushed many of these same questions back to the fore. And my long-winded answers are really too long for the little comment boxes, and I’m re-posting here (edited now that I see what I’m typing so much better).

I apologize for the length and for posting these all at once. (It’s really too much trouble to reschedule all my other posts.) Continue reading

Posted in Theodicy (How God can allow bad things to happen), Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Phillip LaRue: “Songs I Found on the Floor”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Phillip LaRue: “Songs I Found on the Floor”

Church 2.0: Part 10.2: Ekklēsia and kirche

Church2This may be familiar ground for long-time readers, but we need to review the use of ekklēsia in the Old Testament.

First, we need to dispense with a couple of sermon clichés. The word does not mean “called out.” That’s the etymology of the word, but long before the First Century, the meaning had shifted to refer to a gathering, any gathering, even a rioting mob (as in Acts 19:32; note v. 40) (insert here very inappropriate sardonic remark about the Bible’s use of the same word for both “church” and “rioting mob”).

Second, for some reason, countless lessons (for example) make the point that the English word comes from the German kirche, meaning, well, “church” — either the building or the people. (And this is from the Greek κυριακόν ‎(kuriakón) meaning “belonging to the Lord.”) Which is really neither here nor there, because English definitions and etymologies are rarely of much use in interpreting a Bible written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. But it’s interesting. The problem is that such sermons assume that the English translation is somehow in error in using “church.” Continue reading

Posted in Church 2.0, Ecclesiology, Uncategorized | 8 Comments