Category: Ecclesiology
Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Jeremy S. Begbie
Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
This is the seventh part of a ten post series on Nicholas Perrin’s and Richard B. Hays’, eds., Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Daniel James Levy has partnered with me to write a review of each chapter. To see previous posts scroll to the bottom of this one for a list. Today we will be discussing Jeremy S. Begbie’s contribution.
Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come: Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies”
Begbie begins by pointing out the influx of literature related to ecclesiology in the last couple of decades. Most books and articles have been characterized by a fascination with people “who may be attracted by the person of Christ and a broadly based ‘spirituality’ but who shrink at the idea of joining a local congregation’ (p. 183). These types have been characterized as the “emerging church” which “can embody and promote an effective missional engagement with late- or postmodern society, especially with the unchurched”(p. 184). What is surprising is that this group is “young”. They “challenge long-running assumptions”. They’re against anything that snacks of “professional management, centralized organizational structure, control through tight hierarchies, strong ties to places and buildings, and so forth” yet most admire Wright who was “an Anglican bishop, well past his first flush of youth, a powerful figurehead in an ancient institution many would regard a highly bureaucratic…a major land-owner with a huge commitment to buildings, able to move only with glacial slowness down antediluvian ecclesiastical valleys.” (p. 185)
So why do “emerging church” types like N.T. Wright?
This is what Begbie seeks to answer, especially as it relates to his reading of the Apostle Paul.
Five Features of Wright’s Ecclesiology:
Begbie begins by looking at five characteristics of Wright’s ecclesiology:
(1) Integral: The church is central to Wright (and Paul’s) theological vision. This matters to those thinking about the future of the church. Part of being saved is being part of the community of Christ.
Wright reacts against a Protestantism that is founded on “voluntarist contractualism”. This is how Begbie describes it:
“….a philosophically and politically shaped individualism still very much alive in our culture, fueled by the liberal ideology of choice. In this scheme individuals secure their identity prior to being part of the church by exercising a wholly unconstrained act of will in response to the gospel, a cognitive and conscious decision for Christ that ensures salvation and a place in heaven. Subsequently, and through a quite distinct act of the will, the saved person joins a church, understood in purely visible and localized terms, and as an aggregate of individual believers, related to each other (solely?) by virtue of their resolution to commit to Christ and to this particular group. Thus relationships within the church are seen as merely instrumental to the strengthening of each member’s ‘relationship with the Lord.’”
Wright connects the church to the story of Israel. This makes the church part of the story of Abraham and his greatest child, the Messiah. Since Wright grounds the church in the community that is Messiah’s he avoids false dichotomies like atonement and ecclesiology or justification and ecclesiology. To be saved is not an individual thing. It goes back into the great family of God because of Christ. This impacts his criticism of those who do not give the church, as a whole, more respect. (pp. 188-190)
(2) Eschatological: Wright’s ecclesiology is future oriented. He sees the New Creation as our hope toward which the church works. This church moves by the Spirit toward the day when what happened at Easter will happen to the cosmos. Yet in the meantime it is the church who groans (Rom. 8.18-25) with creation waiting for God’s final redemption.
Begbie sees the future looking ecclesiology as appealing to emergent groups. It gives hope and something to seek. Those in emerging churches find this as a useful model for their (social) engagement with society. (pp. 191-192)
(3) Cosmically situated: This has to do with “ecological alertness”. Since Wright follows the Apostle Paul in seeing the creation redeemed this provides grounds for creation care. Again, see Rom. 8.18-25. (pp. 192-193)
(4) Material: Wright’s reading of Paul causes him to affirm the goodness of the material world and this is something that emerging churches appreciate. It moves theology away from mere metaphysics to something tangible in history. This leads to a theology that addresses the real world. It is not merely our personal, ethereal relationship with Jesus that matters but also our physically connected relationship with others and the world around us. Our gospel doesn’t just speak to individual souls but it confronts all levels, even world politics. It is an earthy gospel that Wright proclaims and that emerging churches adopt. (pp. 193-196)
(5) Improvisatory: Since Wright’s ecclesiology promotes improvisation in our “act” of the great cosmic drama the emerging churches find it an ally as they seek to navigate the waters of where the world is going. The emergent church doesn’t seek to relive “the good ol’ days”, but it tries to be God’s people for these days. (pp. 196-197)
Forgotten Themes:
What are some forgotten ecclesiological themes that Wright addresses?
(1) Ascension: This is the doctrine that comes after resurrection (Wright will not conflate it like Borg, Crossan, or others). This doctrine reminds us that Christ still reigns over the church. He is physically present in the heavenlies. This prevents the church from thinking she is in complete control as if Christ is completely absent. (pp. 197-200)
(2) Israel: Wright wants to make sure that the church doesn’t divorce itself from Israel’s story. It began as a Jewish movement. It must not move so far away from those roots that it loses its identity. (p. 200)
(3) Catholicity: Wright makes a distinction between “qualitative” catholicity and “extensive” catholicity. The first emphasizes that the church cannot give in to social divisions (as Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Gentiles, male nor female, slave nor free). The church shares a new humanity in Christ. The church shares the Spirit. We are radically united. The second emphasizes the “spatial extension of the church”. Wright tries to walk the line between not being overinstitutionalized while not being anti-institutional. (pp. 201-207)
Wright’s response:
Wright says that Begbie helped him realize he has been “expounding an ecclesiology…without being aware of it.” (p. 208) Wright thinks one reason why the emerging church has come to appreciate his work is because they both share interest in the Kingdom of God motif. Wright clarifies a bit on his views on the ascension (referring readers to Acts for Everyone). He notes some of the dangers of the emerging church (e.g. cultural homogeneity, church-shopping, the overemphasis on spontaneity and authenticity when overreacting against institutionalized church, the naive misunderstanding of leadership, and so forth).
Concluding thoughts:
This chapter helps the reader understand Wright’s ecclesiology. It helps us see what he has done well and what he has wrestled with as forgotten themes. It shows why the emerging church like Wright, but also gives Wright a chance to note where he finds the emerging church lacking.
Schedule for this series:
06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)
06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
A Few Reasons Why I Am a Catholic
To balance out my post on why I am not a Oneness Pentecostal (here), I will give some reasons as to why I am Catholic. First some background. I was born into the Catholic church, baptized as an infant only a few months old. I was never catechized in my youth, and sporadically practiced my faith. Yet, I was always intrigued by God. In my teen years, I fell into the world until I was 22 years old, when I decided I needed to get right with God. At that time, I was part of a charismatic Catholic group in the Philippines (Bukas Loob sa Diyos [Open in Spirit to God]). On June 30, 2002, I received what Pentecostals would call the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
When I returned to the Seattle area, the only people I knew were Oneness Pentecostals (teen friends with whose church I had experience). Because of the similarities in beliefs about the Holy Spirit, I easily made the transition. I will not recount my Oneness experience here since I have done so briefly in aforementioned post. Because of my studies in seminary, I decided to investigate and eventually return to the Catholic church. Below are a few reasons I am now Catholic. Once again, this is not an exhaustive list, but it highlights some of the more influential factors on my decision to come home to Rome.
Church Fathers. As I read some of the church fathers for church history, I began to realize that of which the church spoke sounded much like the Catholic church. For example, St. Ignatius’s reference to the Eucharist as the “medicine of immortality” accorded well with the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist as a sacrament. The recitation of the Nicene Creed (and the Apostles’ Creed during such devotions like the rosary) during Mass harkens back to that ecumenical council, which the Fathers defended.
Mystics Tradition. The Catholic church (as well as the Orthodox) have a strong line of mystics, those who are greatly in touch with and live out the love of God. At George Fox Evangelical Seminary, I learned about contemplative prayer, and found myself wired to this way of praying. In my exploration of contemplative prayer, I found that the most in-depth works on it were by St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila. I also took a class called Spirituality and the Writings of the Mystics where I noticed that most of the writings on contemplative prayer came from Catholic mystics. Many of those whom I have read and who have experienced genuine contemplation today are Catholics (here). The Catholic church seems to be a good place for one who is inclined toward mysticism, such as myself.
The View of Some Jews. A woman with whom I attended the same Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults is Jewish. When she told her parents of her decision to become Catholic, they were quite happy for her, saying that the Catholic church is the closest in Christianity to Judaism. I have also heard from other Jews that if they were to become Christian, they would become Catholics.
The Charismatic Movement. As I mentioned above, I came back to God through a charismatic Catholic group. When I was thinking of returning to Catholicism again, I began to research the charismatic movement in the Catholic church. I came to find that, the Catholic church has embraced the charismatic work and acknowledged its validity. Pentecostal spirituality has many important aspects, and many of them can be found in the charismatic Catholic movement. The “fullness of the Spirit” that some (sectarian) Pentecostal groups want to claim is not exclusively theirs.
The Connection to Eastern Christianity. Before coming back to Catholicism, I was looking into the Orthodox church. I had attended Vespers for months until my work on my thesis prevented me from attending often. Through some Catholic forums, I found out about the Eastern Catholic churches and how Blessed John Paul II, when he was pope, encouraged the Eastern churches to de-Latinize and retain their culture. After some research, I found that some Eastern churches in the area and I attended a Byzantine Catholic church Vesper and Divine Liturgy this month (June 2011). It was virtually like the Orthodox: the entire Liturgy was chanted, it had the iconostasis, communion was administered in the same way, there was the antidoron bread (bread that is blessed but is not used as Eucharist), and so forth. What was awesome to me was that there were prayers for Pope Benedict during the Liturgy and that I could receive the Eucharist because I am Catholic. The Eastern and Western aspects to Catholicism make it a truly universal church.
Saturdays in Second Temple Judaism: Ways to be expelled from the Qumran community
According to Geza Vermes there was a difference between “entering the Covenant and entering the Community” at Qumran (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English: Revised Edition, 34). If I understand him correctly, once one has gone through the long process of being accepted into the community they are then allowed to participate in Council of the Community. In 1QS there is a long list of things that can get people expelled from the group (VII.1-25 as translated by Vermes, pp. 107-108). The list includes the following infractions and the length of punishment:
(1) Lie about matters of property = one year
(2) Answer a companion with obstinacy or impatience = one year
(3) Utter the Most Venerable Name (i.e. violated the seventh commandment) = permanent explusion (“he shall be dismissed and shall return to the Council of the Community no more”)
(4) Speak in anger against a Priest = one year if intentionally; six months if not
(5) Deliberate lie = six months
(6) Insult a companion = one year
(7) Deceive a companion = six months
(8) Failed to care for a companion = three months
(9) Unjust malice or revenge =six months to a year
(10) Speak foolishly (?) = three months
(11) Interrupt a companion while speaking = ten days
(12) Fall asleep during an assembly = thirty days
(13) Left the assembly more than three times without reason during one gathering = ten days
(14) Depart while everyone is “standing” (for prayer?) = thirty days
(15) Go naked before companions “without having been obligated to do so” (?) = six months
(16) Spit during assembly = thirty days
(17) Dress poorly enough that when hand is removed from garment nakedness is seen = thirty days
(18) “Guffawed foolishly” or “burst into foolish horselaughter” (Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edwrd Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, p. 127) = thirty days
(19) Draw left hand out to gesture during conversation (Ibid) = ten days
(20) Slander companion = one year
(21) Slander the congregation = permanent explusion
(22) Murmur against the authority of the Community = permanent explusion
(23) Murmur against a companion unjustly = six months
(24) “Should a man return whose spirit has so trembled before the authority of the Community that he has betrayed the truth and walked in the stubbornness of heart” = two years
(25a) If this happens to someone who has been part of the Community for ten years = permanent explusion
(25b) If anyone shares the community goods with this person = permanent explusion
Wow! When I read this I first thought, “The Apostle Paul was soft on the Corinthians! A man is sleeping with his father’s wife and he decides to ‘hand him over to Satan’ (1 Cor. 5.5). Yet he put up with everything else.”
When we consider the rules for participating in the Council of the Qumran Community it seems to shed a different light on the Pauline churches. Even if we see Jesus’ words regarding excommunication as reflecting the practices of those particular gospel communities it seems that the Christian church was much, much more gracious.
I have heard people chastise Paul for kicking the man out of the assembly for his sexual immorality or for commanding the church to disassociate with one who claims to be there own yet who is sexually immoral. For Paul there was never permanent expulsion (that I can recall). Even the man in 1 Cor. 5.5 is welcome back once he stops violating his father’s wife!
This sheds some interesting light on what made the Christian sect different than the Qumran sect.
Intentionality in discipleship
When I was back home in San Francisco last weekend I caught the end of an event hosted by Lighthouse called Disciple! There were thirty or so people from around the country huddled together discussing what it means to live as disciples of Christ. San Francisco is a great place to have this discussion for various reasons including (1) it is not a Christian-friendly culture so “church growth” cannot be first and foremost; (2) it is a city that will challenge your convictions as you face world view with differing morality or as you try to proclaim Jesus in the heart of pluralism; (3) it is a place where you must live the faith as much as you proclaim it because hypocrisy can be seen from miles away.
Many Christians I know are afraid to be intentional about discipleship. There is a fear that repetitive practices can result in “legalism” or “Pelagianism”. Yet it has been my experience that while the Holy Spirit is the one who does the work of bringing change there is a reason for the imperatives of Scripture. We must “decrease so that he can increase” as Christ is formed in our lives.
This event was influenced by other communities who emphasize intentionality in discipleship like the Tacoma based Soma group. Yet this is not the only place where these things are being discussed. Another acquaintance of mine whom I met when I lived in San Francisco is Mark Scandrette. He has been lumped in with the emerging church though I don’t know that he is so easily labeled. He has a new book coming out titled Practicing the Way of Jesus wherein he explains how his community, ReImagine!, has lived a “Jesus Dojo” in the City. As with the Lighthouse community ReImagine! has also sought to think through the necessity of being intentional disciples of Christ.
In this video Scandrette explains some of the practices/experiments they have done:
As someone with a heart for San Francisco I am excited to see these various expressions in San Francisco. I am interested to hear the thoughts of others. How intentional do you think we need to be about being discipled and discipling others? Where is the intersection between this sort of living and passionate evangelism of non-Christians? Is there ever a danger that this sort of approach will turn us to “inward” in our spirituality? Thoughts?
Do you want to understand Barth?
Well, maybe this will help you understand his method and approach.
Some time ago Jim West posted a reflection on Matthias Grünewald’s crucifixion scene from the Isenheim Alter Piece. As Jim noted Karl Barth had this picture hanging over his desk…
On the wall behind him hovered a reproduction of Matthias Grunewald’s ‘Crucifixion‘ scene from the Isenheim Altar. I believe this piece of art was the perfect symbol for Barth’s work. Pointing at Jesus, uttering the words ‘He must increase, and I must decrease’, is John the Baptist. This really was Barth’s motto- ilum oportet crescere, me autem minui. It’s the motto of all authentic Christian Theologians as well.
I have loved this picture since I first laid eyes on it. If my memory serves me correctly I was in a class at seminary and my lecturer was no doubt talking (passionately) about Barth. I knew very little about the piece, but I loved what it symbolised. Some years later my wife and I were returning from India and we were meant to enjoy stopover in Malaysia however, we both suffered “Bombay belly” and spent several days inside the hotel recovering. While channel surfing I came across a documentary on the Isenheim Alter Piece. Among the many fascinating things that stood out to me about the picture’s history was the fact it was painted for a hospital specialising in skin diseases and if you look closely at the picture you will notice Jesus’ body is covered in sores and wounds. It was a constant reminder to those for whom it was painted that Jesus suffers with those who suffer…
On a personal level it is not so much the image of Christ in the picture that inspires me and helps us understand Barth. It is the picture of John the Baptist standing to the right of Jesus. In one hand he has the Scriptures while his other hand is outstretched towards the cross. With one hand on God’s word and the other arm, with its elongated finger extended towards Christ, I am reminded and encouraged by what I think is the perfect metaphor for faithful preaching and teaching. I am also given an insight into how Barth wrote and understood his own theological pilgrimage.
If you want to understand Barth don’t read about him, actually read through his Dogmatics. But may I encourage you to do so with this picture in mind (the Baptist specifically). I guarantee you will soon appreciate what it is Barth is saying (even if you do not agree). At every point Barth seeks to be like the Baptist, pointing us to Christ. I can think of no greater act for a pastor!
I think I see his point now!
Walk On: A Guide to Exiting from Oneness Pentecostalism (Pt. 5)
[If you haven’t read the previous posts in this series you can find them here: Pt. 1 here; Pt. 2 here; Pt. 3 here; Pt. 4 here.]
The other day someone commented on one of the posts in this series saying that my arguments against Oneness Pentecostalism were not very good. He said that I was creating a “straw man” while negatively painting the movement with a “broad brush”. He has misunderstood what I am trying to do.
I said this in the introductory post:
Let me provide a disclaimer from the very beginning. I am not writing this post and the next few in order to try to apologetically disprove Oneness Pentecostal dogma. In fact, I will be ignoring comments that try to bait me into such debates. I have written plenty elsewhere saying openly why I disagree with their teachings.
Likewise, I have no illusions that these posts will “convert” anyone. I have met some people who have told me that my story gave them the strength to leave, but I know that there are many others whom I have failed to convince, including some family. If you are happy where you are as a Oneness Pentecostal, or if you are needing to be “convinced”, then this is a dead end.
So if you are an apologist for Oneness Pentecostalism you will find these writings frustrating because I am not trying to show that Oneness Pentecostalism is misguided. I’ve written elsewhere in an attempt to do that very thing. What I am writing here presupposes a level of agreement between me and my readers. No, you don’t have to be fully convinced that it is time for you to exit Oneness Pentecostalism, but I assume that you, the reader, already have thought about it for a while and that you are seriously weighing your options. Whether or not you leave is between you and God. I am writing for those who either have made the choice to reintegrate into the broader Christian family or who will in the near future.
That being said, let me get to the main subject of this post. One thing that Oneness Pentecostalism does share with most every other “type” of Christianity is a underlying tribalism. We all want to be “in” and not “out”. We want to belong. Sadly, this means that we are often forced to choose another group so that we do not have to feel like Lone Rangers.
There is nothing wrong with finding a place to belong. There is nothing wrong with affirming a creed or confession. Two bloggers that write here have recently aligned themselves with large groups holding very historic confessions. JohnDave Medina has returned to Roman Catholicism and Josh Smith has entered into the Anglican fellowship. They are both former Oneness Pentecostals.
I have remained unaffiliated though I have had times where I was drawn to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and I even thought ever so briefly about the Reformed. I once considered becoming part of the Assemblies of God so I could retain a Pentecostal identity. I have been going to a seminary that has Baptist roots, so I thought I may become a Baptist (probably wouldn’t be too hard to make this transition now). I discovered that for the time being I was happy committing as deep as a local independent church would ask of me. Unlike my fellow bloggers I am not part of a larger group.
What I do fear is that while some people can be removed from the sectarianism of Oneness Pentecostalism, some cannot have the sectarianism removed from within them. So they are suddenly as militantly for this group or that group as they were for Oneness Pentecostals a few months earlier. While this may be my committed ecumenism speaking, I ask you to be careful not to chose a group merely to belong.
I say this because your identity must be grounded in Christ. You must see yourself first and foremost as a Christian before you say you are a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, or a Methodist. You need to learn to love the people of God broadly before aligning with a group for pragmatic or polemical reasons.
There is a purging that must occur. While not all Oneness Pentecostal congregations are suspicious of other Christians a great many are. There is a good chance that if you fellowshipped with the church down the street it was through minimal interaction. Whatever you do, don’t leave where you are only to go somewhere similar.
Also, there are many Oneness Pentecostals who had to accept what their pastor taught lest they be isolated. You had to affirm particular views on particular passages. You didn’t study these things to see if they were true because in part you feared your conclusions. If you did study it was only to learn how to “defend” yourself against Trinitarians.
If you pray and study and one day realize you belong amongst the Southern Baptist then so be it. But don’t choose to be Southern Baptist because you need a “team”. Don’t choose to be Southern Baptist because you need an “us” to oppose “them”. Do not choose to be Southern Baptist simply to belong. Why? Because one day you will wake up and realize you are in a place that is vaguely familiar. You have doubts, you need answers, and you aren’t sure what to do. Too much could be at stake to ask the questions floating through your mind, so you will shut up and live with the tension. Tension it will be.
This is all I have to say on this subject. In my next post I will address something a bit more concerning. I will be writing on the pendulum swing that I have experienced and seen experienced by other former Oneness Pentecostals in the area of morals and convictions.
A Few Reasons I am No Longer a Oneness Pentecostal
Shortly after my conversion to Christ in 2002 in the charismatic movement of the Catholic church, I became affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), a Oneness Pentecostal group that broke away from the Assemblies of God over the New Issue of baptism, which ultimately led to the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity and the upholding of Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation. In 2003, I officially became part of a UPCI church and started my journey toward knowing more fully Christ. I earned a degree at one of the UPCI-endorsed Bible colleges. I appreciate all that took place in that time—the friends I made and the spiritual and academic foundation that was laid—and how I grew in grace in that time period.
Now, eight years since I became a Christian and toward the end of my MA degree from a well-respected seminary, I am no longer a Oneness Pentecostal. Some have attributed this change to my going to seminary. This is certainly not the case, although seminary has played a role in helping me to broaden my understanding of Christianity, both past and present. Contrary to these claims, a few reasons that I left the UPCI, which I shall briefly detail below, are the result of personal study and long reflection on church history, experience, and Scripture. Seminary gave me the tools and the freedom to study for myself, but it did not make those decisions for me. What follows is, of course, not an exhaustive set of reasons for why I am not a Oneness Pentecostal anymore.
My interest in church history spans the apostolic period to the Chalcedon council. Part of the problem I ran into as a Oneness Pentecostal was the ecumenical declarations against the Oneness doctrine I held. For example, modalism had been condemned. Now, even though I did not hold to a Sabellian-type modalism, the modalism to which I did hold had already been written against by the ante-Nicene Fathers. In short, however the Fathers were describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it looked nothing like the Oneness view in its various flavors.
In addition to other things, Oneness Pentecostals believe that one must receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, evidenced by speaking in tongues, to be saved. Those Oneness people that I know had a pre-set formula to “pray someone through” to receive the Holy Spirit. Someone would coach the Holy Spirit seeker with a formula that went something like this: (1) pray that God would forgive you; (2) now that He has forgiven you, rejoice and praise God; (3) keep praising God until the feeling begins to overflow within you; (4) as soon as the overflow begins to reach your mouth, let your tongue go. If all of those steps are done correctly, then one will speak in tongues. Most of the time, however, it takes many tries with this formula for the speaker to finally speak in tongues. I am not one to cast doubt on the legitimacy of whether a person speaks in tongues using the formula; I believe that many have. This formula, however, is at odds with my experience (and the experience of the hundreds of others that same day), where I did not need to be coached. When I spoke in tongues for the first time, all I did was stood up and praised God, and He gave me the utterance to speak in other tongues—no coaching, no formula, and no waiting around. What most Oneness Pentecostals would find odd is that I first spoke in tongues at a charismatic Catholic service. To attest to the validity of the work of the Spirit in me that day, I was delivered the day I spoke in tongues from my use of crystal methamphetamines and I worked in the gift of discerning of spirits the very next day.
I believe that speaking in tongues is a good thing. However, I do not believe that if someone has never spoken in tongues then he or she is not saved. Instead, I concur with the major theme of the New Testament that a person who genuinely is filled with and walks in the Spirit is one who loves both God and neighbor. Among those whom I know, there seem to be more who have not spoken in tongues and yet are overcoming sin and exhibiting true, godly love compared to Oneness people I know who have spoken in tongues.
My third point of departure with the Oneness group came through a study of Scripture. While I was at Bible college, I learned of ways to sidestep Scripture passages that dealt with the Son’s preexistence, with the interaction between the Father and the Son, as well as sidestep the language that clearly showed the Holy Spirit as distinct from both the Father and the Son. As I reflect back, I could see that my theology professor’s view of Oneness theology borrowed from much of Trinitarian theology while seemingly presenting these theological nuances as exclusive to Oneness. Although he meant well and sought to further develop Oneness theology, the adoption of ideas from and the lack of proper teaching on Trinitarian theology seems to indicate that even he knew the truth that Trinitarian theology upheld. Even though I have always admired Oneness Pentecostals for their devotion to the oneness of God, such devotion is misguided when it does not line up with Scripture and has been rejected by the ecumenical councils that have defined the Trinitarian position from both Scripture and the broad teaching of the church in the early centuries.
I harbor no ill feelings toward the Oneness Pentecostal movement. Many of my close friends still today are Oneness Pentecostals. I have gratitude for the spiritual tenacity that the Oneness movement possesses because it was at a Oneness Bible college and church that I learned to draw closer to God. Yet, I cannot be a part of a movement that sets itself up having a monopoly on the nature of God, on holiness standards, and on salvation. I am afraid that because the Oneness movement has pushed itself away from the broader church and relies upon its own private Scriptural insights that it has missed the fact that God has called and saved a universal church larger than the Oneness movement to be holy and conformed to the image of the Son.
Who is Daniel James Levy?
“They” (whoever “they” are) call me a Levi, a priest. Well, technically I’m only 50% Jewish by birth, and of that 50%, only 25% Levitical. Since the Jews became angry with me upon doing research into my ancestral line, I decided to quit the priestly Rabbinic deal.
To the serious part now: Again, I want to first off say thanks to Brian, Mark, Joshua, and JohnDave for the warm welcome here at Near Emmaus. I already feel apart of the Fam. I hope to be a fruitful contribution here.
I’m originally from Fort Lauderdale, FL. Currently I’m a biblical studies, theology, and Greek student at Southeastern University in the beautiful Lakeland, FL. I’ve been raised in the household of two parents who are Pentecostals and social justice pastors. Because of this, Pentecostalism and social justice are deep in my blood. For a while, I did separate from my roots, almost ending up Baptist; but around a year and a half ago I began to gradually swing back around, realizing how strongly I admire my tradition, despite how weird we can sometimes be 
. If this even makes sense, I would identify myself as an Emergent Pentecostal.
After graduating at Southeastern, I will be starting my M.Div program at Fuller Theological (which I’m visiting April 28th for visitor days) with a focus in theology, worship, and the arts. I’ve felt the call of God upon my life to plant a church, and thereafter pursue doctoral studies.
For the past year my focus has been in various fields of Second Temple Judaism. Currently I’m doing a directed research project on the Second Temple Judaic understanding of Monotheism and the implications of this upon the Christological thought(s) we see in the Pauline corpus, the Gospels, Hebrews, and Revelation. My research advisor is Pentecostal Eschatology scholar, Robby Waddell; you can view his books here and here.
When it comes to reading, the following is more or less an exhaustive list of my favorites: Tom Wright, Richard Bauckham, Kenneth Bailey, Jürgen Moltmann, Gordon Fee, Ben Witherington III, Craig Keener, Paul Copan, and Alvin Plantinga (though I’m a bit rusty in the area of philosophy).
So this is me. I’m looking forward to knowing you all. I hope and pray that my entries are a blessing to you and moreover fruitful for God’s Kingdom.
Grace and peace,
Daniel.
Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James
Koinonia mentioned Carolyn Custis James’ new book Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women two days ago here. They feel that this is a very important book with an equally important message. I want to thank Zondervan for sending me a review copy, giving me the opportunity to hear its message. I will be posting my thoughts on the book on this blog next week.
In the meantime, if you have not heard of this book take a moment to watch this promotional video that Zondervan has created:
The Arch of Constantine in the shadow of the Roman Colosseum
One of the amazing things about being in Rome last week was seeing the by-gone glory of the Roman Empire right next to the memorials of Christendom, both past and present. While I was in the Roman Colosseum there was a point when I could peer over at the Arch of Constantine. In the Colosseum legend tells us Christians may have been tortured and killed as enemies of the state. At the Arch of Constantine we remember the military victory of the first emperor of Rome to legalize Christianity.
I tend to be one who thinks negatively of Constantine. Yet I have often asked myself how I would see him if I had been a Roman Christian in that day. As an American Christian there has never been a time in my life where I was under a hostile government that didn’t allow me to live religiously. Would I have viewed Constantine differently if I went from persecuted minority to someone who could both worship Christ and not worry about persecution? Probably.
These two symbols of Christianity threatened and Christianity vindicated represent an internal tension within me. Do I think my faith has lost some of its original vision once it became vogue? Yes. Do I want to experience what my brothers and sisters in places like Afghanistan, China, or Iraq experience? No, not at all. I love/hate what happened to Christianity after Constantine. I am not sure if I will ever resolve this.
Sunday Reflection: Lent Week 2
Wow, what a peculiar week! When it comes to exegesis and sermon preparation I have a certain pattern or rhythm which I follow. If I do not, then all heck breaks loose. For a number of reasons that could not be avoided my usual day for exegesis was interrupted. Instead of following my usual pattern I became worried that I would not get it done so I decided to short cut the process FAIL! Mixed with 6 or 7 nights of broken and little sleep the end result was not so good! I guess this is all a part of the process of becoming who I am as a minister…
“For God so loved the world…” Perhaps I became lost in its simplicity. Everyone knows this text. I KNOW THIS TEXT. It is the church’s favourite evangelistic text. It says everything we need to know about creation, fall and salvation. It leaves no doubt about God’s love for the entire world and our responsibility to this love. God loves us and if we believe we will not perish but have eternal life. In essence it’s the gospel!
Billy Graham calls these verses the simplest and clearest in the New Testament. A friend reminded me this week of how easily the beauty of such a simple passage can be lost. And there it was. I had spent this week studying John 3:1-17. I’d looked at the Greek, I had torn the passage apart (and it seemed I would never get it back together again). I read it, I reflected on it, I read it again, and I took notes. All along I missed the beauty that was before me. The profound simplicity of the Good News!
One of the things I think is easily forgotten when we come to a text such as John 3:16 is that it is only the beginning of the journey. Eugene Peterson suggests that getting a person interested in the gospel is not difficult. In fact over the past 30 years the church has done a wonderful job of marketing the gospel. It has packaged and sold the gospel all around the world. Courses have been designed, pathways have been followed. Yet the back door of the church is wider than the front, and people not long after coming to faith return to the way of the world. As Peterson says, getting a person interested in eternal life is not difficult, however, sustaining that interest is! Peterson goes on to suggest the Christian life is best described as a long obedience in the same direction. I love that metaphor – A long obedience in the same direction. It is a wonderful picture of the Christian life. There is nothing fancy about the journey. In fact often the scenery is bland, boring and mundane. Nevertheless, the journey is the journey of working out the gospel, the good news; allowing the story of Christ to take shape and to shape us into his image.
Peace be with you….
Sunday Quote: Eugene Peterson defines “church”
This Sunday many of us gathered together with other people making something we call “the church”. It is fitting on such a day that we ponder what we mean by this word. Let me share Eugene Peterson’s answer for your reflection (from The Pastor, 110):
“The short answer that I had come to embrace through the years of my pastoral formation….is that the Holy Spirit forms church to be a colony of heaven in the country of death….Church is a core element in the strategy of the Holy Spirit for providing human witness and physical presence to the Jesus-inaugurated kingdom of God in this world. It is not that kingdom complete, but it is that kingdom.
It has taken me a long time, with considerable help from wise Christians, both dead and alive, to come to this understanding of the church: a colony of heaven in the country of death, a strategy of the Holy Spirit for giving witness to the already-inaugurated kingdom of God.”
As you listen to this definition by a pastor-poet, what would you add, subtract, or highlight?
Pope Benedict XVI: Jesus of Nazareth – A review
Ben Witherington has read and reviewed Joseph Ratzinger’s (AKA Pope Benedict XVI) latest scholarly work Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week. It is quite an honour for BW3 as he was the only protestant to be included on an Ash Wednesday tele-conference with the Pope about the book. As Ben says, “Somebody out there must trust me as an exegete and a theologian.”
You can read the whole review HERE but I thought this might of interest to Near Emmaus readers:
In this book the Pope explores the whole of Holy Week from Palm Sunday through Easter Sunday and beyond, stopping to discourse on all the significant events that took place, and the major things Jesus said and did along the way. If I had one desideratum it is that I wish the Pope had had time to read more of the best of Biblical scholarship that has emerged in the last 30 years. The scholars he cites range from two of my Protestant teachers and influences, C.K. Barrett and Martin Hengel, to Rudolph Bultmann and Rudolph Schnackenburg and a variety of other scholars of the previous generation who have not written anything in the last couple of decades really. To be fair, doubtless the Pope was more than a little busy in the last few years while he was completing this book. Nevertheless, there is some very incisive exegesis and theologizing in this book, and Bultmann and others come in for some pretty serious criticism. As you might expect, the Pope is not a liberal Protestant exegete, to state the obvious…and furthermore, he is fully conversant with historical criticism of various forms (form, source, narrative criticism etc.) but he is concerned to get beyond such ways of analyzing the text and focus on its theological and also historical substance. This is to be commended.
I will be sure to order a copy of the book next week. I have already been blessed by a variety of good solid Catholic scholars in my studies of Matthew’s gospel and this will make a fine edition to my historical Jesus collection. No doubt Jeremy Thompson is excited and will post a review anon!
Secret disciples? (John 19.38-40)
Nicodemus and Joseph take Jesus down from the cross
When I lived in San Francisco I knew of two men who had come to recognize Jesus as Lord and Messiah, but who felt that it would be best if they remained in their mosque as secret disciples in hopes of someday bringing their fellow Muslims to know Jesus. In most Christians circles one of the most basic marks of a convert is public confession. Yet if these Muslims made a public confession that they worshiped Christ this would forfeit any audience with friends and family for proclaiming the gospel.
At that time and even now I have willingly lived with the tension of a Christian who has not made a public confession because it seems that this is not something unknown to the earliest Christians. We may say it is one thing to remain in a mosque, and something altogether different to continue worship at the temple (especially since one common mark of early Christology seems to have been the Christ-as-Temple motif), but there may be an analogy here.
Even more explicit is the narrative in Jn. 19.38-40. In this passage we have two men who are influential and authoritative enough to gain an audience with Pilate of whom it is said the following:
“…Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus, who first came to him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds in weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with spices, as is the burial customs of the Jews.”
Two things to observe:
(1) Joseph of Arimathea was considered a disciple, but one who kept his discipleship secret (κεκρυμμενος). It was enough that he knew Jesus and that Jesus knew him. It was OK that he feared the Jews. This does not cause the evangelist to doubt the authenticity of his discipleship.
(2) Nicodemus is not called a “secret disciple”, but he is connected with Joseph. Similarly, we know from 3.1-12 that the author tells the narrative about Nicodemus’ meeting with Jesus in such a way that one thinks he went away empty handed. This is even more apparent when the evangelist intentionally juxtaposes Nicodemus with the Samaritan woman by putting these two narratives right next to each other (male-female; middle of the night-middle of the day; Jew-Samaritan; high class-low class; right doctrine-wrong doctrine; right worship location-wrong worship location; he comes to find Jesus-Jesus goes to find her; etc.) so that one sees Nicodemus in a similar light to say the rich young ruler. Therefore, literarily, the evangelist has made us think that Nicodemus was not a disciple, yet here he is with Joseph!
So what do we do with these characters and what did the evangelist want us to know? It should be pointed out that someone knew of their status as disciples, otherwise we would not have this story. This means either (a) the evangelist knew or knew someone who knew or (b) they later made a more public confession. But this seems secondary to the reality that the author seems to want to indicate that there was no doubting that Joseph, and Nicodemus, were disciples even without a public confession.
When you read this narrative what does it make you think of people who have come to faith in Christ, but for reasons like the story of the two Muslims in San Francisco, remain silently in their setting living a stealth Christianity? How do you reconcile this (or not) with passages that seem to indicate public confession is essential (e.g. baptism, “confess the Lord with your mouth”)?
Avoid ageism
The elderly have walked life's path. We should listen to their stories.
Since my wife and I moved to Portland, OR, in late 2009 we have seen some really creative, energetic churches fueled by the vision of younger evangelicals (twenty-somethings and early thirty-somethings). These churches resonate with an age group that usually does not find itself attracted to Christianity. Some of them are quite large and the others are growing. For the most part we can consider these groups as very successful.
Yet I found myself with one concern. Ageism.
At lunch yesterday I was talking with my wife who is studying at Portland State University where many of her classes address sociological subjects (e.g. race, socio-economic class, gender, sexuality) and it appeared to us that we were seeing something in the church that is all too common in our post-industrialized society. We are seen as economic beings. Our ontological worth is often dependent upon our contribution to the machine of which we are part. Once people become elderly they are seen as unable to contribute much further and therefore they are burdensome to society’s progress.
The same may be said of children or college students, but our society sees them as “the future”. We can give to them now because it is an investment. We often see the elderly as having already come and gone.
This language has crept into many churches even if it is not explicit. We talk about the “next Christianity” and the “next Christians” and “emerging churches”. While this talk may not always lend itself to the idea that our parents and grandparents are old fuddy-duddies it often does just that.
In many societies around the world, and in most societies in history, the elderly contributed something that was absolutely necessary: wisdom. No, not all elderly people are wise, but it isn’t a stretch to say almost no young people can claim that title (though some are wiser than their peers). Also, the elderly give us perspective. They have seen life. They have made the journey.
We have settled in a church that has some older people. I am talking about in their eighties and nineties! These saints are amazing people to be around and their voices are important to hear. So while I am thankful for what the churches that are reaching my generation are doing, I think there is something missing. We need people who have been through economic woes, cultural changes, challenges in their marriage, the death of loved ones, and so forth.
If the gospel is good news that brings down barriers one of those barriers is age. It will help us see the wisdom and worth of those who are no longer “cutting edge” and “progressive”. If you church just happens to be young that is fine, but we should always be careful to avoid modeling our culture’s disregard for those who have come before us. What they lack in singing, in the arts, in their contributions to planning new ways to engage your culture, they make up in wisdom, in the ability to see the dangers in certain trends and fads, and perspective on life that we need.
