just to make a point
“The spontaneous expansion of the Church reduced to its element is a very simple thing. It asks for no elaborate organization, no large finances, no great numbers of paid missionaries. In its beginning it may be the work of one man and that of a man neither learned in the things of this world, nor rich in the wealth of this world. What is necessary is faith. What is needed is the kind of faith which uniting a man to Christ, sets him on fire” – Rolland Allen The Compulsion of the Spirit, 47-48.
What a genius Rolland Allen was. Way before his time. Here he affirms the ‘distillation process’ that I tried to articulate in the last blog. His Spontaeous Expansion of the Church is nothing short of precient. Here is it is. the-spontaneous-expansion-of-the-church-by-roland-allen-v2.doc A must read.
Comments
45 Responses to “just to make a point”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Penney Winiarski said: Great resource Alan....
- Andrew said: Have been into the...
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
Alan,
I love Rolland Allen’s work–a man before his time. Or should I say, a man from the first century. He is very restorationist.
If what he says in this quote is true, then we have failed to be missional because of a lack of faith–passionate faith.
As much as we need to change structures, resources, and the like to become more missional, it would seem that the core thing that we must change in order to bring about missional transformation is to produce people who are passionate about Jesus.
This, it seems to me, supports your previous post in which you uphold the second person of the Trinity as being the key focus in explosive Christian movements of the past.
If interested, I have a short critical review of Allen’s work on my website at http://www.storyofredemption.com/page31.html if you don’t have time to read the whole work.
Hi James…
as you’ll read from my other posts on the other threads, I’m concerned that too much of an emphasis on one person of the Godhead, and exclusion of the others, leaves us open to misunderstanding and can lead us away from biblical monotheism. I am totally in agreement that faith, rather than intellectual apprehension of information, is key. I would suggest that by faith humanity encounters God in triune completeness, even if our intellectual engagement only permits acknowledgement of one aspect of God’s work, one person of the Godhead.
You’ve noted of Allen’s work that is supports Alan’s “previous post in which you uphold the second person of the Trinity as being the key focus in explosive Christian movements of the past.” In what way would you suggest that proposal can play a part in defining the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal movement - a movement explicitly focussed on the person of the Holy Spirit - in the 20th century.
Also how do you reconcile that position with Roland Allen’s statement;
“The wind bloweth where it listeth,” said Christ, and spontaneous activity is a movement of the Spirit in the individual and in the Church, and we cannot control the Spirit.
As I’ve read the document briefly, it seems clear to me that to attribute the idea of “the second person of the Trinity as being the key focus in explosive Christian movements” to Roland Allen is at the very least an over-statement.
How exclusively in his mind is the phenomen of spontaneous expansion confined to the second person of the Godhead, when he makes statements like;
“The Spirit of Christ is a Spirit who longs for, and strives after, the salvation of the souls of men, and that spirit dwells in them. That Spirit converts the natural instinct into a longing for the conversion of others which is indeed divine in its source and character.”
I’d suggest we need to work harder to reflect on these prior movements in light of our present context and awareness, and with a view to the future…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
celtic son - before I comment, I want to make sure I understand. You are concerned that focusing on the “second person of the godhead” is wrong or problematic?
Hi Makeesha
As I noted… “I’m concerned that too much of an emphasis on one person of the Godhead, and exclusion of the others, leaves us open to misunderstanding and can lead us away from biblical monotheism”
Focusing only on Jesus for example, is a root issue for those who promote modalism - Oneness Theology, Jesus Only, Oneness Pentecotal movement… which is a nontrinitarian heresy. I’m not saying that is what Alan is promoting. However, my concern is that without a clarification, that although our focus may be drawn to the second person of the Godhead, we acknowledge the presence of the other two persons (since God is one) we can be open to unnecessary criticism of presenting a modalist approach, which I believe devalues the underlying point Alan is actually trying to make.
See the discussion points towards the end of the previous thread “distilling the message” for a bit more on that…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
that’s what I figured but I wanted to be clear. I think your warning would be well heeded but I don’t see that as being a risk of focusing on Jesus as a model for life and advancing God’s Kingdom
Celtic Son,
Your point about Pentecostalism is a fair one, and one that I will have to do some study and reflection upon. My initial instinct is that pentecostalism has grown due to many additional factors, such as an expressiveness that connects well with many cultures, not just an emphasis on the Spirit. However, I am not an expert on the sociology of pentecostalism. Perhaps our former pentecostal could comment here.
I was not intending to attribue all of Allen’s work to a focus on Jesus, just the quote that Alan gave us. This one quote does not summarize a book, of course, any more than “the wind bloweth where it listeth” summarizes a book. As point of fact, Allen is really dealing primarily with structure and empowerment, not primarily Christocentrism or Pneumocentricism. Views of Christ or Spirit may affect how structure and empowerment are viewed, but I do not believe that he is dealing directly with the original point of discussion.
You quote the following:
“The Spirit of Christ is a Spirit who longs for, and strives after, the salvation of the souls of men, and that spirit dwells in them. That Spirit converts the natural instinct into a longing for the conversion of others which is indeed divine in its source and character.” This is indeed the role of the Spirit. This, however, says nothing about who we primarily emphasize. To recognize the incredible role of the Spirit in explosive Christian movements is far different from saying that Christ is the primary person and focus of the “Christian” faith, and that most explosive movements have focused on Christ.
There is always a danger of losing something whenever we attempt to summarize a message. But we do this in communication every time we speak about our faith–in preaching, in teaching, and yes, in evangelism. Making “Jesus is Lord” a primary way of communicating the sovereignty of God in our lives is an attempt to make the message easily transferable. Further teaching must of course follow.
Furthermore, I do not view “Jesus is Lord” as primarily an ontological statement dealing with trinitarian issues, but a statement of the primacy of God in our lives–that he is ruler over us and over all of creation.
Jesus is Lord over the Church but today the Holy Spirit is Lord in the church. How did Jesus work with the disciples as they went forth after His ascension? By the leading of the Holy Spirit.The statement at the end of “The Forgotten Ways” excitede me as much as anyother in the book . I am a charismatic believer that is so tired of the “dog and pony shows” in pentecostal and charismatic churches.I believe in the message of “The Forgotten Ways”. Too get the attention of the Pent.and Charis. the power of healing deliverance and signs and wonders must be part of everyday life. Getting it out of the church pews and in to the streets is where the rubber hits the road. Tghis is what I think Allan Hirsch is wanting to and trying to say. Jim Hodgin
You could say that Alan Hirsch is more important than Jesus. That’s not being disrespectful to Jesus.
Would anyone consider adding Alan’s works to the canon?
Hmmm…
you’re probably right dissenter… Jesus would not consider that disrespectful, but then when He said provocative things it was with a purpose greater than Himself…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hullo-o-o Makeesha,
my concern is not simply with “focusing on Jesus as a model for life and advancing God’s Kingdom,” clearly that is appropriate. My concern is that we present an understanding that the Jesus we focus on is blessed by the Father and empowered by the Spirit. The missional church is a threat to the establishment. Where we fail to deal adequately with biblical foundations, we create the opportunity for important work to be ignored, when the reality is that the very people who are ignoring it (on the excuse of our inadequate theology) are the very people who most need to engage with it critically.
Hi James Nored…
I’d suggest that the “expressiveness that connects well with many cultures” which you identify as a root cause of the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism, is actually an attribute of the Spirit at work superceding culture - but that’s another discussion for another day. BTW by experience and understanding I would define myself as a “pentecostal” follower of Jesus, though I don’t consider myself an expert on the movement or the sociology.
You are right of course that “there is always a danger of losing something whenever we attempt to summarize a message,” and my summary is no less limited than yours… If you check out the comments I made on the previous thread, you’ll pick up that my concern is that, while the prior movements Alan relates were “Jesus movements,” given the greater progressive revelation of the Trinity that we are party to, it is no longer sufficient simply to promote their thinking or methodology as the way forward for new movements. Although THEIR focus may be on Jesus Christ, the biblical REALITY is that all persons of the Godhead are involved and the requirement is upon us to determine how to articulate the whole truth as we know it, in our efforts to move forward.
I do appreciate your clarification of “Jesus is Lord” as “a statement of the primacy of God in our lives–that he is ruler over us and over all of creation,” it is a helpful way to describe Alan’s use of the term.
Hullo-o-o Jim Hodgin,
As a “charismatic believer that is so tired of the “dog and pony shows” in pentecostal and charismatic churches” you are certainly not alone. The power of healing, deliverance and signs and wonders were part of Jesus’ everyday life and part of the early church’s life. One of the aspects that I believe is missing from the “missional” imagination is connection with the supernatural power of God.
On the previous thread “distilling the element,” I noted;
“One of the significant factors that is missing in many present missional approaches to both of those movements, is the vital role that signs, wonders and the supernatural plays - and as you point out as well, the vital role of the Holy Spirit - in their theology and praxis.”
The “dog and pony show” is a consequence of the attractional model of church focussing so highly on the Sunday service as “the church” that they fail to perceive a greater reality. In that conceptual framework anything that occurs, in any spiritual sense, has to somehow be contained in the Sunday service environment – so the dog and pony show is developed. Those with the responsibility to lead the church, are so wrapped up in the Sunday service attractional model that they fail to see these interventions of the Spirit of God for what they are – a wake up call for believers to develop an authentic personal devotional life – and they define it instead as a new form for public gathering. What the Spirit has meant as a device to call us to personal prayer, is instead enshrined as a new form of public devotion – regardless of how ludicrous it appears, and what lack of biblical justification or understanding there is to frame it.
The reality is more that the Spirit of God sets out to expose, in a public setting, the lack of intimacy that we have in our personal lives – precisely because God cannot get our attention in a private time that we do not give to Him. The intention is more that our lack of true relationship would be uncovered, we would be inspired therefore to connect with God in the reality of personal devotional life, as Jesus taught and modelled it. Instead we embrace the embarrassing behaviours and run with them… the emperor indeed has no clothes!
Having seen the ludicrous nature of some of the attractional church’s approach to the intervention of God’s Spirit, the missional church is in danger of throwing the baby out with the ba(r)thwater - see a previous thread! - and missing connection with the Spirit at all! As Alan pointed out we are missing “a definitive pneumatology from a missiological point of view,” which basically means we need to begin to expect the Spirit of God to turn up in the midst of our daily activities as He did in the book of Acts!
And like you… I’m excited about that.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
gotcha. I guess I haven’t seen anything that concerns me
I have never had a conversation on a blog or whatever this is ? But I like it.
) I said put your legs together and lets see. as he did this and lifted them off the floor you could see one leg was about 1 inch shorter. I did not ask him if I could pray for him. I just said JESUS make these legs the same length and adjust this spine and remove the pain, in JESUS name.( gift of healing 1st Cor. 12
) I need not shout or speak in toungues or lay hands on him and shake him until his teeth rattled. I just said isnt the Lord good. As his leg was immediately lengthened and the pain left his back. he got up and left, I did not ask him if he was saved or do you believe, nothing . I left it up to the Holy Spirit to do the rest.We have the goods it not for a few but for all who will believe. We must take this to the streets the whole gospel the message of Jesus they are all waiting for the real deal. we can teach in the cemataries all about church growth ,all the ology we can but how many graduates can cast out demons, heal the sick open deaf ears , loose tongues that have never spoken , tell people their innermost secrets, proclaim the love of our father is for them ,Proclaim them forgiven in Jesus name. Tell them what God has for them (prophesy 1st Cor 12
) These gifts are our equipment to use to show a dying world that God is real and alive and is interested in every area of their lifes. We can no longer afford the luxury of our theological debates , we must be about the business of OUR FATHER. I love you men and women, God loves you and He has a plan for your life ,
To help and clearify what I am trying to say is a few weeks ago I was at Starbucks (my office away from home) I was talking with a friend and a man that I had never seen before was a few feet away from us and I notice when he went to get up out of his chair he sat back down and I could tell he was in a lot of pain. I looked at him and said you have a lot of pain in your back. He nodded. I said you have one leg shorter than the other and you need an adjustment. (word of Knowledge 1st Cor. 12
Your fellow Servant , Jim Hodgin
I like that!
Beautiful Jim…
Mr Spock would have said “it’s life Jim, but not as we know it…”
Jesus would have said “I have come that they may have life and have it to the full…”
Thank you Jim, that is the missional heart of God in operation. The next stage is to have a couple of apprentices who observe - participate - practice and are released, to find a couple of their own apprentices whom they develop to also be apprentice making apprentices. Pretty soon authentic, missional, apprentices of Jesus will be seen everywhere - Starbucks, McDonalds, Woolworths, wherever will not be places where it is safe to be unwell, lonely, anxious…
I have experienced genuine divine healing - ongoing physical change that Doctors had predicted would not happen - in people’s homes AND in “healing meetings.” I have also seen lots that passes for healing in meetings, but does not last; it seems to me that it is more about adrenalin, generated by the emotional intensity in the meeting, temporarily enabling someone to move beyond their pain. Some people do no doubt encounter genuine long term healing in healing meetings, but I have yet to encounter the “temporary adrenalin-rush phenomenon” when people are prayed for in non-religious environments - the kind of environments where you exercised the gifts of the Spirit, the sort of public and personal spaces where Jesus and the early church operated. People in that environment know that there is healing taking place, or there is not - no hype or histrionics.
I totally agree that there is a call to action over discussion BUT I don’t agree that removes the responsibility for discussion… The apostles and early church debated the theology of what they encountered, to ensure that it was authentically a move of the Spirit of God and they were not being led astray by false teachers and false prophets. The area of exercising gifts that involved supernatural intervention seem historically to be the place where most quasi-Christian cults have gone off track. Clearly relating what we do, to who the Bible says we are is a vital part of discipleship… BUT the early church were discussing actions that were presently taking place in their context, not just debating issues intellectually, that they had never personally encountered.
Both attributes are vital… I’d suggest that one of the requirements for “theologians” ought to be that they are actively involved in authentic ecclesia, that they are practitioners of what they seek to apprentice others to, that there is a need to restore the holistic, biblical concept of “knowledge” - Genesis 4
; “Adam KNEW Eve and she conceived a son” kind of intimate reality that produces real, measurable and lasting fruit - to our discipleship instead of the current model that esteems information over revelation.
There are many “cemataries” Jim, but there are also Godly leaders, operating, teaching and seeing signs and wonders. However the occult also has power and is also capable of counterfeit signs and wonders. We need accountability to one another to ensure that we honour God and invite His power … and Jim, even Jesus released a possessed man hiding amongst the tombs - the “cemeteries” are places that need healing and restoration too
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hi Makeesha
Consider:
From a Baptist Blog: “A recently developed way of envisioning church known as the “Emerging Church Movement” deals carelessly with Scripture and compromises the Gospel, according to a prominent evangelical scholar and a Southern Baptist seminary president”
From an Evangelical blog” “(Don) Carson appears convinced that the Emerging Church Movement, as represented by its most influential founders and leaders, has embraced an understanding of Christianity that is inherently unstable, often sub-biblical, and dangerously evasive when it comes to matters of truth.”
Another quotes: “Virtually every distinctive strategy I have seen advocated in the Emerging Conversation so far strikes me as utterly wrong-headed; rooted in a lack of confidence in the power and authority of Scripture; borrowed from the modernist play-book; already discredited by experience; and contrary to what Scripture teaches.”
There are more - I occasionally visit blogs that are opposed to the emerging/missional movement, because some of their criticism is right! Facing up to the truth of their critique forces me to be more accurate about how I understand the truth of Scripture in my context. I haven’t yet come across critique of “The Forgotten Ways,” but what I have noted is that the critique of the emerging/missional conversation, from many of the most critical blogs, come from a modernist, evangelical, apologetic perspective and most present their arguments from the basis of an intellectual apprehension of “doctrine” from the Scriptures. I believe that perspective is limited and our westernised intellectualism needs to be broadened into a more holistic concept of “knowledge.”
I am also aware though that new movements have a tendency to push the pendulum too far in the opposite direction, and some of the “emerging conversation” does seek to shift us away from any concept of absolute truth. While I agree we need to consider how we communicate truth, our critics do help to always call us back to the truth as the foundational playing field for conversation. Also, if we truly believe that missional movements are the way forward, then we need to prepare to engage with the existing church in ways that help them to move forward. As Alan prepares to launch into the conversation, in America in particular, I am concerned that he has the tools to deal with the critique that I expect he will face. I am also concerned that those who are critical are challenged to review their preconceptions, they are generally people who are genuinely passionate about the Gospel. I’ve discovered in my life, and from personal experience, that the most passionate opponents also often make the most passionate converts.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Celtic Son,
I notice that you seem to equate emerging and missional, and perhaps these critics are doing this as well. There may be a bit of a difference in terminology from Australia to the US. But in my mind, these are two different things. The missional concept is based upon the Missio Dei, the sending action of God. All kinds of churches can and should be missional–traditional churches, house churches, Gen X churches, etc.
I see emerging churches, or emergent churches, as a postmodern expression of church. Many of these expressions are good and appropriate. Some, however, in the far extreme of emerging churches do seem to have a disregard for Scripture, and others have a disdain for any type of Christian meeting or structure. As I have read the critiques, it is this latter expression that Carson and other evangelicals are particularly criticizing.
From my perspective, there is little about the missional concept as portrayed by Guder et al., Newbegin, Bosch, and other key theologians that could be critized by most Christians. It is thoroughly biblical and theological.
I have not heard any concern that Alan’s emphasis on “Jesus is Lord” is a promotion of modalism or the like. Coming from your pentecostal background with its conflict with Jesus only branches, however, this concern is understandable.
James
I guess I’m not really concerned with people who are determined to misrepresent something. They wouldn’t believe us even if we tried to “fix” the misunderstanding.
I don’t like living in that place. it’s tedious and does not serve a purpose in my life or ministry. perhaps others are called to that, not me
I move forward, I prefer it that way.
I appreciate your comment and certainly will keep in in mind though.
Yeah James…
it’s not so much my perception as a general conflation of terms that has been used on a number of other blogs… for example this comment from a critic (blog subtly titles “Emergent No”)
“I think it was about a year ago, a friend told me that he anticipated a major change among the ECM within the year. In his estimation, the most noticable change would be that many among the movement/conversation would begin to steer clear of the words ‘emerging’ and ‘emergent’ and begin using “missional” instead. He went on further to say that part of the reason this would happen is that many who are indeed deep into “emerging” thinking, would begin to seek validation, and use men like Tim Keller as their examples or figurehead.”
The conflation is misleading and unfair and I appreciate you pointing out that I’m misrepresenting the missional cause!
Slainte
A Celtic Son
by the way Alan, what color donkey would you prefer?
hehe
… should that be a donkey… or an ass??
I thought it was a colt of a donkey?
Poor Alan…hope he knows this goes back to comment #9….
Great conversation all.
And Mak, I always had a penchant for black, red, or purple. But CS applied to my ass it would not be a good look!
Stick it on the donkey instead.
Al,
Have you considered some people may like to use all the colours in concentric circles, with red at the centre and stick it on your ass?
Yeah…. let’s stick to the colt of a donkey… God might talk through an ass!! On Sunday in our gathering I think He did…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
the donkey comment referred to another conversation - nothing to do with this thread
You would that thought that I would have learned my lesson by now about making ASSumptions… back to the drawing board… again…
Ah, CS…the inside joke caught us both…and we just hate being left out, don’t we
Its a wayy inside joke. Something like someone bought me an ass in a dream!
Too hard to explain.
Celtic Son nails this one,
CS said, Having seen the ludicrous nature of some of the attractional church’s approach to the intervention of God’s Spirit, the missional church is in danger of throwing the baby out with the ba(r)thwater - see a previous thread! - and missing connection with the Spirit at all! As Alan pointed out we are missing “a definitive pneumatology from a missiological point of view,” which basically means we need to begin to expect the Spirit of God to turn up in the midst of our daily activities as He did in the book of Acts!
CS. Good points! From the pain in the butt/ass
James, I would like to take up your comment, “I notice that you seem to equate emerging and missional, and perhaps these critics are doing this as well. There may be a bit of a difference in terminology from Australia to the US. But in my mind, these are two different things.”
Personally I see them as overlapping sets. There are groups that are (1) emerging but not missional. There are groups that are (2) missional but not emerging. And there are also groups that are (3) emerging and missional. You will find a preponderance of type 3 in Australia and a preponderance of type 1 in the US. That probably goes a lot towards explaining your different perspective. You will find that many of us Aussies prefer to speak of the “emerging missional church” or the “emerging missional movement in the west” to “the emergent conversation”. Sloppy critiques of the global movement by US-centric commentators have not helped matters. I know many type 3 Aussies who spurn the emerging language altogether so as not to be mistaken with type 1, yet they are no less engaged with mission in post-modernity. To be honest, type 2 is becoming something of an oxymoron in Australia where post-modern culture is becoming all pervasive. For how can you be missional in the Australia without engaging post-modernity? I should also really speak of a type 4, neither missional nor emerging, for what passes for mainstream Australian Christianity.
yeah sorry about that. I never in a million years thought that you all would relate the color of a donkey to this conversation…you all are amazing hehe.
my husband had a dream in which I bought Alan a donkey in the US state of Maine.
I think maybe he’s been reading the Forgotten Ways to intently
Coming back to the Trinity for a second, and bear with me cos I’m in pain having to write an essay on it this week, I had interpreted Alan’s saying we need to focus on the centrality and Lordship of Jesus as being in the context of conversations about how we live out our faith, and the very heart of that faith - namely our salvation and our being engaged in becoming Christlike and being the body of Christ. So that expresses here in our discipleship conversations which are very Jesus-centred. But our worship, whether liturgical or spontaneous I guide firmly toward being Trinitarian in the traditional sense, and in faith accompaniment I very much draw the whole Trinity into conversation with those on faith journeys.
Have I understood correctly?
Blessings
Eleanor
Sister/Independent Religious A/FC
Hey there…first timer…interesting postings and tracking back to Roland Allen a bit, I agree with this statement that the church isn’t a huge organization but is the people, I continually teach my children this when they will say there’s a church, now they say there’s a church building….we have so dumbed the faith in this country that we, americans, have lost the moving of the Spirit, passive listeners, non active participants…this is not the Church that changed the world….
Ron
Elaenor, welcome back. I think you have it here, Clearly we to be Christian is to have a Trinitarian understand, as well as experience, of God. But missiologically, and for movement dynamics, we focus on Jesus and let him “do the introductions” to the Father and the Spirit [the role of the Mediator].
This and the last blog have included a stack of great insights on how we might do this. Make sure you check ‘distilling the message’ blog.
Hullo-o-o
This morning, as I took some time out for quiet reflection, it dawned on me what an incredible privilege it is to have access to this blog, and to the many great minds who contribute. We are all being sharpened (some even burned
) but more than this, we all have the opportunity to engage with the author in clarifying material from his book – a rare privilege.
I am grateful to Alan for this blog… it has enabled me to voice some thoughts that have been raised by his writing, in a forum that I do not have the opportunity to embrace with other texts – frankly I’d get no other work done! It takes a secure person to allow such discussion about their work and speaks volumes about Alan’s character.
In reflecting upon the discussion on this thread – apart from the mad donkey posts! – and in particular on the “distilling the message” thread, it is fantastic to be able to work together to clarify thoughts and how we translate them into action. What’s clearer for me is that “Jesus is Lord” is a core statement of belief, that is possible only by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, represents the face of God to people in mission, introduces people to the triune God in worship, and is a constantly evolving mystery for those who are maturing. In mission Jesus is the place to begin, in growing relationship in Christ the triune nature of God is eternally being unveiled to us.
So I gratefully give thanks to the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Amen!
Amen for me too! CS, honestly, the please and privilage is mine bro. And I have found this blog community to be one of the most enriching(and ongoing) conversations to date. Gotta love it!
“But missiologically … we focus on Jesus and let him “do the introductions” to the Father and the Spirit [the role of the Mediator].”
Good way of putting it, focussing on the mediator role. Of course, I’d personally word it more in terms of “reframing” our understandings of God and Spirit, given my context, but I think its the mediator role of the second person of the Trinity which is indeed crucial.
Hello all,
It’s been very interesting following the discussion on these two threads.
I find the conclusion of CS a good conclusion (Amen!) but there is one thing I don’t understand very well: what precisely was the question?
(I am sorry if this is a stupid question)
Was it a concern that the sole focus on ‘Jesus is Lord’ (or the fact that this is a very simple confession) in some cases may encourage heresy (as, someone mentioned, in China)? And/or that this can lead theologians to dismiss the message of TFW?
Hey, Espen…we take all questions, as long as they’re asked with humility and grace
(And, by the way, just when in June will you be hearing the results of your tests?)
I think the question was whether Alan’s thesis in TFW gave proper focus on the power/leadership of the Holy Spirit in spontaneous expansion experiences in church history. Without empowerment by the Holy Spirit, any attempt will be “human” and will ultimately fail…and might even fall into heresy.
The conclusion we have distilled is eloquently stated by A Celtic Son in #35 above, and is one that must be balanced with a robust understanding of the interconnection between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But, ultimately, it is the Son, as mediator of the New Covenant, who is to be the primary point of focus as both Lord and the one through whom we are “introduced” to the Father as adopted children and “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit.
Be blessed.
Thanks Peggy–I think I understand better now. I have a lot to learn. But it is going forward, I am halfway through TFW and I have also read my first NT Wright book, The Challenge of Jesus (but not digested it) that someone here on this blog recommended me (I think it was Dana). Great book.
For my results normally it is 29. june, if they are on schedule…
Glad to help, Espen.
I see that you have plenty to read while you’re waiting for your results!
On that, another question
: for those of you who have read NT Wright, is there a specific book you would recommend me next after “The Challenge”?
I am thinking of either “Paul: In Fresh Perspective” or “The New Testament and the people of God” (I believe that is the first of his six-book series).
What interests me in particular, except just having a better understanding of the Bible in general, is to have a better understanding of the Trinity and of Israel and their role.
Thanks,
Espen
Hullo-o-o Espen,
I have come lately to NT Wright, he’s been on my reading list for some time, but other’s preceded him! There are a range of classic books that are almost “must read” foundational texts, because many others refer to them. Certainly they are not all easy reads or quick reads… but the early church fathers, the Cappadocians, Augustine, Athanasius are all writers referred to in contemporary discussions about the nature of the triune God.
Karl Barth is hard work, but some of those who intepret his work, like Thomas Torrance are helpful - your concern “to have a better understanding of the Trinity and of Israel and their role” is a major themes of the lectures in Torrance’s book “The Mediation of Christ” - well worth exploring, as is his “The Christian Doctrine of God,” which is a bit more dense.
The other person I’ve found helpful is Stanley Grenz, who died last year - he has a range of books both theological and concerning the application of theology in practice that are very good. Also I’ve found Baxter Kruger to be helpful in the area of “perichoresis” I commented on that on the “distilling the message” thread - check out the info there. Besides them of course there are plenty of others who are wonderful and gifted contributors to the discussion, this is simply a bit of the route I’ve taken.
Don’t be daunted by the size of the mountain, take YOUR time and take notes along the way. I’ve found that I can travel for a while, taking notes that don’t make a great deal of sense, and then something will drop into place that illuminates the last few months and it is all worthwhile - we all have something to contribute.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hey Celtic Son !
Thank you for your tips. I will take a look at them. Why I think specifically of NT Wright is that I feel he tries to understand the Bible and its message as first-century jews would have understood them. That is important to me, kind of a search for “The Forgotten Ways”.
I am not trying to find out what great thinkers are thinking about what is written in the Bible but to understand what the authors of the Bible thought when they wrote it. I am more interested in the work of an historian than of a theologian if you understand what I mean.
I have kind of a note-taking light technique
I write down in a notebook if there are any particular things that strike me, new ideas etc. I also mark in the book when reading something especially interesting, so that I can easily find the place again if I’d like to.