Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Ecclesiology


by 2 Comments

Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference: Day 1, Part 2

6:00p, CST: A great first weekend! I’m excited for next weekend with folks like Nijay Gupta and Stan Hauerwas presenting.

__________

5:39p, CST: We need to live within our “creatureliness” rather than trying to be divine in how we manage nature.

5:37p, CST: Three fruits of the ecological vocation: (1) restraint, (2) resourcefulness, and (3) contentment .

5:34p, CST: Fortitude helps maintain these other virtues.

5:33p, CST: Virtues such as prudence and temperance being discussed now.

5:28p, CST: What is a virtue? What is its relationship to ecological ethics? Virtue = acquired human quality…to achieve particular goods and prevent us from not obtaining those goods.

5:27p, CST: Jorgenson presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 5.27.50 PM

5:26p, CST: Repentance is change, and this change is a radical reorientation toward ethical behavior. This isn’t a one time event, but we must do it daily

5:24p, CST: Sin is a “relational condition.” 

5:21p, CST: Repentance + a pursuit of particular virtues (restraint, resourcefulness, and contentment) are key.

5:20p, CST: Our ecological concerns have not addressed congregations as a whole. Our worship expressed our belief.

5:17p, CST: Jorgenson begins by discussing the “eco-shift” in American consciousness. But this doesn’t mean Americans are ecologically sustainable. Actually, it’s worse than ever.

5:15p, CST: Great shot of N.T. Wright presenting (from earlier today):

942717_10152845921740445_1511106366_n

5:10p, CST: Last session of Day 1:  Kiara Jorgenson (Ph.D. Candidate Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN), “The Role of Repentance and the Virtues toward the Christian Fulfillment of Ecological Vocation”.

__________

4:48p, CST: To allow the aggressive actions to continue would have been unethical for Paul.

4:42p, CST: If the agitators are being aggressive, then expulsion is permissible. This is why his attitude is different than in Romans. The insiders can be expelled.

4:41p, CST: How does a persecuted group expel agitators?

4:32p, CST: Persecution associated the oppressed with Christ, marking their identity, making them the “right kind of children of Abraham,” while those who persecute do not represent Christ.

4:30p, CST: Baptism marks out more than membership, but addresses the kind of community: one with a crucified messiah.

4:29p, CST: Dunne presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 4.29.11 PM

4:28p, CST: Suffering and persecution function as boundary markers.

4:25p, CST: The agitators are acting like Ishmael in their aggressive, persecuting behavior.

4:21p, CST: The agitators are not Jews in particular, but particular people.

4:18p, CST: Dunne addressing mission and ethics as it relates to outsiders.

4:13p, CST: Ok, I chose the paper on Paul because that is more my niche, but I do want to go back to watch the recording of Manby’s paper.

4:07p, CST: Two very interesting sessions to choose from next. Either John Anthony Dunne “Suffering, Christian Identity, and the Expulsion of the Galatian Agitators (Gal. 4:29-30): A Response to Susan Eastman” or Aaron C. Manby’s paper on absolute pacifism in the early church!!!

__________

3:47p, CST: The eschatological temple = the church.

3:40p, CST: Rosner explaining the connections between purity and being the temple based on the expectation that temples be pure.

3:30p, CST: If the church is the temple, the bread and wine are the sacrifice.

3:27p, CST: Solomon’s temple was the anti-type of the fulfilled temple which is the church.

3:24p, CST: Entered this session a little late: Brian Rosner, “The Church as Temple and Moral Exhortation in 1 Corinthians”.

__________

2:46p, CST: How does this address the prevailing wisdom of our day? (1) If this wisdom is not that of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, but the prevailing upper class of Corinth? How does that compare to eudaimonia? (2) If this not universal, but specific to Corinth, how do we understand “wisdom,” “power,” and “foolishness” of our day? (3) Does the prevailing wisdom of the day play any role in following Apollos, or Paul, or Cephas, etc? (4) If the modern self-help movement compares favorably to the Corinthians concept of eudaimonia is it compatible with the Gospel? (5) How dangerous is it for Christians today to have our own guru and own wisdom? (6) Does self-help promote the power “in me” and not God?

2:39p, CST: Paul had a specific idea of “foolishness,” it is not a generic idea. Paul is against a particular prevailing wisdom at that time that was unable to point people to God.

2:36p, CST: Paul is addressing how people in Corinth understood the Gospel, as stupid. This is less about “knowledge” and more about influence. The Corinthians see the Gospel as “slave logic,” but it is powerful in God.

2:35p, CST: The contrast is not between wisdom and foolishness, but foolishness and the power of God.

2:34p, CST: Since Paul is vague here, using words like “wisdom,” “power,” and “foolishness,” people can insert their own ideas into this, critiquing what they want to critique, using Paul’s words, but Paul may have meant something less universalistic and more specific.

2:33p, CST: 1 Cor 1:18-25 = popular Christian response to questions of human wisdom

2:31p, CST: Estes presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 2.31.22 PM

2:31p, CST: Wisdom was on the mind of the ancients, so how do we read Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 1?

2:30p, CST: How do we speak to people who are interested in the practical wisdom of our day, and speak in this language, when presenting biblical wisdom?

2:28p, CST: North Americans are fascinated with the idea of reaching the fullest potential of our happiness.

2:26p, CST: Estes shares how ancient Greeks understood eudaimonia and whether self-help is a modern form.

2:22p, CST: Estes is introducing us to the self-help movement, it’s positives, it’s negatives, it’s money making potential, and how this relates to biblical wisdom.

2:16p, CST: Douglas Estes discussing “The Transformation of Wisdom: Self-help, Foolishness, and Moral Formation in an Ecclesial Context”.

2:05p, CST: Next up, my former professor and a mentor of mine, Douglas Estes!

__________

1:45p, CST: Cruciformity is not only theology and Christolgy, but ecclesiology!

1:41p, CST: What about “just war?” Paul’s logic: although you’ve been wrong, and you have an authoritative tradition allowing you to response, don’t follow that, overcome evil with good. (1 Cor 6, 9 and “rights”)

1:38p, CST: To follow God we are to forgive and be reconciled. This is not how God is viewed by much of Western society.

1:37p, CST: Rom 5:1, 6-1; 12:9-21

1:33p, CST: I see people using #ecclesiaandethics on Twitter for those interested.

1:30p, CST: 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 18-19, 21. Messiah’s death is an act of Christ’s love and God’s act of reconciliation and forgiveness.

1:29p, CST: The church becomes like God through narrative, cruciform practices.

1:23p, CST: Cruciformity is not merely spirituality, but imitation of Christ, specifically.

1:22p, CST: Cruciformity = cruciform + conformity

1:20p, CST: God is often left out of theology, oddly enough!

1:17p, CST: Paul as theologian: (1) messianic; (2) the cross and resurrection; (3) narrative; (4) ecclesial; (5) mystical.

Michael Gorman presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 1.17.06 PM

1:16p, CST: The cross of Jesus Christ answers both of these questions.

1:15p, CST: This passage addresses (1) who or what is God? (2) what is the church?

1:14p, CST: 1 Cor 2:2 tells us about Paul’s theology, Christology, ecclesiology, etc.

1:10p, CST: Technical difficulties resolved. So far, this is the first one. Not bad for an inaugural online conference!

1:06p, CST: Michael Gorman (Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary; Raymond E. Brown Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology, St. Mary’s Seminary and University) will begin the second half of day one speaking on “God, the Cross, and the Church” as soon as some technical difficulties are resolved.

See my notes from the earlier sessions: Day 1, Part 1.

About these ads


by 6 Comments

Live Blog: Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference: Day 1, Part 1

12:43p, CST: Until humility is the primary characteristic of the church we risk at standing in pride against God.

12:41p, CST: The only one with the right to judge is the one who has the power to carry out those judgments. We claim our anger to be God’s righteousness, but this isn’t true. God’s grace is to the humble.

12:39p, CST: Very poignant application to the judgment seen in public between “conservative” and “liberal” Christians in the public square.

12:36p, CST: The church should be characterized by humble people.

12:35p, CST: God’s presence in the congregation is not compatible with moral ambivalence and oppression.

12:33p, CST: We need to turn our desire back to God. This is how we escape the need to find success at the expense of others.

12:30p, CST: Mariam Kamell presenting:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 12.29.52 PM

12:29p, CST: The greater you are the more you need to humble yourself.

12:27p, CST: Humility is the answer to the problems in community. We need to recognize all good things come from God. Pride is independent identity without God’s grace.

12:26p, CST: “God gives grace to the humiliates because they receive it.” The proud reject it.

12:22p, CST: Our focus should be on our neighbor, but in love, not envy. We are not to emulate the world, but YHWH.

12:21p, CST: “Have we baptized the world’s system and called it Christian?” Good question!

12:20p, CST: The world is not the material world, or people in general, but the anti-God culture.

12:18p, CST: “Adulterers” in 4:4 is an echo of Israel in the OT as a unfaithful spouse to God. Now James uses this of his audience.

12:16p, CST: God is a giver. God is not witholding gifts. Rather, we cannot wait on God, but look elsewhere.

12:15p, CST: Instead of asking from God we desire from our neighbor.

12:11p, CST: One must learn to receive from God, not push their own desires, to take from others.

12:06p, CST: Fight and disputes are reality, and acknowledging this is a necessary step toward healing.

12:04p, CST: James 4:1-12 address, directly, what it means for us to navigate living in community.

12:03p, CST: People of different groups blame “those people” when trying to explain the church’s lack of “progress.”

12:02p, CST:  There is pressure on the church to “modernize,” to get on board with the direction Western culture is moving.

11:48a, CST: Next up: Mariam Kamell, “Pride and Prejudice: Community Ethics in James 4:1-12″ for the next main session.

__________

11:32a, CST: Mark is not concerned with one or more ethical issues, but what it means to be human.

11:30a, CST: The other orientation nature of the slave metaphor used by Jesus taps into this innermost moral impulse.

11:28a, CST: Our innermost moral impulse is “toward the other,” which Jesus emphasizes in his teachings.

11:24a, CST: “We are most fully human when we are for the other.”

11:20a, CST: Morality is not a “means,” it is worthwhile in and of itself.

11:18a, CST: Morality cannot be the mere product of society. It must inform society.

11:17a, CST: Morality cannot be about “rules” alone, since rules can be kept without caring for others.

11:06a, CST: The slave metaphor underlines one’s devotion to someone. To say “slave of x” means to be devoted to that thing: food, sex, etc.

11:03a, CST: Wheaton notes the the Markan perspective of morality is under appreciated. The metaphor of slavery provides insights though.

10:58a, CST: I’ve chosen Gary Wheaton (Ph.D., Professor of New Testament at Seminario ESEPA, San Jose, Costa Rica), “To Be Human Among Humans: The Essence of Morality in Markan Perspective”.

10:56a, CST: A few minutes until the next session and I don’t know which one to choose! Thankfully, I hear that these sessions are being recorded, so if you miss one and can go back to watch it later.

__________

10:42a, CST: Wright did a good job answering my question. He observed that dispensationalist thought saw (correctly) the need to read Scripture as a narrative, but their understanding of Israel’s role and Jesus’ fulfilled work is lacking.

10:34a, CST: I’m interested to hear how Wright’s paradigm differs from popular dispensationalist readings of Scripture.

10:27a, CST: N.T. Wright presenting online:

Screen shot 2013-05-18 at 10.27.15 AM

10:22a, CST: Paul’s ethic is a reborn “virtue ethic.” This is not Aristotle’s telos, per se, but “new humanity.”

10:19a, CST: Wright presents Paul’s ethics as active elimination of many of the vices associated with the old age. There has been a transition. Paul mentions some large scale ones, such as the temple into the people of God (as the dwelling place of the Spirit) and Sabbath as time in general, these things transitioned through the Messiah.

10:15a, CST: 80 + attendees in this session!

10:12a, CST: In “new creation” the project of Gen 1-2 “gets back on track,” says Wright.

10:10a, CST: The arrival of the eschaton in the present conditions Christian thinking.

10:09a, CST: Paul’s ethics are grounded in his inaugurated eschatology.

1o:08a, CST: Paul understood YHWH to have returned to Zion, yet the world remained as is. This is the “already, but not yet.”

10:06a, CST: Paul taught to think Scripturally and eschatology through Messiah and Spirit.

10:05a, CST: Paul’s ethics and eschatology will be the focus of Wright’s paper.

9:50a, CST: Next up, N.T. Wright!

__________

9:35a, CST: If this creation is part of God’s future, this should impact how we relate to it now.

9:29a, CST: God has reconciled this  world to Christ, says Burkholder, so in Bonhoeffer’s thought we are responsible to participate in God’s plan for this world.

9:20a, CST: Interesting: Bonhoeffer denies the “God became human so humans could become god,” substituting it for “God became human so humans could become human,” or we may say “truly human.” Humans cannot change into deity, but deity being human allows humans to become fully human. If God has entered into creation, then creation can become fully itself through Christ.

9:17a, CST: Bonhoeffer critiques Augustine’s idea of “two cities” arguing there is one reality, that which is revealed by God in Christ. Christ is in creation. In the God who is human both realities are one.

9:11a, CST: Bonhoeffer sees in the image of God the freedom to serve others and creation. Humans aren’t to exploit creation, but serve it. Human rule over creation doesn’t mean we can ruin creation. We need creation as creation needs us.

9:08a, CST: Does Gen. 1-2 present humans as so far above creation that we can do as we want? Bonhoeffer observes that this cannot be so, because humans are “from the earth,” so our relationship to the earth is as people who are “pieces of earth.”

9:05a, CST: Burkholder addresses how the Christian tradition may address ecological crisis. He will be appropriating Bonhoeffer’s Christology, who begins with Jesus, in whom God has come into our material existence.

9:01a, CST: I’ve chosen Benjamin Burkholder (Ph.D. Candidate in Systematic Theology, Duquesne University), “Cultivating Christo-centric Concern for the Environment: Appropriating Bonhoeffer’s Anthropology and Christology in an Age of Environmental Degradation”.

8:52a, CST: Now the hard part: deciding which parallel session to attend!!!

__________

8:44a, CST: 40 + attendees in the first, early session. Cool.

8:40a, CST: Although Chen’s reading is used to critique the Korean church, it seems quite applicable to the American church as well–or the church in general! Leaders who want to be honored, kingly authority, using the people for personal endeavors, trying to gather large crowds, thinking our techniques do things without asking whether God is involved.

8:34a, CST: Interesting to see how Gideon moves from a humble, fearful figure, to one who “rules” over the people, and his “reign” is given hereditary succession (another one of the problems Chun mentioned about the Korean church).

8:29a, CST: Chun provides an interesting insight into how Gideon’s fell0w soldiers go from being presented as co-fighters, to people under his feet, participating in his personal campaign.

8:22a, CST: This story critiques the idea that we humans can do things without the glory going to the Lord. The church think more people equals more success, but this leads us to think “we” do great things. This story shows that God does great things, no matter the number.

8:18a, CST: Chun critiques the Korean church’s fascination with large congregations by observing in Judges 7-8 that God doesn’t need large numbers to do “better and successful ministry.” He calls this “the myth of number.”

8:12a, CST: Chun explores reading the Gideon-Abimelech narrative of Judges 7-8, reading through an ethical lens, asking how this narrative may address the Korean church.

8:10a, CST: Chun observes that the connection between “hurch” and “ethics” is not as obvious as it ought to be. Often, in the Korean church (where Chun lives), the church is seen as a hinderance or stumbling block to living ethically. Chun gave several examples of ethical scandals related to finance, sexuality, and so forth.

8:00a, CST: Main Speaker Session #1, Sugmin Min Chun (D.Phil, Oxford University), a Research Fellow at Nehemiah Institute for Christian Studies will begin the conference with his paper “A Theological-Ethical Reading of the Gideon-Abimelech Story”.

7:50a, CST:  The Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference begins today! I plan on live blogging it. If you are “attending” (signing on?)  let me know.


by Leave a comment

Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference begins tomorrow!

As I mentioned a while back I will be one of the presenters at the inaugural Ecclesia and Ethics Online Conference which begins tomorrow. The conference takes place this Saturday and the next (I am presenting on the 25th). It includes people like N.T. Wright, Stan Hauerwas, Nijay Gupta, and Michael Barber to name a few of the more familiar faces (see the full schedule here). It cost $10 for full access to both days, and that money goes to an affiliate charity, because an online with a few sponsors is economically (and ecologically, since there is no travel either) sustainable!

If you haven’t had a chance to watch some of the pre-conference interviews you can do so here.

If you’d like to learn more about the conference go here.


by 16 Comments

Pledging allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

“I pledge allegiance to the flag…”

In the comments section of the review I wrote yesterday for Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies one commenter asked whether modern Christians should (A) pledge allegiance to the government under which they live or (B) do their best to be law abiding without going as far as pledging allegiance. This is an interesting question. Does pledging allegiance to the United States (or another nation) constitute something equivalent to being loyal to “God and Mammon,” something Jesus said is not possible, or (as I see it) can it be more akin to the words of the Prophet Jeremiah (29:7) who told exiles to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” where they’d be taken, even commanding them to “pray for it?”

Personally, I suggested in response that a Christian pledging allegiance doesn’t have to mean absolute loyalty beyond one’s moral and religious convictions. Instead, I think it is possible to pledge allegiance meaning something like “I will do nothing to harm those neighbors with whom I share a government, an immediate economy, a overarching culture, land, and other possessions. I will do my best to live for the benefit of the city, state, and nation in which I live as long as this doesn’t contradict my allegiance to the Kingdom of God.” This allegiance can be multifaceted. One may oppose war or bad economic practices that lead our nation to harm other nations out of allegiance to one’s own nation. In other words, I don’t want to United States to invade Iran or bomb North Korea because I think it is bad for our people to have to be committed to those acts when there are other options. I may oppose my nation’s exploitive economic policies not out of disloyalty, but because I think our people will be grieved by their own evil over time and that if we harm others it will fracture potentially fruitful relationships with them in the future.

In other words, pledging allegiance doesn’t mean mindless subservience.

How would you respond to the question of whether or not pledging allegiance is compatible with Christianity’s confession that “‘Jesus is Lord’ to the glory of God the Father”?


by 25 Comments

Ecclesiology Sunday: preach more troublesome texts?

urlDo Preachers protect their congregations from the hard sayings of the Bible while trying to convince those same congregations that all of Scripture is the “Word of God”?

If you read my review of Mark Roncace’s book Raw Revelation: The Bible They Never Tell You About you would have seen this quotation (from pg. 4):

“The raw Bible is just too hard to swallow, or at least that is what preachers think. So they cook the Good Book. They butter it up and water it down to suite our tastes. They distill the Scripture, filtering out the unsightly and unpalatable passages. Just as processed and packaged foods are barely reminiscent of what first comes out of the ground or from the animal (think mac and cheese or hot dogs), so too the clean, attractive Bible that they present in church is a far cry from the real thing. Like parents who don’t feed their children peas and carrots because they fear the kids won’t like the vegetables, or worse, won’t like mom and dad, so too preachers give us, the children of God, a candy and cookie Scripture because they want us to be happy and them to be liked. Consequently, we aren’t properly nourished.”

In his book Roncace lambastes Preachers of all stripes (pg. 5): “…fundamentalists, evangelicals, Pentecostals, main stream moderates, left wing liberals, emergent church pastors, prosperity preachers, mega-church celebrities, mini-church part-timers, and the list goes on and one.” He says that these Preachers know about the problematic passages of Scripture, but refuse to preach them.

I have been in circles where this is not true. I have heard Preachers proclaim troublesome texts with boldness and without shame. Roncace’s observation is true in general though. He uses a very good example citing how many people quote Jeremiah 29:11, “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.’” Yet most Preachers won’t apply Ezekiel 5:8 the same way: “Behold, I, even I, am against you, and I will execute judgments among you in the sight of the nations.”

For Preachers who choose their texts, who do not follow a guided Lectionary, should there be more attention given to the uncomfortable texts of the Bible on Sunday? Should passages about genocide, rape, abuse, or the invasion of foreign armies be proclaimed as often as the more pleasant passages, or at least as often?


by 1 Comment

Notes on the Didache (Part 3)

Read Part 1 here.

Read Part 2 here.

Hospitality is a central Christian virtue, but it is mixed with reason: “Welcome anyone coming in the name of the Lord. Receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, but then, test them and use your discretion.” Then the following instructions are given: (1) Assist a traveler as you are able, but do not let them stay longer than two or three days. (2) If the person stays longer, that person must use their craft to earn a living. (3) If it happens that a person has no trade, then the host must use their own common sense to determine what to do. (4) If the person complains with the arrangement, be suspect, this person is “Christ-Peddler” or “Christ-Monger” (χριστέμπρός, 12:1-5).

Prophets were addressed earlier, but the subject arises again in 13:1-7. This section seems to address local prophets, rather than itinerate prophets. There is a sense that these prophets should be supported–a “tithe” if you will. If there are no prophets to support, the same items–first fruits, first loaves of bread, first portions of wine–should be given to the poor.

“The Lord’s Day” consist of confessing sins to one another, breaking bread, giving thanks (εὐχαριστήσατε, 14:1). If a person is contentious being at odds with another “brother” in the church, that person cannot participate. It appears that this is a early argument for the Eucharist event being one that promotes unity or “communion” of the saints (14:2).

Bishops are to be appointed, seemingly by the community. In other words, a Bishop is chosen from within the local assembly, rather than by an outside governing hierarchy. The same is true of deacons. Qualifications include being “worthy of the Lord” (a echo of Colossians 1:10?), meek, unattached to money, truthful, and proven (15:1). Bishops are categorized alongside Teachers and Prophets (15:2). Contention in the community is to be addressed. People should be reproved, though not in anger. If the reproved doesn’t change, s/he is to be isolated until this attitude changes (15:3).

The document begins to end with a series of warnings/edifications: Do not let your lamps be quenched (witness?); do not let your loins be loosed (sexuality?); be prepared for the imminent return of Christ; gather together often. The eschatology of the author(s) is as follows: you can fall away if not perfected in life; there will be false prophets/teachers in the last days (ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις); sinfulness and lawlessness will increase; a world-deceiver will come as the Son of God (ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς ὡς υἱὸσ θεοῦ); there will be a time of trial for humanity; then the “signs of truth” appear (τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας): Sign 1: the heavens open. Sign 2: a trumpet sound. Sign 3: the resurrection of the dead. Then the appearance of the Lord with his saints. Then there will be judgment.