Disqus - Latest Comments for Pkenney86

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Pkenney86 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:30:22 -0000

A note about offices and other little tidbits.

In passing with a conversation with Dr. Patterson, I asked him if Rabbis or teachers were appointed or approved, and he said they were not. A Rabbi was simply someone who understood the Torah well and taught it well. He did have students who had to get permission from the Rabbi to begin teaching his teachings (which Jesus does a couple of times).

He also mentioned that Jesus and Paul were most likely taught in the tradition of Rabbi Hillel. He said Paul especially was most likely taught from that tradition (one of Hillel's students being Paul's teacher).

Anyways, priests at that time where not much different than the Old Testament priest from my understanding. A priest performs rituals and sacrifices at the temple and is in charge of that. Therefore, the High Priest was in charge of that whole realm of Jewish life as well as had power in the political sphere in the first century. Your take on the covenants would effect your view on priests in the Christian tradition I would imagine.

Just a little more info in case anyone is interested.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Pkenney86 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:47:52 -0000

In a hurry, but wanted to say a couple of quick thing. Thanks for the clarification on the Hebrews text. I think you have good points to help make that an easier idea to comprehend.

I wasn't trying to infer that Timothy was a set pastor in our sense, but he obviously did hold an office such as an elder or so on to the church of Ephesus (whether this meant church in general or a specific amuont of people at a certain place is unsure on my part. I would like to see how the early church did meet in bigger cities like Ephesus). My main point was that the congregation was not the final say (common agreement on who is best gifted). Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus for the purpose of teaching and preaching as you said. He also gave him qualifications for certain organization within the church. Timothy was there much longer than to just fix the issues in the church as well (unless it took a decade or longer which seems to be the traditional length of his stay there). WHo has the right to appoint? I do not know, and I think the church does have a say. My main point was merely that I think there are more things at play than gifting alone.

I am curious as how your idea of a community center is much different than the idea (although not always practiced) that the church is the people, and the building is just a building that they all meet at. That's what I've always been taught, and it seems that is all you are saying really. You just wish we didn't call it church because of the confusion it can give. Is this safe to conclude?

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 3) ...A Way Forward

Pkenney86 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:30:13 -0000

Just now had time to read this post. I think you are generally in the right direction, Dale. Given my position at school, you can imagine that I feel the same way about the House of Israel. There is a grand story of God's relation with His image bearers that started way before Jesus on the cross. For the church to sever and have a "replacement" theology is very harmful I think.

This has a lot to do with the language of the New Testament though. I think in particular of Hebrews 8. I would be interested in your take on that given NIV calls the old covenant obsolete and the new one superior. I have my own thoughts that this take should be cross referenced with Matthew 5 concerning fulfillment of the law and not abolition. The new covenant is a completion of the old one, which its fulfillment has always been the coming of the Messiah.

I would mostly challenge your idea of the offices of the church. I agree with your skepticism of the bureaucratic nature of it, but I think these offices are still more concrete than you imply. Timothy was appointed by Paul, for instance, not the community. Even in the OT, God appointed the Levites not based on giftings either, but on Him setting them apart. It was a calling. God calls out His prophets as well. I am not trying to say that these offices are solely based on calling, but I do not think they are solely based on giftings and a community acknowledgment either. It is quite possibly a combination of these two.

Oh, also I think we need to make sure that the NT church would not have met in specific church buildings if they had the opportunity. They met in synagogues until chased out. And if they had the technology of cars and no persecution, they may have met outside of the home. Just a thought, I have no idea if they would or would not.

I think you are going the right direction though. I see a movement for many people back to this idea, including Savannah and I.

Re: What EXACTLY is "Church"? (part 2) unraveling the crisis

Pkenney86 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:47:49 -0000

That last question in your post, Dale, made me think of something else as well: do we possess the right kind of faith that is willing to change even when it is viewed as scary, dangerous, and controversial.

ALthough I think Ghandi's statement is grotesquely over-quoted, I think it is good to keep in mind that we need to be the change we want to see. I struggle with this because its not about being humble for me but about being confident that the change I want to see is legitimate. "I" want it, but does God?

"We need to rethink the way we THINK about the church," you commented. Do you think that rethinking should start at the distinction between people and institution? Should we ask what the church should look like first, or do we need to find a deeper question?

I guess, I'm thinking of looking at the church more as organism. You ask with Soulation, "What does it mean to be appropriately human?" Can we ask the same about the church? And would the answers be prior (primordial) to the look or organization of it (people or institution)?

Just challenge us to possibly even go one step backwards if its even possible.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

Pkenney86 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:53:47 -0000

I look forward to your post.

To me, if there is an intrinsic value of the church today that is not sitting well with others, it is not going to be the symptoms such as actions. It is going to be the very way that we view the world around us ultimately. The reason that Christianity seems so dogmatic, cold, and out there is because the foundations have become abstractions in thought and action. But maybe I am hitting a different vein than you wanted to address, or am missing a point. Regardless, look forward to the next post and more comments here!

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

Pkenney86 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:43:32 -0000

Sorry, I wrote my response right after doing philosophy homework... not a smart move on my part.

Dale saw kind of where I was going. I pretty much was saying Evangelicals have made Christianity into a stagnate, air-tight worldview. It is objective truth. However, we have made our lives a part of this objective reality, or, as Dale mentioned, we have abstracted creeds, doctrine, and even ways of life in the process.

Your story comment is kind of a long the same lines of what I was saying. It is seeing God as a "who" instead of a "what". He is a person to be encountered and not a system to be a part of. This is what I meant about the professor I work with. He views God in a relational way, and this softens the hearts of people.

I have noticed, at least in college, that to view God this way is radical for many people. They here a lot about personal relationship with Christ and so on, but they see that phrase as empty because they view the world in a very modern, scientific, objective way. Once you break that barrier though it can open eyes.

Re: What Exactly is "Church"?

Pkenney86 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:47:38 -0000

Wow this post has exploded! I was going to get on this morning to write a response and found way too many comments to read! This is great, but excuse me if I am repeating some things.

It seems we are hitting some of surface features here instead of really trying to get to the heart of the issue. Is there an "intrinsic" aspect of the church today that is hitting people the wrong way?

I recently started grad school and I have already heard plenty of comments about why church is repulsive in just the first month. You find many different reasons, which points to the dynamic or dialectical nature of the church as well as the existential reality of the person making these comments. Its complicated because the church and the people exposed to the church are technically two organisms and not two stagnate institutions to be studied.

This may, in part, lie at the heart of the issue. Evangelicals have attempted to make the church stagnate in nature. There is a confusion that objective truth equals objective truth-following. In this Postmodern culture, this is heresy. Ironically, Postmodernism has given the church a way out from playing this game with modernity - the search for objectivity through reason alone is fading as we realize humanity and existence is much more than reason and abstract concepts. C. S. Lewis said theology is practical, and the more we focus on how these objective truths become existential realities for us, the more the culture will be accepting. As you said, Dale, the foundation of creation and existence is relational.

I hope this does not come off as trying to be soft with church or seeker friendly. It is not that at all. People see seeker friendly attitudes as just salesmanship and manipulation. What is intrinsic about the church that could be the source of this repulsion is the modernistic nature of it. I think the surface issues stem, partly, from this.

Obviously, this is much more complex than this, but, in my experience, making the above changes does soften the seekers heart some. I have seen it as the professor I work with can melt a hostile room with the explanation of Judaism as being relational at its heart. All of the sudden what has become out-there dogmatism has become someone, a "who", that faces them and calls them, and they are softened.

Re: Beyond the Border: The Mystery of Mystery

Pkenney86 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:16:55 -0000

Dale,

These are thoughts have been thinking a lot lately. My friend who goes to Fuller was in town this week and he, Savannah, and I sat in our living room for about three hours talking about youth losing their faith after graduation. Some were questioning and the church refused to deal with them and they gave up. Few went to college and saw a world were sex, drunkeness, and illegal drugs was okay in some peoples eyes. With their acceptance of these attitudes came the acceptance of an entirely new world view. We talked for a long time about how we have seen this in people closest to us, and how did it happen? Why did it happen? What can be done?

Abraham Heschel said that God is not a hypothesis to test out or an awareness of God is not a missing link in a syllogism, it is getting away from the idea of a syllogism all together. He meant simply that God is a person, a relation to be entered into - if we only deal with God as an abstract hypothesis we will never find the God of the Bible. As you said, He is a Creator and not a First Cause. Your thoughts about mystery resonate in my mind and heart. I have been dealing with mystery in my life and have come to similar conclusions. Relationships are mysterious at times.

The Professor I am a GA for would love this post. To him, the heart of Judaism is the relation with God and man. Moreover, the more I study Judaism the more I realize it is not a legalistic religion as we like to think. It is a relational religion.

Good post, Dale.