I'm a little sorry these posts have been coming almost one a day these last few days... I just seem to have had a lot of thoughts.
Our pastor always has thought provoking sermons. One of the distinctions he played with a little bit Sunday was the distinction between being a disciple of Jesus and being a Christian. This distinction is of course putty in the hands of the Barna crowd I suspect, but I don't think Steve was barking up that tree.
One of his comments was that the disciples were disciples a long time before Acts calls them Christians. He posed the question whether we tend to have the order the wrong way around. We talk about becoming a Christian and then only later about discipleship.
I also note that, in addition to the Barna follower of Jesus who doesn't buy into religion is the person who is a Yoder follower of Jesus. This is the pacifist, turn the other cheek follower. Such a person isn't necessarily unorthodox, but clearly places a certain primacy on the earthly ethics of Jesus and may not consider Paul or the other parts of the NT quite as significant.
Well, a whole bunch of thoughts are swirling around my head. I'll just stream them down here and anyone is welcome to pick any one up:
1. To what extent should we think of Jesus' earthly mission as a very specific mission to upper Galilee?
I think Marshall overdoes this in Beyond the Bible but I think there is a valid point in it too. The earthly Jesus tells us he was not omniscient on earth. He clearly targets Jews not Gentiles and "lost sheep," Galilean Jews at that. He mostly functions within the paradigms of ancient Israel rather than proclaiming an "all time" universal message. What this means is that we should not assume that the message of the earthly Jesus was meant to be "transcultural" (I don't like that word) or timeless in every respect. An aweful lot of his earthly teaching was likely addressed at a specific time and place in Galilee.
2. There is an important distinction to be made between the particulars of what Jesus preached in Galilee and the presentation of Jesus in the gospels. I am not arguing for a strong discontinuity between the two. But, in my strong opinion, the gospels were not written primarily to record for posterity the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. The gospels were written to proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to their own audiences decades later than Jesus. In that sense I would argue that the gospels have the same authority as Paul's writings, not more or less. They are the inspired work of New Testament theologians just like Paul's writings.
3. Something very significant takes place at Pentecost that could not have taken place until after the resurrection. Because the Holy Spirit would not come until after Jesus' ascension, we are comparing apples and oranges to some extent when we place before and after Pentecost on some sort of timeline we would compare to the timelines of our lives.
This is one of the hermeneutical problems with the earlier generation of Wesleyans who saw in the disciples' pilgrimage a model for the ordo salutis of our lives today through entire sanctification. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost was a unique event in salvation history, the transition from one age to another. We are all born after Pentecost and we all become Christians (or disciples) after Pentecost in the age of the new covenant. Technically, there could not have been any true "Christians" before Pentecost, for you cannot be a Christian without the Spirit (Rom. 8:9) and the Spirit had not yet come.
But none of this is really what Pastor Steve was talking about--I'm just doing a stream of consciousness with some thoughts he inspired. Steve was posing a legitimate question: do we need to follow Jesus for more than 10 seconds before we can realistically expect to find him, to encounter him? That's what he will be exploring for the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
In case I wasn't clear:
Barna Christian here: "Christian" equals "religion," while we should be followers of Jesus.
Yoder Christian here: follower of Jesus=someone who follows the teachings of Christ vs. middle class Christian culture.
Ken,
I am in complete agreement about the magnitude of Sunday's sermon. I feel privileged to be under Steve's instruction for this time. I do believe that it is a MUST, a non-negotiable that we are to become followers of Jesus at all costs, spiritually speaking. I am afraid that at least on some level, I'm not entirely convinced that I comprehend exactly what means. I am learning with the grace of God to guide me. I have been struck all week long about my need to ask once more who Jesus is. For me, this is coming at a good time, as I have just started on N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, so my mind was already within that paradigm. I truly believe that a complete immersion in the pursuit of Christ is what is called for, rather than an attainment of spiritual steps or processes - yes, I am thinking about sanctification - don't tell my DS or anyone else in my cohort. I believe that the rest works itself out when Christ becomes the center of my life. By the way, I'll not share your views on the ordo salutis question with the group, either. Ha! Ha! Thanks for the study break!
OK you rambled—so will I:
1. If the Spirit “had not come” before Pentecost and could not be in anyone before this dispensational line you draw then who the dickens is the Spirit in the Old Testament “who spoke by the prophets” (Nicea) and was all over the place in the OT? Was this “spirit” the actions of the Father and not the third person of the Trinity, or was this spirit some sub-god or super-angel if the Spirit had not come yet? Or do you contend that the Spirit’s coming alludes to a certain kind of coming—in an indwelling way that is new?
2. It seems to me that wherever Christians are in the majority—or act like they are—they always have to fid another term to describe the ordinary coach Christians from the first class passengers. In my lifetime I’ve heard many including (off the top of my head) “real Christian,” “Born again Christian,” Spirit-filled Christian,” “sanctified Christian,” “Christ-Disciple,” “committed Christian,” “Serious Christian,” and “Jesus-follower.” All of these have been attempts to provide for a larger pool of “nominal Christians” while putting oneself in a more elite group of Christians. I treat all new terms doing this with a yawn. The terms never deal with the central problem.
3. I agree with you on the comparative authority of Matthew, mark, Luke & John with Paul. Here’s a sticky question: forgetting for the moment the author’s theology, would you treat the teaching of Jesus with no more authority than the teaching of Paul? And… if one takes this position does it send him or heer down the “Jesus Seminar” path?
It seems that DeNeff's view would ultimately lead one to embrace Believer's baptism exclusively. You begin to follow Christ and "count the cost" before you become a Christian. In a Wesleyan model, would one not be able to label this period of discipleship as a product of prevenient grace? Or, perhaps Wesley and Yoder are not so compatible after all.
Kevin: Of course since Wesley believed in infant baptism, I don't suppose we can say it is unwesleyan. I don't think deNeff wasn't arguing a straight order of salvation. I like Bound's "via salutis," a way of salvation. These are components, but the order isn't always rigid.
Keith: The question of the Spirit in the OT is interesting to me. Sure, the OT has a slightly different concept of what it calls the Spirit coming on someone--so Saul's rotten when the Spirit leads him to prophesy. But I assume the Holy Spirit can empower non-Christians.
Like you said, Pentecost is surely a different kind of Spirit activity than what the vile Samson experienced. So John--if I go away I will send you another comforter. And Luke--wait for the promised Holy Spirit, etc...
By Steve I assume you mean Steve DeNeff? If so I want to get a copy of that sermon. It seem to deal with alot of things I've been thinking lately.
Yep, Steve deNeff. College Wesleyan has tapes.
I think that it is fun to play with the word "disciple" and "discipleship." I have heard Erwin McManus do this many times. The Great Commission tells us to "Make Disciples." This suggests that "discipleship", i.e., the process of making disciples is for "non-believers." I think that it is problematic that most churches equate discipleship with "Christian education."
Maybe the problem is that followers of Jesus have too long separated mission from discipleship. Mission is the reason for the existence of the Church, right?
Ah... exactly what I've been thinking/struggling with.
I've been told increasingly that we need more "followers of Jesus" instead of Christians. But we don't just "follow Jesus", we incorporate the rest of the Bible and church teaching subconsciously.
Nevermind, I shouldn't even to pretend to butt in on this conversation of well-trained minds. Prof S, your IBS class has exploded my conception of the Bible and probably would've destroyed my faith 6 years ago. A prediction of where this plane will land in the end: the Bible will be on more shaky ground than I thought, but Christ and His Church on more solid. I think this is a good thing...? Meanwhile, it will continue to wander the skies...
You trying to get me fired, Adam? :-)
The idea is not to take away but to add!
A good shakedown is good for this house... don't worry - it won't fall down now (as it might have) but you might hear the shattering of a few windows. I might even have to resort to a tarp roof for this "stormester", but I'll be on the lookout for some good roofers in the meantime...
Brian,
I would be curious to know why you would consider the pursuit of discipleship to be a. something (do you mean solely?) for non-believers and b. problematic for Christian education.
I don't want to make any generalizations as I'm not sure what you meant by those statements. But if I may, very quickly, I would say that discipleship is what the church SHOULD be focusing upon. In fact, it is of the UTMOST importance. As we seek to be disciples of Christ, we will then fulfill our mission because part of that discipleship process is external in nature. We should want to bring others into the church.
For me, I would place discipleship at the head and other issues - even sanctification, which I view more as a means to an end - behind them. As central as sanctification has become for many within the Wesleyan tradition, it must be viewed as vehicle that allows for discipleship rather than as a destination of its own volition. I believe that discipleship is such an intimate part of the process of becoming more like Christ. Discipleship is then done communally and individually. And, for what it is worth, i am no way referring to a new type of Christian or word or something that would be elitist. I'm talking about a natural process of focusing on the pursuit of Christ. So much for a quick response....
Post a Comment