Why I like denominations

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/10/why-i-like-denominations/

 

by Dr. Roger Olson

October 11, 2012

Comments

 

One of the sea changes taking place in American religious life is a popular turn away from denominations. Some say we are entering, if not already in, a “post-denominational” era. Nearly all traditional denominations are struggling with membership declines and revenue shortfalls. As I put my ear to the ground of popular opinion about religion, I hear rumblings of discontent about denominational labels and behaviors and a preference for what I call “plain label” Christianity.

 

I, for one, still value denominations.

 

Before explaining, I need to define “denomination.” (1) Some sociologists of religion use the term for broad religious traditions. For example, in that usage, “Baptist” is a denomination. That’s not how I use the word. For me, “Baptist” is a tradition, a heritage, and a religious type. I think “denomination” should be reserved for religious organizations and networks of churches. (I could add synagogues, but here, for purposes of this post, I’m talking only about Christians.) By my usage “Baptist” could not be a denomination. As the old saying goes “I don’t belong to any organized religion; I’m a Baptist.”

 

So, (2) for me “denomination” refers to an organization of churches with something like a headquarters or at least some unifying structure, however informal and inchoate it may be. (For example, the Churches of Christ count as a denomination even though they have no headquarters as such. They do have a relatively cohesive structure of mutual recognition.)

 

By my definition, the Abingdon Handbook of Denominations lists and describes about 300 distinct denominations in the United States. There are more, of course, because the Handbook excludes the smallest ones and many that are restricted to a small region. Some scholars have guessed there are about 1,200 denominations in the U.S. (I suspect they are including groups of two or more churches.)

I know this will shock many people, but my attitude toward denominations is “the more the better.” Let me explain.

 

It seems to me one of the strengths of American Christianity has been its multiplicity and even diversity of denominations. That blooming, buzzing profusion (to paraphrase William James) has produced both good and bad results, but overall and in general, I judge, it has benefited American Christianity and American society as a whole.

 

For example, most colleges and universities in the U.S. were founded by denominations. So were most hospitals. Most denominations have charitable agencies that are involved in feeding the hungry, training people for jobs, community development, etc. And, of course, most have mission-sending agencies. Small churches that cannot afford to do these things (e.g., found a college or hospital or even support a missionary family) pool their resources better to do them.

 

Denominations also provide accountability for pastors and other “church professionals.” And I think that accountability works best when the authority is closer to the churches and their leaders.

 

Denominations also keep each other sharp. A certain amount of competition serves to raise the bar, so to speak, so that there is motivation constantly to update, refurbish, stay sharp (e.g., with regard to technology, training for ministry, etc.).

 

I recently interacted with a well-known ecumenical theologian who has been intimately involved with the World Council of Churches for many years. He expressed the hope of someday seeing one worldwide Christian denomination. I don’t share his hope. He portrayed the existence of multiple denominations as evidence of “brokenness” in the body of Christ. I don’t see them that way. At least the plurality of denominations does not have to evidence brokenness in the body of Christ.

 

As I have stated and explained here recently, my vision is of an ecumenism of the Spirit, not of institutions. I’m not opposed to denominations merging, unless that means the sacrifice of important particularities and a lowering of standards of belief and practice to a “least common denominator” in which robust belief and practice get lost (e.g., “generic Christianity”).

 

Some people assume (and I think this was the case with the ecumenical theologian) that the very existence of separate denominations equates with hostility and exclusion. I don’t see those as necessary at all. Where they exist, yes, they are to be overcome. Dialogue is the path, not throwing off particularities and distinctives in favor of a bland, generic spirituality and/or social ministry.

 

There is no reason why denominations cannot worship and work together while maintaining their institutional lives. There is no reason why separate denominations must harbor or express hostility toward each other. They don’t even have to be exclusive. In my opinion, “ecumenism” should aim at mutual understanding and cooperation. Beyond that, I hope, through ecumenical work, that all Christians might someday enjoy intercommunion. But “visible and institutional unity” is not necessary for that. Nor, in my opinion, is it even a good goal.

 

Imagine a worldwide Christian church (denomination). It would have to have a hierarchical structure of some kind. It would have to somehow blend Christians together in a way that would require the muting of distinctive voices. Inevitably, also, it would leave out some Christians because they don’t fit the worldwide church’s standards for unity.

 

Here’s an example of that. The ecumenical theologian argued that Baptists, for example, ought to recognize the infant baptisms of other denominations as legitimate Christian baptisms. Okay, that’s not likely to happen, but I understand where he’s coming from. Or I thought I understood. I don’t mind hearing a challenge like that. But, then, he held up for me (and others listening) a model of ecumenicity in which a church body decided to open the Lord’s Supper to all Christians except unbaptized children. Note—for him, baptized children could partake of the Lord’s Supper but not not-yet baptized children. In effect, he was suggesting that Baptists give up their distinctive insofar as it excludes other Christians but other denominations should not accommodate to Baptists’ beliefs! Imagine two families considering joining the church he described. One family has baptized children, but the other family comes from a baptist-like background in which the children have not yet been baptized. The first family’s children can partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the second family’s children cannot. How is that a triumph for ecumenicity?

 

My point is that, even this great ecumenical theologian seems blind to what would have to happen in order to achieve a world church. Some traditions’ distinctive would have to be slighted. Some tradition’s distinctive would have to “win,” so to speak. In my experience, nearly all these “world church” ecumenical thinkers envision a reformed papacy and magisterium. As one of them once said to me (he was a Lutheran ecumenist) “If the pope would just admit he’s not infallible we could join the Catholic Church.” Fine. Maybe he, as an ELCA minister and theologian, could. But how could Free Church Christians? How could baptists (of all kinds)? How could Pentecostals? In my opinion, this one world church ideal is not ideal at all—except for Catholics and closet Catholics.

 

My vision of ecumenism is all Christian denominations agreeing to worship together (on occasion), cooperate together (e.g., in charitable endeavors), and even admit one another to the Lord’s Table.

 

Now, there’s another reason for disdaining denominations that’s popular among younger Christians. It’s what’s generally meant by “post-denominationalism.” Many young Christians consider denominations old fashioned, divisive, top heavy, always embroiled in controversies, etc. They prefer what I call “plain label” churches, often newly founded, meeting in rented spaces, grassroots-oriented, etc. My observation, though, is that these churches tend to be too inclusive and lack proper emphasis on Christianity’s experiential and cognitive aspects. They tend to emphasize community.

 

The motto is sometimes “Belong, believe, behave” or “Belong, behave, believe.” But moving from “belong” to the other “b’s” doesn’t always happen. Many such churches stress community to the exclusion of strong beliefs and moral expectations (out of fear of dogmatism and legalism).

 

I sympathize with this youth-oriented movement, but I fear their Christianity may, like that of the “big ‘E’ ecumenists,” be bland, with no cutting edge to it. Sometimes, it seems, they are reinventing Christianity which means they are likely to make the same mistakes older Christian churches have made (and perhaps some newer ones).

 

For years, whenever I traveled (and I still do it), I got out the phone book in the hotel room and looked at the headings under “Churches” in the Yellow Pages. All across the country the list of churches under “Non-denominational” has grown. Now that is one of the longest lists in most places. What’s ironic, however, is that, as an aficionado of denominational histories and identities, I recognize many denominational churches under that heading! How honest is that? To be “non-denominational” or even “post-denominational” and belong to a denomination? To promote your church as non-denominational or to tout post-denominationalism and be denominational? And yet it happens all the time.

 

Personally, I struggle with “plain label” churches. When I see a church sign or ad that contains no hint of the church’s denominational affiliation or identity I assume one of two things. Either it is (1) genuinely independent, non-denominational, or (2) it is hiding its denominational affiliation to appeal to post-denominational people. Often it’s the latter. (I know because I often look them up on the web and find their denominational affiliation.)

 

A good example (but only one of too many to name or describe) is a large church in a city to which I travel often. I pass it several times a year. It’s a large, beautiful church in a suburban neighborhood. Its sign says simply “Calvary Church.” I finally remembered to look it up using a search engine. It’s a member church of the Christian Reformed Church of America. Nothing I could see on the building or grounds indicated that. (Many have “CRC” or something on their signs.)

 

So, what’s wrong with that? Only that the CRC is a truly confessional denomination with distinctive beliefs and practices. One of its doctrinal standards is the Canons of Dort—the anti-Arminian statement of faith. Suppose a Wesleyan family (I mean doctrinally, not denominationally) moved to that suburb, liked the looks of the church, heard it is a good church (family-oriented, many programs for kids, whatever) and decided to visit with an eye toward joining the church. How long would it be before they realized they were visiting and considering joining a Calvinist church? I personally know of such situations and, in some cases, people have attended a long time before realizing the church they want to join holds beliefs contrary to their own. In the end, they have to leave, having wasted a lot of time and emotional investment.

 

I think every church that belongs to any denomination should say so “up front.” Failing to do so seems somewhat dishonest to me. And truly non-denominational churches should make their beliefs and distinctive practices known to visitors with a brochure in every pew.

 

I once saw a church that advertised itself as “The Undenominational Church.” (This was back when 7-UP was advertising itself as the “UNCOLA.” I found out the “undenominational” church was really a Church of Christ.

 

Every church has boundaries; every church should let visitors and their communities know what they are by making them readily available.

 

What is happening (that I’ve been talking about in the previous few paragraphs) is simply cultural accommodation in a bad way. Church growth experts are telling churches that most American’s don’t like denominations and encouraging them to re-name their churches with generic names (e.g., Faith Family Fellowship) and omit any reference to any denominational affiliation or distinctive beliefs and practices. In most cases, the churches that do it keep their denominational affiliations and/or distinctive practices but hide them. In my opinion that is nothing other than cultural accommodation involving an element of dishonesty. As we have all heard, “lying” is not just telling an untruth; it can also be neglecting to tell the truth.

 

So, I titled this post “Why I like denominations.” I’ve wandered away from that somewhat, but I’ll conclude by returning to it. Christian churches do have distinctives; there is no such thing as (organized) generic Christianity. They ought to be honest about them. If they’re not proud of them, drop them. But better, be proud of the ones you keep! Distinctives do not have to be divisive. In fact, I like the fact that there are: Wesleyans, Calvinists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. I often wish some of them would soften their rough edges, but, for the most part, they are already doing that and sometimes going so far that they are losing all shape. When I see a church that is proud of its denominational affiliation I suspect it is giving money to help found institutions of higher education, mission-sending agencies, charitable organizations, etc. And I know what it is; I’m not left in the dark about it. May their tribe increase.


 

Thinking Through a Post-Modern, Post-Evangelic Christianity

Lord of the Harvest

In my spare time this past year-and-a-half I have been working through a newer, more relevant form of theology to help deepen the poems I wish to someday bring to life. Under the web blog title of Relevancy22 I have taken both an academic and contemporary approach to the issues of the day that have unnecessarily narrowed the Christianity I grew up with. One that would write of a wider breadth of faith that is less constricted by conservative boundaries and barriers, and more centered in Jesus, if possible. A kind of post-evangelic Christianity which in its own way is a more moderate, or progressive, form of evangelical Christianity that has become politically unbalanced by rightist, conservative issues which have marginalized the church's message and ministry. And in the process politicized the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to our postmodern, 21st Century, pluralistic, and multi-cultural societies. Societies we struggle to live within given the many incidents of civil warfare and terroristic atrocities witnessed globally between religious, ethnic, and ideological temperaments, rather than seeing the good, the beautiful, the helpful within our human differences.

For myself, I don't pretend to live in the failed eras of yesteryear. Nor to pursue the enlightened, late=modernism issues of the 50s and 60s by revisionistic historical practices (from either side of the political aisle). Mostly because I firmly believe that today's Christian faith can be as vital now as it was fifty years ago without having to artificially create invasive thought-barriers and protective screens to shield the church's faithful from the dialectic events bombarding us in contemporary society. That the life of Jesus was one of action combined with a broadening-out of Jewish theology, itself become constricted and divisive in His day of revelatory illumination. That our actions count as much as our words. That seeing the value of human life is more important than clinging to the traditions of a rich, and faithful church heritage, itself become insular to the criticisms and humanitarian needs of the 21st Century. That the human faith must allow for the majesty and mystery of God while doubting the foibles and wisdom of man. Especially as considering God's love as the prime motivator in our Creator-Redeemer's communion with man (and the cosmos) in everything He has done - and is now doing - within our expanding worlds of knowledge and industry and societal evolution.

Consequently, I have spent many recent days and nights digesting the current affairs of Christian theology and practice, and have re-positioned those issues alongside the thoughts and actions of fellow Christian contemporaries excited by the same possibilities as myself of a newer, more gracious form of faith than presently being discussed or practiced. Along the way I have contributed what articles I could to this emerging discussion through personal insight and experience to help lend vocal support to those fellow "miscreant" theologs that my conservative branch of Christianity has purposely flagellated - or worse, ignored - in its struggle to update itself while embracing the unknown, the feared, the obvious and the unavoidable. So that in my first six months of blogging I began unsure of myself as writer and commentator, but passionate to the burden placed upon my heart, by adopting the pseudonym skinhead (which in hindsight more probably indicated mine own personal de-construction at the time) until feeling surer of myself to hazard my name to that signatory list of evolving practitioners and writers, elocutioners and philosophers, poets and minstrels. I find that I write best in prose but have attempted during that same time to duplicate the more pedantic form of my officiously ranked brethren to help readers along who, with me, wish to investigate the root forms, and basal energies, of their faith. What poetry I have attempted (and in truth it has been very limited) is written hastily to match the temperament of the article of that day's contribution or edition. And usually, I save my best prose for the concluding portions of that day's posting trusting the diligent reader to better appreciate its words when having first read through the opening structures of the ensuing proposition and juxtaposed teaching.

Overall, I have not so much personally blogged as to try to create more of a timeless biblical index to what I consider an emerging, post-modern form of theology and practice in need of definition, sorting-out, and topical discussion. One that can appreciate the contributions of the church's past creeds and confessions, beliefs and practices of yesteryear, but is willing to move beyond any current misconceptions or misrepresentations of the bible. Or even the faith of the faithful seeking cultural acclamations rather than the biblical charter and precedence shown to us by the prophets of earlier times struggling with their own generation of well-meaning religious priests and temple'd guardians. An emerging faith which has come to understand that "the human language is both a problem and a gift" - a problem because we wish to make it so mathematic-like. So precise and formal when it is anything but that (credit the Enlightenment for this effort of definitive syllogism and logistical precision found in Evangelical Christianity's popularly acclaimed systematic theologies of today). And a gift, because through it we may use all the forms of human language and human presence to speak of God - whether poetically, or musically; in chants or in liturgical practice; or non-verbally by our actions, body-language, and symbolic usage (art, film, etc).

But to also understand that "last year's words belong to last year's language, and next year's words are awaiting another voice" as one youth had expressed it to me. And by that means help each generation through its own concerns and frames of reference that must be addressed if it is to evolve into its own habitats, expressions, cares and concerns. That if we don't learn to speak to one another between our generations - from old to young, and young to old - than we will instead speak past one another. To be aware that the Christian faith is meant to be expanded and stretched past any previous thought categories and semantic definitions into newer thought forms and meanings (Jesus showed us that in the Gospels, even as His disciples and the old guard of Judaism struggled with the same). This is because language itself can be both time-bound to the generation it lives within, as well as timeless to the generations to come. To recognize that human language bears a fluidity, or metamorphosing ability, which allows for its continual reconstitution and reconfiguration through the many eras and societies of mankind. So that we may use this uniqueness of human communication that it might breathe and find new lands of discovery and settlement amongst a wider variety of human habitat and mental conception. That how we might "think" in our people groups may be different from how other societies and generations "think" in their regional (and era-specific) people groups. That one is neither right nor wrong in their Christian thoughts and language. And that by this process we may better learn to communicate with one another from within our differing philosophical and cultural reference points without feeling threatened that our Christian faith is under attack every time we do. For me, Emergent Christianity is just this. No more and nor less. And because it is a different animal from the more popular Evangelical Christianity I grew up within, it gets undeservedly bad press because of its different look-and-feel when it is simply learning to speak to younger generations more attuned to their own issues and era-specific needs.

Or, in another sense, we might say "it is of no use to going back to yesterday's voice (or being) because I was a different person then." And by this learn to appreciate and recognize the epistemologic and existential (e/e) growth of a person as experience catches up with the age of our time-worn souls and personhood. I feel I have gone through a minimum of three personal revisions to myself. As example, I began life within a pre-modern enclave of farming families carrying on the deep traditions of their remembered past (from the mid- to late- 1800s) even as they were trying to absorb the industrial, World War 1 and 2 eras of the early- to mid- 1900s. They began as homesteading families to the wilderness areas of West Michigan when black bear and aboriginal natives were still common to the land. My brothers and I were the sixth generation of a farming lifestyle quickly going out of existence (as well as inheritors to a Scandinavian heritage newly come to America from the "Old Country"). And with it, all the ingrained traditions and agrarian practices of the past. We were left out-of-time and out-of-place with a modern day world of public schooling, gas and electricity, TV, music and an encroaching urban lifestyle far more diverse than our own. And when entering university during the upheaval of the Vietnam War era with its civil unrests, angry riots, peace sit-ins, Hippie and LSD drug experimentation, and societal turmoils, I struggled for many years to "adopt" this strange new land I found myself within. But which later caused me to seek a bible school environment which held  the stability I found I needed, along with familiar values to my own remembered background. And yet, over the years I have learned to wean myself away from these (e/e) dependencies and to finally make the leap these past dozen years or so towards a more metropolitan way of thinking. So that in a way, its been my third revision of myself, though more probably, my older soul still lives deep within my fractured being as I have become more accepting of contemporary change. And by nature, am predisposed to understand the change I am confronted with, not being content to simply allow it to haunt my pysche without pursuing its causes, permutations, dissatisfactions, and general disorders.

And yet, this deconstructive process has given me hope that through personal adjustments, whether small or great (however personally painful or disorientating to friends and family), our God may arightly affect both ourselves and succeeding generations to become fuller participants in this precious life we have been given - and daily seem to fail - when coming to embrace it as fully, or completely, as we might. To receive each day with thanksgiving. And to learn to behave ourselves more wisely with one another through the service of our gifts and talents, strengths and weaknesses. And at the last, to allow for the mystery and majesty of life itself through Jesus our Lord and Saviour. That yes, language can be a problem, but it can also be a gift, as we accept the fact that we must grow in our communicational strengths with those unlike ourselves (and perhaps in as much turmoil as we have experienced). And by this communication allow it to bind us into a stronger, healthier society of men and women that might celebrate our differences while seeing those differences as the key to a brighter future not fraught with warfare, hate, fear, and distrust. May this then be our prayer. Our practice. Our desire. And in all things may we learn to share the grace of God with one another. To allow God's grace to become a vital part of our language with one another... and even within our very selves matriculating with age and experience to adopt God's love and forgiveness within our own lives and livelihood. Family structures and friends. Communities, churches, and workplace.

R. E. Slater

October 13, 2012

Relevancy22 - Post-Evangelic Christianity: Topics and Theology

by R.E. Slater

 
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/



The Poetry of R.E. Slater


http://reslater.blogspot.com/



Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"

Number of Protestant Americans Is in Steep Decline, Study Finds



A cross-shaped window inside South Calvary Baptist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana

Chris Bergin for The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-finds-that-the-number-of-protestant-americans-is-declining.html?_r=1

by Laurie Goodstein
Published: October 9, 2012

For the first time since researchers began tracking the religious identity of Americans, fewer than half said they were Protestants, a steep decline from 40 years ago when Protestant churches claimed the loyalty of more than two-thirds of the population.

 

A new study released on Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that it was not just liberal mainline Protestants, like Methodists or Episcopalians, who abandoned their faith, but also more conservative evangelical and “born again” Protestants. The losses were among white Protestants, but not among black or minority Protestants, the study found, based on surveys conducted during the summer.

 

When they leave, instead of switching churches, they join the growing ranks who do not identify with any religion. Nearly one in five Americans say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.”

 

This is a significant jump from only five years ago, when adults who claimed “no religion” made up about 15 percent of the population. It is a seismic shift from 40 years ago, when about 7 percent of American adults said they had no religious affiliation.

 

Now, more than one-third of those ages 18 to 22 are religiously unaffiliated. These “younger millennials” are replacing older generations who remained far more involved with religion throughout their lives.

 

“We really haven’t seen anything like this before,” said Gregory A. Smith, a senior researcher with the Pew Forum. “Even when the baby boomers came of age in the early ’70s, they were half as likely to be unaffiliated as compared with young people today.”

 

The “Nones,” as they are called, now make up the nation’s second-largest religious grouping. The largest single faith group is Catholics, who make up about 22 percent of the population. Their numbers have held steady, mostly because an influx of immigrants has replaced the many Catholics who were raised in the church and left in the last five years, Mr. Smith said.

 

The rise in people who claim no religion is likely to have political consequences, said Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Southern California.

 

“The significant majority of the religiously unaffiliated tend to be left-leaning, tend to support the Democratic Party, support gay marriage and environmental causes,” he said.

 

The Pew report offers several theories to explain the rise of the religiously unaffiliated. One theory is that the young adults grew disillusioned with organized religion when evangelical Protestant and Catholic churches became so active in conservative political causes, like opposition to homosexuality and abortion.

 

Another theory is that the shift merely reflects a broader trend away from social and community involvement, the phenomenon dubbed “bowling alone” by Robert D. Putnam, a public policy professor at Harvard University.

 

Another explanation is that the United States is simply following the trend toward secularization already seen in many economically developed countries, like Australia and Canada and some in Europe.

 

The United States has always been the great exception to this secularizing trend, and it is not clear that Americans are necessarily moving toward the European model.

 

The Pew report found that even among Americans who claimed no religion, few qualified as purely secular. Two-thirds say they still believe in God, and one-fifth say they pray every day. Only 12 percent of the religiously unaffiliated group said they were atheists and 17 percent agnostic.

 

The Rev. Eileen W. Lindner, who has chronicled religious statistics for years as the editor of the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches, has observed this complexity.

 

She said, “There will be lots of people who read this study and go: ‘Oh no, this is terrible! What’s it doing to our culture?’ I would, as a social scientist and a pastor, urge caution.

 

“A lot of the younger people are very spotty in their attendance at worship, but if we have a mission project, they’re here,” said Ms. Lindner, the pastor of a Presbyterian church in New Jersey. “They run the soup kitchens, they build the houses in Habitat for Humanity.”

 

They may not come on Sundays, she said, but they have not abandoned their faith.

 

Where does the etymology of the phrase, "It Is More Blessed to Give than to Receive" come from?

 

 

Recently I heard the phrase "it is more blessed to give than to receive" and got to wondering where its etymology might have come from. Perhaps not from the Jewish Gospels, as in Matthew 10.8b, when Jesus quoted a popular Jewish phrase,

 

^{5 "}These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, ⁶ but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ⁷ And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ ⁸ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers,^[c] cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay. ⁹ Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, ¹⁰ no bag for your journey, or two tunics^[d] or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food."

 

But more perhaps from Acts 20.35 (context vv.34-36), when Paul said,

 

"³⁴You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. ³⁵In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'³⁶And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all."

 

Earlier, in verse 32, Paul had said,

 

"And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified..."

 

as he spoke about his time of ministry having come to a close amongst his disciples. How he had labored night and day for their edification and sanctification. And that with his very hands he served them, providing the blessings of God's word to their hearts and minds.

 

So I found it curious that Paul would connect the grace of God with the phrase of Jesus of being a blessing to others (v. 32 to v. 35) by translating from its Jewish counterpart which flatly stated "freely give what you freely received" (sic, Matthew 10.8b). From Paul's Jewish heritage he was going through the process of re-evaluating Christ's teachings in light of what he  had previously understood through his Torah upbringing as seen here by his revelatory assessment pertaining to God's grace and blessings. He was in the process of threading the Christian themes of the Gospels backwards into his own Jewish heritage and teachings about God, and beginning to conclude their contemporary relevance and significance to the church of his day. Especially in the light of God's revelation through Jesus, as not only the Son of God come to dwell amongst men. But who was Himself the very God of the Godhead. The Incarnated Triune God. Israel's long-awaited Messiah come to live and minister grace within the temples of His dwelling built within His wondrous creation brought alive by His life, death and resurrection over sin and death.

Jesus' words were important to Paul. And they were important to evaluate against all of God's past revelation to Israel received over many, many centuries, if not millenia, from Abraham unto Paul's current milieu of first century Judaism. It is not hard to visualize Paul working out a basic hermeneutical structure of New Covenant theology as he progressed through the various ministry environments he experienced during his missionary journeys of evangelism and church planting. And when seated within the Roman cells of imprisonment to begin working through the many fractured paths of Judaistic thought-and-theology into a more enlightened view of God's New Testament revelation presented to not only himself, but to his fellow apostles (Christ's disciples) received at the hands of Jesus to by His faithful followers. Out of which we now have Paul's letters written to the churches of Asia Minor and Rome, garnered first by experience, and secondly through the interpretive rumination of prayerful thought and balanced judgment, against Paul's previous background of systematic, rigorous, Jewish training. (Paul once noted that he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, when contesting an interpretation of Scriptural revelation being rejected by fellow would-be revelatories. Interpreting and acting upon God's Word aright was important to him).

And not only did this phrase of blessing mean something in Paul's day, but it has come to mean something to us in our day as well, as we continue to translate, or import, God's revelation through Jesus into the digest of worldly phrases heard in our ears from within today's cultures and societies vying for moral, religious, or philosophical ascendancy. But by filling our ears, our minds, and our hearts, with the illumined richness of God's Word, the Bible, as revealed to us through Jesus, we might then be better able to speak to each other of God's grace and truth. By re-assessing (or re-positioning) such popular phrases as, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" we, as Christians, may communicate it's higher revelatory significance of referring to God's empowerment of His word of grace into our meager lives lived so gracelessly. So self-centered. So anxious and sparse.

 

And by this phrase one might gather that it had become one of those basic tenets of Judaism mostly likely conscripted from its more common, worldly origins, then as it later became by Paul through impassioned speeches to Jewish-Hellenistic congregations scattered amongst the pages of the book of Acts as he hastened to Jerusalem to begin his fourth and final journey for the gospel of Jesus unto Rome itself. Paul's desire to go to Rome saddened the churches of Asia Minor (20.38f) but also stiffened their resolve to provide for their destitute Jewish brethren dwelling in-and-around Jerusalem they had not met but knew to be suffering for faithfully following Jesus. So that in the midst of famine in Israel, the Apostle Paul's congregants wished to provide help through the provisioning of bread, money, and so forth, to the churches of Jerusalem, as he, Paul, travelled amongst the churches of Asia Minor before returning to Jerusalem, and ultimately to his final journey as a Roman prisoner to tell of the good news of Jesus to the emperor of Rome himself.

 

And in this way Paul spoke to what his Lord and Savior had provided to him - specifically that through the gospel of Jesus he freely received God's grace as a religiously loyal Jewish Pharisee trained in the Torah - and was to freely give back God's grace to those who knew not Jesus.... And in hearty response, those Christian followers of the Messiah Christ took to their heart to give of themselves - and not only to one another - but to their Christian brothers and sisters suffering in foreign lands for their faith in Christ.

And in this way have I likewise labored here at Relevancy22 with many contemporaries to provide fresh insights into God's living Word through recitation of articles and posts reflecting popular discussions, songs, theologies, or ideas, found in today's mainstreams of thought and rhetoric. To tell of the Scripture's richness once thought lost in the arguments of the church between one interpretive dogma or the other; to enliven today's theologies with a recharged hermeneutic that works past many of Evangelicalism's dead-ends to reclaim a Jesus-nation warm-and-alive with the breath-and-power of the Spirit. To say plainly what many would wish to cover up. And to say it again-and-again-again until it sinks in, using a simple literary nuance here, or a shaded overtone there, that might overcome our Christian differences and religious impasses to discover a more meaningful Bible; a richer theological landscape; and a broader tapestry of ministry and livelihood than once thought possible.

Nor did I think I would become so overwhelmed by so large a burden so late in life. But through God's spirit, and by the grace He has given to me, I have collected and written this past year-and-a-half of God's great goodness as it proceeds unstoppable through this world we live within. Whether through the church itself. Or in spite of itself. Or even at the hands of those burdened souls for human rights and suffrage. Or even through the pursuits of common scientific discoveries and human organizational efforts. God is actively involved in this world of ours and it is only we ourselves who would try to contain the will of our Divine Creator, the Lover of our Souls, our Redeemer and Savior. To unwittingly, or ignorantly, prevent His word of grace from being as relevant today as it ever was in Christ's day. It is but for us to hear. And to hear God's Word aright. And thus, have I chosen to re-orient our message of the Gospel as an emerging Gospel dispelled of the church's many pet dogmas and religious zeals. To dare to enter in upon holy ground and there stand speaking God's Word afresh as it should be spoken unaltered and pure without so many of our words and actions hindering the Spirit's movement.

And with that, I leave with you a follow-up article speaking to the further development of the Christian phrase of blessing written several years ago during one Christmas season from a Canadian perspective. It doesn't complete the Jewish etymology of this phrase, but it may help provide an important "regal" perspective to our response by God's actions to us - both in creative deed and redemptive act. To this may I add a short prayer,

As God gives strength,
Be blessed and be blessings,
Each and every day,
To every man or beast,
In every realm or kingdom,
To the glory of God,
Unto the richness of
His Rule and Reign.

Give without receiving,
Receive with thanksgiving,
In all things give grace,
As is the will of God,
Who Himself is grace.

May God's peace be our inheritance,
May charity be our livelihood,
May the Lord Jesus Christ be uplifted,
Both now and always.

- R.E. Slater

October 11, 2012 

World Vision

Acts 20
English Standard Version (ESV)

Paul in Macedonia and Greece

20 After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia. ² When he had gone through those regions and had given them much encouragement, he came to Greece. ³ There he spent three months, and when a plot was made against him by the Jews^[a] as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. ⁴ Sopater the Berean, son of Pyrrhus, accompanied him; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy; and the Asians, Tychicus and Trophimus. ⁵ These went on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas, ⁶ but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days we came to them at Troas, where we stayed for seven days.

 

Eutychus Raised from the Dead

 

⁷ On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. ⁸ There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered. ⁹ And a young man named Eutychus, sitting at the window, sank into a deep sleep as Paul talked still longer. And being overcome by sleep, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. ¹⁰ But Paul went down and bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” ¹¹ And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. ¹² And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.

 

¹³ But going ahead to the ship, we set sail for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for so he had arranged, intending himself to go by land. ¹⁴ And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and went to Mitylene. ¹⁵ And sailing from there we came the following day opposite Chios; the next day we touched at Samos; and^[b] the day after that we went to Miletus. ¹⁶ For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

 

Paul Speaks to the Ephesian Elders

 

¹⁷ Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. ¹⁸ And when they came to him, he said to them:

 

“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, ¹⁹ serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; ²⁰ how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, ²¹ testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. ²² And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by^[c] the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, ²³ except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. ²⁴ But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. ²⁵ And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. ²⁶ Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, ²⁷ for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. ²⁸ Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,^[d] which he obtained with his own blood.^{[e] 29} I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; ³⁰ and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. ³¹ Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. ³² And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. ³³ I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. ³⁴ You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. ³⁵ In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

 

³⁶ And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. ³⁷ And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, ³⁸ being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

It's more blessed to give than receive

http://www.lucknowsentinel.com/2008/12/17/its-more-blessed-to-give-than-receive

By Pastor Perry Chuipka

Wednesday, December 17, 2008As we approach this advent and Christmas season this verse keeps coming into my mind. Many of us grew up hearing that "It is more blessed to give than to receive." But what does this word "bless" really mean.

 

In the Bible, the origin of the concept of "blessing" is a Hebrew word (baw-rahk'), meaning "to kneel" and was used one way or another, hundreds of times to convey the meaning of respect or adoration. You would kneel before a king in respect or to offer thanks for something. Of course, you would kneel to God in adoration, praise, thanksgiving and supplication. The Septuagint (LXX) translators choose the Greek (eulogeitos) to represent (baw-rahk') (more than 400 times). So, among Greek speaking Jews, this was a common word for praise, thanksgiving, respect, etc. Latin writers used the verb form (benedicere) to translate the Greek, preferring to offer the literal sense of the Greek. I think they wanted a strictly English word so they could get away from the Catholic Latin expressions.

 

The word "bless" was not a literal translation, but it had religious overtones and they used it even though it had come from a heathen source. So, there was a long and varied series of associations - Jewish, heathen, Christian - to blend in the English use of the word "bless". Therefore, "blessing" is a word which has a position in Christian vocabulary by reason of long-standing usage. But it does not directly translate (eulogeitos)! BUT - there is a modern version which does have a direct translation, and it is to this version that I pay honour. The version is the Spanish. In Ephesians 1:3 in the Spanish, the word (bendito) is the part participle of the verb (bendecir). It means, literally, "to say good things or good words."

 

So let me go back to my verse, "It is more blessed to give than receive." It is not that giving is more important than receiving. That is not what this verse means. Instead it points out that blessings start from someone giving good things or good words. I couldn't help but think back to the Genesis stories of creation where God created his blessings for this world by first giving good things or good words.

 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night". and there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."

 

Now, just think for a moment about Jesus' ministry. He showed us the power of the word [...and I might add, our actions! - res] to bring new life to others through the many good things that he said and did. And so it is with us, as we enter this advent and Christmas season. Our words and our actions are important because they help bring about God's blessing to others. We can give blessings to others this Christmas and it starts with us being thankful for all the good things that God has given us to share with others.

 

My family and I are very thankful for the people here in Lucknow. We arrived in Wingham near the end of April of this year coming from Sudbury in Northern Ontario. Not long after we arrived here, Sara, the reporter from the Sentinel came to our home to interview my wife and I. Not long after that, I attended the regular men's Wednesday morning gathering time at Finlayson's and I was greeted with smiles and a few jokes that I cannot repeat here. The people have been great and very welcoming to us. My family and I do feel blessed. We are blessed with good people who are with us on our common journey of searching for the truth in our lives. My family and I wish you and your loved ones a very blessed Christmas season filled with many good moments with family and friends and a New Year echoing with "good words and good things".