Today in class we discussed the church after Constantine in preparation for our next class on the Reformation. In lieu of the discussion we watched a short video about the life of St. Patrick and his mission to the Irish. We started the class by reading the Lorica, the prayer of St. Patrick also known as the Breastplate of St. Patrick.
St. Patrick was the son of wealthy landowners who was taken as a slave by the invading Irish. After receiving his freedom God called him in a dream to come back to Ireland with the Gospel (cf. Paul and the Macedonians). After 12 years of study and preparation, Patrick went to Ireland (cf. Paul and his time in the wilderness as referred to in Galatians). Patrick would camp with tribe after tribe of Irishmen, witnessing to the power of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By the time of Patrick's death, all of Ireland was Christian.
It seems significant to me that Patrick spent 12 years preparing after receiving such a clear call from God to go to Ireland. It seems that the expectation nowadays is that obedience to a call should look like immediate action, whereas for St. Patrick, it took preparation, 12 years of it. Also, Patrick's method, of going tribe by tribe and implanting the Gospel and the church into the Irish culture was healthy and effective. It was the Irish Christians who saved Western civilization through their scholarship during the Dark Ages. Education was important. Finally, Patrick was known for confronting the evil powers of the Irish tribal religions. Power encounters were not uncommon.
In light of all of the conversion that occurred during the years following Constantine, the conversion of Ireland under St. Patrick stands out as a shining example of mission gone well.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Reflections on... The Pre-Constantinian Era (FTS_MC500)
Today we finished our discussion on the the era after the first century and before Constantine. Some of the changes during this era included the re-institutionalizing of religion after Jesus had deconstructed it during the first century. Whereas Jesus deconstructed the power structures and religious perspectives of Judaism, after the first century the church began to re-implement similar values of power in hierarchy and professionalism of a special clergy-class. Whereas Jesus said, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them," the pre-Constantinian church said, "where they are gathered around a rightly consecrated bishop rightly administering the the Eucharist, there is the church, the presence of Christ. Where there is no bishop, there is no church." The reasons for this may have been practical as well as theological: the church grew from roughly 10,000 in AD 100 to around 6,000,000 in AD 300. It took quite a bit more effort to care for a maintain the church at the end of the third century than it did at the end of the first.
One observation that Dr. Bolger made was that even though such growth over the second two centuries of the church seems massively exponentional, spaced out over the course of 200 years, it is more of a consistently steady growth over a long period of time. This brings home the reality that in the first few centuries, just as in the last few centuries, the backbone of church evangelism and growth has been through slow, steady conversion of friends and family members. Though there have been missionaries to new locations and mass revival type meetings, the long-lasting growth of the church has occurred as friends and family members are drawn into the church through exposure to life transformation and honest witness.
Finally, another interesting historical fact was a reference to a statement by one of the early church fathers, Tertullian, around AD 200. He made some comments to the effect that when people come to worship they should bring their own contributions, such as hymns. Over the course of the next few centuries, the church gathering went from being more active/participatory to more passive/receptive. It reminds me of something I've said before, that if you can still have the meeting with no one in attendance, then you're really not having a meeting, you're putting on a show. Shows have their place, but not in a family gathering.
One observation that Dr. Bolger made was that even though such growth over the second two centuries of the church seems massively exponentional, spaced out over the course of 200 years, it is more of a consistently steady growth over a long period of time. This brings home the reality that in the first few centuries, just as in the last few centuries, the backbone of church evangelism and growth has been through slow, steady conversion of friends and family members. Though there have been missionaries to new locations and mass revival type meetings, the long-lasting growth of the church has occurred as friends and family members are drawn into the church through exposure to life transformation and honest witness.
Finally, another interesting historical fact was a reference to a statement by one of the early church fathers, Tertullian, around AD 200. He made some comments to the effect that when people come to worship they should bring their own contributions, such as hymns. Over the course of the next few centuries, the church gathering went from being more active/participatory to more passive/receptive. It reminds me of something I've said before, that if you can still have the meeting with no one in attendance, then you're really not having a meeting, you're putting on a show. Shows have their place, but not in a family gathering.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Reflections on... The Church before Constantine (FTS_MC500)
Today we covered the church before Constantine. I should have known this, but only today did I realize that the structure of our lectures follows the "church worksheet" that we have for the class. Over the course of the class we will discuss the church in light of its mission at several different stages and in many of its forms. For each stage or tradition we will discuss it with respect to that particular church tradition's understanding of the nature of the church, its liturgy and sacraments, community and service, mission and witness, and organization and leadership. Today we discussed the church prior to Constantine and the "officializing" of Christianity in the empire. (I didn't say what I have commonly heard said concerning Constantine, that he "Christianized" the empire. Though that could be said, and I stand to be corrected, from what we discussed in class, it seems more that Constantine appropriated the already massive and well-organized institution of the fourth century church. Yep, I don't think we can blame the setbacks of Christendom on Constantine alone. If the picture of the Jewish religious leaders in the Gospels are of any help here, it seems that the tendency towards over-institutionalizing and professionalizing religion runs deep.)
We discussed how understanding of the sacraments changed over the next few centuries before Constantine. As the sacraments gained theological weight, so did the regulations and requirements surrounding them. The combination of high salvific effectiveness attributed to baptism, the high infant mortality rate, and the growing belief in original sin led to increasing practice of infant baptism. This of course, necessitated something like confirmation, to ensure the conversion of the baptised. So, how do you have a high theology of the sacraments while avoiding the high control that resulted? The priesthood of all believers. The sacraments belong to the church, not to a certain group within the church. That is why I think it is good to practice the "you catch 'em, you clean 'em" approach to baptism. (Though that's such a weird way to put it.) My former pastor once told me that he though we para-church campus ministers should be baptizing our new believers. I think he's right, given that we do so in view of the church - the church on campus or the church in the community, it does not matter which. The lines between Church universal, local church, and para-church are not so sharp as we imagine them. The important thing is that we remain aware that we all represent the Church, regardless whether that shows up on our business card or in our email address or not.
Similarly, with the Lord's Supper, teachers began to attribute more and more signifance to the physical bread and wine in response to the Docetists who downplayed the physical and material nature of Christian faith. Because of the growing significance of the Lord's Supper, and the growth of groups within the church whose practices were less than orthodox, bishops had to exercise more and more control. Though I'm sure that the motivation wasn't merely for power and control, over the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, the divide between the clergy and laity grew so that the clergy became spiritual "providers" instead of one gifted believer among many. Just in case it's not clear, I think that was not the most helpful development...
We watched another video in class, this time from PBS Frontline, "From Jesus to Christ." In the video we were shown a piece of paper that one would receive for sacrificing to the emperor. This "receipt" was necessary for avoiding persecution for not worshiping the emperor at the appointed times. Though they didn't mention it in the video, I suspect that punishmet for not having the ticket ranged from fines to imprisonment to beatings to death. It's not hard to imagine that some of the 3rd century Christians found in this a direct fulfillment of the "mark of the beast" in John's Revelation.
We discussed how understanding of the sacraments changed over the next few centuries before Constantine. As the sacraments gained theological weight, so did the regulations and requirements surrounding them. The combination of high salvific effectiveness attributed to baptism, the high infant mortality rate, and the growing belief in original sin led to increasing practice of infant baptism. This of course, necessitated something like confirmation, to ensure the conversion of the baptised. So, how do you have a high theology of the sacraments while avoiding the high control that resulted? The priesthood of all believers. The sacraments belong to the church, not to a certain group within the church. That is why I think it is good to practice the "you catch 'em, you clean 'em" approach to baptism. (Though that's such a weird way to put it.) My former pastor once told me that he though we para-church campus ministers should be baptizing our new believers. I think he's right, given that we do so in view of the church - the church on campus or the church in the community, it does not matter which. The lines between Church universal, local church, and para-church are not so sharp as we imagine them. The important thing is that we remain aware that we all represent the Church, regardless whether that shows up on our business card or in our email address or not.
Similarly, with the Lord's Supper, teachers began to attribute more and more signifance to the physical bread and wine in response to the Docetists who downplayed the physical and material nature of Christian faith. Because of the growing significance of the Lord's Supper, and the growth of groups within the church whose practices were less than orthodox, bishops had to exercise more and more control. Though I'm sure that the motivation wasn't merely for power and control, over the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, the divide between the clergy and laity grew so that the clergy became spiritual "providers" instead of one gifted believer among many. Just in case it's not clear, I think that was not the most helpful development...
We watched another video in class, this time from PBS Frontline, "From Jesus to Christ." In the video we were shown a piece of paper that one would receive for sacrificing to the emperor. This "receipt" was necessary for avoiding persecution for not worshiping the emperor at the appointed times. Though they didn't mention it in the video, I suspect that punishmet for not having the ticket ranged from fines to imprisonment to beatings to death. It's not hard to imagine that some of the 3rd century Christians found in this a direct fulfillment of the "mark of the beast" in John's Revelation.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Reflections on... First Century Churches (FTS_MC500)
Today we wrapped up our discussion on First Century Discussion, beginning with a small group discussion time centered on Acts 2:42-47. It's always interesting to discuss passages that we in Campus Crusade for Christ focus on so heavily. Not that we own any of these passages, far from it, but discussions outside of a CCC context always bear out how we selectively read passages, for good and ill. We call this one the Transformational Community passage, because it is the first example of a transformational community where people are being won to Christ, built up in their faith, and sent out to reach others. We emphasize well the reality of "biblical teaching, prayer, and real koininia (fellowship)" present in the "Acts 2" church. At the center of our hope for the college campus is the vision of seeing students embody this kind of community where they and the surrounding community will be awe of the ways in which God is at work, seeing others added to the community of believers with great regularity, until "everyone knows someone that truly follows Jesus," as we say. Of course, our reading of Acts 2 is selective, as are others'. The problem is that in our standard schema of a "transformational community" for the campus we leave out some of the most prominent characterizations of this Acts 2 community: celebrating the Eucharist (if that is indeed what "breaking bread" refers to; if not then at least true table fellowship should be practiced on campus), "signs and wonders" (which here was done by the apostles but seems to have spread throughout the church in the New Testament [Phillip in Acts 8:4-8, many in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 27-31), observance of regular prayer times, radical hospitality and generosity for the common good, finding favor with outsiders, and daily interaction with each other and those outside such that there could be daily entrance into the new community of "the saved." I see some of these things changing on a grassroots level, but I hope that we as leaders and campus workers will promote it and not resist it in the eyars to come.
We also discussed Christian Worship in the First Century, Christian Mission in the First Century, and Leadership in the First Century church. It was interesting to note that the "order of worship" in mostly Jewish churches was inherited from the synagogue: opening prayer and praise, creedal confession and benedictions, reading from the Scriptures, and a homily. According to Dr. Bolger, many of these first Jewish churches, the house in which the synagogue met became the house in which the church met. The order of worship in those churches which had little to no Jewish influence were much more fluid and varied, cf. the letters to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians. As we were discussing, I was reminded of stories Dr. Jay Travis told about Muslims who begin to believe in Isa (Jesus) and meet to read the Quran and the Injil (New Testament), pray for each other, and apply the teachings of Jesus to their lives. The form of their meetings remain the same, but the content and the resulting community changes.
One last bit of interest: it was observed that there is little evidence that collecting money was a regular (certainly not weekly) part of the meeting together of the first churches. As Ravi Zacharias has wryly asked in this regard, what does it say about us that we hold tightly to a weekly offering but with reluctance institute a monthly Lord's Supper of stale crackers and a thimble of grape juice? It betrays our financial and dogmatic fears at worst, and our troublesome professionalizing of the clergy at best. Rather, it would seem, we should celebrate communion weekly in smaller setting where people are know and food can be enjoyed, and congregational giving should be generous and according to needs.
We also discussed Christian Worship in the First Century, Christian Mission in the First Century, and Leadership in the First Century church. It was interesting to note that the "order of worship" in mostly Jewish churches was inherited from the synagogue: opening prayer and praise, creedal confession and benedictions, reading from the Scriptures, and a homily. According to Dr. Bolger, many of these first Jewish churches, the house in which the synagogue met became the house in which the church met. The order of worship in those churches which had little to no Jewish influence were much more fluid and varied, cf. the letters to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians. As we were discussing, I was reminded of stories Dr. Jay Travis told about Muslims who begin to believe in Isa (Jesus) and meet to read the Quran and the Injil (New Testament), pray for each other, and apply the teachings of Jesus to their lives. The form of their meetings remain the same, but the content and the resulting community changes.
One last bit of interest: it was observed that there is little evidence that collecting money was a regular (certainly not weekly) part of the meeting together of the first churches. As Ravi Zacharias has wryly asked in this regard, what does it say about us that we hold tightly to a weekly offering but with reluctance institute a monthly Lord's Supper of stale crackers and a thimble of grape juice? It betrays our financial and dogmatic fears at worst, and our troublesome professionalizing of the clergy at best. Rather, it would seem, we should celebrate communion weekly in smaller setting where people are know and food can be enjoyed, and congregational giving should be generous and according to needs.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Reflections on... Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Church (FTS_MC500)
The following reflections will be regarding the lectures from MC500: Church in Mission, in which I am currently enrolled at Fuller Theological Seminary and for which I am publicly reflecting in at least 50 words in fulfillment of my class participation assignment.
Today, much of what we covered was as an orientation to the class: context for its development, overview of its content and aims, details about the assignments, etc. Before this first day, I have considered the reading list to be worth the price of admission (though, of course, I could have found the list and read the books apart from the class). I'll add onto these benefits received the assignments that are required for the class, lots of interactive writing: these daily entries in response to class discussion, notes from the readings in view of the final paper, participation in a local church of a different culture/tradition/ethnic background with an accompanying 2000 word paper, and the final paper, 3000 words considering my church tradition and what it might learn from other traditions in terms of "nature, liturgy, community, mission, and organization". One of the main reasons I've been excited about going "back to school", believe it or not, is the task of writing papers. We'll see how long that holds up... ;)
The second half of our class time was given to the first unit of discussion: Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Church. Dr. Bolger led us through a discussion around certain parts of an ABC News special series with Peter Jennings called The Search for Jesus, which is essentially a documentary through much of the recent research surrounding the Quest(s) for the Historical Jesus. We discussed how the idea of the Kingdom of God was not original to Jesus, but instead it was a conversation and an expectation that Jesus entered into, albeit uniquely, but not originally. The Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven as Matthew emphasizes it in his gospel), was the hope of a Jewish people who were still in exile from the fullness of what YHWH had promised to them, not limited merely to the promised land, but also to full human flourishing within the nation under YHWH, which necessarily meant that Roman occupation was not all that God had intended for them. The occupation, in fact, reminded that they were still in exile and under YHWH's discipline. Jesus came to announce the end of exile, and to usher in the Kingdom of God, not over and against the Roman occupation, but under and within the Roman occupation, to subvert the reigning paradigm and transform the people of God into one that would be a "blessing to the nations" as was intended. So, in light of this, the question comes to mind, if Jesus' ushered in the 'end of exile' for the nation of Israel, to enable them to fulfill their calling to be a light to the Gentiles and a blessing to the nations, then what do we make of 'exile' language in the New Testament after the Gospels? If Israel was in exile from God's presence among them in the temple, which brought about full national flourishing, then how in fact was exile ended if the temple was destroyed just 40 years after Jesus' ascension?
So then, it seem the 'end of exile' rather refers to YHWH's return to his people in Jesus, followed by the opening up of and expansion of the kingdom to include the entire earth, with YHWH's presence not in the Temple in Jerusalem but in the temple of the church. This begs the question, why then do the NT authors refer to the church as still in exile, as aliens and strangers? Is there some sense in which humanity is still in exile from the Garden of Eden to which we will return in the New Heavens/New Earth? Or is the hope more specific, that New Humanity (the church) awaiting full return from exile in the descent of the New Heavens/New Earth? Hmmm... Maybe I'll find out in the next class.
One last thing from class that was interesting was to think about was that, with respect Jesus' actions - his offering forgiveness outside the temple, his healing on the Sabbath, his sharing table fellowship with sinners and Gentiles, his valuing of women, his teaching in the sermon on the mount - Jesus was a destabilizing force in the religious, political, economic, and social structure of the time. How might our teaching, working, serving, relating be a kingdom-centered destabilizing force in our current contexts?
Today, much of what we covered was as an orientation to the class: context for its development, overview of its content and aims, details about the assignments, etc. Before this first day, I have considered the reading list to be worth the price of admission (though, of course, I could have found the list and read the books apart from the class). I'll add onto these benefits received the assignments that are required for the class, lots of interactive writing: these daily entries in response to class discussion, notes from the readings in view of the final paper, participation in a local church of a different culture/tradition/ethnic background with an accompanying 2000 word paper, and the final paper, 3000 words considering my church tradition and what it might learn from other traditions in terms of "nature, liturgy, community, mission, and organization". One of the main reasons I've been excited about going "back to school", believe it or not, is the task of writing papers. We'll see how long that holds up... ;)
The second half of our class time was given to the first unit of discussion: Jesus, the Kingdom, and the Church. Dr. Bolger led us through a discussion around certain parts of an ABC News special series with Peter Jennings called The Search for Jesus, which is essentially a documentary through much of the recent research surrounding the Quest(s) for the Historical Jesus. We discussed how the idea of the Kingdom of God was not original to Jesus, but instead it was a conversation and an expectation that Jesus entered into, albeit uniquely, but not originally. The Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven as Matthew emphasizes it in his gospel), was the hope of a Jewish people who were still in exile from the fullness of what YHWH had promised to them, not limited merely to the promised land, but also to full human flourishing within the nation under YHWH, which necessarily meant that Roman occupation was not all that God had intended for them. The occupation, in fact, reminded that they were still in exile and under YHWH's discipline. Jesus came to announce the end of exile, and to usher in the Kingdom of God, not over and against the Roman occupation, but under and within the Roman occupation, to subvert the reigning paradigm and transform the people of God into one that would be a "blessing to the nations" as was intended. So, in light of this, the question comes to mind, if Jesus' ushered in the 'end of exile' for the nation of Israel, to enable them to fulfill their calling to be a light to the Gentiles and a blessing to the nations, then what do we make of 'exile' language in the New Testament after the Gospels? If Israel was in exile from God's presence among them in the temple, which brought about full national flourishing, then how in fact was exile ended if the temple was destroyed just 40 years after Jesus' ascension?
So then, it seem the 'end of exile' rather refers to YHWH's return to his people in Jesus, followed by the opening up of and expansion of the kingdom to include the entire earth, with YHWH's presence not in the Temple in Jerusalem but in the temple of the church. This begs the question, why then do the NT authors refer to the church as still in exile, as aliens and strangers? Is there some sense in which humanity is still in exile from the Garden of Eden to which we will return in the New Heavens/New Earth? Or is the hope more specific, that New Humanity (the church) awaiting full return from exile in the descent of the New Heavens/New Earth? Hmmm... Maybe I'll find out in the next class.
One last thing from class that was interesting was to think about was that, with respect Jesus' actions - his offering forgiveness outside the temple, his healing on the Sabbath, his sharing table fellowship with sinners and Gentiles, his valuing of women, his teaching in the sermon on the mount - Jesus was a destabilizing force in the religious, political, economic, and social structure of the time. How might our teaching, working, serving, relating be a kingdom-centered destabilizing force in our current contexts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
