Doing Evangelism together (2)

Why should we do evangelism relationally? Acts suggests several reasons:

• to have fellowship (Acts 9:19, 26-28);
• to have companionship (18:18; 19:29; 20:34; 27:1-2; 28:15);
• to have protection (9:30; 17:15; 20:2-4);
• to have encouragement (28:15);
• to form an official delegation to attend the Jerusalem Council (15:2) and
• to deliver famine relief (11:30; 20:4);
• to provide for material needs (18:1-3;19 24:23; 27:3; 28:14);
• to engage in the ministry of edification (11:25-26; 14:21-23; 15:35; 15:40-41; 16:4-5; 19:9; 20:6-38);
• and to engage in the ministry of proclamation (9:28-30; 13:1-5, 13-16, 44-46; 14:1, 7, 20-21, 25; 17:1-15; 18:5-8).

And in the context of Acts, what does the “diversity of gifts serving one purpose” look like? Not only did Paul’s group evangelize together, but –as listed here- they also engaged in a team ministry of “edification”. This archaic-sounding term includes the cooperation of gifts of encouragement, teaching, hospitality, financial giving, with others too. Paul operated in this way with Barnabas in Antioch (11:25-26); with Barnabas in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (14:21-23); with Barnabas again in Antioch (15:35); with Silas in Syria and Cilicia (15:41); with Silas and Timothy in Lystra and Iconium (16:4-5), and with Luke and several others in Troas and Miletus (20:6-38).

From this brief survey of Paul’s activities recorded in Acts, we note that: (a) Paul lived and worked closely with others. He seldom ministered alone. (b) On numerous occasions he engaged in team evangelism. (c) There would also appear to be a divine mandate for this style of evangelism. In Acts 13:2 and in 16:10, Luke wrote that God called Paul with his companions to evangelize together. On their first missionary journey Paul and Barnabas told the people God was the one who commanded them to “bring salvation to the end of the earth” (13:47). And twice Paul and his fellow workers reported back to the church everything God had done through them (14:27; 15:4). Evangelism –the point is clearly made- is invariably a corporate affair.

The third way that Acts characterizes evangelism Is this, that the development of the kingdom is necessarily a crossing of frontiers. This would seem to follow from the principle that the “kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of the Christ.” These frontiers may be social or class, cultural or racial, religious or doctrinal. That is to say, we are not monocultural or stuck in one way of doing things. Kingdom development is organic and ultimately relationship is more important than doctrine. Or rather, relationship IS the doctrine. It is relationship that builds bridges between different people, and in Christ there is neither slave nor free, Jew or Gentile, male nor female… we are one in Christ.

Much debate has transpired in recent years over certain events in the Book of Acts. Is the tongues-speaking miracle of Pentecost an event for Christians to expect today? Is it exceptional or normative? Should the “signs and wonders” prevalent in Acts accompany our modern-day evangelistic efforts? Is Christian initiation a two-stage event, with conversion and water baptism followed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

These are a few of the points that have created controversy in recent years. My emphasis here, however, is somewhat different. It is that Luke characterizes evangelism –the announcement of kingdom Good News- as of primary importance. It is so important, in fact, that the questions in the previous paragraph become secondary. Their contemporary notoriety has overshadowed the absolute essentials of relationship. Though modern Christian writers undoubtedly recognize that prayer is indispensable, for example, it is often understated that it is the key ingredient of relationship. Luke would not have us miss the priority of prayer in the growth and expansion of the early church.

Stott comments that following Jesus’ ascension, the prayers of the disciples had two characteristics which “are two essentials of true prayer, namely that they persevered, and were of one mind.” The principle of unified prayer, or prayer with one mind and purpose, is the note of committed relationship: relationship to God is demonstrated by relationship with each other (and vice versa, of course). It is a thread that runs throughout the text. Luke’s initial description of the 120 (1:15) shows that they followed Christ’s command to wait for the Holy Spirit by obediently praying as a group with one mind. The power of “prayer in agreement” again is established when the Sanhedrin threatened the followers with punitive action if they continued to speak about the “name” (4:18). The impulse to share was too great, however, and a meeting of unified prayer sent the early Christians to new levels of boldness (4:31). “Having been bold in witness, they were equally bold in prayer.” Again, when Herod plots to destroy the evangelistic impetus through persecution, the church unites in prayer (12:5): Here then were two communities, the world and the church, pitted against one another, with their characteristic weapons: the power of the sword versus the power of prayer.

Doing evangelism together

In our culture, the activity of evangelism is often atomized, and individualized. This fits in well with the prevailing worldview of Western Europeanized societies. The concept of celebrity feeds the illusion of individual triumph in areas of beauty, wealth and talent –Do you have the X factor? No one wants to face the fact of their insignificance; and so we cluster around the limelight for our few minutes of fame. Within the subculture of westernized churches of this culture, the same impulse persists. Consequentially, conversion is seen as a solitary decision and evangelism as a one-to-one activity (even in mass crusades the invitation is made one to one). We are invited to make Jesus our “personal Lord.” Notable conversions are celebrated in books, films and Christian conferences.

By comparison with our individualistic approach, Paul lived and worked closely with other believers in active fellowship. His co-workers were not disciples, in a formal sense, (though Timothy does look like an apprentice, at least at first), but rather a traveling fellowship, a family. Totting up the names at the end of Paul’s letters and adding those peppered throughout the book of Acts, one arrives at a group of about a hundred traveling Christians. In his doctrine, as in his practice, Paul emphasizes the fellowship, the togetherness, of Christians in worship and action; they are members one of another, and all together members of Christ. And note this: this fellowship is emphasized in their evangelism.

It was thus right the way through Paul’s ministry: Straight after conversion he joins with the Damascus believers (Acts 9:19), links with the Jerusalem group (v. 26), and stays with the apostles (v. 28). He ministers with Barnabas for a year in Antioch (11:25-26), and goes on his first missionary journey with Barnabas and John Mark (13:2-5). Then he travels with Barnabas and other believers to the Jerusalem Council (15:2).

Later he sets out with Silas (15:40); recruits Timothy in Lystra (16:3) and in Troas, they are joined by Luke—attested by the abrupt change in the Lucan narrative from “they” (v. to “we” (v. 10)—and all four of them travel to Philippi together (16:12-18). From Philippi, Paul, Silas, and Timothy travel as a team to Thessalonica, leaving Luke in Philippi, as noted by the “they” in the narrative (17:1-15). They work together in Thessalonica and Berea until Paul has to be removed from danger (vv. 13-15). Though Paul works alone in Athens –briefly- he does so while waiting for Silas and Timothy to join him (v. 16). He goes on to Corinth, where he stays with Aquila and Priscilla, presumably in ministry with them and also sharing work opportunities (18:1-3).

Silas and Timothy join Paul in Corinth (v. 5). From 1 Thessalonians 3:6 it seems that when they arrived in Corinth, they brought Paul an account of the Thessalonica situation, which prompted his first letter to the church there. Paul’s second letter to them was probably also written from Corinth, not too much later. Importantly, both of these letters were sent by Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as seen from the opening verse of each letter, and from the fact that both letters were almost completely written in the plural (apart from 1 Thess 2:18 and 2 Thess 2:5; 3:17). In fact in all but two of his letters to churches (Romans and Ephesians), Paul included others with him in the opening greetings. The point is this: even his letter-writing was collaborative.

At Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla join the group, traveling with Paul to Ephesus, and remaining there to work with Apollos, while Paul journeys on to Caesarea and Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). A little later, Paul goes through Asia Minor back to Ephesus (18:23; 19:1).The opposition in Ephesus forces a transfer from synagogue to “the lecture hall of Tyrannus”, taking the disciples with him (19:9). His associates are carefully described: Timothy and Erastus “ministered to him” in Ephesus in v. 22; Gaius and Aristarchus are called his “traveling companions” in v. 29. When Paul travels on to Macedonia, he does so with a team of seven men (Sosipater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, and Trophimus; 20:4). Joining Paul again at Philippi (20:5-6), Luke stayed with Paul on his trip back to Jerusalem (21:15) and on to Rome (27:1; 28:16). In his farewell discourse to the Ephesian elders Paul referred to “my companions” (20:34), for whom he provided by working with his own hands.

Arriving in Jerusalem, Paul was received by the brethren, James, and the elders (21:17-18). Later in Caesarea, Felix told a guard to “permit [Paul's] friends to take care of his needs” as a prisoner (24:23). Besides Luke, Aristarchus accompanied Paul on his trip to Rome (27:1-2). In Sidon, the centurion guard allowed Paul to go ashore so that “his friends … might provide for his needs” (27:3). In Italy, Paul was met and cared for by the brethren in Puteoli (28:14), and on his trip to Rome he was met by brethren who came down from the capital city to accompany him (v. 15). At the sight of these companions Paul thanked God and was encouraged (v. 15).

From this sketch, it is evident that evangelism in the early church had a different flavour to ours. It emphasized mobility, simplicity, mutuality and urgency. It emphasized the principle that in mission we travel together. Further, in that activity of traveling, the group exemplifies the body of Christ: a diversity of gifting operating to one end. It seems quite a different story from the current view of evangelism undertaken by paid professionals or an activity happening within static premises. That whole invidious concept of “church” as a holy place to which people must be brought is totally alien to the New Testament picture, of course, but- more so- here the Biblical evidence suggests a traveling community. Where is that exemplified in the years since? One thinks of the early experiences of YWAM, the Chinese House Church movement, Wesley’s networking of class meetings and leaders in the eighteenth century and …fill in your own blanks from a hundred other incidents of church history. The message is apparent: whenever the kingdom has expanded quickly it has utilized the methodology of Acts.

How does Acts characterize evangelism?

Luke is not merely telling a story but proclaiming a message in the book of Acts. What is that message? Clearly, it is centered on the evangelistic mandate of 1:8 and the journey of the Gospel and its “gospellers” from Jerusalem (ch 1) to Rome (ch 28), from the centre of Judaism to the centre of the secular world.

Thus, if Luke’s prime directive is to communicate the message of salvation, how does he characterize evangelism –its methodology? The text is explicit: Salvation can be found in no one other than Jesus (4:12); salvation is offered to everyone–the Spirit of God is poured out on “all flesh” (2:17); and salvation requires a response to Christ of repentance/ faith (2:38). And how is that message conveyed? Luke demonstrates that God’s people (and indeed God himself) will seek and will go to the people –all people everywhere. The driving impulse of Acts is summed up in the bumper sticker: “What is it about GO that you don’t understand?”

This is apparent: Luke begins his narrative with the ascension where the apostles are found gazing somewhat vacantly upwards by “two men dressed in white,” who rebuke their fixed attention on the empty skies, indicating that their present mission is to proclaim this Saviour to the world, to go to the world rather than to expect the world to come to them. Such is the essence of the entire book: an outward-moving evangelism that results in the growth of the kingdom.

Let’s begin by sketching something the narrative from Acts 9 –Paul’s story- to paint a broad picture of Luke’s understanding of evangelism. The reason for this is that in Acts (as in Paul’s letters) there are some key principles of evangelism that –despite a huge library of study- remain somewhat understated. Here’s a few key concepts:

1. We are traveling together: Paul’s missionary group embodies fellowship.
2. The diversity of the group exemplifies the body of Christ: its diversity of gifting and its fundamental mutuality. Our fellowship is an intrinsic part of our message.
3. We are crossing cultural frontiers: we are not mono-cultural or stuck in one way of doing things. Kingdom development is organic and relationship is more important than doctrine…. Or rather, relationship IS the doctrine.
4. By this practice, and through this mutual love, we are building bridges into the community where we serve.

Can you accept these as some of the concepts in LUke’s mind?

Soteriology: The Eastern Orthodox View

At some point in the beginnings of human existence man was faced with a choice, to learn the difference between good and evil through observation or through participation. The biblical story of Adam and Eve represents this choice by mankind to participate in evil. This event is commonly referred to as “the fall of man” and it represents a fundamental change in human nature. When Orthodox Christians refer to Original Sin what they mean is this adoption of evil into human nature.

As a result of this sin, mankind was doomed to be separated from God – it was our fate, because of evil, to be condemned to hell. This was mankind’s ultimate dilemma. The solution to this horrible problem was for God to effect another change in human nature. Orthodox Christians believe that Christ Jesus was both God and Man absolutely. He was born, lived and died.

Through God’s participation in humanity, human nature is changed thus saving us from the fate of hell. The effective change included all those who had died from the beginning of time – saving everyone including Adam and Eve. This process, to Orthodox Christians is what is meant by “Salvation”. Sin is no longer a blemish on the soul but rather a simple mistake made, that can be corrected simply by learning from it.
We strive to become perfect and we do not count our failings but rather, when we fail, we get back up again and continue. The ultimate goal is theosis – an even closer union with God and closer likeness to God than existed in the Garden of Eden.

Think about this view and consider how it may differ from your own. Attempt to engage with its strengths and weaknesses as a theological position.

What is Soteriology?

1. The Subject Matter of Soteriology

1. What is Salvation?

2. History of Understanding Salvation

3. Contemporary Trends and Relevance of Soteriology

1. The Subject Matter of Soteriology

(1) What is Soteriology?

(i) Soteriology as an academic discipline is primarily a study of salvation, i.e., what it is, how it is acquired, and how it is fulfilled. However, as it is a study based on the Christian belief that salvation is available in Jesus Christ, it deals with the Christian salvation offered in the Scripture, so excluding the other ways of salvation in various religions and ideologies.

(ii) It follows Christology in the order of systematic theology, for soteriology deals with the subjective application of objective salvation achieved by Jesus Christ through His atonement and reconciliation. Without Christology, there is no soteriology.

(iii) Usually, it includes a study of the Holy Spirit as the Applicator of salvation achieved by Jesus Christ. In some traditions, it is dealt separately from soteriology as Pneumatology.

(iv) Soteriology mainly deals with the so-called ordo salutis, i.e., order or steps of salvation, including calling, regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification etc. However, this traditional concept of chronological order is biblically and practically criticized today. As Anthony A. Hoekema pointed out, “various phases of the way of salvation are not to be thought of as a series of successive steps, each of which replaces the preceding, but rather as various simultaneous aspects of the process of salvation which, after they have begun, continue side by side.”

(2) The Importance of Soteriology

(i) Soteriology is personally important, for it offers the personal way to receive and enjoy the benefits of salvation achieved through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As John Calvin emphasized, “as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us.”(Inst., III.i.1)

(ii) This is the authentic science of human change, i.e., inner, essential and fundamental change by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, differing from outer, behavioral and complementary change by the human disciplines like education, psychology or philosophy. It is initiated by the heavenly calling of God and concluded by transcendental glorification, i.e., sinner to saints, spiritual death to eternal life, hate to love, earthly to heavenly being. It helps us to reflect the past and expect the future according to the divine plan of salvation and to appreciate the precious salvation of Jesus our Savior to be applied in our lives.

(iii) As the practice of salvation depends on his/her understanding of salvation, soteriology is crucial in the life of Christian individual and community. Especially, the understanding of the nature, process and purpose of salvation, by which a particular model of salvation is adopted, is decisive in his/her orientation to fulfill salvation. It affects not only to one’s life and world view, but also to one’s view of church, evangelism, mission, diakonia, as well as expectation of future and hope. Also, it provides the foundational structure to ethics and orientation. It is essential to understand the world history and divine providence.

2. What is Salvation?

(1) The Necessity of Salvation

(i) Human being is a problem to oneself. As an other-willed being, he/she has to solve one’s own questions of existence, such as Why do I exist? Who or What made me exist here and now? How did I happen to exist? For what purpose do I exist? If he/she does not answer those fundamental questions of existence properly and sufficiently, his/her life fails to be meaningful and successful. Therefore, the absolute answer and direction from outside extra nos as well as empowerment to fulfill one’s mission of life is necessary.

(ii) Human being is a self-contradictory existence whose thinking and acting do not fully coordinate, but agonizing efforts to harmonize oneself are constantly failed, as well portrayed in Rom 7. Human is always aspiring peace and safety out of uneasiness and crisis consciousness. Many things and sufferings around them are not satisfactorily solved or explained.

(iii) Human being is limited in many ways, being finite with recognizing finitude which presupposes the idea of infinity. Human are destined to die against his/her will. Therefore, liberation from the fear of death, limitedness and powerlessness is necessary for the meaningful and satisfactory life.

(2) Human Efforts of Self-Salvation

(i) The solution of those fundamental problems has been attempted through religions, i.e., by the help of God or supernatural power. But God or such power is used as instrument to satisfy human, and such human-initiatives naturally result in the manipulation of religious leaders. Arbitrary feeling of being righteousness by relative keeping of religious laws and regulations are recognized in legalistic religions such as Judaism and Islam.

(ii) Optimistic humanism approaches those problems by the gradual improvement of human ability. The belief in the Supermensch (Nietsche) prevails in the contemporary postmodern world of technology and capitalism.

(iii) Denial of those problems is another way to avoid such difficulties. Naturalism denies the special significance or purpose of human existence and suggests to simply follow the way of Nature. They find meaning in meaninglessness or Nothingness, i.e., Nihilism. On the other hand, mental escape is attempted, for example, in Buddhism and Platonism.

(iv) Paul Tillich listed five efforts of self-salvation, i.e., religious, legalistic, ascetic, mystical, and sacramental-doctrinal-emtional ways of self-salvation.

(3) The Biblical Concept of Salvation

(i) Etymologically, salvation [v;ye swthria is synonymous with deliverance, rescue, preservation, liberation, safety, health or well-being. So, “it means the action or result of deliverance or preservation from danger or disease, implying safety, health, and prosperity.” In the Scripture, it includes physical, moral and spiritual aspects, and it is found exclusively in Christ.

(ii) In the Old Testament, salvation is generally understood as a political, economic or physical deliverance from the oppression of enemy and depression of poverty, while its spiritual and moral aspects are continually reminded as the basis of those deliverances. By sending deliverers, God saves His people from danger and oppression. The Exodus is the most significant experience of salvation in the Old Testament and shaped the Jewish idea of salvation. However, the human agents are imperfect and fail to achieve the eternal salvation of Israel. So, the messianic salvation is promised with the coming of God Himself for the perfect and eternal deliverance as the Suffering Servant.

(iii) In the New Testament, salvation is described in various concepts like new birth, new creation, new and eternal life, liberation and freedom, reconciliation and peace, love and faith, gift of grace, knowledge of truth, homecoming, adoption and inheritance, healing and restoration, washing and forgiveness of sins, justification and sanctification etc. And, Jesus Christ is the only Savior, therefore no other name(Acts 4.12), and His salvation is applied by the Holy Spirit. It is both free and costly, by faith and work, individual and common. To be saved, baptism is required: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”(Mk 16.16)

(iv) Salvation is a long process to be completed like the Exodus, rather than a momentary event. It has three temporal aspects, according to G. Walters(NBD), past, present, and future, or possessive, progressive, and prospective. So, we can say that a believer “is saved, is being saved, and will be saved (Eph 2.8, 1Cor 1.18, Mt 10.22, Rom 5.9-10, 8.24) … Even the elect are warned to make their calling and election sure (2Pet 1.10) and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2.13).”

(4) Various Models of Christian Salvation

(i) The current models of salvation are as follows: Salvation as the Mystical Fellowship with Divinity, Salvation as the Authentic Knowledge of God, Salvation as the Moral Improvement of Humanity, Salvation as the Cultural Participation in the Religious Community, Salvation as the Political Participation in the Liberation of the Oppressed, Salvation as the Future Participation in the Eternal Life, and Salvation as the Happiness and Prosperity of the Present Life.

(ii) Donald Bloesch listed five theological models of salvation: Christian mystical model, Luther’s model, Calvin’s model, Wesley’s model, and Barth’s model.

3. History of Understanding of Salvation

(1) Early Soteriology

(i) The early Church Fathers emphatically taught two requirements to receive salvation, that is, faith in Jesus Christ and repentance to God. And, they show “initial drift towards ceremonialism” that forgiveness of sin is bestowed at baptism.

(ii) Against the early heresy of Pelagianism that man has ability to save himself, Augustine taught total depravity of fallen man and therefore the need of irresistible grace for salvation. However, he initiated the Roman Catholic system of soteriology by introducing the concepts of two graces that initial grace in baptism makes regeneration and forgiveness of sin possible, but it can be lost without the second grace of perseverance.

(iii) The Roman system of soteriology was developed in five distinctive elements: faith as the intellectual assent to the orthodox creed, works of mercy and self-discipline as the satisfaction for the sins of believers, reward for extra obedience (supererogation), Mary and saint-worship based on the transferred merit of their superabundant works, and salvation dependent on baptism.

(2) Medieval Soteriology

(i) Concerning the doctrine of grace, Scholasticism followed the soteriology of Augustine in asserting the need of sufficient grace, but the necessity of efficient grace was denied. Peter the Lombard distinguished between gratia operans and gratia co-operans, between Deum credere and in Deum/Christum credere, and between fides informis and fides formata.

(ii) In spite of minor differences, the Roman order of salvation is as follows: When sufficient grace is infused, gratia infusa, and it is not resisted but co-operated, it prepares justification through seven elements of work, i.e., assent to the truth taught by the Church, insight into one’s sinful condition, hope in the mercy of God, the beginning of love to God, an abhorrence of sin, a resolution to obey the commandments of God, and a desire for baptism. When this sevenfold preparation is completed by baptism, justification happens. It is preserved by obeying the commandments and by doing good works, and then finally everlasting life. In this system, justification and sanctification do not differ significantly.

(iii) Here, salvation may be lost either by unbelief or mortal sin, but may be regained by the sacrament of penance, i.e., absolution by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The guilt and eternal punishment can be removed by absolution, but temporal penalties of sin must be paid by the works of satisfaction, which can be merited after justification in several ways including merit transfer from the saints or Mary.

(3) Reformation Soteriology

(i) Against the Roman system of penance including indulgence, Martin Luther insisted that God freely forgives sin, and declared the doctrine of justification by faith as ‘the article of a standing or falling Church’. Sola fide and sola gratia salvation became the hallmark of the Protestant soteriology.

(ii) Lutherans based ordo salutis on Acts 26.17-18, “I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me”, and listed calling, illumination, conversion, regeneration, justification, renovation and glorification, while Calvinists based it on Rom 8.30, “those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified”, and started from eternal election and mystical union established in the pactum salutis.

(iii) Therefore, Calvinists insisted the unconditional salvation of the elect and the perseverance of all the regenerated without exception. But Lutherans asserted that the grace of God can be always resisted and faith can be lost any time but regained again.

(iv) Arminianism arose with the emphasis on the universal grace and human ability of faith. God bestowed universal grace to every human on the basis of redemption by Christ, and therefore anybody who responds by faith is justified because of the merit of faith, and if perseveres to the end will become a partaker of eternal life. Sharp difference between Arminians and Calvinists made a great controversy.

(4) Modern Soteriology

(i) John Wesley in the Pietistic tradition attempted the second Reformation in reaction to the Protestant weakness in sanctification. Revivalistic movement of Wesleyan Methodism made all efforts in the preaching of the Gospel which acceptance results in sudden conversion and immediate assurance of salvation, but second radical change for entire sanctification was demanded. It is possible with the gift of second grace.

(ii) Liberalism denied the supernatural grace of salvation and offered a psychological, moral, or cultural salvation in imitation of Jesus Christ, i.e., His extraordinary morality and religiosity.

(iii) In the 20th Century, new soteriologies appeared to accommodate the modern situation of secularization. Existentialist soteriology is based not on the historical redemption of Jesus Christ but one’s existential decision before God. According to Bultmann, salvation is a way to be an authentic existence by radical self-commitment to God in the expectation that everything will come from him and nothing from ourselves. Such a life spells deliverance from all worldly, tangible objects, leading to complete detachment from the world and thus to freedom” “It is a fundamental alteration of our Existenz, our whole outlook on and conduct of life.” Paul Tillich understands salvation as “the fulfillment of the ultimate meaning of one’s own existence.” Secularization Theology insists that mature form of sanctification is secularization: “Realizing one’s capability and utilizing it, becoming independent of God, coming of age, affirming oneself, and getting involved in the world—this is the true meaning of salvation.” Salvation is a becoming like Jesus who is “the man for others”(John A. T. Robinson).

4. Contemporary Trends and Relevance of Soteriology

(i) Social Understanding of Salvation: In reaction to the traditional understanding of salvation as individualistic and futuristic, Theology of Social Gospel and Liberation Theology including Feminist Theology and Black Theology understands salvation primarily as liberation from the oppressed situation in this world. Moreover, salvation is conceived rather as holistic, universal and even ecological.

(iii) Objective Understanding of Salvation: Subjective understanding of salvation in the Liberaism and Existentialism is challenged by the emphasis on objective reality of salvation.

(iii) Teleological Understanding of Salvation: Weakening tendency of the Protestant churches in the Reformational emphasis on the sola gratia salvation is attempted to overcome by the emphasis the purpose of salvation, i.e., soli Deo Gloria. Dietrich Bonhoeffer criticized the secularized natural religion of cheap grace and deus ex machina, and refocused our salvation as participatio Christi which necessarily follows the suffering of the cross.

(iv) Pluralistic Understanding of Salvation: Following the contemporary postmodern trend of pacifistic pluralism, the exclusive salvation by Jesus Christ is denied with the concept of anonymous Christ in other religions and cultures. Salvation is understood as “an actual human change, a gradual transformation from natural self-consciousness to a radically new orientation centered in God and manifested in the ‘fruit of the Spirit’”(John Hick, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World), rather than personal reconciliation with the triune God.

Worship: Theory & Practice

Welcome to the new module in Practical Ministry: Worship: Theory and Practice
Here ared the two ppt sessions from today’s seminars.WORSHIP 1
WORSHIP 2

What is a prophet?

What is a Prophet?
Many people today think of a prophet as any person who sees the future. While the gift of prophecy certainly includes the ability to see the future, a prophet is far more than just a person with that ability.

A prophet is basically a spokesman for God, a person chosen by God to speak to people on G-d’s behalf and convey a message or teaching. Prophets were role models of holiness, scholarship and closeness to God. They set the standards for the entire community.

The Hebrew word for a prophet, navi (Nun-Beit-Yod-Alef) comes from the term niv sefatayim meaning “fruit of the lips,” which emphasizes the prophet’s role as a speaker.

The Talmud teaches that there were hundreds of thousands of prophets: twice as many as the number of people who left Egypt, which was 600,000. But most of the prophets conveyed messages that were intended solely for their own generation and were not reported in scripture. Scripture identifies only 55 prophets of Israel.

A prophet is not necessarily a man. Scripture records the stories of seven female prophets, listed below, and the Talmud reports that Sarah’s prophetic ability was superior to Abraham’s.

A prophet is not necessarily a Jew. The Talmud reports that there were prophets among the gentiles (most notably Balaam, whose story is told in Numbers 22), although they were not as elevated as the prophets of Israel (as the story of Balaam demonstrates). And some of the prophets, such as Jonah, were sent on missions to speak to the gentiles.

According to some views, prophecy is not a gift that is arbitrarily conferred upon people; rather, it is the culmination of a person’s spiritual and ethical development. When a person reaches a sufficient level of spiritual and ethical achievement, the Shechinah (Divine Spirit) comes to rest upon him or her. Likewise, the gift of prophecy leaves the person if that person lapses from his or her spiritual and ethical perfection.

The greatest of the prophets was Moses. It is said that Moses saw all that all of the other prophets combined saw, and more. Moses saw the whole of the Torah, including the Prophets and the Writings that were written hundreds of years later. All subsequent prophecy was merely an expression of what Moses had already seen. Thus, it is taught that nothing in the Prophets or the Writings can be in conflict with Moses’ writings, because Moses saw it all in advance.

The Talmud states that the writings of the prophets will not be necessary in the World to Come, because in that day, all people will be mentally, spiritually and ethically perfect, and all will have the gift of prophecy.

Who are the Prophets of the Jewish Scriptures?
The following list of prophets is based on the Talmud and Rashi. Abraham Gen 11:26 – 25:10
Isaac Gen 21:1 – 35:29
Jacob Gen 25:21 – 49:33
Moses Ex. 2:1 – Deut. 34:5
Aaron Ex. 4:14 – Num. 33:39
Joshua Ex. 17:9 – 14, 24:13, 32:17 – 18, 33:11; Num. 11:28 – 29, 13:4 – 14:38; 27:18 – 27:23, Deut. 1:38, 3:28, 31:3, 31:7 -Joshua 24:29
Pinchas Ex. 6:25; Num. 25:7-25:11; Num. 31:6; Josh. 22:13 – Josh. 24:33; Judges 20:28
Elkanah I Samuel 1:1 – 2:20
Eli I Samuel 1:9 – 4:18
Samuel I Samuel 1:1 – I Samuel 25:1
Gad I Sam 22:5; II Sam 24:11-19; I Chron 21:9-21:19, 29:29
Nathan II Sam 7:2 – 17; 12:1 – 25.
David I Sam 16:1 – I Kings 2:11
Solomon II Sam 12:24; 1 Kings 1:10 – 11:43
Iddo II Chron 9:29, 12:15, 13:22
Michaiah son of Imlah I Kings 22:8-28; II Chron 18:7-27
Obadiah I Kings 18; Obadiah
Ahiyah the Shilonite I Kings 11:29-30; 12:15; 14:2-18; 15:29
Jehu son of Hanani I Kings 16:1 – 7; II Chron 19:2; 20:34
Azariah son of Oded II Chron 15
Jahaziel the Levite II Chron 20:14
Eliezer son of Dodavahu II Chron 20:37
Hosea Hosea
Amos Amos
Micah the Morashtite Micah
Amoz (the father of Isaiah)
Elijah I Kings 17:1 – 21:29; II Kings 1:10-2:15, 9:36-37, 10:10, 10:17
Elisha I Kings 19:16-19; II Kings 2:1-13:21
Jonah ben Amittai Jonah
Isaiah Isaiah
Joel Joel
Nahum Nahum
Habakkuk Habakkuk
Zephaniah Zephaniah
Uriah Jeremiah 26:20-23
Jeremiah Jeremiah
Ezekiel Ezekiel
Shemaiah I Kings 12:22-24; II Chron 11:2-4, 12:5-15
Barukh Jeremiah 32, 36, 43, 45
Neriah (father of Barukh)
Seraiah Jeremiah 51:61-64
Mehseiah (father of Neriah)
Haggai Haggai
Zechariah Zechariah
Malachi Malachi
Mordecai Bilshan Esther
Oded (father of Azariah)
Hanani (father of Jehu)
Female Prophets
Sarah Gen 11:29 – 23:20
Miriam Ex. 15:20-21; Num. 12:1-12:15, 20:1
Deborah Judges 4:1 – 5:31
Hannah I Sam 1:1 – 2:21
Abigail I Sam 25:1 – 25:42
Huldah II Kings 22:14-20
Esther Esther

Why is Daniel Not a Prophet?
I am often asked why the Book of Daniel is included in the Writings section of the Tanakh instead of the Prophets section. Wasn’t Daniel a prophet? Weren’t his visions of the future true?

According to Judaism, Daniel is not one of the 55 prophets. His writings include visions of the future, which we believe to be true; however, his mission was not that of a prophet. His visions of the future were never intended to be proclaimed to the people; they were designed to be written down for future generations. Thus, they are Writings, not Prophecies, and are classified accordingly.

The ice cold war?

Considering the territorial factors in the Cold War, does this week’s news about melting ice caps suggest the possibility of an imminent “ice cold war”? Roger Howard explains:

Puritanism: The Shaping of America

As part of the iconography and symbology by which a sense of the American past is constructed, the entry of the Puritans into 17th century New England has been interpreted and re-interpreted as a shaping force of what has been recurrently described as that peculiar and essential figure, the being somehow common to every component of a nevertheless immeasurably diverse culture, the “American” itself. Never mind if this shared self seems to blur under scrutiny; the past out of which it is made is just as elusive, just as dependent upon the plasticity of its popular conception. It is easier and perhaps in its way necessary to do what has often been done with the waves of emigrants that fixed the European presence in New England in 1620 and 1630, to jumble two groups into, depending upon one’s mood, either a stern but strong figure of religious freedom and peaceful coexistence, or a stark, superstitious, grim-faced symbol of oppression and fatalism. On one side, we have the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock, the blunderbuss and the turkey–a good-natured and benign collage of historical images that help fill the nation’s collective past with reassuring facts, help establish one’s sense of tradition by allowing it key moments of adherence. But then the commonly-held ‘dark side,’ the Massachusetts Bay Colony Puritans: witch-hunts, elitism, intolerance, narrow-minded zealotry; a paradigm used to understand and explain perceived moments of its recurrence within our society, such as in both the 1850’s and the 1950’s, the fervor of morally-crusading Abolitionism, and the fever of Communist-purging McCarthyism.

There to help explain just what America means, the art adorning the Rotunda of the United States Capitol still does not evoke, of the two, the culture whose influence had the greater effect and which indeed swallowed the other not long after either of their establishment. Instead, one finds in painting, the embarkation of the Pilgrims, and in both a fresco and frieze, the landing of the Pilgrims. In each image one finds the correlative to the conception most readily available to Americans, the one fixed in a National holiday, Thanksgiving. But again, that the Pilgrims seem to be offered as representative of our ‘Forefathers,’ does not necessarily mean that the Puritans are forgotten; paradoxically, in name at least, the opposite may be true. As Michael Kammen points out in his overarching treatment on the role of memory in formulating American culture, Mystic Chords of Memory, the first group is more often than not conflated with the second.

If the symbolism of the Pilgrims occupy the foreground of popular memory, it does so in a relatively fixed, institutional sense–that of its enshrinement in the Rotunda, and its memorialization through a National holiday. The idea of Puritanism has nevertheless served as a kind of frame for the Pilgrims, allowing a title and a context which, when taken notice of, may be safely understood as something not essential, and so, not a danger, to the meaning of the tradition seen. But it is then Puritanism whose meaning has proved the more dynamic, the more vital to the discourse of public memory. It is Puritanism which has been seen as both good and bad, and has served as a site of contention for differing ideological uses and perspectives. It is the “paper trail” that the Puritans left behind, along with their strong strain of ideology, which Kammen notes as the distinguishing features of their role in popular memory (Kammen, 64). The Pilgrims, because of their lack of these traits, have had a plasticity of meaning, have provided a useful malleability to the fashioning of ‘American’ tradition. The Puritans have provided a more consistent interpretive challenge, simply because there is so much more to interpret. Documents do not necessarily ‘prove’ a whole lot; rather they must be compared in relation to others, judged within a spectrum of representativeness, gauged as an expression of intent. Within them one searches for the what seems must be there, the ‘Puritan Mind’, even as one realizes simply from the differing historical interpretations– ’scientific’, revisionist, ‘new-historical’, and otherwise–that such a thing, if it could and did exist, will always be but inadequately known.

The underlying assumption of the project will be primarily that of Michael Kammen, who traces two major features of American understanding of its place in time: the first, “to historicize the present”; the second, to “depoliticize the past” (Kammen, 704). That is, as alternate modes of “hope” and “memory,” progress and tradition, inform the collective understanding of what the nation has come from and where it is headed, its conception of cultural and social identity is transformed in the process. The approach here then will be not to establish an absolute understanding of Pilgrims and Puritans, but rather to fix some ground of stability based largely upon original writings and what seem to be more or less undisputed interpretations about what those writings suggest. What will follow from that will be a view of subsequent historical fashionings of both Pilgrim and Puritan, as they have been converted into both myth and ideological argument. From the Revolution to the Civil War, to the period following World War I, both Pilgrims and Puritans have served as part of a rationale for national progress and cultural identity. This perspective of historical utility in turn provides a way to read and explain an institutional America evinced in the speeches of politicians, and perhaps most clearly seen in the art of the Rotunda.

Scott Atkins

Puritanism: The roots of Americanism?

Early in the 17th century some Puritan groups separated from the Church of England. Among these were the Pilgrims, who in 1620 founded Plymouth Colony. Ten years later, under the auspices of the Massachusetts Bay Company, the first major Puritan migration to New England took place. The Puritans brought strong religious impulses to bear in all colonies north of Virginia, but New England was their stronghold, and the Congregationalist churches established there were able to perpetuate their viewpoint about a Christian society for more than 200 years.

Richard Mather and John Cotton provided clerical leadership in the dominant Puritan colony planted on Massachusetts Bay. Thomas Hooker was an example of those who settled new areas farther west according to traditional Puritan standards. Even though he broke with the authorities of the Massachusetts colony over questions of religious freedom, Roger Williams was also a true Puritan in his zeal for personal godliness and doctrinal correctness. Most of these men held ideas in the mainstream of Calvinistic thought. In addition to believing in the absolute sovereignty of God, the total depravity of man, and the complete dependence of human beings on divine grace for salvation, they stressed the importance of personal religious experience. These Puritans insisted that they, as God’s elect, had the duty to direct national affairs according to God’s will as revealed in the Bible. This union of church and state to form a holy commonwealth gave Puritanism direct and exclusive control over most colonial activity until commercial and political changes forced them to relinquish it at the end of the 17th century.

Because of its diffuse nature, when Puritanism began to decline in America is difficult to say. Some would hold that it lost its influence in New England by the early 18th century, but Jonathan Edwards and his able disciple Samuel Hopkins revived Puritan thought and kept it alive until 1800. Others would point to the gradual decline in power of Congregationalism, but Presbyterians under the leadership of Jonathan Dickinson and Baptists led by the example of Isaac Backus (1724 – 1806) revitalized Puritan ideals in several denominational forms through the 18th century.

During the whole colonial period Puritanism had direct impact on both religious thought and cultural patterns in America. In the 19th century its influence was indirect, but it can still be seen at work stressing the importance of education in religious leadership and demanding that religious motivations be tested by applying them to practical situations.

Henry Warner Bowden

Bibliography
S Bercovitch, The Puritan Origins of the American Self (1975); S Brachlow, The Communion of Saints (1988); C Cohen, God’s Caress: The Psychology of the Puritan Religious Experience (1986); P Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (1967); W Haller, The Rise of Puritanism (1938); C E Hambrick – Stowe, The Practice of Piety (1982); C Hill, Puritanism and Revolution (1967); R D Kendall, The Drama of Dissent 1986); P Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (1982); P Miller, The New England Mind (1939, 1953); E S Morgan, Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea (1963); S E Prall, ed., The Puritan Revolution: A Documentary History (1968); D B Ruttman, American Puritanism: Faith and Practice (1970); A Simpson, Puritanism in Old and New England (1955); L J Trinterud, ed., Elizabethan Puritanism (1971); H Trevor – Roper, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans (1988); D Wallace, ed., The Spirituality of the Later English Puritans: An Anthology (1988).