Tag: Christianity

The Need for Unity of Purpose in the Church: Focus on Jesus

When Paul heard of the divisions in the Corinthian church, he came to them with the centrality of the Gospel – Jesus and him crucified.

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

I have been meaning to write on unity in the Church for some time, but the subject has seemed too large for me to tackle. I am not a theologian. I took all the classes to be a religion major in college, but I didn’t hand in my thesis paper (on inerrancy), so I settled on being an English Literature major only.

Over the last 15 years, approximately, I been serious in reading Scripture and thinking (and writing) through the many difficult issues that face modern Christians. I have always been about “mere Christianity” since my earliest days as a Christ follower over 40 years ago, and I am convinced more than ever of the importance of being unified around basic or essential Christian principles.

My church is going through 1 Corinthians for the next several months or more, and the first chapter of the letter focuses on unity. I began writing about the need to be intentional – to agree – to end divisions and be unified in mind and purpose in Fighting for Unity in the Body of Christ.

I learned that the Greek word translated “mind” (or mindset”), nous, means more than just our thinking. It encompasses our attitude and disposition also. As we follow Jesus as he followed the Father, we should have same attitude/mindset that Jesus had.

Jesus is our pattern, and he calls us all to live as he lived, conforming to the same pattern he described when he said, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

Paul reminds us that Jesus left aside his privilege and humbled himself to become one of us. (Philippians 2) Paul adds that our knowledge and ability to fathom all mysteries are nothing if we don’t have love. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2) Therefore, our mindset – our attitude and disposition (love) toward one another – is vitally important in what it means to be unified in mind and purpose.

Unity does not just mean intellectual assent on matters of doctrine. Paul says that we only “know in part”. (1 Corinthians 13:12) We need to bear that mind, therefore, as we try to be obedient to the commandment to end divisions and be unified in mind and purpose.

This all begs the question, though: what mind and what purpose is Paul talking about? What is it that we must be intentional to agree about?

In the first article, I found some clues in the Greek meanings of the words translated “mind and purpose”, but they only scratch the surface. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon, and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament all agree that νοῦς (nous) (translated mind) refers not only to the intellect, understanding, or reasoning faculty; it it also encompasses the mindset or disposition of a person.

Doctrine is implied in the concept of being of one mind, but doctrine is not all that this word implies. In fact, the summary of the Law Jesus provided for us (love God and love neighbor) seems to emphasize attitude and action over intellectual, theological constructs.

That doesn’t mean that Jesus was not doing theology when he summarized the Law. In fact, I think it is safe to say that we do theology far less perfectly than Jesus did!

We tend to complicate theology, but Jesus simplified it. In simplifying it, though, Jesus was not discounting or minimizing the rationality and intellectual rigor of it. Rather, Jesus was prioritizing the intellectual aspect of knowledge below below love. As Paul says: even if we can fathom all mysteries and have all knowledge, we have nothing without love. Love, therefore, is the priority over knowledge and understanding.

As we have already seen, the mindset we adopt must also incorporate our disposition and attitude toward God and each other. Any doctrine divorced from these things is empty. It is like a clanging gong without a symphony.

I think it is safe to say that doctrine, by itself, is devoid of life. Knowledge and understanding are nothing without love. It seems to me that love, even without knowledge or understanding, is better than knowledge and understanding without love.

Some might say though, that love cannot be divorced from truth. Jesus said that he is the way, truth and the life, so truth is obviously important.

But, not all truth is of the same value. It is true that today is sunny and warm in the Chicago area, but that truth is not nearly as important as the truth that Jesus is God incarnate who died on the cross for our sin and rose from the dead to redeem us from sin and death.

Having the same mind and purpose implies that we agree to the certain key value and truth propositions. It cannot mean that all of us view all value and truth propositions the same way. As finite beings who know only in part, that would be impossible! So what does Paul mean?

Continue reading “The Need for Unity of Purpose in the Church: Focus on Jesus” →

Fighting for Unity in the Body of Christ

Unity is driven by a mindset and purpose that we agree on, according to Paul.

kevingdrendel1 Comment

I have been reading in 1st and 2nd Corinthians these last few weeks in the Bible reading plan I am following this year. My church is also focusing on 1 Corinthians for the next few months, and we have been in 1 Corinthians 1 for the last two weeks of sermons and small group discussions.

Paul wrote what we call 1st Corinthians to address divisions in the church, ethical issues, relational issues, and differences over religious practices (among other things). The overarching theme of this letter seems to be an attempt to get this local church in southern Greece on the same page. In the first bit of guidance Paul provides, he says:

I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose.

1 Corinthians 1:10

Unity (in Christ) is a focus of Paul in many of his letters: Romans 12:4-5; Ephesians 4:3-6, 13; Philippians 2:2; and Colossians 3:14. Peter also stressed like-mindedness in 1 Peter 3:8 (with sympathy, love, and compassion for one another in humility). John stressed love for one another in his letters (1 John 3 & 4; 2 John 1:5-6)) and working together. (3 John 1:8) James urged believers to be “peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” (James 3:17-18)

Paul, Peter, John and James are the pillars of the early church. Unity and love are stressed by them because it was stressed by Jesus. Jesus prayed for unity among the disciples and all who believed after them:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me— so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

JOhn 17:20-23

Jesus, of course, summarized the whole Law of God in two statements: Love God and love your neighbor. In his last extended discourse with the disciples at the Last Supper before the events unfolded that led to the cross, Jesus said:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

JOhn 13:34-35

Love is the new command from Jesus that summarizes all that God sought to teach His people through the Law and the Prophets Therefore, when Paul urges the Church to be unified, we need to pay attention!

Continue reading “Fighting for Unity in the Body of Christ” →

Mockery of the Offense and the Offended: the Opening Ceremonies in Paris

I want to be offended, but, I am caught up short by Paul’s admonition not to judge the world at this time – while people may still be saved.

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

Paul famously says in Roman 1:20 that people everywhere are without excuse in their denial of God and suppression of the truth because God’s invisible attributes and His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen and are understood through the creation. This is one of the most often quoted verses in the first couple of Chapters of Roman.

I have often quoted Romans 1:20 as a defense of the faith to unbelievers, but Romans 2:1 catches my eye today. It begins with same phrase, “Therefore, you are without excuse….” Except this verse is clearly directed to an audience of Roman believers.

I wonder how I have missed the parallel nature of this statement to believers. Just as nonbelievers are without excuse in their unbelief, Paul says believers are without excuse in a different sense:

“Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.”

Romans 2:1

I have to admit my own tendency to focus on Romans 1 and Paul’s statements that the world is without excuse, because God made himself known, and people in their depraved minds chose not to honor God, embracing sin instead. I tend to focus on the list of sins, including men and women trading natural relations for unnatural ones.

It seems that the world focuses on those things as well. Christians and non Christians alike, and this list of sins has become become a dividing line in the ongoing battle of a “culture war” that wages in the United States.

While Romans 1:20 and the list of sins that follow it seems to have captured our attention, I wonder today why we seem to glossed over what Paul says in Romans 2:1?

The parallel nature of the two verses demands some attention. We dare not focus on one half of the equation to the exclusion of the other half of the equation.

Paul says in Romans 1:14 that he is a debtor to Greeks and barbarians and to the wise and the foolish because the Gospel has the power for salvation. (Rom. 1:16) The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel from faith to faith. (Rom. 1:17)

Then, Paul says that the wrath of God is revealed against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth (Rom. 1:19) because God has made it plain to them…. Therefore, they are without excuse.

Paul doesn’t stop there, however, and neither should we. In Romans 2, Paul starts out saying that people who judge others are also without excuse! On whatever grounds we judge others, we condemn ourselves because we practice the same things.

This is a sobering statement, and one which we ignore to our detriment and the detriment of the preaching of the gospel.

Again, it’s important to note that Paul is talking to the believers in Rome. He is not talking to heathens and barbarians and people who are given over to their carnal desires.

Five chapters later Paul talks personally about believers’ struggles with sin (Romans 7:15-20), doing the things we don’t want to do and not doing the things we know we should do. Paul is brutally honest about the fact that sin is still a problem for the believer. If anyone ways he is without sin, he makes God out to be a liar! (1 John 1:10)

Of course, believers should resist sin and learn to overcome it. This is a lifelong process, and we only overcome by the work of the Holy Spirit in us as we yield to His direction in our lives.

Yet, the holiest of people – Paul – admits to failing from time to time and giving into or returning to some form of sin. It doesn’t what what the sin is. The sin that causes us to stumble may be different for each one of us. That fact is that we sin, even though we don’t want to sin anymore.

The import of this for the believer, Paul is saying, is that we, should not adopt a judgmental attitude toward anyone. Not even to those who God has given over to their carnal desires. In judging others, we condemn ourselves, says Saint Paul. Paul also days,

“What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”

1` Corinthians 5:122

The timing of this fresh revelation from my daily scripture reading is interesting. My social media feed has been full of judgmental tirades over the opening ceremonies at the Paris Olympics. I did not watch them, but I have certainly become aware of how everyone feels about those ceremonies, particularly Christians.

I know I am late to the discussion, but I have resisted the temptation to jump into the fray. It seems there is much to be offended about, yet the parallelism of Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:1 gives me pause. The judgmentalism of offended Christians screams for a response.

Continue reading “Mockery of the Offense and the Offended: the Opening Ceremonies in Paris” →

St. Augustine on the Literal Meaning of Genesis

How Augustine read Scripture in light of experience and reason.

kevingdrendel2 Comments

People cite the great church father, Augustine, in defense of the view that the earth is only thousands (rather than billions) of years old. Indeed, I believe this was (more or less) Augustine’s view, based on the science and knowledge that was available to him in the 5th Century when he lived. Augustine believed the earth was young.

That isn’t the end of our understanding of Augustine, though. To understand Augustine, we might be aided by a basic review of the mythological, philosophical and scientific views that were prevalent in his world at the time.

According to my inquiry on Bing Co-Pilot, the mythology of the time didn’t attempt to date the age of the earth. Science (such as it was) also had not established a position. Philosophy, however, provided two opposing views.

The philosophical camps were led by Aristotle and Lucretius. Aristotle argued that the earth was eternal, and Lucretius argued that the earth formed relatively recently (based on a lack of records prior to the Trojan War). (The Trojan War dates to the 11th or 12th Century BCE.) Thus, the two competing views in Augustine’s day were 1) eternal earth or 2) young earth. There was no inkling in Augustine’s time that the earth might be very old, but not eternal.

Interestingly, Aristotle’s view of an eternal earth shifted to an eternal universe, and that view became the accepted scientific view that lasted well into the 20th Century. This was Einstein’s view when he developed the Theory of Relativity.

The past eternal view of the universe was only debunked and rejected by the scientific consensus in the second half of the 20th Century, and then only very reluctantly. (Even now, some scientists demonstrate a desire to find support for a past eternal universe, but support for that view seems to get thinner and thinner as time goes on.)

In the uncertain stew of mythology, philosophy, and science in the 5th Century, Augustine acknowledged that a literal, 6-day reading of the creation story in Genesis is not an irrational interpretation. That is basically how he put it.

He didn’t endorse that view, however. He thought the better view was that the “days” in Genesis 1 do not correspond to earthly (24 hour) days. Even in his exploration of a “literal” reading of Genesis, Augustine incorporated allegorical nuance.

Augustine did not believe that “literal” and “allegorical” meanings were mutually exclusive, and neither did most of the early church fathers. What Augustine and the early church fathers meant by the “literal” meaning of Scripture was what the people who wrote the original words literally meant and how the audience to whom they communicated understood them.

In this effort to understand what the writers meant, the early church fathers assumed that the original meanings included metaphor, symbolism, and literary devices. None of the early church fathers (that I am aware of) argued for the modern sense of strict literalism in the interpretation of Scripture.

Though most early Christians believed literally in the historicity of the biblical accounts (to use a modern term), they also accepted the richness of allegorical meaning in Scripture at the same time. In fact, the metaphorical meaning of Scripture was assumed to be the deeper, more significant meaning of Scripture.

Augustine (along with Clement of Alexandria and Origen) ultimately rejected the calendar-day view of the Genesis creation story in favor of instantaneous creation with a kind of day/age view of the creation passage in Genesis. The great Jewish theologians, Philo and Hilary of Poitiers also took this view that God created the earth instantaneously.

We should recognize that the day-age view that Augustine and others preferred was probably not the consensus, but it also wasn’t considered heresy. The theology and the philosophy were unsettled, and science had not yet developed as we know it. The Church allowed for robust disagreement on age of the earth, because it was not considered essential doctrine.

I should stop here, at the risk of pointing out something you already know, and look at the meaning of the Hebrew word, יוֹם (yom). This word is translated into the English word, day, in Genesis 1. As with most Hebrew words, yom has many nuanced meanings and applications, both literal and figurative. The various meanings include:

  • Day, as opposed to night
  • Day as a division of time
  • Day as defined by evening and morning
  • Day as in a time (like harvest)
  • Day as in an age or epoch of time

In addition to the definitions, most Hebrew words have both literal and figurative meanings and applications. Thus, Augustine’s position that the days in Genesis can be read to mean an “earthly” or “ordinary” day did not exclude the idea of applying them more figuratively. That duality is consistent with the way Hebrew words and Hebrew language works. This built-in literal/figurative duality of Hebrew words informed the thinking of the early church fathers.

Augustine is famous for preferring allegorical readings and applications of Scripture. In his early two-volume work on Genesis in which he took issue with the Manicheans, Augustine explored the position that the days in Genesis are seven epochs of redemptive history corresponding with seven stages of the Christian life. (See Did Augustine Read Genesis 1 Literally? by Gavin Ortlund citing De Genesis contra Manichaeos 1.23.35-1.25.43, in Augustine, On Genesis, 62-68.)

When Augustine set out to write a “literal” interpretation of Genesis, he didn’t mean what people today might think he meant. Even his “literal” reading of Scripture was not strictly literalist. It was an attempt to understand what the original writers and audiences (literally) meant and what they understood it to mean.

Science in St. Augustine’s day was not advanced enough to weigh in on the age of the earth, but Augustine was a strong proponent of understanding science. The science of his day, for instance, had settled the spherical shape and circumference of the earth. That the earth was round and even the size of the perimeter of the earth was well established and understood among academics since before the time of Christ. (It is purely a myth, for instance, that Columbus had to convince people the earth was not flat.) Augustine’s view of scientific knowledge and its relationship to Scripture is what I want to highlight here.

Continue reading “St. Augustine on the Literal Meaning of Genesis” →

The Uncertain, Vital Value of Personal Experience with God

Atheists are not alone in being skeptical of personal experience. And with good reason, but….

kevingdrendelLeave a comment

In a conversation on the Unbelievable? Podcast, Coming to faith through Dawkins – Part 2: Is there a new New Atheism?, Alex O’Connor (a/k/a the Cosmic Skeptic) commented about the book, Coming to Faith through Dawkins. He agreed that the most interesting aspect of the book is the prominence of story and experience, but he finds it unconvincing for the same reasons.

In case you don’t know, the book is a compilation of the stories of twelve people who were influenced by Richard Dawkins in their journeys from atheism to belief in the God of the Bible. Dawkins, of course, is one of the original (and most vocal) of the “new atheists. Thus, the title and subject matter of the book is ironic, intriguing, and not a little controversial.

O’Connor’s critique of the people whose stories are recounted in the book is that they seem to focus on their personal experiences. He says he is not convinced by the personal stories because they focus too much on personal experience and too little on syllogisms, rational arguments, and logical processes in their coming to faith.

This statement, as we shall see, is not a little ironic. O’Connor, though, expresses the modern western sensibility about personal experiences that are discounted and dismissed in favor of more objective evidence.

To be fair, many of the stories in the book recount the intellectual paths people trod on their way to faith, though the stories do not rigorously lay out the arguments, logic, and proofs. We shouldn’t be surprised by that, as the book focuses on peoples’ stories, and people’s stories are personal experiences.

Each of these journeyers from atheism to faith found problems, errors, bad philosophy, and nonsensical statements in Dawkins’s positions that led them to question his underlying assumptions (which were their underlying assumptions also). This, itself, was a rational process. The intellectual problems they saw in Dawkins’s positions made them skeptical of his skepticism.

O’Connor’s critique of the experiential nature of the stories might be discounted on that basis, but I want to focus on something else. This critique came up in the second of two segments. I want to go back to the first segment and contrast his critique with another statement O’Connor made to get to my point today. (See Coming to Faith through Richard Dawkins Part 1)

When asked what might convince him of the existence of God in the first segment, O’Connor said (without hesitation) that personal experience would be the most likely thing. Therefore, the critique O’Connor made in the second segment (complaining of the overly experiential nature of the stories) is ironic in light of O’Connor’s own admission that personal experience might be the one thing that could convince him that God exists (if he had such an experience).

This incongruity in O’Connor’s criticism about personal experience, and the value of personal experience in what we believe, is the thing I want to explore today. Atheists are not alone in being skeptical of personal experience. And with good reason. But personal experience is, nevertheless, vital to our human understanding of anything.

Continue reading “The Uncertain, Vital Value of Personal Experience with God” →