Archive for the ‘Church family’ Category

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).

(more…)

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. 8) 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.

godbox.jpg

Some great sites for your edification

  • Christian Classics Ethereal Library
  • Exegetical Reflections
  • floating axhead
  • Girl Talk
  • Gospel Driven Blog
  • Joel Osteen
  • John Piper
  • Josh Harris
  • Mark Wilson
  • Northolt Grange Baptist Church  
  • Peter Cockrell
  • Pure Church
  • by Michael CranfordThis article was originally published in New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 71-88.

    In Romans 4 Paul turns to the scriptural figure of Abraham, a vivid personification of faith and obedience in Jewish thought. While the most obvious reason for Paul’s depiction of Abraham is to undermine any use of Abraham as a counterexample to his foregoing argument,1 Paul turns the common Jewish conception of Abraham on its head and offers him instead as positive support for his own position.2 The nature of Paul’s argument in the previous two chapters of Romans has been identified by James Dunn and others as rejecting the Jewish assumption that covenant privileges are strictly associated with ethnic Israel and therefore unavailable to Gentiles.3 Over against the Torah, Paul has instead offered faith as the identifier or boundary marker of those who are members in God’s people—a difference which allows Gentiles full participation in the covenant.

    Silva remarks that Dunn does not appreciate how damaging Romans 4 is to his position, however, with its sharp antithesis between working and believing. Further, Silva asks why such a critical passage as 4.4-5 has played no significant role in the development of Dunn’s thesis, with the implication that Dunn has intentionally underplayed its importance.4 The relative significance of 4.4-5 has yet to be weighed, but Silva’s criticism is valid. As a latter development in Paul’s argument, the figure of Abraham, with its sharp ‘faith-works’ terminology appropriated by the Reformers, must either follow logically from Dunn’s perspective on Romans 1-3 or else stand at complete odds with it.

    A primary issue to be resolved is how the figure of Abraham functions with regard to Paul’s argument in Romans 4. The traditional view is that Abraham is an example of Christian faith, demonstrating how we, as individuals, can be justified. If this is true, then the emphasis of Romans 4 is not primarily on the consequences of Abraham’s belief but on the mechanism of belief itself. Strong support for this comes later in the chapter, Boers argues:

      The decisive factor for the relation between Abraham’s faith and the faith of the believer, according to this chapter, is the fact that it is the same God who is the object of the faith of Abraham (4:17, cf. 5) and of that of the Christian believer (verse 24). The connection between them is established in verse 23 with the statement that the justification that was announced to Abraham, was not announced on his behalf only, ‘but also on our behalf’, i.e., on the behalf of Christian believers.5

    Similarly, Hanson concludes, ‘Thus Abraham’s justification fulfils exactly the same function which is required at the point in Romans where it comes: he is the prototype of believing Christians, a sinner (whether from Judaism or from the Gentile world) justified by faith’.6

    Proponents of this view naturally set Abraham’s faith over against his good deeds, emphasizing that it was by his faith alone that God pronounced him righteous. Similarly, it is by faith and not good deeds that God now pronounces the Christian righteous. While there are many problems with this view, not the least being that it forces a Western individualistic perspective on a scriptural figure who is consistently viewed as symbolic of his progeny (cf. 4.13), the most critical flaw is that it dichotomizes faith and obedience in a way which would be completely unintelligible to a Jewish reader. As Doughty notes of 4.1-5,

      It is important to recognize . . . that for the pious Jew this argument would hardly have been convincing or even understandable. . . Paul’s interpretation of the Genesis text [15.6] is a tour de force. For the radical distinction he makes here between pistis and erga cannot simply be derived from the text itself. This distinction breaks in such a decisive way with the traditional understanding of Judaism that his interpretation would be impossible for a Jewish reader to comprehend.7

    Not only would this dichotomy be unconvincing to the Jewish or Jewish- Christian reader (cf. James 2.17-24), but it stands at odds with Paul’s earlier expressions of the connection between faith and obedience (1.5; 3.3; and implied in 2.7, 10, 13).

    The interpretation of Romans 4 offered here is one in which Abraham is not viewed as an example of Christian faith, but is instead used by Paul to show why Gentiles can be considered members of God’s people. Gentiles share in the covenant because they, too, are children of Abraham. As Howard states, ‘The idea is that the Gentiles are blessed not simply like Abraham but because of Abraham’.8 Abraham provides the reason why Gentiles experience salvation, not the example of how an individual becomes saved. In Jewish thought, Abraham was viewed as the paradigm of obedience, but this obedience was directly connected to his having passed on covenant privileges to Israel.9 Paul breaks from this Jewish understanding in Romans 4 by showing that Abraham has passed on covenant privileges to all who believe, and not just to those who are members of ethnic Israel. This break is therefore not over belief and obedience as competing soteriological paradigms, but over Jewish ethnicity and faith as competing boundary markers of God’s people. (more…)