broken eikon

So I was reading the Presbyterian book of confessions today. I came across the confession of 1967, and I have to say… I was blown away. In 1967, the Presbos adopted this confession of faith as a response to “racial discrimination, nationalistic arrogance, and family and class conflict”.  It was very responsive to biblical scholarship and  asks the church to read scripture with literary and historical context in mind. There are many really really cool parts, but this really stuck out to me is line 9.45, containing the following words…, “this search (for reconciliation and peace) requires that the nations pursue fresh and responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce areas of strife and to broaden international understanding… Although nations may serve God’s purposes in history, the church which identifies the sovereignty of any one nation or any one way of life with the cause of God denies the lordship of Christ and betrays his calling”.

“Even at risk to national security”?

Can anyone find me another statement of faith that states that nations should pursue reconciliation even at their own risk? That sounds too much like Christ for me…

And that last part about identifying any one nation or way of life with God’s will means denying the Lordship of Christ. Dang.

love it…

So… this is how I feel sometimes talking to some people about faith/scripture….

Hey everyone,

If you are interested, this will tie into the Church history we have been studying lately. This was from a magazine (not sure which one), but I got it from a pal at school, detailing a few of the versions of Christianity that were around from 1st to 4th century, but for one reason or another is not what we ended up with. Proto-orthodoxy is what became our “orthodox” faith. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that we are right, just know that we won. There is a difference. Anyway, enjoy, its kindof fun.

Lost Christianities

Hey all, as per a request during Eikon’s mission group, I am posting some selected texts from Ignatius of Antioch (martyred, 110 C.E.). Pay attention to his comments regarding the bishop, and views on marriage.

If thou lovest the good disciples (rhetoric on the move!), no thanks are due to thee on that account; but rather seek by meekness to subdue the more troublesome. Every kind of wound is not healed with the same plaster. Mitigate violent attacks by gentle applications (very cool).

Be sober as an athlete of God: the prize set before thee is immortality and eternal life,of which thou art also persuaded. In all things may my soul be for thing, and my bonds also, which thou hast loved.

Let not widows be neglected.

Do not despise either male or female slaves, yet neither let them be puffed up with conceit, but rather let them submit themselves the more, for the glory of God, that they may obtain from God a better liberty. Let them not long to be set free [from slavery] at the public expense, that they be not found slaves to their own desires.

Flee evil arts; but all the more discourse in public regarding them. Speak to my sisters, that they love the Lord, and be satisfied with their husbands both in the flesh and spirit. In like manner also, exhort my brethren, in the name of Jesus Christ, that they love their wives, even as the Lord the Church. If any one can continue in a state of purity, to the honour of Him who is Lord of the flesh, let him so remain without boasting. If he shall boast, he is undone; and if he seeks to be more prominent than the bishop, he is ruined.

Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!

Over here at Brian McLaren’s blog, he posted about a conference he was attending this weekend. Check it out. This line however struck me as very very very encouraging (and if you have been in Bible study with me at all or heard me preach, you know why this excites me):

Speaking about the priorities that revelealed themselves in the emerging movement of Christianty, his first priority was this:

“1. A fresh vision of Jesus, rooted in the canonical gospels rather than in later theological debates. This fresh vision of Jesus and the kingdom of God brings a new perspective on Paul and the whole Bible as well.”

All I can say is right freakin’ on.

Rod posted a review of my paper on Jesus and the Temple in John. You can check it out here.

Since John’s gospel is coming from a different place and time than the synoptic gospels, this paper reflects not necessarily my belief, but rather what John’s gospel has to say about Jesus’ relationship with the Jewish temple. It has some good historical nuggets, too for you history buffs. I think I lean towards understanding Jesus’ relationship with the temple like Mark suggests, i.e. Jesus acts in judgment of it, but John’s understanding is something that I am not in complete disagreement with either. Please enjoy, and as always, I covet your input!

The Temple and Jesus