Filling Up Christ's Afflictions - Col. 1:24

Colossians 1:24

Greek

νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία

(Click on a word above to have Zack Hubert at Re:Greek parse it for you)

Greek Translation
Now I rejoice in the sufferings for your sake and I fill up the deficit of Christ’s afflictions in my flesh for the sake of His body, which is the Church.


NIV
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His body, which is the Church.

Accurately obscures the sufferings at the beginning of the verse. Later, Paul fills it up in his body, so most likely this first sufferings does refer to himself, but NIV rightly keeps it the way he wrote it. The “what is still lacking” is bad not only because the still isn’t there in Greek, but also because Paul is filling in the gap presently, so it no longer is still lacking… Paul is filling it. Although pathemasin at the beginning and thlipseon in the middle can both be translated “afflictions,” the NIV did good to translate them differently to keep the distinction between Paul’s sufferings and Christ’s afflictions… that they are separate trials in intensity and in affect.

NASB
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the Church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

Interprets the sufferings as mine. Not at all sure where NASB gets the “in my flesh I do my share.” This is a rare case in which NASB does some inappropriate interpretive work. Major word order problem bringing the “in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the Church” to the middle rather than keeping it at the end as it is in the Greek. Diddo NIV in keeping “sufferings” and “afflictions” distinct.


KJV
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for His body’s sake, which is the Church:

Thoroughly unreadable in the 21st century. Diddo NASB: interprets the sufferings as mine. Granted we are separate by 400 years, but it sounds in 21st century English like KJV is saying Paul’s sufferings are behind Christ’s afflictions. That is to say, his don’t measure up to His. But this is not what the Greek says. The Greeks says “I supply the deficiencies of Christ’s afflictions.” Consequently this "behind Christ's" is what Tyndale (1534) translated it as. Tyndale's verse 24 is "Now joy I in my sufferings which I suffer for you, and fulfil that which is behind of the passions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the congregation." He got the distinguishing of Paul's and Christ's afflictions wrong where he translates both as "passions." I like what Tyndale wrote in commentary. "Passions or sufferings of Christ: is the passions which we must suffer for His sake. For we have professed and are appointed to suffer with Christ. John 20, as My Father sent Me, so send I you." That we don't suffer FOR Him, but we suffer WITH Him. Consequently, Wycliffe (1388) got it right and I will add that below...


Wycliffe (1388)
And now I have joy in passion for you, and I fill those things that fail of the passions of Christ in my flesh for His body, which is the Church."

He got the passion wrong in making both sufferings and afflictions the same English word. Making two English words distinguishes them just as Paul distinguished them in Greek even though they have the same range of meanings. And now I wonder if it is not Christ's afflictions on Calvary that are deficient, but His afflictions in my body. That is to say, Christ is suffering in my body as I am wounded for His Name's sake. But His suffering is not yet complete... His plan is that I suffer more and that He in me suffer more. The Wycliffe translation puts more likeliness in this than the other English translations. I suppose the possibility is there in the Greek. See my Greek translation at the top.


ESV
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church.

Diddo NASB and KJV: interprets the sufferings as mine. Word order issue, moving “in my flesh” to the front of the phrase. Overall, pretty good translation. Diddo NIV, NASB, and KJV distinguishing “sufferings” from “afflictions.”


NLT
I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am completing what remains of Christ’s sufferings for His body, the Church.

The temporality of the rejoicing is not in the Greek, as it is in James 1:2 (hotan, whenever). “I suffer” in the Greek is a noun, not a verb… should be “in the sufferings” rather than “when I suffer.” Puts “in my body” with “the sufferings” rather than with the “I am completing” as it is in the Greek. Gets the meaning pretty good with “I am completing what remains of Christ’s sufferings for His body.” That is, the thrust of Paul’s comment is to say Christ is in me, ministering to His Church through me. As he got done saying in the previous section v13-22, that Christ is the first place, He wins everything, He is responsible for all good. And then anticipates well what Paul will say in v27 that the mystery is “Christ in me” and in v29 “His power working mightily in me.” This is the least possibly-arrogant of the major translations. Paul wasn’t really bragging in the Greek, but in English you could (and you’d be wrong) accuse him of boastful pride. NLT captures best the heart of his comment. Kudos!


See my comments on the whole section of 1:23-29 here.

An Anthem Passage for the Missional Church

Colossians 1:23-29 was the passage we looked at this past Sunday night. The title of my message was On Mission with Jesus. (Audio and Notes)

There are many passages that herald the Missional Church movement. This one falls somewhere are the top of that list. Listen to the words of Paul:

"23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly )established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. 25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me."

Here we see the assignment of our mission (v23b), the extent of our mission (v24), and the enabling of our mission (v27b, 29).


I. The Assignment of Our Mission (v23b)

How far must the message of Jesus go? To the whole world. Paul said it had been proclaimed to all creation under heaven. Elsewhere, he says he completed the task of preaching to all the world. To Timothy, he says in 2 Tim 4, that "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith." What are we doing to get the Word out to the rest of creation? As God said of David when he was buried "David, having served God's purpose in his generation, was buried with his fathers" (Acts 13:36).


II. The Extent of Our Mission (v24)

The group last night had lots of curiosity about the seeming audaciousness of Paul's claims in verse 24. That Paul filled up what was lacking in Christ's afflictions. What is lacking in Christ's sacrificial death? Is the messenger part of the salvation? There are a lot of possible interpretations but the best is that Jesus suffered to accomplish our redemption, but the Christian suffers to take the message of that redemption to particular believers. Not that we all suffer, but it is the willingness to do whatever it takes for His good news to get out.

See my translation work on this verse here


III. The Enablement for Our Mission (v27b, 29)

How are we able to be part of Jesus' mission? How are we adequate for this high calling? The answer is in these two verses. Christ is in us. How radical that Christ is in His believers. Campus Crusade gets picked on for the diagrams, but we DO need to see that Jesus is on the throne of our hearts... that He is the LORD of our lives. Then he wraps up the section with this: "I strive according to His power, which mightily works in me." Are we able to say that the ability we have to impact our community is in His power rather than in our own? Too often, I think, we do ministry from our own thoughts, ways, power, etc.


Wrap-Up

So let's use this text within the Missional conversation. Let us get the job done in presenting every man woman boy and girl complete in Christ. Let us expend ourselves for His sake and join Him in His mission to this world. Let us do all this in His strength and not in our own.

The Relevant Church

a re-review of "The Relevant Church: A New Vision For Communities Of Faith" by various authors.

I've had this book for a while, but I just recently picked it up again and read from a few selections. Essentially, each chapter is written by people in the trenches doing ministry in unique ways. It is not so much the methodology that is unique as it is the philosophical underpinnings (which drive methodlogy) that makes this book and the approaches in it a challenging, refreshing, essential tool in the transitioning society we find ourselves in.

I'd like to interact in this post with a paragraph in the chapter written by Dustin Bagby, a pastor at Mosaic in Manhattan, NY. He writes:

Unfortunately, many people who have grown up in church were taught to avoid culture at all costs. They were taught that we need to form an enviornment
in which to live and then invite other people to join. the problem is that the people who we are inviting to join are not coming. Now it is time to go 'out there' and meet them. I find that most of Jesus; teachings are about going and harvesting. I hear very little about sitting back at an event and hoping people who are not followers will attend. Jesus always went to where the people in need were.

Week after week, we pray for God to bring visitors to our church and that rarely happens. The time is over for churches to expect the unchurched to pop in to find God. They are finding what they think is meaning elsewhere. Certainly, what they are finding will not satisfy long because only Jesus can fill their deepest longings. But too many generations have separated the lost from churches. It was subtle in the beginning... devoted Christians would take kids to church, but those kids didn't find it relevant so they bowed out until those kids had kids of their own. Then when they had kids, they took their kids to Sunday School and maybe morning worship. Then that new crop of kids bowed out with mom and dad when they were too old for Sunday School to hold their affections. By the time those kids had kids of their own, maybe they'd drop off the new generation of kids at Sunday school or maybe grandparents would take the grandkids. What we face now is that twenty-somethings and thirtysomethings are having kids but never consider church as any kind of option because the fact is, they never went themselves as kids. Higher and higher percentages of the younger two generations have little or no church experience.

And so when we today within the church pray for people to come and wonder why our prayers go unanswered, God is conversely wondering (Antrhopomorphism... God can't wonder, He is omniscient) how long it will take for us to figure out that the lost are just that: LOST. They can't find us, they don't know that they need us, it isn't they reject Jesus but rather that they've never heard there was a Jesus.

A New Kind of Church

All of this got started when the truth hit me like a ton of bricks: we really don't have a coffee shop in Dover. Yeah there's a Coffee Beanery at the food court in the mall, but that isnt a cafe. Yes there are Starbucks at at least two grocery stores in town, but those aren't cafes. There is a place at lawyer central but I haven't been there yet... I think its a deli, but I'll give it a try.

And then the self-pity kicked in... Smyrna has two on Main Street. Milford has two on Main Street. Our town is like double the size of those two towns... what is up? Matt B tells me there used to be one in Dover, so what is our problem?!? We don't drink coffee? Where can I sit with a laptop or a book or some paper and just read... write... talk with people?

So I started to dream. I came full circle to the realization that a coffee shop is not really economically viable. I read a guy on Slate that says to break even you'd have to sell $500 a day in coffee AND work it yourself full time along with your parttime help. He couldn't do it in Manhattan, I don't think I could do it in Dover. That is a mess of coffee to unload per day.

But it got me thinking about church. The first church met in the upper room of someone's house. Acts 1 tells us that 120 of Jesus' followers met continually awaiting the gift of the Spirit. They hadn't bought their own building. They probably weren't even renting, the owner just let them hang out up there. No, I'm not advocating house church, but I think it is worth having a discussion of rethinking church methodology.

I'm just throwing this idea out there: how would you do church on Loockerman Street? What would it feel like? Think upper room. Convert the apartments on the second floor of a storefront into one large room for congregational gatherings. You'd plug it as "the Upper Room." The main floor storefront would be a coffeeshop, bookstore, whatever. Obviously the symbiotic relationship would defray the expenses related to being in that district. Additionally, you'd have the name recognition of the store when telling people about worship gatherings. Most importantly of all to ask: What kind of people would come to that kind of church? Why would that kind of person NOT come to a "normal" church?

I'm not suggesting that we stop doing "normal" church, I'm floating the idea of doing this new kind of church in addition.

Tomorrow? No way! Down the road? Why not. Really, I'm just asking the question...

Emerging/Emergent - He Said It Again

By the testimony of two or three witnesses, or more accurately the same witness twice now, I feel that the following notion is valid...

The Emerging Church is a distinct group from the Emergent Church.

I was listening to Mark Driscoll tonight at the Resurgence Conference. Watch it live here. He said that they are different. I wrote in my blog about this back in October after the BFC Ministerial Convention. Read that post here.

So again my question: can we the BFC feel comfortable trying this out at least on a trial basis without the fear of throwing in our lot with heretics?

I'd love your comments.

Capito, Sattler, and Emerging Church Philosophy

Introduction

The year: 1527 AD. The place: Strasbourg, Germany. Not exactly a hot bed of openness to new ideas. The Reformers had just revolted from Roman oppression within the last decade. They weren't much better than the Catholics when it came to divergent viewpoints on the Scriptures. Enter the Anabaptists. At the elemental level, the only disagreement between the Reformers and the Anabaptists was their view of baptism. Not a core doctrine from the 21st century perspective. To the Reformers, this divergence was so extreme that it demanded capital punishment. In all fairness, the Lutherans and Catholics also executed Anabaptists within their communities. Wolfgang Capito describes Michael Sattler's execution this way:

"Michael ... their leader and instigator is said to have been condemned by triple judgment, namely that in the city his tongue was cut out, second, that his body was torn with red hot tongs twice in the city and three times again at the gallows, thus tearing out his flesh, and third, that he was burned alive."

Such madness even if for a vile madman, let alone an innocent man like Michael Sattler.

Emerging Thought in 1527

Anyway, to my main point... the man Wolfgang Capito was way before his time. I am not sure of all of his theology, but he is remembered as "ecumenically open" and "willing to converse with others." He was consistently and thoroughly a Reformer. Now this is what he writes about his dealings with the Anabaptists like Michael Sattler.

"Now we were not in agreement with him as he wished to make Christians righteous by their acceptance of articles and an outward commitment. This we thought to be the beginning of a new monasticism. We desired rather to help the believing life to progress by contemplation of the mercies of God, as Moses bases his exhortations to good works, on the reminder of divine favors and of the fatherly disciplining of the people by God (Deut 8); which is the order of salvation [how thoroughly Calvinist!!]. Namely that we confess our sin and know that God has forgiven us the same through Christ, and that out of pure grace He desires to give us eternal life, which we are assured by the Spirit of the children of God, which then gives birth to fear, yea, which penetrates us with fear, so that we become conscientious in all our action that we might not act against God. This is followed by wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, and pure childlike reverence which remains eternally."

Basically here he said that he is right, the Anabaptists are wrong, on the issue of the order of salvation. He recognizes that the Anabaptists are generally advocating holiness then salvation and the Reformers are on the other hand advocating salvation then holiness. But now listen to what he says about these "unorthodox heretics..."

"But it can happen that the elect of God have this fear and desire from their hearts to serve God, but have not yet received the spirit of wisdom and do not really know that God looks only on the yielded heart, rather think they will please Him with their works. [Now listen!] Such persons are certainly saved and have a good zeal, but not with right knowledge. These are to be loved as brothers and fellow members, to be dealt with tenderly in their weakness, in their ignorance to be shown the truth with a mild spirit. This is what Paul calls accepting the brother who is weak in the faith, which is what faith and love for the honor of God and brotherly love toward the neighbor demand of all of us."

So he calls them wrong AND he calls them his brothers. There is Truth or at least truth. Capito even contends for the faith. But he does so without discarding the real faith of those who disagree with him. I've said this many times within the past few years, but five or ten years ago I believed the opposite: Arminians are saved, they just don't know why. I used to think that they were not saved because of their lack of understanding. I am now seeing that we are not saved by our thinking, we are saved by a gracious God who saved the Ephesians long before they knew that there was a Holy Spirit. He called the Corinthians "Saints" despite the truth of the matter. And today He works on all of us despite ourselves not because of ourselves.

Capito was a rare breed in 1527. He recognized that to be saved by the mercies of God is not in response to our assent of the truth. Zwingli and Luther were passionate for the Truth, and so when they met to merge at the Marburg Colloquoy they agreed on twenty-some points of doctrine yet the disagreed on one "what happens at the Lord's Table?" They parted ways thinking the other was not truly born again. So when I say Capito stands out, it really is true.


For Us Today

So the thought for us in our generation is: are we willing to see ourselves as part of a much larger fellowship of churches?

My heart weeps for those who attend church Sunday after Sunday and never hear the Word of God. When the prophet said there would be a famine for hearing the Word of the Lord, it isn't fulfilled today except through our own fault. These churches that do not open the Bible in their meetings... it is very hard for me to call these leaders "brothers." They are in sin for not teaching God's Word to their people. It is cocky, arrogant, self-indulged to think that my clever conversation is better for my folks than God's Counsel. Yet can I call these "brothers"?

Can I call the Arminians brothers? Tony Jones calls 90% of Americans "semi-pelagian" (Arminians are semi-pelagian as are Catholics). So to dismiss them as unbelievers we need to lay all the cards out on the table and recognize that we are talking about a large group of people. These people think that they can accept or reject God and even if they accept, they can later reject. They believe that their sinfulness is not so bad that they cannot reason in themselves and choose God. They have a low view of God and a high view of themselves. They do not have a holistic understanding of God's Word. Is it our thinking that saves us or is it God's mercy that saves us? The answer is obvious, but the next question is tougher: if it is God's mercy that saves us, He guides us into all truth, what of the person who is not being guided into all truth? Difficult question to answer... I am going to lean on the side of caution. These are my brothers.

Let me close with this already quoted line "It can happen that the elect of God have this [conscientious] fear and desire from their hearts to serve God, but have not yet received the spirit of wisdom and do not really know that God looks only on the yielded heart, rather think they will please Him with their works."


All blockquotes were cited from "The Legacy of Michael Sattler" edited by John H. Yoder. Herald Press: Scottdale, PA. 1973. pp. 87-88.

Emergent vs. Emerging

Symantics or Real Distinction?

I've heard both words floating around and I wondered if there was any difference. Mark Driscoll in this YouTube clip says they are different. He says that Emerging Church is the overall movement and there are lots of little groups in that movement. He says some are pockets are really conservative theologians trying to engage their culture (sound familiar BFC?) but he says there are others that are social gospel, liberal theologians hyped up on the new perspective on Paul (this group labels itself "Emergent").





Research on the Distinction

So I did some research to see who says what about each word.

Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones are high-ups in the Emergent Village, I watched this clip and Tony couldn't stop from saying "words like justice love and gospel mean the exact same thing. Justice IS Gospel, to work for justice to be actively engaged in God's justice in the world means to be gospel people." Clip below:




Enter the Modernists

SO then John MacArthur, very modern, anti-emerging pastor and author comes along and listens to the overall conversation of the emerging church. He isn't happy with it.




He, DA Carson, many many others in the modern Church rail against the emerging movement because they are concerned that the movement is a reincarnation of social gospel. These are men who grew up in churches that fought against liberalism and then became solidiers in the same battle and really won that battle. Now they see they old enemy rearing its head again. I like MacArthur, I really do. I think (especially if Driscoll is right) that MacArthur is in reality not against the emerging church (even though he says he is). Instead he is really against the emergent church.


Should We Wade In?!?

But the question remains: is emerging and emergent the same? Can a BFC Church or the BFC be part of a movement which has under the same large umbrella social gospel types. Just because emergent is a small group amidst a large umbrella of emerging... does it disqualify us from participation in the greater point? I said earlier, I don't count myself as part of the emerging movement. I'm closer than many of the brethren at the ministerial convention, but I'm not in yet. I'm headed that way slowly (so Tim B and others: rescue the perishing!). What I said earlier is this emergent thing (if in fact the two words ought to be distinct) does make me think twice. But if Driscoll is right, it is valuable and "safe" to be in it and not be identical to everyone in it. FIF sang a song: unity not uniformity. That may fit at this point.


Rescue me before I hurl myself headlong!

Emerging Church Follow-Up

Seeing Value Even If We Disagree

Here’s the deal. I try to see both the good and bad in what someone is saying. I really am against the charismatic movement despite some of the positive things I have said of them recently in our examination of the spiritual gifts in Morning Worship. Despite all that could be said of them in a negative light, we must admit that they have done a service to God’s Church insofar as they have forced us all to reexamine the Scriptures on the subject of spiritual gifts. For this, they are valuable. If it is not a stretch (I do not think that it is), I would like to make the same observation here about the emerging church. Despite all the negative things that could be said of them, they are offering to all of us a conversation about the weaknesses of the modern, “scientific” Church. For this, they are valuable.


Where Am I in This Conversation?

Before I get into it, I think it would be appropriate to define myself and my biases before I begin. I am more comfortable with the emerging movement that most BFCers. But I am not part of the Emerging Church because of a lot of the more vocal voices that are unorthodox in the classic sense of the word. There are some great guys in there, Driscoll and Kimball are phenomenal writers, speakers, pastors among countless others in the movement. But there are a lot and the more vocal and center-stage that are out-right heretics. I don't use the word lightly and I won't name names because it isn't my intention to bulldoze someone without the fair trial that I don't have time for here. But, this is why, thus far, I don’t want to call myself part of the movement even though my heart resounds with a lot of what they are calling us into.


Enough, What IS It Already!?!?

Essentially, the Emerging Church is a philosophical movement reacting against the excesses of the Modern Church. And now you might be saying “blah, blah, blah.” Before you start throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen, indulge me. This movement loathes our use of scientific rationale to exegete the Scriptures. They view what the Church has done to God as putting Him in a box. If He is searchable, definable, reasonable, rational, and wholly knowable than He is no longer “worth it.” The intrigue and the seduction of Christian faith is that is faith, reasonable faith, but faith nonetheless. The example that I witnessed which drove me towards the postmodern (or maybe premodern) worldview was a series of events at my college. We had this same speaker, John Franke, come and speak at the Student Theological Society. Many professors attended and after the event, they had a pow-wow in which they denounced the Doctrine of Illumination (which teaches that the Spirit unpacks the Scriptures as the Christian reads, to “guide him into all truth” as Jesus promises in John 16:13). Rather, the professors came to the consensus that it is through the proper implementation of hermeneutics and exegesis (big words for scientific method) which gives the reader the correct interpretations and applications of God’s Word. This is why Tony Jones calls evangelicals “soft Gnostics.” Only those with proper training can induce the meaning of God’s Word. It’s poppycock and any rational Christian should know it.


This is the kind of thing that the Emerging Church is reacting against. Rather than the individual with their proper methods, the Emerging Church values corporate readings of Scripture with time for alternate interpretations within the “conversation.” As all hear and engage the conversation, the Spirit moves the group to conclude the things He wants for them. Can't we say this in the political election process: each person has their say, yet it is "Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind and bestows it on whomever He wishes" (Daniel 4:32). Conversation sounds great, but at the same time, I’ve been in Bible studies where the average IQ (and EQ) was lower than a box of rocks. IQ isn’t everything and I don’t want to be guilty of the aforementioned poppycock, but sometimes conversation is good and sometimes it is bad.


Some of Franke's Thoughts

I like what Franke said about our system of doctrines “if we claim that our theology is absolutely concluded, then we par it with Scripture.” This new movement emphasizes suspicion based on finitude. In other words, no one can be certain unless they are God. In an industry that takes pride in certainties, it is uncomfortable to question commonly held beliefs. Yet all the famous men throughout Church history have questioned. That being said, all the villains in Church history have also questioned.

The Foundation for the movement is the question of knowable Truth. So let’s engage in this concept: “the truth is: there is Truth, but only for God.” In other words, emerging church adherents believe that there is Truth with a capital-T, but that only God can possess it. We can and do hold truthes with a lowercase-t, but while they remain true, they do not measure the same intensity and totality as the Truth as God sees it. Franke said “Even the Scripture itself in our eyes is less full then the same Scripture in God’s eyes. The Church Father Iranaeus talked about this when he wrote “God is light, but like no light we have ever experienced.” John Calvin also said similar things when he wrote “humans cannot comprehend knowledge the way God can.” Tim B tells me this is the Reformed Doctrine of Analogy. From what I can tell from orthodoxy and from my own epistemological humility, it makes a lot of sense intellectually and practically. It explains for me why we’re right and everyone else is wrong. I jest… it explains why the men and women who all love Jesus just as much can come up with such wildly diverging views of faith and practice.

Franke says that in God’s sovereignty, He allowed divergent faith traditions within the Church. Tim B whispered to me “is that God’s permissive will or decreetive will?” Or in other words, did God want that or allow that? Franke says that the core of Christianity doesn’t change with differing cultures, but that just as different cultures need “it” in their language, they also need “it” in their heart expression too. That is my lingo for Franke’s thought. When we translate the Bible, we do it in a way that faithfully both expresses the message of the original language AND impresses the heart of the hearer. And similarly, in the way we “do Church” we need to express the counsel of God and impress the heart of the hearer. God is seeker sensitive. That is why there are four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), two chronicles of the kings (Kings and Chronicles). All express the same events as their competing authors but in a way that is sensitive to the hopes and aspirations of the author’s audience.

Franke asked a tough question in his closing lecture: “does theology change as we converse?” He said it as a statement of fact, not as a question, but professors do that all the time. It is some subset technique to the principle of cognitive dissonance or something, I don’t know. I heard it as a question in my mind. It is true that iron sharpens iron and a brother sharpens his brother, but it is also true that jello doesn’t sharpen jello and idiots likewise don’t sharpen each other. So I suppose the truth (lower case) of the statement depends, which I guess emergents would love to hear that! He referenced three Scriptures and then asked this question: “if the Spirit guides, how can we be so divergent from each other?” Ummm! Great question. Here are the Scriptures:

“We have the mind of Christ through the Spirit who searches all things” (1 Corinthians 2:13, 16)
“The Spirit will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)
“You need no teacher but the Spirit” (1 John 2:27)

Either He lied, or He is bad at His job, or we are the way He wants us to be. Franke didn’t say as some extremists say “or some of us aren’t really saved.” Franke chalks it up to this phrase used twice in the NT “the manifold grace of God” (1 Pt 4:10, Eph 3:10).


Wrap-Up

So those are some real stumpers. Hopefully my overview got you thinking over the whole issue. Even if you don’t want to embrace the emerging culture, it is my hope that you want to engage the emerging culture. Whether we like it or not, more and more people are thinking this way. Maybe not the people in our churches, but people in the world are thinking this way. We need to know where they are so that we can rescue them.


Alrighty, you know the drill... commence commenting!

BFC-MC Emerging Church Follow-up

If you're wondering what we did at Ministerial Convention, lemme tell ya. I would love to tell you, but my good friend Tim Bertolet already did it. He and I attended together. He is the pastor at the Mount Pocono BFC.

Read Tim Bertolet's Thoughts on Dr. Franke's presentations.

So this is what I'm going to do... I'll read his 3 blog entries this coming week and then post any additional things I had to chip in here AND as a coment on his stuff. Fair? I guess.

---

It's October 17, 2007

OKAY, so I finally got around to it. Sorry, sorry, thousand apologies, sincerely. I meant to do this really for you and for me. So here it it: My Follow-Up Appointment with the Emerging Church.

---

If Solomon lived today he'd say "of the reading and writing of blogs, there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12:12).

BFC-MC : The Emerging Church

Well, we're off to Ministerial Convention. We'll be sleeping at my wife's folks tonight. Rachel's mom is going to watch the kids Tuesday and Wednesday. This will be the first time Rachel and Evelyn, our youngest, will be apart through the night and the second or third time Rachel and Nathaniel, our oldest, will be apart through the night. Early tomorrow morning, we'll be driving up to Pinebrook for the convention.

The agenda is a conversation on the Emerging Church which will be led by Dr. John Franke, a professor of theology at Biblical Theological Seminary. Franke has led the seminary to enganging the issues of postmodernity, missional theology, and the emerging church. There are of course many opinions on these issues. Some say that to even talk about postmodernism is to tread across orthodoxy into heresy. Personally, the jury is still out for me, but I DO think we should not be afraid to engage in a conversation on these issues. We should be eager to examine what is happening in the church culture and the greater societal culture and make plans to minister to the lost in a more successful way.

A Methodist brother in the minstry told me his church hired a consultant who has been studying Delaware culture for some time. According to my brother, only 16% of Delawareans have gone to church in the last 2 years. There is no doubt, even if the study is off on numbers, that God's Church is not reaching the lost in this world. Why wouldn't we talk together about how we can do better in our mission?!?