Gentile

I am well into the first volume of The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez (San Francisco: Harper, 1984). On reading the preface, I knew I had found a man after my own heart, as his academic background spans at least two languages and broad cultures. When he mentioned the Inca Garcilaso and Ortega y Gasset, I thrilled to think that at long last I was dealing with an author able to distinguish between his cultural eyeglasses and his manuscripts. He did his honest best and I am the glad and grateful recipient.

I will be quoting liberally throughout the first few chapters of this book. This first volume has given me many of the answers I sought. Before getting started, I would like to point out my overall observation that Christianity started as a sect of Judaism, then spread to the Gentiles where it became enculturated with things having nothing to do with itself. It was captured by politics, greatly damaging its anima as it became redefined by the kingdoms of this world which had no legitimate claims on it. Yet some good, admittedly, was also accomplished at times.

Let’s think of the Gospel as a snapshot of God in Jesus Christ, which has then been framed in human culture and politics. It is the frame that offends so many — not the Christ of the photograph. I blame politics more than culture for the ills of the Church. Unlike some who seek to unify the Church by eradicating culture, I consider culture something to be embraced. It cannot define God for the entire world, as this is akin to creating a God who looks like ourselves and trying to force the world to bow to our image. Rather, culture directs the light of God through its own facets to its cultural members. Politics, on the other hand, tries to force cultural conformity between unlike peoples.

The Council of Jerusalem placed few restrictions upon the Gentile believers:

Act 15:20 … that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Politics has further placed many burdens on the backs of the members of the Church. I believe, as I said elsewhere, that the conquest of civilization is one reason “church” has little relationship to the lives of many. It has given them many rules to be borne instead of principles to follow within the framework of culture. The Church fell into the same state as the Pharisees who Jesus took to task:

Luk 11:46 …Woe unto you also, [ye] lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Quoting liberally (as I prefer not to tamper with what has already been stated so well), Gonzalez says of church history:

There are episodes in the course of that history where it is difficult to see the action of the Holy Spirit. As our narrative unfolds, we shall find those who have used the faith of the church for their financial gain, or to increase their personal power. There will be others who will forget or twist the commandment of love, and will persecute their enemies with a vindictiveness unworthy of the name of Jesus. At other times it will appear to many of us that the church has forsaken the biblical faith, and some will even doubt that such a church can truly be called “Christian.” At such points in our narrative, it may be well to remember two things.

The first of these is that, while this narrative is the history of the deeds of the Spirit, it is the history of those deeds through sinners such as us. This is clear as early as New Testament times, where Peter, Paul, and the rest are depicted both as people of faith and as sinners. And, if that example is not sufficiently stark, it should suffice to take another look at the “saints” to whom Paul addresses his first Epistle to the Corinthians!

The second is that it has been through those sinners and that church — and only through them — that the biblical message has come to us. Even in the darkest times in the life of the church, there were those Christians who loved, studied, kept, and copied the Scriptures, and thus bequeathed them to us. [p. xvi]

Gonzalez counts the nameless as well as known figures like Martin Luther and Anselm of Canterbury among the many “diverse and even contradictory witnesses” who formed our history.

The notion that we read the New Testament exactly as the early Christians did, without any weight of tradition coloring our interpretation, is an illusion. It is also a dangerous illusion, for it tends to absolutize our interpretation, confusing it with the Word of God.

One way in which we can avoid this danger is to know the past that colors our vision. A person wearing tinted glasses can avoid the conclusion that the entire world is tinted only by being conscious of the glasses themselves. Likewise, if we are to break away free from an undue weight of tradition, we must begin by understanding what that tradition is, how we came to be where we are, and how particular elements in our past color our view of the present. It is then that we are free to choose which elements in the past — and in the present — we wish to reject, and which we will affirm. [p. xvii]

I look forward to sharing some of the things I have highlighted from Gonzalez’ coverage of the first centuries of the church. Many of these things have illuminated my own understanding of where I have been and where I want to go from here. I find that — yes, I do have a culture — admittedly far removed from its place of origin to another setting — which I now feel free to embrace as an authentic expression of the faith. At the same time, the culture itself is not the faith and I am free to affirm those who express the faith in other ways without necessarily being diminished or disturbing my own conscience about it. For a perfectionist like myself, I would call that growth.

Act 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Imagine that a first-century Jew lived in Spain and was righteous before God. During this person’s life Christ was crucified, buried, and rose again but the person died before any missionaries could tell him what happened. He was consigned to hell in spite of being a true worshiper of God. Do you see the implications here? It makes no sense.

A lady forwarded me a copy of John Fenn’s “Weekly Thoughts” for Feb. 14, 2009. If you don’t know who John Fenn is, technically, neither do I. I think he must be from some Charismatic offshoot, but I have been out of that loop for a long time. He writes things that consistently ring true with me, though.

He covered illogical assumptions about our on-again/off-again salvation as described above and balanced those against the opposite extreme of universalism, so popular today. He reveals that God is marvelously consistent, not given to some trickery that leaves us dangling in mid-air. Fenn does a better job than I could probably do, so I take a lot of license in quoting so liberally from his e-newsletter. [See his entire thought here .] It is fantastic.

*****************
FENN’S E-NEWSLETTER (excerpt):

… The subject of Universalism is important to have settled in your heart because our society is becoming more and more “if you’re a spiritual person you’re OK”, and if you don’t know what the Bible says you could end up talking in circles with someone, or worse yet, giving them incorrect advice on eternity. …

Unfinished business
…
Paul makes an interesting statement in Romans 5:12-14 where he says death came into the world by sin, and sin has been passed to all men for all have sinned, then he says in verse 13: “For until the law (Moses’ law) sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed (no account is kept) when there is no law.”

Previously in Romans 4:15b he said “”where no law is, there is no transgression.” …

I’ve long been fascinated by Romans 1: 14-16: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law (non Jewish people groups who are ignorant of God’s requirements), do “by nature” the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which “show the work of the law written in their hearts”, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another: (Gk interlinear) This will take place in the day God will judge the secrets of men’s hearts.

They are a law to themselves not as an island doing whatever they want, but demonstrating “the work of” God’s law in their hearts, their actions and lifestyle bound by that internal law, and that’s how (Paul says) they will be judged.

What’s interesting is that Hebrews 10:15-17 says God has written his law in our hearts and minds – the born again experience – and here Paul is saying there are people ignorant of God in the detail we know him, yet worship him and follow his law which God wrote in their hearts.

An example
I’ve mentioned in this space before about the Choco Indians of Panama, who I’ve had the pleasure of spending some time among. When missionary friends told them of Jesus many of the Choco’s willingly received Jesus immediately. This is because in their folklore when they became a distinct people, a being in white appeared to their forefathers and told them to worship the God who created the forest and gave them good things to eat, and to love and do good to one another. So the message of the gospel neatly fit, and they recognized that being to have been an angel.

What’s really neat is that for those who followed those instructions through the centuries, even into the 1990’s when I met them, their tribal culture was led by unseen hand in many scriptural areas. This included the family unit and order, husbands laying down their lives for their wives and honoring each other, monogamous marriage, and many other things – all without having a chapter and verse to read nor ever having heard of Jesus. Many expressed love for the Creator, but they didn’t know His name.

They had God’s law written on their hearts, which accused or excused them until they heard of Jesus, and this is how they will be judged when the secrets of hearts are revealed. …

Many Native American tribes have in their history the pure worship of the Great Spirit, before darker spiritual things set in, similar in some ways to the Choco’s of Panama.

If you study world cultures you’ll find that all ancient cultures had the basic elements in place, including judgement, eternity, heaven and hell, a basic moral law to follow, and so forth. The cultures who had all these elements range from ancient China to Babylonia to Egypt and Africa, to the Incas, and Mayans. All were aware of the basic core eternal realities as set forth in the Bible long before it was written.

But notice that within Egypt’s understanding of the above, God sent first Abraham and later Joseph to bring revelation of the True God. To Babylon He sent Daniel, Esther, and others. But it is clear God reveals Himself more fully to those who are truly searching. Paul said in Acts 17:27 that God spread mankind across the world “that they should seek the Lord; if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us…”

He meets the desire with opportunity. When there is opportunity to reveal Himself to ignorant people groups, God has a record of moving His people to them to bring that revelation. Thus the continued need for people to ‘go into all the world’ to bring life to whole nations. …

In Paul’s day
Do you realize where Paul traveled? We know Jerusalem and Damascus, and we know of his journeys throughout what is now Turkey, but did you know he said he had “fully preached the Gospel of Christ” in Illyricum, which is modern Albania stretching to Croatia, and had plans to go to Spain. (Romans 15:19, 24)

In all the countries he preached Christ that we have recorded in Acts, in all the religions he encountered, at no point did he tell them they were just fine as they were, that they would all be reconciled one day to God.

His message was consistent, that the times of ignorance God overlooked, but he now commands repentance. We could do mental gymnastics at this point. There is provision for those who don’t know of the historical Jesus, but know God only through nature and do the things God requires, God bearing them witness by putting his law in their hearts, and due to that ignorance that is how they will be judged. But at the same time when Paul brought the message of Jesus to them, they now became accountable for this sins, their ‘covering’ of ignorance dissolving as they learn that Jesus brings eternal life.

Some would say it would be better for them never to have heard if they could stay in ignorance and end up in heaven, but that misses the point. If they already know God through nature and are doing that things God requires because He put His law in their hearts, when they hear His name is Jesus they will receive him like the Choco’s did. That of course is the opposite course of action the people in Romans 1 took “who did not like to retain God in their knowledge” so their heart was darkened. …

If all go to heaven except the most evil, then why did these people need to hear of Jesus, and why is God bringing Buddhists and Muslims to Him through the knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? Why not just let them be if heaven is their ultimate destination?

Indeed, why did Jesus issue the Great Commission if all religions lead to Jesus and ultimate reconciliation? …

Universalism just doesn’t stand the test of the Word and what God is doing in the world today. Yes babies who die go to heaven. And yes there seems to be or has been provision for the truly ignorant. But all over the world people of all religions, especially those where missionaries and Christians are not allowed, are having Jesus appear to them in dreams and visions as they seek to know the True God. He is not telling them to go on in their religion, rather that “He” is the way, the truth, and the life. Amen!

Some of my thoughts to stir your thoughts,
Blessings,
John Fenn

END
***************************
Check out his two sites: Interactive Faith Home and Church Without Walls International.

Continuing the trajectory of “going back to the root”~

One would think that the strict sacramental theology and the many ordinances taught by the oldest churches would have existed from the beginning. We find there were Jewish churches and Gentile churches back there, each with pre-existing cultural and religious traditions regarding birth, marriage, death and many other facets of life. I have often wondered why Jesus died on the Cross to add so many ordinances back into our lives.

Where is the consolation of the saints?

I have been sifting through the kinds of Church authority out there, asking questions about the history of each, the scope of its administration, its right to enforce ordinances and uniformity upon human beings. It is a terrifying thing to get through insofar as church authority has years of history behind it, intrigues of kings mixed in, functions that began out of service to communities and turned into power over people. I suspect these things began very, very close to the beginning but did not actually sprout from the gospel of Christ. Where to begin?

I believe something in Acts speaks to the nature of church splits and reveals something about the scope of legitimate Church authority. It begins here at the time when Paul and Barnabas took John Mark with them on a missionary journey:

Act 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.

Acts 14 gives us more details about the work that John Mark left off. Paul was rejected by the Jews in several cities. They followed him from Antioch and Iconium to wreak havoc, stoned him and left him for dead, whereupon he went to Derbe. Paul and his disciples returned through Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium,

Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith

This is the work John Mark left. I had always glossed over Acts 13:13 until a friend mentioned another scripture that brought this into focus. John Mark did not leave Pamphylia because he had a pressing engagement elsewhere. He left because of a violent contention with Paul regarding whether the Gentiles should keep the Law. And now we know: John Mark was in favor of it; Paul was against. We are given more details of what happened:

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. …

We know how Peter received the revelation that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs with the Jews and that he went to the house of Cornelius, a godly man of the Italians (Acts 11). Oddly, he did not continue with the Gentiles but Paul did instead. Galatians 2 tells of the confrontation between Paul and Peter at Antioch over the issue of forcing the Gentiles to keep the Law. Later, at the council of Jerusalem Peter says:

Act 15:7 …Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

James entered the discussion, afterwards saying:

Act 15:13 …Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets …
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

They came to agreement, wrote up letters of announcement, and sent Paul and Barnabas, Judas Barsabas and Silas, men recognized among the brethren at Antioch, Cilicia and Syria to proclaim this:

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, …
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
Act 15:31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

The Apostles and elders had authority to speak the word of truth but laid no grievous burdens on the people. Each group after its own kind continued in its own traditions and culture, paying attention to conditions that were healthy or unhealthy in the Body.

A friend, commenting on Paul’s point of view had some interesting things to say that I think speak to Paul’s relationship to the other Apostles. He has been given the reputation as an upstart by many, wanting to change the “Christian religion”. I think he wanted to lay out the foundation of the gospel. It is a gospel of consolation, not heavy burdens.

Acts 15: 2-3 says Paul & Barnabas were appointed and sent vs. Gal 2: 2 Paul says he went “by revelation”

Acts 15: 3-4 says Paul reported all along the way and then to the full church with Apostles and elders vs. Gal. 2: 2 reported the gospel in private to only acknowledged leaders

I could go point for point, but I was just trying to say that Luke-Acts had an agenda for solidifying unity in Jerusalem, under Peter, which does not match Paul’s account. By Paul’s account, he was checking, by revelation, that his mission was still on track- a true gospel. [What did I say before about whether these issues sprouted from the gospel of Christ! I found this friend's message as I was typing away on this post.] The other “pillars” accepted his good news as it was presented to the gentiles. THEN, he got into it with Peter at Antioch, who also admitted that gentiles could join without Jewish conversion.

Last minute note: I failed to mention one of the greatest consolations in the original completion of this post — the reconciliation of John Mark with Paul, who wrote in 2 Timonthy 4:11

…Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

What a fantastic conclusion to a relationship gone wrong.

I went back to the root in order to know my place in the Body. Beginning with the early Jewish church, I hit a snag. Ephesians 2:15 says that God made of Jews and Gentiles “one new man”. I mentioned in the last post my acquaintance who converted to Messianic Judaism. It does happen sometimes but not usually. He keeps many of the Jewish laws because he lives in Israel where doing so has relevance. But Paul tells us that God has made two stalks of humanity into one new man in Christ.

This made great sense when I realized that I could not be what I am not — a Jew. However, I could learn from the intersection of the Jewish-Gentile church. The Jewish believers kept the Law; the Gentile believers did not. There’s our answer: We should not strive to be what we are not. God never secreted His things away from the world even when He entrusted the sacred to the Jewish people. The sacred things were revealed in their lives in order that the world might know God.

It took some sorting through random bits of evidence before it hit me over the head why today’s house churches still don’t approximate the early church. It is true that when we meet with other believers for any reason we are “the Church”. However, this simple minded approach lacks any purpose or objective. My mind went into overtime when I realized that the intentional simple churchers I knew were essentially Protestant/Evangelical/Charismatic but in a home instead of a structure. Not much is different. They have the usual pot luck, worship and praise, sharing and prayer — it’s all rather predictable. I can walk into most any group and know exactly what’s going to happen even if I’ve never met these people in my life.

Then we have the really simple house churchers. They have no services and no objective other than to show up and share the Lord as He happens to intrude on everyday conversation. They are no less sincere or unlikely to pursue God than the others. These decry such distinctions as “sacred” vs. “profane”. Every affair of life is holy — but on the other hand, they have also lost the sense of worship in community. Sometimes I’m not sure whether the profane becomes sacred or the sacred becomes profane. They regard the Lord’s Supper as an ordinary part of a meal, though they do take it seriously, making appropriate remarks as the need arises. There is a certain value in learning some propriety, which I think they miss — it teaches us respect for others and for special moments set aside in community. The original Lord’s Table was not part of everyday life — it was part of a Passover Feast and the Lord did a new thing on that occasion. He used the wine and bread to institute a new covenant.

I have known groups that did their best to eradicate culture, believing it to be divisive. I think it a mistake. Groups that dispense with culture end up creating a new culture and becoming unnecessarily weird so that they have relevance to no one. Culture is good and necessary. It is the means by which we pass down the narrative of who we are and what we value.

Still, we cannot impose our culture on other groups. It has often been a practice of the institutional church to kill its message by this means. When Bruce Olson went to Colombia to work with the Motilone Indians, he found other Christian groups had also been there to no success. They wanted to force new believers into ways of relating that made no sense to them — strict programs and buildings that were square. The Motilones have round buildings and they give thanks to God whenever they pull up a root — hence, no need to say grace at meals as they have already said it. That, to me, is a lesson to embrace culture but never to put people in a cultural strait jacket.

Having said this mouthful about culture, it brings me to what I really want to drive home in the next post — something long, long neglected. And that is the very wonderful and beautiful role of culture in the Church. Far from being a hindrance to the Gospel of the Kingdom, it ought to be a furtherance. I will lay out in the next post what I believe will support that conclusion. I hope to turn the heart of the children back to the heart of the fathers. Hopefully, you will see the beauty of intentional community worship as well as the personal freedom it allows when living, breathing, playing, worshiping as “the Church”. We should begin to see some authenticity when we recognize our real “Fathers of the Faith”.

Pro 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

My exploration into the ancient church roots was well underway when I chanced to make a new acquaintance in Israel, an American Gentile converted to Messianic Judaism. He participates in house church among Jews, Bedouins, the newly regenerated and the not-yet regenerated. I had hoped to understand the Jewish-Gentile branches of the Early Church, and I did not come away disappointed with our discussions of how the early church involved the synagogue, Jewish house churches and later Gentile house churches. House churches gave way to the domus ecclesia, later the free-standing basilica and finally the cathedrals.

My original goal was to capture the real roots and its implications for us in the 21st century. I had already come to understand that my Protestant background had taught me a warped view of church history. I spent many hours poring through books that purported to tell the “real story” of how Rome ruined the Christian faith and how the Reformation brought us closer to the roots again. I knew the Reformation had addressed many church abuses and that later waves of reform had brought forward neglected dimensions of the faith. Nevertheless we were not closer to our roots, as we supposed, but we — accusing the Roman Catholics of foul play — developed theologies around the misconstructs we had inherited.

It was, after all, a “reformation”, not a completely new thing. I did not realize for a long time that the Western Church lives in a bubble and thinks wrongly that its part of the story is the whole story of THE CHURCH. I decided to look much deeper into the Coptic, Orthodox, and other obscure branches for clues. They all have experienced similar issues: Politics, generational apostasies, insularity, enforcement of uniformity. All of these were to be expected, given the warnings of the Apostles. For all this, nothing crippled the Church universally as much as the exchange of the headship of Jesus Christ for the headship of men.

The Apostles preached the ever-present, indwelling, life-giving Spirit by which the Lord would lead His people. Later ministers fashioned themselves as caretakers of God’s people, maintaining a nursery of spiritual children who no longer grew to maturity. The Church, once taken out of the home, became identified by its building instead of its people. The Church returned to the ways of the Gentiles, hiding its light under a bushel as special ministers rose up to filter the words of their God by means of elaborate (sometimes secret) systematic theologies. God’s people no longer trained their ears to hear what the Spirit would say, and the masses of them would no longer be permitted to learn how. Spiritual fathers no longer walked alongside the children they had birthed but entrusted them to a building for spoonfeeding the rest of their lives.

When the Church still gathered round the common table, God was conspicuously immanent in His people. They relied on the Law and the Prophets for their objective grounding; they relied on the Spirit within for guidance. They did not arrogantly cast off all restraint now that they had the in-dwelling Spirit, but more mature members discipled them in the ways of the Spirit until they should come of age to reproduce spiritual children uncorrupted by natural thinking. These are the kind of ordinary people who “turned the world upside down” (Act 17:6).

I believe one clue as to when this happened may be found in the shift from the domus ecclesia to the basilica. (Please don’t neglect to click on these links as the content is extremely important here!) I do not think that the move from house to public building was the prime factor in changing the Church. More likely, it was symptomatic of a change that was already occurring — after all, God may be found anywhere (in theory). In the beginning, He was known to live in the hearts of His people but later it was supposed that if His people did not attend services in a building, their God no longer resided with them. Individuals who resisted this kind of assimilation were thought to have been “cut off” from the Body. God’s will and purpose became a matter of group-think and decisions handed down from on high instead of the collective hearing of God’s people. Within such a framework, later generations would be prevailed upon to fight for kingdoms of this world in order to preserve a kingdom not of this world (Cfr. John 18:36).

I believe that the house church represents a time when God had His natural place in the lives of His people. The domus ecclesia came about as a natural extension of practices already in the home. It began as a legitimate expression of art and architecture in a house church setting. It was the first intentional piece of architecture associated with the Church and was the natural forerunner of the magnificent, experiential designs that came later. The domus ecclesia came about before the Church was socially acceptable, unlike the public buildings that Constantine had constructed later. Whereas the original Church was a matter of the heart and home, the new-think of Constantine recreated it as a public cultural experience. The Church acquired a new identity from a parachurch building when it should have retained its identity in the life-giving Spirit.

In spite of the fact that the Church took on the role of an institution, it must be noted that the glory of the Lord had not entirely departed. Its new structure, respectability and accessibility probably increased the influence of those attempting to repackage its key doctrines to fit better into some previously held belief system. To argue against any kind of orthodoxy, as some still do today, is ridiculous given that there must come a point when one completely misses the whole point of the Messiah. In 325, the Church Fathers hammered out the bedrock of the faith at Nicea so there could be no mistake as to what the Church had always believed. The fact is that the Church did operate from some common assumptions even if it had not bothered to address every device of human concoction. We may deduce that, while a basic orthodoxy existed from the beginning, the Church must have expressed Christ in a diversity unimagined when it still met in homes.