John Mark Hicks

As I continue to study and think about the Texas, Tennessee and Indiana Traditions within Churches of Christ in the first decades of the 20th century, I have  been reading through the Gospel Advocate in those early years of the last century.  I thought I would provide a sampling of what has interested me in the editorials of David Lipscomb in his 81st year of life.  Here are few “gems.”

Opposing the Rebaptists of Texas.  Lipscomb is still very much concerned about the sectarianism of the rebaptist position. He wrote several articles at the beginning of 1912 on the question. In one he thought the rebaptist position begat extremes among the Baptists and that Baptists and disciples had much more in common than different in their understanding of baptism. When a Baptist was accused by a Rebaptist of denying certain truths about baptism, Lipscomb thought it “imaginary” (remember that Lipscomb was a former Baptist himself).

None such ever occurred or will occur. Especially is this true in places and communities where the Bapitst have not had to struggle with the misrepresentations of our rebaptist friends. One extreme begets another, and the rebaptist extreme leads to this Baptist extreme. The two extremes lead to restrictions of both parties.[1]

Rebaptists believed that one had to have a precise understanding that baptism was the moment of salvation (“for the remission of sins”) as a condition for the validity of the baptism. Lipscomb opposed this. One of the common arguments made by Rebaptists was that just as one had to understand the design of the Lord’s Supper to authentically participate, so one had to understand the design of baptism to experience authentic baptism.  Lipscomb addressed this point in a poignant way that drew the argument into the larger world of how God deals with humanity in their weaknesses.

The example [the disciples at the Last Supper, JMH]  is not very flattering to humanity, but one that very strongly commends to us the love and condescension of God. It invites us to love and humility, condescension and helpfulness, to the poverty and needs of humanity. Let us look in kindness and pity on human mistakes and infirmities and bless and help as we need help and blessing. The forbearing, humble, helpful spirit that leads us to help the weak, forbear with the ignorant, and lend an uplifting and helping hand to every child of mortality is as much a part, and a vital part, of the religion of Jesus as the belief of any proposition or truth connected with that religion. Man is much more intolerant and ready to condemn and repel the children of men from the helps and privileges of gospel truth than God is. Let one take the mental and moral condition of those who partook of the first Supper under the direction of Jesus and compare them with the intelligence and standing of those they reject and repel [those immersed to obey God, JMH], and he must feel the inconsistency. Our mission and work is to bury and hide shortcoming and imperfections in faith and life, and, while teaching the will of God as he gave it, to encourage the weakest and most feeble to walk in his ways as he has given it and as far as they understand it. The work of Jesus in the ordination of the Supper is often as much violated and set as naught as the rights of those who believe baptism is for the remission of sins. Let us cherish and walk in the spirit of Christ. Both Baptists and many disciples are sinful in their exclusiveness in religion.[2]

The Sermon on the Mount. In a couple of series on the “religion of Jesus,” Lipscomb concentrates on the Sermon on the Mount. According to Lipscomb, “our present and eternal peace depend upon doing what God commands in this Sermon.”[3] There were many interesting observations in his articles. But I thought this one particularly noteworthy as it contrasted with what the Texas and Indian Traditions stressed–and a growing number in the regions of Tennessee.

The mission of Jesus into the world was to bring the world back under the dominion or rule of God, into his kingdom, under his rule or authority. This was the end or purpose of the mission of Jesus….So they were to pray, ‘Thy kingdom come,”—that his rule or dominion on earth be established. Many looking at this from its bearing on the teachings of this age conclude this prayer now should not be made. Those persons confuse the opening or establishment of the kingdom with its dominion, rule, or completion of its work of bringing the whole world under the authority and rule of God. The establishiment of the kingdom of God in the world and the completion or end of that work are two wholly different things or ends. So long as the world or any part of the human family are not in the kingdom of God and not in obedience to his law this petition may and should be humbly made for God to aid and bless the children of God in subjecting the world to him….When God’s will is done on earth as it is done in heaven, it will change the earth of woe and suffering into a heaven of bliss and joy.[4]

Hermeneutics–The Function of the Gospels.  One of the more surpsing but invigorating articles by Lipscomb was his discussion of the role of the Gospels, Acts and Epistles in New Testament theology. While many divide the New Testament at Acts 2 and derive their ecclesiology from Acts and the Epistles, Lipscomb insisted on the centrality of the ministry and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Hold on to your hat for this one. 🙂

To object to what Jesus psoke and made known before his death is to attack the genuiness and validity of any will from him. Jesus himself said: ‘The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it.” (John [sic; but he means Luke, JMH] 16:16.) Those who fix the reign or law of Jesus Christ after the death of Christ need to study the teachings of Jesus.

All that Jesus Christ spoke or gave to the world consitituted a portion of the will of Jesus that went into effect after his death…The laws of Jesus Christ are given in the sayings and teachings of Christ recorded in the four biographies of Christ. [Yes, you read that correctly, JMH]

The law is given in the personal teachings of Jesus. The Acts of Apostles and the Epistles are the applications by inspired teachers of the king to the churches and the applications of the Bible to the facts of life as they arise in the world [occasionality? JMH]. These applications and exemplifications of the truths of the Bible to the workings of the world greatly help in the study of the Bible by the common people. But there is not a truth or a thought in the application of these parables that is not in the teaching of Jesus…Jesus is the lawgiver. The whole law of God to the world is taught by him. The Acts of the Apostles and Epistles explain what the teachings mean, but they do not add to or detract from them. A change or modification in the teachings of Jesus would be treason against him and God.[5]

That is just a taste.  More to come at another time.

References

[1] David Lipscomb, “Difference between Baptists and Disciples,” Gospel Advocate 54 (4 January 1912) 17

[2] David Lipscomb, “Jesus Christ and the Rebaptists,” Gospel Advocate 54 (11 January 1912) 45, 49.

[3] David Lipscomb, “The Religion of Christ Made Easy. No. 4,” Gospel Advocate 54 (28 March 1912) 401.

[4] David Lipscomb, “The Religion of Christ Made Easy,” Gospel Advocate 54 (7 March 1912) 305.

[5] David Lipscomb, “When Was the Will of Christ Made?” Gospel Advocate 54 (2 May 1912) 554.

As part of the the Maximum Grandparenting seminar, Leon Sanderson challenged us to think of a ten-word summary that we would like to leave as a legacy for our grandchildren. It might be something we would constantly repeat in their ears or it may simply summarize what it is that we want to communicate to them in various ways.

What would be your ten-word summary? What are the key words that come to your mind? Ten words is arbitrary but it does force focus, brevity and accentuation.

Many suggestions were offered but most focused on words like trust, faith, love, hope, and gratitude among others. I devised my own.  I kinda like it, but I know my emphases may change with future experiences. It is meaningful to me as stated, but I know it may sound stiff to others or even vaccuous. Neverthless, at this moment–right now–these words are what I lean upon in my faith journey….and I would hope that I could pass it on to my grandchildren as well as my children–perhaps not in these exact words but hopefully the ideas and its passion.  Here it is:

“Trust God’s love for you and gratefully enjoy God’s presence.”

Trust–or faith–is so difficult.  Our experiences seemingly teach us to doubt and fear. Broken promises, failed relationships, painful moments with those we supposed loved us, abandonment and emotional distance create a vaccum of trust. We tend to project these onto God and thus learning to trust God’s love for us becomes difficult.

Indeed, we know ourselves too well–or perhaps not well enough.  We sense that we are unworthy of love, so filled with junk that we are unlovable.  Our brokenness teaches us to doubt whether anyone could really love us. We believe that if another really and fully knew us they would not truly love us.

Discovering God’s love, experiencing it, feeling it and trusting it are foundational for healthy, holy and whole living. Here is where we discern our identity:  we are lovable because we are loved.  When we feel loved by God, our lives become centered in his estimation of us. This is where we find our worth and value. God’s love gives to us and enables us to love others.

Joy–to enjoy–is the intent of creation. God created us to enjoy him as he enjoys us. God delights in his people just as he delighted in his own Son. The first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks what the primary goal of humanity is and the answer is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”  The glory of God is to enjoy his creation and we glorify him when we enjoy him. This is what God intended for life–joy, pleasure, delight, and he gives it to us if we would but trust his love.

We enjoy God’s presence in solitude. God comes to us in our inner world; he meets us in silence, meditation and prayer. There we listen to him, “feel after him,” and rest in his peace.  To clear our heads–silence the multiple voices that distract us–is to give God the space to assure us through presence.

We enjoy God’s presence in relationships. God created us in community as a community. Our relationships mirror his own Triune relationship. Through connecting and listening to others, we connect with God who is present in holy and godly relationships. The church–the beloved community of God–is not incidental to spiritual life but a means by which God encounters us through others. When we are loved by the community we also feel the love of God.

We enjoy God’s presence in assembly. The assembly is a present experience of a future reality; it is a proleptic experience, an eschatological event. Assembled and gathered to God, we transcend time and space to join with the whole host of heaven and earth around God’s throne. Gathering with the community is no addendum to spiritual life but a means by which God promises us the future.

Gratitude–thanksgiving–is our response to God’s gracious presence. The joy of divine presence generates gratitude and it is also an act of faith in the middle of a broken world filled with hurting lives. Given God’s presence, we act in faith–we trust God’s love and declare, as an act of faith, our thanksgiving for the presence we sense.

I end every day with some statement of gratitude. At times it seems that I can only think of something minor (though it is still quite major to many, e.g., I have running water and sewage). At other times I sense the magnitude of the divine gifts to me.

But gratitude is ultimately not about the stuff and comforts of my American lifestyle. It is the praise of the God who loved me when I thought I was unlovable. It is the praise of the God who communes with me even when I feel so unworthy. I gratefully enjoy God’s presence.

A ten-word summary? Impracticable? Insufficient? Probably. But the exercise forced me to think about what I really believe is important. It focused what I really want my legacy of faith to be.  Trust, love, joy, gratitude–these are the words that matter to me and they have not always been the focus of my journey.

Thanks, Leon. You challenged me to focus again and reminded me of what is truly important.

Do you have a suggestion for a ten-word summary? Share it with us.

This past Palm Sunday Dean Barham, the pulpit minister of the Woodmont Hills Family of God, challenged me to reflect more deeply about the function of Passion Week.

Using Mark 11:1-11 for his text, he recounted the story of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. What caught my attention in particular was his comment on Mark 11:11. While Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messianic savior, when he visited the temple he just “looked around at everything” and went home. Dean raised an intriguing question:  what did Jesus see?

As we know, Jesus became a “testy guest” (to use Dean’s phrase) in Jerusalem that week. He questioned the authorities, scandalized the teachers, debated the Pharisees, announced the destruction of the temple, and “cleaned house” (another Deanism). In effect, he inspected the fruit of Jerusalem and found it wanting. Just as he ecountered the barren fig tree on his way into Jerusalem and cursed it, so also Jerusalem–despite its regal temple and courtyards, despite its air of religiousity, despite its learning in Scriptures–lacked God’s heart. They knew the Scriptures, but they did not know what “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” meant. There was no fruit, no mercy. Their temple was a “den of robbers”–a hiding place for sinners–rather than a place for prayer and devotion to God for the nations.

Only a few bright spots emerged in that final week. A widow gave all she had though others were only making a show of their wealth as they gave out of their abundance. Mary showed her devotion to Jesus by anointing his head with expensive oil. On the whole, however, Jerusalem–just like its temple–needed cleansing.

It gives me pause to mediate. When Jesus enters my heart, what does he see?

As I walk through Passion Week over the next few days, I will read the Compline Prayers for Holy Week and Easter as well as follow the Divine Hours of the week. These thoughts will guide my meditation as I search out my own heart.  Is my heart more like the squabbling and squawking teachers of the law or is it more like the selflessness of the widow and the devotion of the one who anointed Jesus?

The last of the Passover Psalms, Psalm 118, is the one which the crowd that lined the streets of Jerusalem shouted to welcome Jesus (Matthew 21:9): “Hosanna!” and “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” They blessed the one who came to declare the name of the Lord, the one who came in the service of Yahweh, and they cried for salvation (“Hosanna” means “save us”).

The Text

Psalm 118 is a thanksgiving song offered by one who had come to the temple to sacrifice a thank offering for his salvation. The text begins and ends with the great liturgical refrain of Israel’s temple worship:  “Give thanks toYahweh, for he is good; his love endures forever.” But the substance is an individual thanksgiving (“I”) whose refrain is the Lord has “become my salvation” (14, 21). Once lost in lament and hopelessness, God became his strength and refuge–the Lord became his song!

To see the meaning of this Psalm it is important to follow the flow of the song. Beginning and ending with a call to hanksgiving, the middle of the Psalm is the individual’s thanksgiving followed by the community’s affirmation.

     Liturgical Refrain (1)
               Communal Praise (2-4)
                         Individual Thanksgiving Song (5-21)
                                   Lament and Triumph (5-7)
                                  The Lord is My Strength (8-14)
                                  I Will Give Thanks (15-21)
                         Communal Response to Thanksgiving (22-27)
                Individual Praise (28)
     Liturgical Refrain (29)

As the worshipper entered the gates, Israel’s chorus declared: “His love endures forever.” And the worshipper sings his song. It is a story of lament and deliverance.  He sang of his anguish and seeming defeat; he thought he was going to die and he was ready to give up. Surrounded by enemies he discovered he could trust no one. He felt abandoned and chastened; lost and disciplined. He sensed failure and experienced hopelessness.

But the Lord was with him. He disciplined him but at the same time helped him. The right hand of Yahweh redeemed him from the pit; he lived and did not die. It is better to trust in the Lord because ultimately people and princes will disappoint. God alone is his salvation.

The community resounded with shouts of joy and victory. They welcomed the delivered one into their midst. They recognized that the rejected one–lost in abandonment and pain–is actually the chosen one, chosen by God. This one, though once lost in anguish, has now come to declare the praise of the Lord. Blessed is anyone who comes to exalt the name of Yahweh! The community joined the procession to the altar to give thanks with this worshipper and to offer their own prayer to the Redeemer of Israel:  “Yahweh, hosanna,” that is, “Lord, save us!”

Together they, the community and the worshipper, declare: “This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.”  Together they recognize that God has made a new day today, a day of salvation, deliverance and redemption. Today is the day of salvation. It is a time to rejoice and shout for joy. The worshipper who has come to the altar with his thanksgiving sacrifice testifies: “You are my God, and I will exalt you.”

The Worshipping Assembly

This Psalm is not simply about a particular individual in the past who sang his own thanksgiving song in the temple. Nor is it simply Messianic as if it was only and wholly about Jesus. It is about the God who continues to act in the lives of his people to save them from their troubles.

This worshipper’s thanksgiving song has become part of the communal praise book. Now it has become the community’s song. It is a scenario that can be replayed and renewed within the community. Others can take these words and sing them as their song of thanksgiving. Further, individuals even now still experience the redemptive hand of God in their lives.

Worshippers can re-enact this moment with their own songs. The public assembly of God’s people should be a place where people can bring their songs. They enter the gates to declare the mighty acts of God in their own lives, to declare how God has delivered them from their various pits to again join in the assembly’s chorus: “His love endures forever.” And the assembly hears the new songs with thanksgiving, praise and a renewed cry of “Hosanna” for the community.

Perhaps this is what Paul was talking about when he suggested that if anyone has a “psalm,” let them sing it (1 Corinthians 14:26). Let us hear the individual thanksgiving songs and let the congregation say “Amen!”  This, indeed, is to my mind what Jesus of Nazreth himself sings in the congregation: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises” (Hebrews 2:12).

And the songs continue. Anyone who has ever heard Dennis Jernigan‘s testimony sings “I Will Thank You” with renewed energy and gratitude. We need to hear the songs that we might join the anathem of praise and rejoice in the day of salvation, and–moreover–that we might renew our own cry of “Hosanna” in the midst of God’s people.

My Experience

For me assembly is communal lament and thanksgiving. I come to hear again the chorus of God’s love for his people. I come to hear again the stories of redemption through Jesus. And I come to hear the ongoing work of God among us–to hear the stories of praise and thanksgiving.  I come to hope again, to see again. I come for renewal.

And I also bring my story to the table. I bring my lament and deliverance. Nobody in their right mind would want to hear me sing it, but my heart remembers it and I speak it.  I do sing it with the congregation as we raise our voices together in song.

With the church I sing my lament. I remember my past losses, my lament. I bring my failures, my sense of abandonment and my sin to the assembly and hear again the love of God for me. I sense the “new song” in my heart every time I join with the chorus of praise and my heart is renewed with hope, joy and salvation.

That, my friends, is why I “go to church.”  I go to hear the stories of God’s saving acts among his people as well as to hear the story of God’s redemptive work through Jesus. I go to hope again. I go to declare again. I go to experience again the thanksgiving song and to forget–if only for a moment, an eschatological moment–the dark nights of my soul.

One day–when the eschatological moment finds its fulfillment in the new heaven and new earth–there will be no more night and all will be made new. There the mighty chorus of all God’s people will sing “Salvation belongs to our God and to the Lamb!”

Come, Lord Jesus.

Last night (Friday) and this morning (Saturday) I sat under the feet of Leon B. Sanderson–the son of L. O. Sanderson and Associate Minister at the White Station Church of Christ in Memphis Tennesse–who conducted a seminar on Maximum Grandparenting at the Woodmont Hills Family of God in Nashville, Tennessee. I enjoyed every aspect of this learning experience–from Leon’s lectures to the discussions at my table. I would recommend the seminar for any congregation with grandparents who want guidance and encouragement.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Leon who was named Alumnus of the Year of the Harding Graduate School of Religion this month. Leon is a godly man whose wisdom and experience is rich with Scripture and authenic relationships. While Leon was a student of mine in a few classes at the Graduate School, he has taught me much more with his life-long interest in people. Now I have also experienced his kindness, wisdom and insight into grandparenting.

He reminded us that grandparents may fill the role of “remembering” within a family. They remember the story of the family, but they also remember the story of God. They are the intergenerational witness to the mighty acts of God and connect the coming generations with the faith of their fathers and mothers. They remember and tell the story.

Psalm 71:18 — So even to old age and gray hairs, O God, do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all those to come.

Psalm 78:1-7 — Give ear, O my people, to my teaching; incline your ears to the words of my mouth! I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings from of old, things that we have heard and known, that our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might, and the wonders that he has done. He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.

The goal of grandparenting is to participate in God’s maturing and forming of the next generation. They do this without lectures or shaming but with living and story-telling. They are God’s light to the path of the next generation.

Thanks, Leon, for a wonderful experience.  I needed that reminder as I am the grandparent of one….so far. 🙂

 “Theodicy in Early Stone-Campbell Perspectives,” in Restoring the First-Century Church in the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Warren Lewis and Hans Rollmann (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 287-310.

In honor of Don Haymes, I penned an article concerning the various “theodices” that were prominent in the 19th century Stone-Campbell Movement. It was interesting to me that there is no “Theodicy” heading in the Stone-Campbell Encyclopedia though there is some discussion of the idea under the article entitled “Providence.”

Essentially, they were all theologically Arminian with an Augustinian understanding of the Fall. What I mean is this, they all located the origin of moral evil in the free agency of creatures (whether human or angelic). That is the Arminian part. At the same time, they all located natural evil in the “Fall” of humanity–either a punishment or consquence of sin within the cosmos. That is the Augustinian part. One can see both of these in Alexander Campbell and Robert Richardson and both affirmed a kind of “meticulous providence” over the world.

However, the North/South conflict and the cultural/theological developments of the late 19th century shaped theodicy in different ways within the movement.

On the one hand, the North embraced a more rational, scientific approach to theodicy. Emphasizing the embedded order within the cosmos, natural law regulated natural evil. Nature functioned independently–by divine design–of God’s specific will or intent. God did not and does not intervene within the cosmos except for redemptive-historical purposes (e.g., Exodus, Incarnation, Resurrection). This created a kind of Deism within northern thinking that denied any kind of “special” or “meticulous” providence (though all did not deny it and some continued the tradition of Campbell and Richardson). Among Churches of Christ, this is the tradition of Daniel Sommer or the Indiana Tradition.

On the other hand, the South (particularly in the deep south of TN, MS and AL, etc.) believed the cosmos was engaged in a radical spiritual conflict. It was the kingdom of God versus the kingdom of Satan (e.g., Lipscomb and Harding). This is essentially the Tennessee Tradition. God was involved in his world directing nations and individuals toward his ends, including the idea that God punished the South because of slavery. God is meticulously involved in his world and engaged in this cosmic conflict. Humanity is free to choose which side it will serve, but God will win in the end and even now sovereignly conducts the world according to his goals and interests. Lipscomb’s response to the overwhelming experience of evil in the Civil War was to acknowledge God’s sovereignty. Lipscomb does not “defend” or “justify” God. Rather, he submits and trusts. He recognized that God punished the South for slavery but also that the North was equally wicked for its vengeance, violence and materialism.

Some in the South rebelled against this construal, particularly in Texas (Texas Tradition). They embraced a Newtonian natural law understanding of natural evil and advocated a practical Deism. This is evidenced, in particular, in the “word only” theory of the Holy Spirit. God is self-constrained by natural law and Scripture for his own action in the world. This response to life is to protect God from involvement in the specific events of the world. God does not get his hands dirty in the daily functions of life, but regulates the world through laws (laws of nature and laws in Scripture). The loss of “Spirituality” (the work of the Spirit in the lives of people) in the Texas Tradition gravitated naturally toward a practical Deism.

In the context of opposing a deistic understanding of prayer, James A. Harding asked: “Does the Holy Spirit do anything now except what the Word does? Do we get any help, of any kind or in any way, from God except what we get by studying the Bible?… Does God answer our prayers by saying, ‘Study the Bible…’?” (“Questions and Answers,” The Way 4/16 [17 July 1902]: 123.)

Theodicy is too often encumbered by metaphysical assumptions, too driven by hermeneutical harmonization, and too distant from the affirmations and particularities of the text. Theodicy must arise out of the story we have been given, and perhaps it is not so much “theodicy” as “kergyma” that is our task. I find myself much more in line with Lipscomb/Harding than the Northern Disciples and the Southern Texans.

In December 2006 and again in December 2007 I taught at the Institute for Theology and Christian Ministry in St. Petersburg, Russia.  (Yes, it was cold…and dark except for only six or so hours a day.)

In 2006 I taught “Medieval and Reformation Church History” and in 2007 I taught “Systematic Theology.” The “Systematic Theology” course is my response to a list of 38 questions developed by the administration, staff, students and myself. So, it is not very systematic, but it covers the ground most important to Russian believers.

Both of these courses are available on DVD or MP3 for $25 each and both courses contain 40 hours of lectures. Other courses from such luminaries as John Willis, Tom Olbricht, Paul Watson, Richard Oster and James Thompson among many others are also available. One could actually get the knowledge base for an M.Div. by listening to these CDs. [Update: Unfortunately, it appears that the English materials are no longer available on the website as of 05/21/2009.]

The Institute is doing a wonderful work of training leaders for Russia and other former soviet states. It would be a wonderful place for someone to study theology, learn the Russian language and also obtain a cooperative M.A. from the University of St. Petersburg. Any potential missional disciples interested in Russia?

Medieval and Reformation Church History Course

I have uploaded the powerpoints for the “Medieval and Reformation Church History” course below. Warning: thye are large files.  These will help you follow the lectures if you listen to the audio but they make sense, for the most part, without the audio.

Medieval Catholicism and Orthodoxy (498 total slides)

1. Foundations of Medieval Christianity
2. Early Medieval Period
3. Missions, Theology and Liturgy
4. The Great Schism, 800-1204
5. The Collapse of Christian Europe

Reformation (361 total slides)

1. Late Medieval Context and Lutheran Reformation
2. Swiss Reformation and Unity Efforts: Zwingli, Bucer and Early Calvin
3. The Radical Reformation
4. The French and English Reformations
5. Catholic Counter-Reformation and Religious Wars

Systematic Theology Course

Below are the questions that I covered in the “Systematic Theology” (more like an Advanced Catechism) course in St. Petersburg. I have uploaded my all-too-brief summary answers to the questions for those interested (36 single-spaced pages). The summaries were guides for the Russian translators as they read the Russian exam papers. These answers briefly summarize what I said in class on each question. The audios, of course, are much more expansive than what is contained in these short summaries.

Creation and Fall

1. Why Did God Create?
2. What is the Importance of Creation and Humanity’s Role in It?
3. What is the Origin of Evil?
4. Why does God Permit Suffering?

Story and Redemption

5. What is the Role of Lament among Believers?
6. What is the Relationship between Scripture and Tradition?
7. What is the Kingdom of God?
8. What is the Meaning of the Lord’s Prayer?

Christology

9. What is the Economic Trinity?
10. Is Jesus God?
11. What is the Relationship of the Human and Divine Natures in Jesus?
12. What is the Meaning of Atonement?

Trinitarianism

13. What is Baptism in the Spirit?
14. What are the Gifts of the Spirit?
15. How Important is Trinitarianism for Christian Unity?
16. What is the Nature of Salvation?

Faith, Baptism and Discipleship

17. Why is Baptism by Immersion Important?
18. What is the Relationship of Faith and Baptism?
19. What is the Relationship between Faith, Works and Assurance?
20. What is Discipleship?

Christian Worship

21. What is the Nature of Christian Assembly?
22. What is the Significance of the Lord’s Day?
23. What is the Meaning of the Lord’s Supper?
24. How is Christ Present in the Supper?

Church

25. Is it Necessary to Tithe?
26. What is the Role of Fasting and Confession in the Christian Community?
27. What is Church?
28. Upon what Must the Church Unite?

Ecumenical Questions

29. How Do We Relate to Those Outside the Unity of the Faith?
30. How Do We Relate to Other Religions?
31. What are the Strong Points of Orthodox Theology?
32. What are the Weak Points of Orthodox Theology?

Piety and the Saints

33. Are Icons Idolatrous?
34. Where are the Dead?
35. What Should We Teach about Mary and the Saints?

Eschatology

36. How Do I Interpret Revelation?
37. What is Hell?
38. What is the New Heaven and the New Earth?

My earlier attempts at blogging, before this past twelve months, were rather meager though I did post a considerable amount of material at my first site begun in September 2000.

 I appreciate how the blog has been received by old friends and new ones. Thank you for your patronage. I hope our dialogue can continue and grow over the coming years.

I initially decided to blog as part of my own therapy. Consequently, many of the early posts were about grief, suffering and recovery. I also wanted to post a complete record of my published writings (not yet complete), some lectures and even some academic classes (the Hermeneutics series is essentially that). So my blog is definitely on the “heavy” side of things, and intentionally so.

Consequently, I did not intend my blog to be a place to track my personal or family activities. It was, in essence, an adventure in substantial posts based on my years of teaching and reflection. But, as with anything, it has become a mixture though still heavily weighted to serious historical, theological and exegetical concerns. That, of course, means it has rather lengthy posts which I understand is anathema to authentic blogging.  🙂  But, then again, I never intended my blog to be a kind of daily family update, or pearl of wisdom (though would be a more difficult challenge than I am ready for), or even a detailed account of my journey through life. 

Instead, I have generally followed a couple of paths: (1) journeying through my cycles of grief and recovery with some theological content and (2) a resource for historical, biblical and theological studies.  The latter means it functions more as an encyclopedia than a “blog” in the common vernacular.  The former means it is an invitation to journey with me as we all share the experience of pain and hurt in a broken world.

I changed my theme apperance at some point because I wanted a framework which included a “search” feature so that visitors may search my posts for key words, phrases or texts. I hope some have found it useful. I know I have. I sometimes have to research my own posts to remember what I believe.  🙂  Yes, I am over 50.

To mark this first year, I have identified the top seven posts/series over the past year based on visits (comments considered as well). Here they are in case you missed them–ranked from seven to one.

7. Stone-Campbell Hermeneutics Series (#1 was the most popular). This surveyed the more significant influences and developments of heremenutics within Churches of Christ in the 19th and 20th centuries.

6.  A Reflection on Psalm 84 for those Grieving Loss: even the Valley of Weeping has springs of refreshment but this does not dispel the need to weep.

5.   I Will Change Your Name, a homily on Isaiah 62:1-5. Through spiritual recovery God changes names, particularly the names we have given ourselves or others gave us.

4.   K. C. Moser and Churches of Christ.  The theologian of grace for Churches of Christ in the 1930s-1960s, Moser’s impact on Churches of Christ is beyond estimating.

3.   “Meeting God at the Shack” Series (#5 was the most popular). This was my “pastoral” assessment of The Shack wherein I reflected on my own “shack” and my personal journey of recovery.

2.   “Theological Reflections on the Shack” Series (#4 was the most popular). This was my fundamentally positive “theological” assessment of The Shack.

1.   Divorced People–How Do They Feel?  How do you think they feel?  They hate divorce more than anyone except–perhaps–God.

One formerly unchurched person recently told me about his first experience with the Lord’s supper. He had grown up in the inner city where a gang was his family. Befriended by “good Samaritans” in a time of need, he attended “church” for the first time and sat on the second row with his new friend.

As you might imagine, he was perplexed by the “Lord’s supper.” He supposed that it was a snack of some kind. So he grabbed a whole piece of bread and casually ate it as he passed the plate. When the juice came, he drank several cups while holding the tray (much to the shock and consternation of the server) all the while thinking how minimal the refreshment was. When the contribution basket came to him, he refused to pay for such megar food and drink.

Humorous, yes—but sad as well. As an one unquainted with “church,” the supper—both in terms of its form and meaning—was totally alien to him. While we might be amazed at his total unfamiliarity with Christian rituals, the fault may lie more with the Christian tradition than him. Christianity has so ritualized the Lord’s Table that it has no functional or meaningful connection with tables in life. While we may still call it a “table,” its “tableness” has been lost. The Lord’s Supper has become the Lord’s snack. It is little wonder that the unchurch can see no significance in the practice other than some meaningless and isolated ritual.

The response of the “Church Growth” movement, epitomzed by Willow Creek’s removal of the supper from Sunday services in the 1990s, was to reduce the role of the Supper in worshipping assemblies. The unchurched simply cannot connect with the Lord’s Supper—and not only the unchurched, but many churched as well. The problem is not the supper or the unchurched, the problem is the supper’s present form and discontinuity with the table of Jesus in Scripture.

The Table in the Ministry of Jesus

The table ministry of Jesus is often ignored in framing our understanding of the Lord’s Supper. For some it seems too removed from the Last Supper and for others the Lord’s Supper is a highly formalized ritual unlike the tables of Jesus’ ministry. However, in the Gospel of Luke the Last Supper is linked with the other tables in the narrative by language and content. The Last Supper is one meal among many (Luke 22), but it is also the paradigmatic meal for understanding the rest of the meals. It is a climactic meal in a series of meals during the ministry of Jesus which is continued in post-resurrection meals with the disciples. Instead of the Last Supper standing aloof from these other meals, it gives fuller meaning to them. The Last Supper interprets and gives substance to the other meals as they are understood in the theological light of that Last Supper.

Luke is a narrator. He tells stories rather than writing didactic prose. Through the stories he inculcates the values which he wants his community to embrace. Each meal story reveals something about Jesus and his mission. In Luke 5:27-32 Jesus sits at table with sinners as a physican among the sick. In Luke 7:36-50 Jesus receives a sinful woman at the table of a Pharisee and declares her sins forgiven. In Luke 9:10-17 Jesus shows hospitality to 5000 people as he first calls his disciples to mission (“give them something to eat”) and then models before them his messianic mission. The disciples are called to service. The table has a missional dimension; it reflects the mission of God to commune with his people at table. In Luke 10:38-42 Jesus accepts women as his disciples. In Luke 11:37-54 Jesus condemns the Pharisees because they sit at table only in form, not in spirit. In Luke 14:1-24 Jesus notes that their table does not look like the kingdom of God, but it looks like themselves. In Luke 19:1-10 Jesus invites himself to table with the tax collector Zacchaeus and declares that salvation had come to his house. Luke 24 welcomes a stranger to the table in Emmaus (Luke 24:30-35) and commissions the disciples to bear witness to gospel among all nations (Luke 24:45-49). Just as the disciples offered hospitality to a stranger on the way, so the table is a place where the church welcomes strangers (aliens or “others”). The table has a missionary quality, especially in light of the fact that the disciples receive their call to missions at a table.

The table is a place where Jesus receives sinners and confronts the righteous. The table is the place where Jesus extends grace to seekers, but condemns the self-righteous. Jesus is willing to eat with “others” in order to invite them into the kingdom, but he points out the discontinuity between our tables of social, ethnic, gender, economic, religious status and the table in the kingdom of God. The last (sinners, poor, and humbled–the “others”) will be first in the kingdom of God, but the first (self-righetous, rich and proud–the “churched”) will be last and excluded from the kingdom of God (Luke 13:26-30).

The meal stories have theological meaning for Luke’s community, and they are stories that shaped meals in the early church. The table during Jesus’ ministry should shape the table in the church because the table of Jesus is the table of the kingdom. The table of Jesus’ ministry continues in the church when his disciples gather at table. Jesus’ table etiquette is kingdom etiquette, and Lord’s supper is the Lord’s kingdom table.

The table announces the presence of the kingdom. It announces that “today” salvation has come to the world as God communes with his people at table. Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, and also to eat (commune, to be) with them. The Jubilee motif, articulated in Luke 4:16-19, not only invests the table with great joy, but it also calls the disciples of Jesus to embrace all those who are invited to his table. The table is inclusive and intentionally includes the poor, blind and oppressed; it intentionally reaches out to the “others”. The table reaches across all socio-economic, racial and gender barriers as it unites lost humanity at one table. Jesus modeled the invitation of all to the table as he welcomed Pharisee and tax collector, rich and poor, male and female. This inclusiveness testifies to the socio-ethical character of the table as a uniting moment in the kingdom of God.

The Table in the Church

The table in the contemporary church looks more like the “in-crowd” than it does the redeemed community of Revelation 7 or the ministry of Jesus. It is a gathering of the righteous, rather than a missional invitation to “others”. It is where the community gathers to take pride in its place at the kingdom table rather than a table which serves the poor, the weak, and the sinful. The table in the church looks more like a ritualized, formal Pharisaic table than it does the table of the messianic banquet. It is little wonder that the table in the church is not only misunderstood, but even despised by the unchurched and outsiders because the church’s table has become an “insider” phenomenon. The church’s table is intimidating, meaningless or irrelevant rather than inviting and comforting to the outsider.

That an unchurched person who visits some assemblies would have no idea of what is going on during the communion—in terms of both form and meaning—is an indictment that our language (“table”) does not fit our practice (when there is no table). That an unchurched person could misinterpret the communion bread and juice for a snack says more about the divorce of the supper from the preached Word and the divorce of the meal from our table language than it does about the naiveté of the unchurched. We call it a table, but it has no visible/communal table function, form or meaning.

The supper is a concrete proclamation of the Word, but it is exactly its concrete character (bread and wine—and as a meal!) which must be explained and applied. The supper needs to be joined with a preached Word from God so that not only the “alien” (the welcomed stranger among us) will appreciate its significance, but that the church will remember the work of God in Jesus Christ for them. The gospel should be proclaimed when the supper is served and the supper must proclaim the gospel as it embodies its meaning.

Jesus invited all to the table and sat with all. If the table embodies the gospel and bears witness to the gospel, then it should reflect the universal intent of the gospel. Just as our preaching invites all to faith, so the table should invite all to eat. The table, just as the ministry of the Word, offers grace and testifies that Jesus died for all. The table is a place where “others” can not only hear but experience the gracious message of the gospel through eating with the community of faith. All are invited to eat with Jesus. The community of faith receives “strangers” at its table. The table of the Lord should epitomize gospel hospitality.

In the same way, the church as a community invites all who would seek God to the table. It invites the sinner, the unchurched and the weak family member to the table to hear the gospel of grace. It invites all (except the rebellious, cf. 1 Corinthians 5) to learn the gospel through eating and drinking.

When the Lord’s Supper is conceived as a meal at a table, then the exclusion of seekers is incongruous with the genius of the meal. If the Lord’s Supper is a meal, then it would be a counter-testimony to exclude “others.” It would deny food to the hungry, both spiritually and physically.

As the embodiment of the gospel and reflective of the essential nature of the church, the table is missional. It is a shared meal that bears witness to the universal grace of the gospel. Just as the gospel invites all to come to Jesus, so all are invited to the table to hear about Jesus and experience the community of grace.

[Modified version of a piece originally published in New Wineskins (Sep/Oct 2002).]

The previous posts in this series (listed in the Serial Index under “Biblical Texts”) have focused on exegetical detail within the framework of Luke’s two volume narrative (Luke and Acts). This final post in the series will serve as a summary of what I consider some of the more significant theological ideas embedded in Luke’s narrative concerning “breaking bread.” I trust that my exegesis (both in Come to the Table and the previous posts) grounds my theological summary.  🙂

The church continues the ministry of Jesus. The early church did what Jesus did; they followed Jesus into the world teaching what he taught and doing what he did (Acts 1:1-3). Part of this ministry was “table fellowship,” and more specifically the “breaking of bread.” Jesus sat at table with saint and sinner, insider and outsider. He broke bread with thousands (Luke 9), with the twelve which included Judas the betrayer (Luke 22) and with a wider range of disciples in post-resurrection meals (Luke 24; Acts 1).  The continue continued this practice–they broke bread as a community and with outsiders. The church continues to break bread on the ground of what Jesus did, not on the ground of what the church did.  We imitate the church as it imitated Jesus. Looking beyond the few “breaking bread” texts in the Gospel of Luke, the church finds its model for table in the table ministry of Jesus itself.

The church eats a meal of redemptive hope.  Every “breaking of bread” in Luke-Acts is a redemptive and eschatological in character. Luke 9 is the eschatological presence of the Messianic Son of Man who feeds his people–the curse of hunger is reversed in that moment and the promise of a future aswell as the fulfillment of the past (the prophet like Moses has arrived!) is embedded in that moment. Luke 22 anticipates the coming kingdom of God and at that table Jesus announces it will come as a fulfillment of the Passover.  Luke 24 declares that the future has arrived in the presence through the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 2 inaugurates a communal reality upon which the risen Christ has poured his Spirit. Acts 20 declares the hope and comfort of the resurrection through the resuscitation of Eutyches who is a symbol of the resurrection hope proclaimed in Jesus who was raised on the first day of the week and broke bread with his disciples. Acts 27 is the assurance of hope through breaking bread and eating; it is the promise of salvation. Eating the meal (breaking bread) is a promissory act–God pledges the future to us. 

The church eats in the presence of Jesus.  While the meal promises the future, it also is an experience of eschatological presence of the living Christ.  When the church breaks break, they sit at the table of the Lord who is both the nourishment and the host of the meal.  He is both lamb and host; indeed, he is servant at the table as well. When Luke uses “breaking bread” in his Gospel, Jesus is always the living host. This is particularly significant in Luke 24. Jesus promised he would break bread with his disciples again in the kingdom of God and in Luke 24 he breaks bread with them. The church eats a post-resurrection meal with Jesus through the breaking of bread. Eating in the presence of the living Christ is not a funerary act or a sad memorial of his death, but a vibrant declaration of the gospel (good news) that Christ died and rose again for the sake of the world. But more than a declaration–it is, indeed, an experience of the living Christ himself. Thus, joy and celebration encircles the table rather than mourning and sadness. Why would anyone eat a post-resurrection meal with Jesus in sadness?

The church invites “others” to share the meal. When the early church follows Jesus into the world, it is for the sake of the world. Their table is not exclusive but inclusive. Their table is inviting and includes “others” at the table. Just as Jesus willingly and intentionally sat at table with “others” (Luke 5), so the church intentionally sets a table that welcomes all. There is no reason to presume that the “breaking of bread” in Acts 2 or Acts 20 only included disciples. As communal meals, just as the communal meals of Israel, the inclusion of “outsiders” (“aliens” in the Hebrew Scriptures) is consistent with the purpose and meaning of the table itself and demonstrated by Jesus himself. He sets the table etiquette of his kingdom table and he practiced it as the presence of the kingdom in the world. The table is not simply communal but also missional (more on that in the next post).