Seminary PC5: God can call anyone to ministry.

My series continues, "Seminary in a Nutshell." The featured book today is Kristina LaCelle Peterson's, Liberating Tradition: Women's Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective. She discusses women in ministry from a historical perspective. Thus far in this series:

Preface

The Pastor and Context
1. The Domains of Ministry
2. The Calling of a Minister
3. Ministerial Calling in Scripture
4. Ministerial Calling in History

1. It is my conviction and the conviction of my tradition that God can and does call anybody to be a minister. That is to say, God does not just call Jews to ministry, but non-Jews as well. God does not just call people of light skin, but individuals of dark skin as well. God does not just call Europeans to ministry, but Asians and Africans and South Americans. God does not just call men to ministry but women as well.

In the age of the Holy Spirit, anyone can hear from God and anyone can speak for God. There is no genetic or biological reason why a Russian cannot minister to an American or a woman to a man. Certainly there is no gap in intelligence between women and men or someone from Papua New Guinea and someone from Germany. There is no basis in concrete reality that would keep a person of any race or gender from ministering to someone else from another.

There are only cultural barriers and barriers in prejudice. Nothing more. Unfortunately, cultural prejudices are real in themselves. At times the barriers have been so strong that it has seemed counterproductive to the larger goals of ministry for God to address them. The Bible tells us that God sometimes accommodates hard hearts, such as he did on the subject of divorce in the Old Testament (Matt. 19:7-8).

We have every reason to think that God still sometimes foregoes the ideal in some places and times to see his larger mission accomplished. It would have been ideal in the South of the United States for God to call African-Americans to minister to slave owners in the early 1800s or to whites in the early 1900s. The prejudices of culture at those times limited such ministry to indirect occasions. So for much of church history, women only informally have ministered to men.

2. One of the great privileges of Western Christianity is that the broader culture has made it easy for God to call anyone to minister to anyone. Ironically, the barriers to ministry of this sort do not come from the world, but from pockets of the "church."

God currently is calling an increasing number of non-Westerners to be ministers to Westerners. Some in the Western church might initially resist a person from Mexico being called as a missionary to the United States. [1] Someone might, hardly even realizing his or her prejudice, think it strange that God might call someone from the Philippines to be a missionary to Germany or England or Japan. "Is not missionary work for the enlightened West?" No, God can and does call anyone to minister to anyone.

An increasing number of missionaries come from the two-thirds world, the rest of the world outside the industrialized world of the West, mostly in the Global South. It may rub some American Christians wrong to think that God is currently calling believers from Latin America to be missionaries to the United States. Yet God can and does call anyone to minister to anyone. God does not show favoritism (Acts 10:34; Gal. 2:6; Jas. 2:1).

3. In the United States currently, the greatest cultural resistance is to women in ministry. The culture has come a long way to be sure. Those who resist God's calling on women at least have stopped arguing that women are not smart enough to lead or be ministers. Not too long ago, such arguments would have been made, just as it was argued a hundred years ago that former slaves were not smart enough to vote.

But women are as educated as men today, and a little cross-examining will show that men have no greater innate intelligence. There is no natural reason why a woman could not lead a man or minister to a man. So those who oppose women in ministry generally do not use this argument any more. They simply will argue that it is just not God's will for women to minister to men.

If there is no natural reason, there is also no spiritual reason. The Holy Spirit has come equally on all flesh since the Day of Pentecost. Indeed, one of the predictions of the Day of Pentecost is that "your sons and daughters will prophesy" (Acts 2:17). "In Christ Jesus... there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female" (Gal. 3:26, 28).

3. Indeed, there have always been female prophets. There are female prophets and leaders in the Old Testament. Deborah was the judge of Israel for a period of time. Nothing is said about her only being judge because there was not a man available. She is simply said to be the judge of Israel in those days (Judg. 4:4-5). She is the one who commands Barak to go into battle, and she ends up leading him into battle. She is so strong a leader--both naturally and spiritually--that he will not go into battle without her in the lead (4:8).

When the Book of the Law is discovered, the high priest does not trust himself to make a judgment on its authenticity, nor does the king. These two men instead go to a woman, a prophet, Huldah, to verify its validity (2 Kings 22:13-14).

Debates over one or two verses often obscure the fact that women were full participants in the mission and ministry of the early church. The four daughters of Philip were prophets, for example (Acts 21:9). A woman named Junia may very well have been an apostle (Rom. 16:7), someone to whom the risen Jesus appeared and whom Jesus charged to go and witness to his resurrection. Phoebe was a deacon (Rom. 16:1).

The apostle Paul regularly had co-workers who were women. Lydia played a major role in founding the church at Philippi (Acts 16:15). Euodia and Syntyche would later work with Paul there (Phil. 4:2-3). Most prominent of all was Priscilla, who seems to have been the dominant ministry force in a husband-wife ministry team. She is usually mentioned first when she and her husband are mentioned. God used her to found both the churches at Corinth (Acts 18:18) and Ephesus (18:19), not least to disciple Apollos (18:26).

The ministry of women to men is exactly what we would expect. The Spirit fills all people equally, and God can and does call anyone to ministry.

4. However, there are two passages that are sometimes used to feed the hearts of those who just do not want women to minister to men. And it is not just men who sometimes resist the Spirit on this score. Sometimes women resist other women in ministry more than men do.

The first is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which instructs women to be silent in the assembly. [2] However, since wives are praying and prophesying in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11, these verses cannot be referring to spiritual speech but to disruptive speech. Indeed, 14:35 instructs these disorderly women to ask their own husbands questions at home, which indicates the problem is one of disruption, not "a woman's place."

The other is 1 Timothy 2:12-15. This verse warns Timothy about wives teaching their husbands or behaving autocratically toward them. [3] There is much that is unique and strange about this passage, not least the statement that wives are "saved" through childbearing or the suggestion that they remain in transgression because of Eve's sin. The weighty theological truth is that Christ died for all sins, including the sins of Eve and that no sin can stand in force against the power of his atonement.

Many have thus sought something in the context of 1 Timothy to explain a verse that seems uncharacteristic of Paul. For example, some suggest that the role of women at the Temple of Artemis was having a negative impact on the church. Others suggest Ephesus had a problem with widows serving as catalysts of false teaching. Still others suggest that 1 Timothy reflects the late first century church and its increased institutionalization in the light of false teaching.

It is important that we need not explain every verse. This impulse is actually dangerous, for it opens the door to what we might call the Pharisaic principle or the fundamentalist principle. The Pharisaic principle is the impulse to try to undo the weightier principles of God and Scripture with individual verses. It is rather on the level of the individual verse and passage that we are most likely to find the contextual and the unclear.

Both in terms of the weightier principles of Scripture (that the Spirit fills everyone equally, that God does not show favoritism) and in terms of the actual practice of the early church (where God used women to minister to men), 1 Timothy 2:12 is the strange verse.

5. Kristina LaCelle Peterson and others have shown that women continued to minister and play leadership roles in the church for several centuries. The pseudonymous Acts and Paul and Thecla may arguably preserve authentic memory that women ministered alongside Paul. This particular book from the second century was predictably squelched.

Perpetua was a late second century martyr who apparently served in some role of leadership. The late second century also saw a number of female leaders in the Montanist movement, a charismatic movement with an end times flavor. Women may even have been bishops in the first few centuries of the church. Inscriptions have been found referring to women as "episcopa."

Charismatic movements, because they focus so much on the Holy Spirit, frequently open the door for women to speak for God, because the Spirit is the great equalizer. This was certainly true of the holiness movement of the 1800s and early 1900s, which focused on the Holy Spirit before the Pentecostal movement even began. The sermon of the first woman ordained in the United States was preached by one of the founders of my own church in 1853.

Women often were preachers in full standing for the holiness tradition, and the holiness movement strongly participated in the women's rights movement of the late 1800s. The rights that they were fighting for then are now accepted by all today, such as the right of women to vote, own property, and so forth. At the turn of the twentieth century, no one blinked an eye for a woman to be on the pulpit preaching a revival in a holiness church.

It was only after World War 2, when men in the broader culture began to feel threatened by the inroads women were making in the workplace and public sphere, that holiness churches pulled back from women in ministry alongside conservative forces in the rest of the country. The last decade has seen a significant return to first principles here in holiness traditions.

God can and does call people of all types to ministry. Woe to those who stand in the way of someone God has called.

Next week: PC6: A Theology of Calling

[1] Traditionally, we have called people "missionaries" who are called to leave their own culture and bring the good news of Christ to a different culture or from one people to another people.

[2] Along with other scholars like Gordon Fee and Richard Hays, I do not actually believe these verses were in the original version of 1 Corinthians, but that they were added to the text at a very early point in its transmission.

[3] While there is debate, "wife" is the most natural translation of gyne when it is used in conjunction with the word aner, and the immediate mention of Adam and Eve, as well as childbearing, suggests that the husband-wife relationship is what is primarily in view in 1 Timothy 2:12.

E. P. Sanders' Paul

Since Mike Bird ordered a copy of Sanders' new book on Paul, I decided I needed to. Read the Preface and Introduction over a jelly filled donut and a late afternoon waiting to pick up kids.

I like it. Not only is the print big enough to soothe my almost 50 year old eyes, but this is the stuff I miss in biblical scholarship. Someone trying to be a historian for a change.

I appreciated the Preface. Sanders basically got writer's block after 4 books in four years and a fifth in six. I've been wondering where he was for the last twenty years. :-) I feel that pain. I've been trying to finish my next scholarly book for three or four years (and with the same patient editor). Fingers crossed for the end of the month.

There is a gentleness to the introduction that Sanders probably didn't have in his earlier years. This is a kindler, gentler Sanders. There was a time when his words of Joachim Jeremias were so harsh that some German scholars refused to be in the same conference with him.

The Introduction was a breath of fresh air. No, I won't agree with him on everything, but this is the old school historical stuff that has a kind of "just the facts ma'am" quality to it I like. I have faith. The part I'm needing more help with is the history.

Here are some interesting features he announces:

• He's changed his mind on a development in Paul's thought. He now thinks that Paul's thought did develop and that it is helpful to treat the books in order. His order is interesting. I agree with some disagree with others. He's not going to engage the six books that are debated (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus).
• He thinks Dunn made a mistake to focus so heavily on Romans in formulating Paul's theology. Forgive me Jimmy for agreeing.
• Here's an interesting quote: "One must distinguish Paul's arguments from his conclusions" (xvi). And another: "Paul's conclusions are generally perfectly clear, but the logic of his reasoning is often difficult to follow" (xxix). "We should assume that his conclusions were what mattered to him" (xxviii).
• "Often finding the best argument to support one of our conclusions requires some experimentation" (xxviii).

I wrote at the end of his introduction, "It's nice to be retired." :-)

The Story Within the Bible 2

Introduction

The Story within the Bible
There is a story "inside" the Bible, so to speak. Different people and groups put that story together in slightly different ways. But it is a story that starts in a way even before the first verse of Genesis (the first book) and one that continues a long time after the last verse of Revelation (the last book).

This story is the story of God, in the first place. Christians believe that God has always existed and will continue to exist forever. In fact, Christians believe that God is the only "necessary" being--he is the only thing that exists that must exist. Everything else could come and go. Everything else could in theory be destroyed. But God is existence. Nothing can destroy him.

The story "inside" the Bible is the story Christians hear when they read the Bible. It is a story not only about God but especially about God's relationship with humanity. The story of humanity started in the plans of God but hit the ground running with God's creation of humanity and the world in Genesis 1. Although the story continues forever, the Bible leaves off in Revelation 22 with a world restored to what God wanted it to be, a perfect world where God and humanity live in perfect fellowship forever.

You might think of the Old Testament and the New Testament as part one and part two of the story. The first part of the story focuses on God's relationship with one particular group within humanity, a people called Israelites. They are the ancestors of Jews today. Think of it as a test case. God reaches out to one of the peoples of the earth in order to "pilot" salvation.

Salvation is, well, saving something. In the Christian understanding of the Bible's story, humanity is not currently where it should be. God created humanity to have a strong connection and relationship with him. [1] But humanity as a whole currently does not have that strong connection. Christians read the story of Adam and Eve in the second and third chapters of the Bible (Genesis 2-3) to indicate that we currently find ourselves alienated from God in our default state. [2]

In the analysis of the story within the Bible, a thinker named N. T. Wright sees the first three of a five act drama. [3] The first is the creation of the world. The second is the "Fall," when Adam and Eve alienate us all from God. The third is then the story of God walking with Israel in the pages of the Old Testament. God gives them a law that showed us not only what right and wrong basically looks like (the Ten Commandments) but that also shows us how God meets specific people with their particular needs.

In Wright's analysis, the New Testament then clues us in on the rest of the story. "Act 4" is Jesus, where God actually becomes a human being and models the perfect human life for us. The "act" while he is on earth ends with his horrific death by being nailed to a cross, his "crucifixion" by the Romans, who were in control of all the land around the Mediterranean Sea at the time. With Jesus' death, God showed us that he loves us, that he identifies with our pain and suffering, and he satisfied the order of things (more on that to come).

But Jesus' death was not the end of him. God raises him from the dead and enthrones him as the king of the universe. He will come again, in the final act, and he will finalize salvation and the restoration of the world. In particular, those who die before he returns will rise from the dead just like he did. In fact, he has made it possible.

The final act is then the current age, the age in which God walks with humanity through what we call the "Church," the collection of all those who have confessed that Jesus is king. God has made his presence and power known to all those who trust in him, a down payment of the final and full restoration of humanity that is still to come.

That is the story within the Bible. It is the story of God's walk with humanity, starting with creation, persisting through our alienation from God, but that will end in the restoration and completion of everything. Christians believe that the world will once more enjoy a strong connection and relationship with God again. Right will prevail, and injustice will come to an end.

[1] Traditionally, we refer to God as a "he," although God doesn't literally have any sexual organs. In a world where most leaders and kings were men, it is understandable that God primarily revealed himself in male terms, although female images are used of God in the Bible as well (e.g., Hos. 11:3-4).

[2] Jews do not read the story in quite that way. It makes a difference whether you read the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament or whether you just read the "Jewish Scriptures" on their own.

[3] N. T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011).

The Story of the Christian Bible 1

Introduction
Most of us have seen a Bible. Some of us have several of them in our homes. You can find them in most book stores. You even find them sometimes in hotel rooms.

The Bible has been the most influential book in human history. By far more copies have been made and sold of it than any other book. There are over six billion copies currently in print and, in the electronic age, there are still millions of regular searches and downloads of it. For over 1500 years it has served as the most important book of Western culture in particular, the book that most shaped the minds of Europeans and Americans in this recent period of history when these nations were rising to power.

In the United States, people's understanding of the Bible can play a significant role in politics. Some of the strongest voices in American politics are individuals who associate their views with the Bible. This fact makes the content of the Bible of interest even to those who do not consider themselves Christians. What is this book that plays such a significant role in some people's view of the world?

For those who would identify themselves as Christians, there is also a moment of truth here. Do you really understand this book you claim is so important to you? What if some of us really like the idea of the Bible but really don't know much about what is actually in it? What if some are more ready to fight for the "Bible" than actually to read it? Could it be that some of what some people think is the Bible is really just their own subculture, views they grew up with.

By the same token, some people who think they do not like the Bible actually may not like the attitudes and views of some people who claim to be representing the Bible. Would it not be fascinating if some of those attitudes and views turned out to be misrepresentations? It is at least worth a look to see.

The Bible is actually not a single book but a collection of dozens of books that have been collected into a library of sorts. In fact, the Bible is actually two Bibles. The first part of the Christian Bible is called the "Old Testament," and it was the Bible of Jews before the second part was even written. Even today, Jews who are not Christians consider the first part of the Bible alone to be their Bible.

These books were written over as much as a thousand years. They were written in three different languages, before the English language even existed. They were written in some quite different circumstances. At some points, we get peeks into a world that was quite different from the world we know today.

Yet many people believe that God speaks to them regularly through these books, as if there is no distance between now and then at all. Every Sunday, millions of people come together and hear the words of this book read. Many would say that God uses this book to give them hope and purpose for their lives. Many would say that God uses this book to help them when they face grief or suffering.

* On the one hand, we want to catch a glimpse of what these books were really about to begin with. We owe them that respect. We also want to see how these books have formed two world religions--Judaism and Christianity. If you are a Christian, we hope you will find this journey through these books refreshing and inspiring. These are your books! If you are not a Christian, we hope you will find this book as fascinating and intriguing a book as we believe it is.

Psalm 16 and Proverbs 4:10-13

Psalm 16
1. The original sense of Psalm 16 presents some difficulties in Hebrew, and translators have always done their best to render good sense of it. It is possible that verse 4 holds the key. It might be translated, "As for the holy ones who are in the land, these even were the glorious ones. All my delight was in them."

The psalmist then speaks of his conversion to serve YHWH alone. "Those who choose another god multiply their sorrows." The psalmist will [no longer] speak their names or give them drink offerings of blood (16:4). "The LORD is my chosen portion and my cup."

2. The psalmist now looks to God for protection. "You are my lord, YHWH" (16:1-2).

What a great inheritance as an Israelite! We remember that not all of Israel worshiped YHWH exclusively, even though YHWH was distinctively the God of Israel. But what a great inheritance, to have YHWH as a heritage: "The boundary lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; I have a goodly heritage."

The LORD gives the psalmist counsel. YHWH gives counsel through the psalmist's "kidneys" (16:7), "heart" (16:9), and possibly "liver" (16:9). The LORD thus speaks to the psalmist through his inner being, his conscience, his intuitions and values.

God shows the psalmist "the path of life. In your presence there is fullness of joy" (16:11).

3. Of interest from a New Testament perspective is 16:10. The original meaning of this verse in context is straightforward. Sheol is the realm of the dead and a metonymy for death. The psalmist is saying that the LORD will protect him and keep him from dying.

The Holy Spirit led the author of Acts to hear in this verse a resonance with Jesus' resurrection. God did not "abandon" Jesus to the realm of the dead, nor let his body see corruption (Acts here is engaging the Greek translation of the psalm). The argument Peter makes in Acts 2:25-32 understands Psalm 16 in a "fuller sense," leading to the true theological point that God raised Jesus from the dead. The argument itself is based on the framework of understanding in that day.

Proverbs 4:10-13
These verses repeat what has been said more than once before. The son of the wise speaker needs to listen. Solomon will lead the son on the path of wisdom, a path that leads to long life and not stumbling.

Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 12 and Proverbs 3:19-26
Psalm 13 and Proverbs 3:27-31
Psalm 14 and Proverbs 3:34-35
Psalm 15 and Proverbs 4:1-9

ET9: Capital punishment should be reserved for extreme circumstances, if used at all.

This is the ninth post on Christian ethics in an ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.

We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. The third set was on sacraments. This final section is on Christian ethics.
_______________________________
Capital punishment should be reserved for extreme circumstances, if used at all.

1. It is obvious that no Israelite understood the sixth commandment to address capital punishment, death as a penalty for wrongdoing. The Law repeatedly calls for death as a punishment. As a small sampling:

• Whoever strikes their parent is to be put to death (Exod. 21:15)
• A witch is to be put to death (Exod. 22:18).
• A man who has sex with his father's wife is to be put to death (Lev. 20:11).
• Two men who have homosexual sex are to be put to death (Lev. 20:13).
• A stubborn, disobedient son is to be put to death (Deut. 21:18-21).

There was even a law about how long the body of someone punished by hanging should remain on tree: "When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day" (Deut. 21:22-23).

So it is clear that no Israelite connected the command not to kill with capital punishment.

2. We do not apply these punishments today. For one thing, Christians are generally not in a position to decide the punishments for crimes. We belong to governments that are elected and run on principles that allow for a constituency much larger than those who might be Christians within them. The New Testament itself was written under similar conditions.

Indeed, it is significant that the New Testament largely ignores or even opposes these sorts of punishments, even in instances where the same ethic continues. The apostle Paul condemns homosexual sex (e.g., Rom. 1:27) and the sex of a man with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5:1). But he does not in any way suggest that the Corinthians find a way to put this man to death. And while he says that all of the sins of Romans 1 are worthy of death--from idolatry to gossiping (1:32)--Paul does not in any way suggest the implication of this principle.

After all, "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). We all stand worthy of death because "the wages of sin is death" (6:23).

Indeed, the only place in the New Testament where death is suggested as a punishment is in John 7:53-8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery. We should be somewhat cautious of this story, because it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and was not likely part of the original text of John. Nevertheless, the story strongly resonates with Christians and some have suggested it may contain authentic historical tradition.

In this story, men bring a woman to be stoned for adultery. Jesus suggests that the person who has never sinned among them should throw the first stone. One of the main take aways seems similar to Romans 3:23. Since everyone has sinned, everyone is worthy of death. But Jesus is more interested in redeeming people than punishing them.

3. Dare we say that there were contextual dimensions to the punishments of the Old Testament? Punishments that we would consider extreme or even inhumane today were business as usual in the Ancient Near East (ANE). In fact, the trajectory of the Old Testament in its context is toward limiting such punishment.

The command to take a hanged body down prevents the kind of long term shaming and gloating over the death of another person that takes place when a body or head is left on public display indefinitely. The "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" rule was originally meant in the ANE to limit revenge. In other words, you cannot take two eyes if the person who wronged you only took one of yours.

How does one quantify the dishonor of a spouse who has an affair? In the ANE, it was equated with death. An eye for an eye meant death for disgrace. That is not an equation in almost any context today.

4. Christians today are increasingly opposed to the death penalty, even for crimes like murder. Right or wrong, we must admire the spirit of such individuals. If we are to err on the side of justice or mercy, clearly the New Testament calls us to err on the side of the latter, for "mercy triumphs over judgment" (Jas. 2:13). The Spirit of Christ is a spirit of forgiveness, not a spirit of vengeance (e.g., Rom. 12:19-21).

Still, Paul seems to assume that one legitimate function of Roman government is capital punishment. He writes that "authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer" (Rom. 13:4). Presumably Paul has punishments for crimes like murder in view. At least Paul did not understand the law of love to contradict capital punishment in some circumstances.

We should also distinguish between the functions of government and the personal ethic that Jesus taught. Jesus taught that the default Christian attitude should be one of turning the other cheek, of submission to those who oppress us (e.g., Matt. 5:38-42). But governments are protective structures that function differently than individuals. If Christian individuals ask "What would Jesus do?" governments more ask, "What would God the judge do?"

5. So we find ourselves once again applying the three purposes of justice to the question of capital punishment: 1) justice for redemption, 2) justice for protection, and 3) justice by removal.

It is a hallmark of modern society, heavily influenced by Christian values, that penal systems have sometimes been viewed as places of rehabilitation as much as places of punishment. To be sure, the lower, less mature view of prisons as mere places of punishment does surface frequently. It may indeed be the unexamined assumption of most.

But a Christian view of "discipline" sees penalty strongly through the lens of redemption. Hebrews 12 strongly suggests that God's discipline primarily works to reform us, to steer us in the right direction. Even in the case of the man who was having sex with his father's wife--an act the Old Testament punishes with death--Paul indicates that the purpose of handing him over to Satan is so that he might be saved in spirit (1 Cor. 5:5). [1]

6. Of course one of the principal motivations for discipline is also protection. If someone is liable to murder, then he or she must be removed from society in some way to protect society. If someone is liable to steal, then that person needs to be removed from a context where he or she can steal.

Redemption and protection do not have to contradict. They can both work at the same time. Nevertheless, the protection of the many is a higher priority than the redemption of an individual who refuses to be reformed.

7. Penalty can also serve a higher function still. It can serve as a deterrent of further wrongdoing. If a person cannot be prevented from wrongdoing for higher reasons, many can be deterred because of fear of punishment. We must reckon seriously with the possibility that the lighter the penalty, the less motivation not to do wrong.

This dynamic gets at a systemic issue. Government should normally enact punishment without mercy. Individuals show mercy, and some mercy can be shown in the dispensation of punishment. But the existence of penalty for crime is essential to the order of society. A person's soul can be redeemed but it still be important for them to experience consequences for the good of the stability of society at large.

So a person convicted of a heinous crime may be forgiven by God and yet still need to live out his or her sentence for the good of society's stability.

8. Is there a place for capital punishment? On the one hand, someone might argue that a person should be given as long as possible a time to repent of his or her sin. A life sentence, one might argue, provides a greater likelihood that a person will be redeemed than a death sentence.

It is not clear that this idea is true. A death sentence provides a framework for repentance, whereas a life sentence may simply foster indifference. Similarly, those whose hearts are truly hardened are not likely to ever repent.

There are some crimes, it seems, that are so heinous, that the very existence of the person seems to be an affront to the love of God and neighbor. Those who planned and implemented the Holocaust, serial killers, leaders of genocide--the very existence of these sorts of individuals are the very stuff that hell is made of. If hell is a reality, then "justice by removal" does not contradict love of God and neighbor in such instances.

9. Yet we should have strong caution here. We are speaking of a relatively small number of situations. And we should remember that some of those who have been put on death row or even put to death have turned out to be innocent. We cannot say with confidence that our legal system is fully reliable. This doubt in itself suggests that the death penalty should be used very sparingly.

Further, it may be that the Church is increasingly moving away from the death penalty. If God does indeed allow the church to "bind and loose" certain teachings (cf. Matt. 16:19), this may be one teaching that the Church is increasingly "binding." Who is to say that this trajectory is not of the Holy Spirit. It may be that Christians in a generation will nearly unanimously consider it unchristian to favor the death penalty.

Next Sunday: ET10. Violence in self-defense can sometimes be justified.

[1] Some scholars would suggest that prescribed punishments and laws in the Ancient Near East often served more as statements of values and ideals rather than actual practices. If that is true, then the Old Testament laws were never actually a matter of regular practice.

Reinventing Wesleyan Publishing House

1. For a few years now, Wesleyan Publishing House (WPH) has been declining. I suppose that's no surprise given the general state of the publishing industry right now. In the absence of any real change, it's been dying a slow death. Fewer and fewer staff, no real vision (unless the plan is to let it fall under its own weight). Just the General Board checking the numbers each meeting and seeing a bad trajectory.

I think the situation has now reached a ripeness for reinvention. Any forces that might have fought against doing something innovative are pretty much gone. Now is an opportune moment to do something I think we can be quite good at--innovating.

2.  For example, I've heard it suggested that the main divisions of HQ should be the point people for initiating and then marketing WPH books. So a book would only get published if Spiritual Formation, Education/Clergy Care, etc. were willing to take it under their wings and do the initial underwriting of the project.

They do it already and have sometimes done it in tension with WPH. These leaders are the ones out there in the churches anyway. Their leaders and staff have often been great marketers. How better to insure that the books produced at HQ are useful to the church?

3. There needs to be a full shift to a print-on-demand model that does not require any in-house sales or shipping. As an extreme example, WPH could do all its sales and shipping through Amazon. It could have a website that is basically a glorified astore. I don't know if a publisher like Wipf & Stock would be be willing to be a publishing arm for a denominational imprint.

In the print-on-demand model, a book isn't printed until it is ordered. No book ever goes out of print, and every book can make a profit. With Wipf & Stock, there is an initial fee. But they even have editors on staff. Then the book is permanently available and printed on demand.

4. Bottom line. Let's not ever use the word "close." Let's use the word "re-structure." There's no reason for closure. (P.S. Why not let the colleges in on the game too? Then IWU could merge its Triangle Publishing into the enterprise).

Seminary PC4. Ministerial Calling in History

The series, "Seminary in a Nutshell," continues. My featured text today is the first volume of Justo González's The Story of Christianity. Thus far:

Preface

The Pastor and Context
1. The Domains of Ministry
2. The Calling of a Minister
3. Ministerial Calling in Scripture

1. The process of entering ministry became increasingly institutional and less charismatic as the first generation of Christian leaders began to die off. We find traces of conflict over who should lead already in 1 Clement, a letter from around the year AD96 from the "bishop" of Rome to the church at Corinth.

Some in the Corinthian church were apparently disgruntled with their leaders and so tried to remove them. In response, Clement presents an idea that has come to be known as apostolic succession. The first apostles, like Paul, appointed "overseers" and deacons in the churches they founded. These overseers may have originally have been lead elders, but by the end of the first century, their power had already increased enough for us to call them, "bishops."

Clement tells the Corinthians that they do not have the authority simply to remove such individuals from leadership (41-42). Rather, those leaders remain bishops for life, and when they are about to pass, they can appoint their own successors. Alternatively, other leaders of repute can appoint replacements "with the consent of the whole church" (42).

This "episcopal" structure would largely stay in place until modern times. Throughout the centuries, there was little thought about calling. Individuals emerged as potential leaders in various ways. They were recognized by existing leaders. Then they were appointed to ministry by ordination.

2. As a side note, apostolic succession would become an issue for some circles after the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s. Who is genuinely a minister? In America especially, with a resurgence of "charismatic" callings, you had now many "prophetic" ministers who stood outside the unbroken chain of "apostolic succession" from the earliest apostles to today.

For example, in Baptist churches, ministers are ordained by a local congregation. Even the first "Methodist" ministers were first ordained by John Wesley, who was not a bishop but only a priest in the Church of England. He thus did not have the authority to ordain. The events of the American Revolution led him to ordain Thomas Coke as a general superintendent in 1784, [1] who then returned to America and ordained Francis Asbury. The two became the first Methodist bishops in the United States. [2]

So the notion of apostolic succession, still in play in many circles, is that a person must be ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who is in an unbroken chain of ordination going back all the way to the first apostles. My own church, The Wesleyan Church, has no formal position on this issue but informally would generally reject it as an absolute. [3] Nevertheless, there is a process of ordination that requires the recognition of one's calling by the church. One does not become a minister out of the blue.

3. The institutionalization of Christian ministry did not of course eliminate charismatic and lay ministry. It squelched it to be sure. But there will always be "informal" leadership and influence no matter what official structure you put in place.

The Montanists were a charismatic group in the late 100s who believed in prophecy and stood somewhat outside the official structure of the church. They were condemned in large part for that reason. Like many peripheral groups today, some of their ideas were weird--such as the idea that some of the towns in their area of Turkey (then western Phrygia) were going to be the new Jerusalem.

In most respects, however, their beliefs were the same as mainstream Christianity. They were condemned more for their charismatic nature than their beliefs per se. Women played a prominent role, as they usually do in prophetic movements. Two women in particular, Priscilla and Maximilla were equal leaders in the movement with Montanus. They had ecstatic experiences and made prophecies.

Traces of the movement would continue for a couple centuries.

4. The rise of asceticism--individuals devoted to rigorous physical discipline--is another example of somewhat spontaneous ministry arising in the church apart from the official structure. However, the ascetics were often inwardly rather than outwardly focused.

Anthony the Great was the first great ascetic, who lived from about 250-350. He is often called the "father of all monks." [4] His life thus spanned the time from the great Christian persecutions to the first decades after Christianity became a legal religion (in 313). Born to wealthy parents, he gave all his wealth away and largely went to live a simple, disciplined life in the desert. He is thus the first of a group known as the "Desert Fathers."

Some of these "charismatic ascetics," if you would, were somewhat bizarre. Simeon Stylites (late 300s to early 400s), for example, spend some 37 years living on top of a pillar, trying to withdraw from the world vertically. Children would bring him bits of bread.

These ascetics were known for their wisdom and were sought out by those who reverenced them. Some of their sayings are collected in The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. They were also thought to have healing power.

5. Monasteries were another way in which the Spirit arguably worked to supplement the normal ministries of the church. If Anthony the Great represents a real turning point in the rise of spiritual individuals who were not priests, Benedict in the early 500s represents a real turning point for official monasticism because of the Benedictine Rule that he developed.

His origins, however, were not priestly. Like Anthony, he started off as a hermit. His calling did not come through the ordinary channels. Nevertheless, his rule indicates that there were already monasteries at the beginning of his life, and he would found a dozen. He died at the most famous one he founded at Monte Cassino in Italy.

Throughout church history, there have been several monastic orders that have arisen. These orders, like the Benedictine order, include both priests and non-priests ("laypeople"). A person feels a "calling" to them and can join upon taking vows of "poverty, chastity, and obedience" to the rules of each particular order.

6. The Protestant Reformation of the 1500s opened up the door for a return to charismatic calling to ministry on a major scale. When Martin Luther stepped outside the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, there ceased to be any common institution that could police the ordination or calling of individuals to ministry. The Lutheran movement would develop its own institutions. Then John Calvin in Switzerland would develop his own standards and institutions.

But wherever there was a space in power, there was the possibility that some individual or group would claim to be called of God outside the usual channels.

The "Radical Reformation" is where we first see this dynamic clearly. When Luther left the Roman Catholic Church, he still retained most of its theology and a good deal of its sense of structure. He and John Calvin still practiced infant baptism, for example, They still had ordination. By contrast, Radical Reformation would reject much more.

Luther, Calvin, and others claimed to be returning to the Bible as the map for Christianity. The radical reformers took this return much further. One group, the Socinians, even rejected the Trinity. This movement naturally gave rise to the "Anabaptists," a group that did not believe in baptizing infants but that only those old enough to believe should be baptized. They became known as "re-baptizers" or "ana-baptists."

Many of the leaders of this more radical movement had not been ordained as priests before the "Reformation," the split with the Roman Catholic Church. Some of those who had been ordained insisted on being re-ordained, just as they had been re-baptized. The key point is that ordination was, at least for a time, no longer a matter of an institutional church. Their later heirs, the Baptists, would ordain on the level of the local church, as we mentioned above.

7. American Christianity has especially delighted in the story of the person who is spontaneously called by God completely outside of any institutional church. This delight is often accompanied by a disdain for formal education. Sometimes even idolized is the uneducated person whom God calls out of the blue and leads to a tremendous ministry.

Dwight L. Moody, with no more than a fifth grade education, was perhaps the most influential American preacher of the 1800s. He did not have any formal ministerial training but founded three schools. Billy Sunday was a baseball player turned preacher, whose demonstrative preaching drew massive crowds in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Both of these are models of the American preacher whom God "anoints" powerfully without any formal ministerial training.

8. The twentieth century saw the rise of the charismatic movement, which then spread powerfully into Latin America. With an emphasis on the Spirit, the possibility of any individual receiving a prophetic word from the Lord has returned. The house church movement especially rejects the idea of some individuals being set aside as ministers in distinction from others in the church.

The late twentieth century also saw the rise of the idea that all Christians are ministers and should participate in the ministries of the church. The change in interpretation of Ephesians 4:12 illustrates this shift well. Previously, Christians understood the role of ministers as "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (KJV). Now the first comma is removed. The role of ministers is now "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (NIV). [5]

Now all God's people are ministers, and the distinction between minister and layperson almost disappears. The role of ministers becomes the equipping of others to do ministry, more than the job of ministry itself. Again, we will strategize about appropriating these models of ordained ministry for the church today at the end of the chapter.

Next week: PC5. God can call anyone to ordained ministry.

[1] Coke was already an ordained priest of the Church of England.

[2] Asbury insisted on the title of bishop over Wesley's opposition. Wesley wanted them to be "general superintendents." Asbury also insisted that all ordinations be ratified democratically, following the spirit of the newly formed United States.

[3] The Wesleyan Church is generally descended from those first "Methodist Episcopals," Coke and Asbury. However, the descendancy is complicated. Half of its heritage comes through the "Wesleyan Methodist Church," which separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1841 over slavery. It's other main parent body, the "Pilgrim Holiness Church" was originally composed of a number of "comeouters" from assorted churches around the turn of the twentieth century.

[4] Although there were ascetics before him. He was mentored by one, for example.

[5] Despite how popular this interpretation, adopted by all modern translations, it seems anachronistic, an almost predictable shift given American democratic culture.

Jerking Indiana Students Around

This is from the Marion Community Schools website, published in the Marion Chronicle Tribune, signed by the county school superintendents. My freshman daughter Sophie still faces close to ten more standardized tests even though she's already passed all the tests my oldest step-daughters ever had to pass, caught in the cracks of this madness:

"Here is a look at events that have had a profound impact on our students in Marion, and students around the state:

• Summer 2010: Indiana approves the Common Core Standards, and schools across the state began to develop curriculum and identify supporting instructional resources. 
• 2013/early 2014: (after three years of planning by educators to transition to the new set of standards), Indiana pauses and then formally withdraws from Common Core Standards. 
• April 2014: Indiana State Board of Education formally approves Indiana College and Career Ready Standards (leaving school districts only a few weeks to develop new curriculum and identify supporting resources prior to the start of the 2014-15 academic year). 
• February 2015: Newly developed ISTEP+ test is approved. Educators soon learn it will take 20 hours for students to complete the test. After public outcry, state officials quickly move to cut test down to 12 hours. Different forms of the test are administered to different students, even within the same grade level in a single school district. 
• Spring 2015: New College and Career Readiness test is administered to sophomores. This is separate from and in addition to the End-of-Course Assessments that have been a main component of school accountability at the high school level. At Marion, only a small percentage of students take the additional CCR test in Spring 2015, because information on this test and its impact on school accountability is unclear going into the testing period. 
• Summer through October 2015: A committee works with Indiana of Department of Education to determine passing scores for the new test. During this process it is discovered that paper/pencil versions of the assessment were less difficult than the online versions. IDOE decides to award bonus points to all students who took online versions. Many questions arise as to the validity of this process. 
• Mid-December/January 2015: Finalized ISTEP+ scores are expected to be released and subsequently unembargoed for media/public discussion. This is just a few weeks before the next round of ISTEP+ testing is set to begin (leaving very little time to adjust curriculum and supporting resources based on what the 2014-15 scores reveal). 

"The Bottom Line: Schools had little time to prepare for the changes in standards and assessments that were swiftly enacted last year, and we are still striving to understand what is expected this spring, when we will take the new ISTEP+ again!"

Stephen L. Edwards, interim superintendent, Madison-Grant United School Corporation
Tab McKenzie, superintendent, Mississinewa Community School Corporation
Brad Lindsay, superintendent, Marion Community Schools
Joel Martin, superintendent, Oak Hill United School Corporation

New Year's Resolutions 2016

And now for the requite New Year's Day post.

Looking Back
1. A change in roles was already in play a year ago, although few people knew it at the time. I think I had a great first semester back in the School of Theology and Ministry. It's a superb team under a superb leader (I jotted down some reflections on my first semester).

Send us your kids and, if you're graduating this year and twiddling your thumbs trying to figure out what to do, come do our MA in Christian Ministry (and take me and Abson Joseph for graduate level Bible, John Drury for theology, and much more). The content is the equivalent of an MDIV degree in two years!

2. Here are last year's resolutions. How did I do?

• The rest of my New Testament series was finally published with WPH.
• I did a little reading this year. Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy, Reading Philo, Holy Jumpers, I (Still) Believe, A Tale of Three Kings. I dabbled in several more.
• As usual I ran okay in the summer, not so well in the winters and fall. 
• I almost reached my goal for the year inching through a physics textbook. I make videos to help myself solidify each section.
• I self-published the first part of my Sunday "theology in bullet points" series, the section on God. The material for the second section on Christ exists but not yet edited. The whole series is almost done.
• I read more Wright, a little Campbell and Gadamer. But they still sit on a depressing and growing pile of books.

Looking Forward
1. I'd like to finish writing two academic books this year. May the first one be done by the end of January, the second by mid-year.

2. I'd like to finish some more of my self-publishing ventures: the theology series and maybe one or two of my new "Seminary in a Nutshell" series. I'm also thinking of putting together my women in ministry thoughts in a slightly more extensive form, since the Wesleyan booklet isn't available on Amazon.

3. I have a stack of books... many books I hope to wander through this year. The first one I hope to start with is one recommended by Keith Drury: Revolution by Gene Edwards:


4. My step-daughter Stacy gave Angie and me fitbits for Christmas. So I hope to run again in the spring-summer, but I've already hit 10,000 steps a day for the past six days.

5. The usual physics and math resolution (note to self, 562, 376, 155). I'm also hoping finally to finish Peter Collier's A Most Incomprehensible Thing by the end of this year.


Happy New Year!

The Assembly of God (Gal. 1:13)

Exploring a line of thinking this morning that I'm sure is sixty years old but not finding the paper trail.

1. In most of Paul's writings, he uses the word "church" (ekklesia) in regard to local assemblies, house churches. So he writes to the church, singular, at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) and Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:1). But he writes to the churches, plural, in Galatia (1:2).

One interesting variation is in Galatians 1:13. Here he talks about persecuting "the church of God" in Jerusalem. There is something "ground zero" about this reference. It doesn't seem that he is referring to just another church--the church of God in Jerusalem. He was persecuting the church of God.

Nor do I think this is an abstract reference to the Church universal like we find in Ephesians or Colossians. In fact, this is one shift in these two letters from Paul's use in his earlier letters. In Galatians 1:13 Paul is not referring to "the Church" in a universal sense like Ephesians. [Indeed, it is a source of endless frustration to me how much discussion just mows over these sorts of revealing distinctions.]

No, there is something else going on here, a glimpse into primordial Christianity. I believe the earliest community in Jerusalem saw themselves in some way as the assembly of God.

2. Paul gives us a hint of what James, Peter, John, and others were thinking when he tells us they were known as "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Pillars of what? Pillars of a temple, I presume (cf. Rev. 3:12).

Herein is a hint, I suspect, that the earliest Christian community saw themselves as a spiritual temple of sorts. Paul of course will use this imagery in 1 Corinthians 3:16 when he calls the Corinthian church a temple of God. He uses imagery of spiritual sacrifice more than once elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 12:1-2, 15:16; Phil. 2:17, 4:18).

So the earliest "church of God" in Jerusalem was a temple of sorts, it would seem. Was it a replacement temple? I think it is at least safe to say that it was a parallel temple. Yet what do we make of the picture in Acts of an early church that participated freely in the temple? It is true that this is "Luke" giving us a picture of an orderly community, so it would fit his thematic tendencies to omit temple critique (he lets Stephen slip by).

Perhaps there is a middle ground. Perhaps, like Jesus, like Stephen, like the Essenes, the earliest church had a critique of the temple. But perhaps they did not yet connect the dots to its complete replacement by the community. Critique short of replacement.

3. I mentioned the Essenes. I'll admit I find it hard not to think that there is some influence here. Not going in the same direction as Jesus, I don't think. He was on a path of inclusion. They were on a path of separation. But the earliest church was a mixture. There were Pharisees in it, for example (Acts 15:5). James clearly insisted on keeping purity rules (Gal. 2:12).

In short, I find no compelling reason to think that the earliest church might not have taken at least the language of Qumran in thinking of themselves as the definitive yahad of God and have also taken the sense of the Essenes that they were a kind of parallel temple.

Here is a relevant passage in 1QS: "The council of the community shall be established in truth. It shall be an everlasting plantation, a house of holiness for Israel, an assembly of supreme holiness for Aaron. They shall be eyewitnesses to the truth at the judgment, and shall be the elect of goodwill who shall atone for the Land and pay to the wicked their reward. It shall be that tried wall, that 'precious cornerstone, whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place.' It shall be a most holy dwelling for Aaron with everlasting knowledge of the covenant of righteousness, and shall offer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a house of perfection and truth in Israel that they may establish a covenant according to the everlasting precepts.

"And they shall be an agreeable offering, atoning for the land and determining the judgment of wickedness, and there shall be no more iniquity. When they have been confirmed for two years in perfection of way by the authority of the community, they shall be set apart as holy within the council of the men of the community. And the interpreter shall not conceal from them, out of fear of the spirit of apostasy, any of those things hidden from Israel which have been discovered by him. And when these become members of the community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall separate from the habitation of ungodly men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare the way of Him, as it is written, 'Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a path for our God.'" (1QS 8.5-14)

It is very hard not read such passages and not eventually see a cumulative case for Essene influence on the early church, at least in language.

4. Even if we could make a plausible case for the impact of Essene language on the earliest believers in Jerusalem, we have no information to know exactly what the contours of that influence were. For example, it is easy enough to think that the earliest Christians saw themselves as an eschatological community. So here is the easiest point of contact with Qumran.

If parallel temple imagery was part of the Essenes' eschatological language, then it could be that they absorbed it along with the language of eschatological community. It would not thereby imply an end to the temple as an institution in itself, any more than the Qumran language implied the end of the temple as an institution. Those dots would not be connected until later, particularly after the temple was destroyed in AD70.

Some thoughts...

Top Ten Posts of 2015

From Previous Years
Following the usual trend, apart from my basic home page, my most visited pages were not from 2015 but from earlier years. Here is the top ten list from this year:

• #1 this year was my post on Socially Constructed Identity from 2010 (It was number 3 last year).
• #2 this year was a post on the Wesleyan flexibility on the subject of baptism from 2011 (It was #5 last year).
• #3 this year was my post on the lyrics of the children's song, "Sermon in Shoes," again from 2012 (I published it in conjunction with my father's death--it was #4 last year).
• #4 this year was "Famous Empiricists" from 2008 (#7 last year).
• #5 this year was again my clarification on a quote often attributed imprecisely to Socrates, "To know the good is to do the good." (It was #6 last year).
• #6 was on the "Four-Fold View of Scripture" from 2012 (#10 last year).
• #7 this year was my link to the Free Online Wesleyan Commentary with Biblegateway.com from 2013.
• #8 was "Famous Rationalists" from 2011 (#9 last year).
• #9 this year was "Leadership Summary 1" from 2012 (#8 last year).
• Finally, #10 this year was a piece from 2006 asking what the "Wesleyan" means in a Wesleyan university.

Top Ten of 2015
Now for the top ten posts actually from 2015. Again, many people do not actually click on the specific post but read it from the basic blog landing page.

And now, the top 10 posts from 2015:

10. The Coming "Remnant" College

9. Wesleyan-Arminian Reflections on Christ (from my theology in bullet points series)

8. The Walking Dead and Aikido

7. The Curious Case of Dr. Oord (when the elimination of his position was announced in April)

6. David Smith to be new Dean (May announcement)

5. I Still Believe (the Walter Brueggemann chapter)

4. The Next Phase of Schenck (announcement of my job change in February)

3. I Still Believe (the James Dunn chapter)

2. Tired of open theism? Buy my philosophy book. :-)

1. Your daughters will preach (from October)

Request Wednesdays: The Gospels and Politics

Last week was the first of "All Request Wednesdays." This week's question comes from Seth Cotton. How do different ways of reading the Gospels end up with different perspectives on politics? I hope that's the question you were asking. :-)

1. Albert Schweitzer pointed out a century ago that even top Jesus scholars generally create Jesus in their own image. There is diverse enough material in the Gospels, there is enough critical ambiguity that you can make Jesus into the person you want him to be.

So among scholars, pictures of Jesus generally coalesce into two basic types--the apocalyptic Jesus and Jesus the sage. The first picture of Jesus, which is currently the dominant one, sees Jesus as a preacher of "end times" or at least a radical in-breaking of God into history. The second sees Jesus more as a Solomon type who went around spreading wisdom.

In our current political climate, there are a number of popular portrayals of Jesus, some of which overlap: 1) Jesus the pacifist, 2) Jesus the liberal, 3) Jesus the in-your-face, anti-government type, 4) Jesus the in-your-face, anti-sin type. Some are used more to serve Democratic types and others more Republican types.

2. How do these relate to critical theories (part of the initial question)? In their own way, the Gospels themselves emphasize different aspects of Jesus and so suited different "political" purposes originally.

• Matthew is the "anti-Pharisee" Gospel, one of whose original purposes may have been to make it clear that the post-70 Pharisees were not the true heirs of Israel.
• Luke is the "good news to the poor" Gospel, which is hardest on the wealthy.
• John is the "in your face" Gospel, meant to lead to faith in Christ.
• Mark accentuates the limitations of the disciples and the human struggles of Jesus.

3. So it's not too hard to see which Gospels will be the favorites of those with different political agendas. Jesus' anti-Pharisee rhetoric in Matthew 23 or Jesus' hyper-clarity in John has easily served those who want an "in-your-face" Jesus.

So all you need to do is identify the type of person you want to condemn with the Pharisees or Jerusalem leaders. Do you want to resist education? Then accentuate Jesus against the Pharisees. Do you hate the government? Emphasize Jesus kicking money changers out of the temple or Jesus smarting off to Pilate.

Luke will be the favorite of the hippie Jesus. Jesus condemns the rich and emphasizes "good news for the poor" (Luke 4:18). Matthew 5 is the favorite for the pacifist, where Jesus says to turn the other cheek.

So there's something for everyone. Since all these Gospels are Scripture, you might argue that in themselves they give legitimacy to all the different political approaches at particular places and times.

4. Is it hopeless? I don't think it is. But only because of the scholarship of the last century and a half.

• John does bring some unique historical insights, but it is a highly symbolic Gospel. It's goals are much more theological than historical. We look to the Synoptics for more of the feel and tone of Jesus in history.
• Once we know the theological and political thrust of each Gospel, we can try to triangulate back to the original Jesus feel.
• So sparring with Pharisees was probably not a dominant aspect of Jesus' ministry. And Jesus did not come to Jerusalem prepared to take over by force. His message seems to have been, "God will take care of the Romans."
• Luke-Acts may remove Jesus' words on the poor and the rich to some degree from their context in Israel. It was especially the poor of Israel to whom he gave hope.

My own sense of Jesus is that all of these dimensions capture elements of Jesus' earthly ministry. He came across as a prophet who, like John the Baptist, preached that the kingdom of God was arriving in history. His "social justice" dimension resulted from an emphasis on the fact that this good news was for everyone, not just the upper crust. This could lead to anti-establishment overtones because the leadership excluded so many of the marginalized from Israel. He did not emphasize law-observance, in my opinion, for such a focus in itself tended to marginalize the everyday Israelite.

5. I started a Jesus novel last week because of this problem of interpretation, even before Seth posed this week's question. And of course if you want to know my general conclusions, you can always check out my two books on Jesus (also in Kindle).

Psalm 15 and Proverbs 4:1-9

Psalm 15
1. Some have suggested that Psalm 15 was a liturgy for being allowed to enter the temple area, but it is not necessary to take it that concretely. The psalm asks who is worthy of the LORD. What does a righteous person look like?

2. The characteristics of the upright include 1) truthfulness (15:2), 2) someone who doesn't slander others and do evil to them with their words (15:3). 3) They honor those who fear the LORD but despise the wicked (15:4).

There are some textual questions about the last line of 15:4. The NRSV has that the righteous "stand by their oath even to their hurt." However, Robert Alter points out that several translations have "to their friends" instead of the expression that the NRSV tidies up as, "even to their hurt." So, 4) they keep their vows.

6) They do not take bribes or 5) extort those who borrow from them.

3. Those who do these things are worthy to abide on God's holy hill and will not be moved.

Proverbs 4:1-9
Once again, the wise speaker instructs his son and asks him to listen. The wise one did the same when his father taught him instruction. The bottom line was to "Get wisdom" (4:5). "Get wisdom, and whatever else you get, get insight" (4:7). She is something to embrace.

Love her. She will guard you. She will give you a crown.

Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19
Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27
Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33
Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5
Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15
Psalm 8 and Proverbs 2:16-22
Psalm 9 and Proverbs 3:1-4
Psalm 10 and Proverbs 3:5-12
Psalm 11 and Proverbs 3:13-18
Psalm 12 and Proverbs 3:19-26
Psalm 13 and Proverbs 3:27-31
Psalm 14 and Proverbs 3:34-35

Vision, Capt. America, and Violence

1. "Art imitates life," they say. In their own ways, both Captain America and Vision are types of what a Christian should be in the face of evil (although I fear CA will go astray in the next movie).

When Steve Rodgers signs up for the experiment that makes him Captain America, the scientist says to him, "Do you want to kill Nazis?" His response is perfect: "I don't want to kill anyone. I don't like bullies."

He doesn't engage in violence because he likes it. He fights in the defense of others.

2. The Vision is of course intended to be a type of Christ. He does fight, even destroys Ultron. But he does it because Ultron is not redeemable and will only continue to do harm if he is allowed to survive.

If you want to know how the love principle should be played out in the face of evil, here are two examples.

3. I might conclude that the Vision is also a good example of how true strength doesn't get angry in the face of opposition. He knows his strength. He is not afraid or intimidated by Ultron. He does not need to flex or show his muscles to be strong. Everyone knows he is the strongest person in the room and he need do nothing.

ET8. War should only be conducted under extreme circumstances.

This is the eighth post on Christian ethics in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.

We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. The third set was on sacraments. This final section is on Christian ethics.
_______________________________
War should only be conducted under extreme circumstances.

The next five articles will look at "ending life" from the perspective of 1) war, 2) capital punishment, 3) self-defense, 4) euthanasia, and 5) abortion. We begin with the question of war. When, if ever, is war justifiable from a Christian perspective?

1. The Old Testament has plenty of war. The wars of conquest are not only allowed but commanded by God himself. In the case of Jericho, Israel is commanded to slaughter every living thing in the city, from male warriors to innocent children and animals (Josh. 6:17-21). The kings of Judah and Israel often engaged in war.

Those with the heart of Christ have often wrestled with God's commands for the conquest of Jericho. [1] We can believe that there was a reason for such a command at that moment in time and still find it incredibly puzzling given Jesus' teaching and commands in the New Testament. There are reasons for God's commands. Those who love the letter of the commands but do not have the heart of those commands do not truly keep the commands.

We have the Pharisees of Matthew as the best example of individuals who were more interested in the letter of the Bible than in the heart of God. It is the person that "likes" the story of Jericho's complete annihilation that is more likely to have a spiritual problem than the person who struggles with why God would command the slaughter of so many. No, those with the heart of Christ will almost certainly struggle with that dimension of this story.

2. War seems necessary, from a practical standpoint. Not to gain territory. Not because of some grander scheme where you think the end justifies the means. War seems necessary because the hearts of men are evil. War seems necessary to stop the advancement of the conqueror. War seems necessary to stop the atrocities of men. If there were no sin, there would be no war.

These are not evil motivations--the protection of others, the elimination of a cancerous evil. They do not contradict the love of God, of neighbor, or enemy.

Of course most of us will never have the decision for war within our power. In most countries, those decisions are delegated to people we elect. We do have a choice in who we vote for. We can vote for people who have a heart for war or we can vote for people who see war as a course of last resort.

But it is worth asking, "What would God do?" The question, "What would Jesus do?" is a slightly different one. While on earth, Jesus modeled an ethic for an individual living in a conquered domain. The question of war is more a question of government, a question for the opposite side of the equation, a question for Israel in control of its land. It is a question for God as the empowered judge or the enthroned Christ when he returns as king.

God is love. We have argued in a previous article that God's justice fits within the context of his love. There we suggested three ways in which love might call for justice or at least not contradict it. These were 1) justice for redemption, 2) justice for protection, 3) justice as removal. Insofar as war is compatible with Christ, it will fall within one of these three categories.

3. Before we look at those three justifications for war, we should stop and remind ourselves of Jesus' core ethic. God's ethic does not contradict Jesus' ethic. It only plays it out on a larger scale.

Jesus' ethic consisted of the twin love command: love God and love neighbor: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (22:40). Similarly, "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets" (7:12).

Perhaps even more to the point is Matthew 5:43-48: "“You have heard that it was said, You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven... If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? ... Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete" (Matt. 5:43-44, 46, 48 CEB).

The Parable of the Good Samaritan gives an illustration of this principle. A Samaritan, an "enemy," demonstrates the love principle by showing mercy on a Judean. Jesus thus does not give us permission to do whatever we want to our enemy. He does not consider our enemy guilty simply because he or she is our enemy.

4. The implementation of war always involves the violation of the love command, because the heart of man is evil. There will almost always be those who do atrocities in war. Most of those engaged in battle will use hatred to direct their energies.

The imprecatory psalms cannot be used to justify hatred of one's enemies, for Jesus is a higher authority than the Psalms. The imprecatory psalms show us that we can be angry at injustice. They cannot be used to justify hatred.

For these reasons, war must be reserved for the most extreme of circumstances, for it is a source of temptation to do evil on the greatest of scales. It must only be enacted with the purest of motives and the greatest of reserve. Only then do the combatants have a better chance of engaging in battle with a pure heart.

Nevertheless, God can use the wicked in heart as well. He used King Cyrus in this way (Isa. 45:1). He used Pharaoh in this way (Rom. 9:17). He can use the wicked of heart in battle.

The Roman Catholic Catechism warns wisely that a people should not go to war unless "all other means of putting an end to it [an aggressor] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective" (2309). [2]

5. The decision for war should thus be reserved for the direst of circumstances. The first love basis for justice is justice for redemption, to help lead a person away from a self-destructive trajectory. On a corporate level, a people might be in dire need of freedom from a tyrant. A people, as it were, might need redeemed from individuals within their own ranks.

In Judges, God often raised up individuals to free Israel from foreign rule. We should also remember that it was Israel's sin that regularly put themselves into slavery in the first place. So war may be justifiable in some circumstances as a "war of redemption."

However, let us be clear that war seldom accomplishes its goal without unintended consequences of an evil nature. The Catholic Catechism warns that "the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" (2309). From all appearances, we can probably point to several recent "wars of redemption" whose effects have been worse than the evil they sought to address.

6. Most just wars are "wars of protection." They are wars in which a nation engages to protect itself from an aggressor. The Roman Catholic Catechism puts it in this way: "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain" (2309). In other words, there must be certainty that the aggressor intends to inflict lasting and grave damage to your people. There needs to be a "clear and present danger."

7. Occasionally, an aggressor arises of such complete depravation that a "war of removal" or a "war of annihilation" arises. This is a war against such depravity that there is no good in the enemy, no chance of redemption. We must have great caution here, for every war thinks its enemy of this sort.

Yet there were many Germans who did not support Hitler or who did and were redeemed after World War 2. Hitler himself was likely a reprobate, hardened beyond redemption. Many of those who led with him and lead his regime were likely of this sort. But there were others who were not. So there is a sense even in the case of World War 2 that it was a war of redemption as well as a war of protection. The German people were redeemed.

8. We can thus sum up the criteria for what we might call a "just war." [3]

• It is a course of last resort. All other reasonable attempts at peace need to have been tried. There needs to be a clear and present danger.
• It needs to be done with a loving motivation, either to redeem a people or to protect against a power actively engaged in harm of the highest magnitude.
• It needs to be conducted in such a way that the consequences are not likely to be a greater evil than the evil against which the war is conducted in the first place.

Under such rare circumstances, it might be possible to make a decision for war that does not contradict the love of God and of neighbor. Only under such extreme circumstances would a war be just.

War should only be engaged under the most extreme of circumstances, when the decision for war can be done in harmony with the love command.

Next Sunday: ET9: Capital punishment should be reserved for extreme circumstances, if used at all.

[1] Adam Hamilton is just one recent attempt. He works at "making sense of this violence without justifying it," in Making Sense of the Bible: Rediscovering the Power of Scripture Today (New York: HarperCollins, 2014), 215.

[2] The Roman Catholic Catechism, especially 2309.

[3] Just war theory finds its real origins in the writings of St. Augustine in his City of God (e.g., 22.6) and it was refined by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.

Seminary PC3: Ministerial Calling in Scripture

A few weeks ago, I started a possibly multi-year series on Saturdays called, "Seminary in a Nutshell." The first of eight "books" in this series is on the pastor as a person and the contexts of ministry. Here are the posts so far.

Preface

The Pastor and Context
The Domains of Ministry
The Calling of a Minister

I'm also featuring possible resources as I move through the series. Today I want to feature a book by Will Willimon that Wesley Seminary has used, called, The Pastor. The idea was that students would read some general chapters in the first course (I'm suggesting chapters 1, 2, and 13). Then students would read the relevant chapter in each of the six domains of ministry when they had the courses in preaching, worship, leadership, etc.

I might add that there was some debate at the beginning among the Seminary faculty about whether this book is too "Methodist." Most Wesleyan churches tend to be baptistified and thus more "low church." But since seminary is supposed to stretch you...

Today's post is on "Ministerial Calling in Scripture."
___________________________
1. There are a number of roles that individuals play in Scripture that seem to overlap with the role of a minister today. In the Old Testament, there were prophets and priests. In the New Testament, there were apostles and prophets, evangelists and teachers, elders/overseers and deacons. We will look at some of these roles again in the section on leadership.

For now, we are interested in the callings of these individuals. How did these individuals come to take on the roles that they did in relation to God's people?

The calling of Old Testament priests was straightforward. The role was handed down by family. Of course the initial calling of Moses and his brother Aaron came by God's calling, "out of the blue." We might use the word charismatic in relation to this kind of calling, as opposed to the word institutional. A "charismatic" calling is one that comes outside some inherited organizational appointment, as what might seem to us as a random act of the Holy Spirit. An "institutional" calling, then, is when someone invested with authority within an organization appoints someone.

Of course, once the line of Aaronic priests was established, priesthood was passed down by birth. As Hebrews 5:4: "one does not presume to take this honor, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was." No other ministerial role in the Bible was of this sort. [1]

2. The prophetic role involved a calling like the calling of Moses, and indeed Deuteronomy considers Moses to be a prophet (18:15; 34:10). The prophetic calling was of a "charismatic" rather than "institutional" sort. You were not elected a prophet, nor was it passed down in families. Rather, God called prophets according to his will, to present his word to various people.

The earliest prophets were known for ecstatic experiences, as we see when Saul temporarily joined a company of prophets (1 Sam. 10:11-12). David also danced before the LORD when the ark was brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:14). Some of the visions of Ezekiel are quite extraordinary.

Some individuals were called to be prophets for a brief time, as in the case of Amos, who was both a shepherd and a "dresser of sycamore trees" (Amos 7:14). He was only a prophet for a year, it would seem. There were also professional prophets, such as those that the king of Israel calls for King Jehoshaphat in 1 Kings 22. Most of the prophets in the Old and New Testaments were known as prophets for most of their lives.

So prophets were individuals to whom God especially presented a revelation for a particular context. They could arise from anywhere. God could give a word to them anytime. There was no installation service. The word came and you spoke.

There were of course mechanisms to verify whether someone was truly called of God as a prophet or not. One way, of course, was to see if your prophecy came true. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 straightforwardly suggests that the outcome of a prophecy verifies it as true or false.

But we often need to know whether to take action on a prophecy before we know it is true or false. 1 John 4:1-3 encourages the church to "test the spirits" of prophecy to see if they are truly from God. Certainly whether the prophecy has a correct view of Christ is one measure. 1 Corinthians 14:32 suggests that other prophets are the main way by which the prophecies of others can be verified.

3. The callings of other roles in the New Testament also seem like the prophetic calling. So the twelve apostles were called directly by Jesus without any family lineage or clear resume. Similarly, the broader collection of apostles to whom the risen Jesus appeared were not distinguished by any common background. You were an apostle if the risen Jesus appeared to you and called to go and witness to his resurrection (1 Cor. 9:1).

4. The role of teacher may sometimes have been "charismatic" in origin at times. The New Testament does not give us a clear picture of how such teachers came into existence or how exactly they functioned, other than the fact that they obviously taught. They are mentioned both in 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11 as regular functions in the church.

It is clear enough from books like 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, and Jude that false teaching became a serious issue in the early church, perhaps especially after the apostles had died. 3 John may allude to a situation where John the elder has sent a teacher named Demetrius to the church of Gaius, only to find that he is resisted by some in the church. [2]

Intriguing is the possibility that Timothy is viewed as a deacon and teacher in 1 Timothy. 1 Timothy 4:6 refers to Timothy as a "diakonos," which is usually translated "servant" (NRSV) or "minister" (NIV). Yet since Timothy's youth is mentioned (4:12), we might fruitfully view him here as a model of a deacon/teacher in the early church. The teaching function is one of the primary ones mentioned in 1 Timothy 4, especially the teaching of Scripture (4:13).

If so, we can see that some teachers were not necessarily limited to one location. Paul himself brought Timothy to Ephesus, just as he left Titus in Crete (Tit. 1:5). 1 Timothy 4:14 also shows the origins of Timothy's function in the early church. God revealed to various individuals that Timothy was to have such a ministry. They laid hands on him and his service began.

In Timothy we may see that these roles were not always clearly demarcated in the early church. There are apostolic aspects to Timothy's ministry, it seems. He seems much more than a teacher. But teaching was clearly one of his primary functions.

5. In Acts we are introduced to Philip "the evangelist" (Acts 21:8). Timothy is also said to do the work of an evangelist in 2 Timothy 4:5, another indication that these roles sometimes overlapped. Interestingly, although Acts 6 is often taken as the key passage describing the work of a deacon, the chapter never actually uses the word. Nevertheless, we can see the origins of Philip's ministry when the apostles in Jerusalem feel led to set Philip apart for service and they lay hands on him to commission him (Acts 6:5-6).

An evangelist is simply someone who proclaims the good news. The good news is that Jesus is Lord, that he is the risen king and that he died for sins. The role of proclaiming this good news is similar to the role of an apostle, except that the apostles were specifically tasked by the risen Jesus himself. Taking Philip as an example, his evangelistic work led him to move from location to location (Acts 8).

6. There is a clear "charismatic" dimension to the calling of those in the roles we have looked at thus far. The role of elder and deacon, it would seem, leaned slightly more institutional, although we find charismatic elements even here. Similarly, Paul's recommendation of Phoebe as a deacon (Rom. 16:1) suggests that their service may not always have been limited to one location.

The elders or overseers of local congregations were probably 1) literally older and 2) at one point chosen locally. We do initially hear in Acts of local elders being appointed by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23). But we can imagine that the role became someone self-perpetuated in the late first century, with the current elders appointing new elders as the occasion arose. Then by the second century there were "bishops" of cities to do such things.

The role of deacon would normally seem to be a subsidiary role. For example, it is the second role treated in 1 Timothy 3, after that of overseer (elder). We can speculate that, much of the time, deacons in a local church were appointed by the elders of that church to do service for the local assembly. However, the discussion above suggests that such roles were not always clearly delineated or confined.

6. The sketch above suggests that calling to ministry in the Bible, at the very beginnings of the church, were heavily "charismatic" in nature. That is to say, it was Holy Spirit driven rather than institutionally directed. Apostles and prophets seem to emerge unpredictably within the church. Evangelists and teachers seemed to be recognized by these higher leaders and commissioned by the laying on of hands.

Elders also seemed appointed by apostles at first, but then perhaps quickly become self-perpetuating. Deacons then perhaps were appointed by elders. The functions of these roles were distinct but probably overlapping. Apostles might teach, prophets might evangelize. [3]

One crucial observation is that while these roles were often charismatic in origin, the calling was usually recognized by the church. The messages of prophets needed to be verified. Evangelists and others might have hands laid on them in commissioning. The local assembly presumably recognized the calling of local elders and deacons.

We are not limited in any way but the titles or structures of the early church. They were not entirely uniform themselves and, in any case, developed to suit a first century context. However, we should not throw them away either, just because they developed in a different time and place. At the end of this chapter, we will strategize the application of these models to today.

Next week: Ministerial Calling in History

[1] Kingship was of course hereditary as well. But we are not considering it a ministerial role here.

[2] So Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989).

[3] Philip, "the evangelist," had four daughters who were "prophetesses" (Acts 21:9).