Stuff Michael Meeks is doing

Up very early; sucked into an endless cycle of D-day memorials and Ronald-Regan tributes. Irritated by Joel Orsteen on FOX's impersonation of Norman Vincent-Peale, hopefully an abberation rather than the norm for US televised services.
Off to Old First Presbyterian Church in the center of town; Vann Ness / Sacramento. A small congregation, good choral music: Cesar Franck's Psalm 150; and some Rutter; Nostaligic but sensible sermon by leaving / retiring pastor.
Back to the hotel; sucked into the Discovery channel. Food. Pleased with the pithy blurb on the front-page of All Souls web-site.
Sermon from Gordon on Acts 15: Rules
- An unusual passage to hear preached; several controversies arising: between congregationalists and presbeterians. A 2nd controversy - how to interpret old testament prophecy, the church age and the return of Christ - this text particularly featured between the traditional reformed interpretation, and Hal Lindsay, Tim LeHay who have made 'dispensationalism' popular; his 12th volume 'left behind' series. 3rd controversy: how much of the old testament do we still have to obey; 613 laws: every one still applicable ? All these hinge around Acts 15.
  - Congregationalism: what is it ? why in the US, are there ~no congregational churches outside New-England and ~the converse inside. Comes from Acts 15, the settlement history, and their basic similarities. Had a hop-scotch missionary arrangement; until the kissing stopped and the argument starts. Both agree on the Westminster Confession of faith, so no difference in their faith; just on church government. All agree, that God is not encouraging the notion of an entirely autonomous local church; instead a great example of mutual inter-dependance.
  - The controversy appealed to the Church at Jerusalem - we hear about Apostles and Elders but in terms of their leadership, they seem to be the same. Peter - a fellow elder.
  - A formal meeting of the elders to consider the issue; a 'presbetary' vs. 'a synod'. Note - the total lack of prayer then a miraculous revalation; instead they weighed evidence, heard both sides of the argument, the scriptures; then vs. 7 there was much discussion. Lots of emphasis on what God had been doing, and had done. After hearing the evidence - the final standard of authority: the summary: the word of God. Amos 9:11,12, at the end significant authority: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us vs. 28.
  - Everyone agrees to this point; Presbyterians belive the presbetary have standing authority, over the other churches, including ones they don't necessarily attend, and can make decisions that are binding on the whole congregation. Congregationlists say this was invited authority - the reason it was being made in Jerusalem is because Antioch couldn't solve the problem, and it's only because the troublemakers had come from Jerusalem, then it was fitting for them to see if indeed it was true v24 we have heard that some went out from us without our authorisation and disturbed you. Also the letter was sent to only those churches that might have been confused - not all churches.
  - An example of Gordon's ex. congregational church in Gloster MA. from the records; one predecessor wanted to leave the church; the congregation agreed it was time for him to move on. In a decision of that magnitude they called a council of other sister church leaders / elders. When the churches met, they said: we don't think the pastor should leave. So the church: Lanesville Congregation Church accepted that counsel The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice. So a reluctant church, kept a reluctant pastor for another set of years. The next year revival broke out - 1869, had more people converted than in the previous 5 years put together. We should often seek the counsel of other churches in matters.
- The second issue: Dispensationalism vs. the traditional 'reformed' or protestant understanding.
  - The Schofeld reference Bible perhaps the most effective tool for popularising this view of the timetable for Jesus' return, and how after his return there might be a period of tribulation, and after that a 1000 year reign, or millenium of Christ. That teaching behind Tim LaHey's and others' (12 volume) view etc. hinges on very few verses, one of them Acts 15.
  - Schofeld has this note, attached to James' speech: Dispensationally this is the most important passage in the New Testament. Gordon agrees, it's a good testing ground of the theory. In speaking of our dispenstaion brothers and sisters, not in a condemnatory way; most is great - the reality of Jesus' return ought to be an encouragement.
  - When James is quoting Amos - After this, I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent; they say 'After this' means the church age; this is Jesus speaking now: 'I will return', and will 're-build the fallen tent of David'. - 586BC was the last time a descendant of David sat on the throne. The next descendant of David who claimed to be King was whom: Jesus Christ. Herod claimed he was a descendant of David, but was an Edomite - at the very same time, Magi from the East came to ask where the real King was born. When crucified the superscription: This is the King of the Jews Jesus is David's greater son, the next King.
  - But according to the Schofeld reference bible he doens't get his Kingdom until the millenium; and only then will the gentiles come in along with the Jews.
  - But if that's what James meant - he must have been completely confused: he was saying it was a good thing to let the gentiles in; but if the prophecy he quotes doesn't apply until Jesus' return - it's irrelevant.
  - It so happens the vocabulary in I will return not found elsewhere; Amos 9: in the Hebrew, not 'returning', but 'restoring'. Reformed perspective - that happened when Jesus came. My Kingdom is not of this world - but it doesn't mean he doesn't have one; it's more escalated & expansive than David's. After Jesus' resurrection he says All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me we don't have to wait until Millenium times.
- The 3rd issue: which laws of the 613 apply:
  - Not so easy to tell. Today's question: Is it possible to be a faithful Jew, and a faithful Christian ? - of course it is. Ironically in Antioch, the opposite question, is it possible to be a Gentile and also a Christian.
  - The Judaisers, Unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved wisely rejected by the Elders; with 4 rules, omitting circumcision. The reason is about what circumcision means; not just 1 of 612 others; Was the commitment that symbolised commitment to the whole of the law Genesis 17: you are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.
  - What is promised from that; why that particular part of the anatomy ? why not a tattoo or something ? the Abrahamic covenant has as it's quintessential promise - a miraculous seed of Abraham through whom the world would be blessed.
  - Everyone else but the Philistines practices circumcision, but used it as a rite of passsage for adolescent boys going through puberty. So - the joke is, that you would use a puberty rite for a bloke 100 years old (for Abraham).
  - Since Christ has come; Gal 3: The seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ - if it has come, we don't need a sign that points forward to him.
  - Then the 4 requirements, 3 dietary:
    - Abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals - very odd, such emphasis on food, unless you consider the context: not only the relationship to the law, but how can we get along.
    - How can we have table fellowship: Gal 2, upset over this very question. Gentiles, having just come out of their idolatorous background; abstain from food sacrificed to idols [ hard to come by nowadays ]. The issue pressing: no refrigerators, grocery stores, apart from the temples: the Markets adjunct buildings to the temple.
    - Abandoning food sacrificed to idols => not going near the temples. Like an ex. Alcholic agreeing not to have his business meetings in a bar. Paul talks in 1 Cor 8, 10 - and takes a more cautious approach.
    - Avoid blood: later Rabbinic judaism thought just get rid of the blood in the animal; in the ancient context - not allowed to eat meat with the 'life blood' in it, with it coursing through its veins. ie. you must slaughter animals before eating them. Might seem obvious, but not so - the bachaus cult at the time of Acts - they would sink their teeth into the quivering flesh of the animal, devouring it alive. Arnobius: To show yourself full of the divinity and majesty of the God, you demolish with gory mouths the intestines of goats, bleating for mercy.
    - For the Christian - this cannot be, and anti- idolatory theme. The law of love. Paul in Romans 14; I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself ie. you can eat a live goldfish - (give thanks first), But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. - very broadly applicable.
    - Finally - the 4th item; from Sexual immorality. Is the moral law still effective - you bed. Works are not meritious, but they are mandatory. Not saved _by_ works, but _for_ them. It is by grace you have been saved.
    - 2 Categories of laws: those that are fulfilled in Christ; many of them are fulfilled because they pointed forward to him; he is the passover lamb that takes away from the sin of the world. The sacrificial system, the theocracy, the punishments that go with a theocracy, set aside My Kingdom is not of this world. But the Moral requirements not set aside - since God's moral character never changes.
    - The categories can be distinguished in various ways - some are more important: justice, mercy, faithfullness - that the Pharises were neglecting.
    - So why mention this problem: sexual immorality; because it was the problem: many understood that honouring parents, protecting innocent life etc. What made Christians stand out was their view of marriage; one scholar: It has been said that chastity was the only completely new virtue that Christianity brought into the world.
    - It ran right across the sexual hysteria and obsession of the time. In villa's the art decoration was like modern internet pornography; an assault on the home-owner against any sense of modesty. Connected with paganism particularly a problem; Revalation 2: the church of Purganum enticed Israel to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality; two go hand in hand.
    - The official worship encouraged it. Juvenal says: At what temple does a prostitute not sit - part of the religious experience. Even among the best of the moralists there was this dichotomy.
    - No wonder marriage was falling apart: Seneca: Women were married to be divorced, and divorced to be married in 2nd C. Only God has the right to tell you what to do with your body.
    - Flee sexual immorality - all X rated theatre, the temple, it was everywhere - living as a Christian was counter-cultural.
    - I can't give my wife very much; - many men might wish to bring a better salary, more affection - but one thing we can give: our fidelity. Not just outward behavior, but matters of the heart. You have heard it said, do not commit adultery, but I tell you anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    - Job said I've made a covenant with my eyes, not to look lustfully at a woman. Saint Augustine - had lived a life of Roman immorality - had done it all; when he turned around, almost the next day: walking along the sidewalk, he meets one of his former girls, and she lights up, her makeup glistens with the joy of meeting him; he averts his glance - she cries out; Augustine - its I. He breaks out into a full run, crying out over his shoulder: yes, but it is not I. behold the old has gone, the new has come - therefore flee sexual immorality, all other sins a man commits are outside his body, do you not know your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
Challenging stuff.

My content in this blog and associated images / data under images/ and data/ directories are (usually) created by me and (unless obviously labelled otherwise) are licensed under the public domain, and/or if that doesn't float your boat a CC0 license. I encourage linking back (of course) to help people decide for themselves, in context, in the battle for ideas, and I love fixes / improvements / corrections by private mail.

In case it's not painfully obvious: the reflections reflected here are my own; mine, all mine ! and don't reflect the views of Collabora, SUSE, Novell, The Document Foundation, Spaghetti Hurlers (International), or anyone else. It's also important to realise that I'm not in on the Swedish Conspiracy. Occasionally people ask for formal photos for conferences or fun.

Stuff Michael Meeks is doing

2004-06-06: Sunday