One Tough Question This Week; The Other Frustrating

Some people ask tough "questions of the week" in my Introduction to the New Testament class (online through Trinity School for Ministry). It's fun, but sometimes I have too many thoughts or ways of approach. Some of them might not be conducive to the structured learning environment, which is why I have been putting them here, in an unstructured (hopefully) learning environment!

Paul’s writings this week have covered many issues, many of which deal with our horizontal relationships.

1. So in my first question, I’m throwing you a bone. It’s been a launching pad for countless discussions. I’m referring to Ephesians 5:22-33 (wives submit to your husbands; husbands love your wives). COMMENT: Listening to various discussions over the years, I’ve heard an entire range of definitions for the word “submit” as it applies to this passage. I’ve also heard discussions on how balanced the mandate is or is not for husbands and wives. I KNOW some of you want to comment on this. What’s your take?
2. In 2 Timothy 4, Paul tells Timothy “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” I infer here that Timothy’s audience would not necessarily be inclined peaceably to receive the reproving, the rebuking, or the exhorting. In Matthew 7, Jesus says, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” How do you thread this needle? When, in your thinking, is it better to stop evangelizing, if ever? It’s rather like conducting CPR, isn’t it? You do it as long as you can to save a life, but once you’re completely exhausted, it serves no purpose to continue… but when is that? (Not that I wish to associate people who need CPR with pigs!) Additionally, when is it appropriate to stop LISTENING to people? These days, a lot of people talk trash. When is it appropriate to finally say as graciously as you can to the other person, “Okay, my ears aren’t garbage cans! This conversation is over!”

My First Attempt:
1. I am naturally inclined to egalitarianism. However when I've tried to follow my egalitarian leanings to its conclusion, it has failed miserably. Is it because my wife adopted a weird patriarchal vision (IBLP) right before we got married? Is it because the people in my circles were vehemently against egalitarianism? I think not. The people weren't against it as much as they were for following their nature. "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy," is just a restated version of "and her desire shall be for your head." I've talked to many men and their wives "rule the roost." This is acceptable to most men as long as they can "check out" when it comes to training the children.

I've learned experientially, aka the hard way, that Paul really meant what he said. My failure to lead self-sacrificially nearly ended my marriage. I say this as if I learned this right away. In fact, this could not be further from the truth. I have been wrestling with the idea of male headship ever since then (2009). After what happened, I was angry, embittered. I became a tyrant. This did not help me to learn Paul at all. I still doubted.

When I was released from the anger/forgave/was forgiven, my marriage was set on the road to recovery (2013). I joined an Anglican church where the pastor was a proponent of women's ordination. This may seem out of place in the discussion of submission, but I believe it's central to the discussion. I was swayed, or at least I wanted to consider it. After all, I leaned egalitarian by nature. I read up on the arguments in favor and saw Paul in a new light.

Then I started to see cracks in the arguments. I would switch sides multiple times over the last several years. I even considered going to college to get a philosophy degree from the University of Washington (they specialize in feminist philosophy). There were many proto-feminist things I found myself supporting, and still do (proto- means original). Every time I thought I was settled comfortably on one side, I would see a crack on that side.

So I kept strengthening (in my mind) the argument for each side (as I bounced between them). The argument which I believe to be the strongest in support of women's ordination is what I refer to as the eschatological argument. It is an inductive argument and can hardly be found to be at fault. In fact, it's true in so many parts. It's only weakness (as is the case for every inductive argument) is it's inductive jump. Once I realized that and fully embraced a robust covenant theology as regards the family, I ceased to be in support of women's ordination.

Interestingly enough, I am not against it. I don't "know" that it's wrong. I think the effort to force the issue is misplaced. I found Alastair Roberts (through his blog) to expound most closely what I believe. In this mindset, I read through Paul this week. I must say, he presents a unified vision (though sparse), which dovetails with my experiences. This class has solidified my approach to scriptural interpretation (leaving a full explanation of it out, at this point). Part of that is a direct reading with little-to-no nullification due to "cultural" contexts. A close reading can show that the intention is made to contextualize "submission" outside of the culture to the church in all times.

I have come to this conclusion after a decade of hemming and hawing. I don't really want to take this position. For the past year I have "returned" so to speak, to the complementary position, whatever that means. I believe that the man is the "alef" and the woman the "bet" (I learned this from a Jewish Rabbi a couple of years ago). The man is to receive the vision from God, and the woman is to "flesh" it out (most notably, child birth, but Proverbs 31 envisions other ways this is done).

To me, to submit is to help me achieve my vision. I will make the call; I will bear the responsibility. I need help, boy do I need help! She needs to support me, even if that means holding me accountable, which is humble support, though it does not feel good to either. I must love her. I do not do what she wants as much as I do what she needs. I listen to her, but if I do exactly what she says, I tend to miss the mark. But if I listen to her and understand what is driving her feelings, I can dwell with her with understanding.

Honestly, I (we) hardly know what submission is "supposed" to look like. She was exposed to a distorted view of it and we are still, to some extent, dealing with the effects of it in our marriage. She was so stuck on "submission" meaning "not influencing your husband" that she would not talk to me early in our marriage. It was disastrous. This was the effect of false teachings. Yeah, maybe I was a bit too egalitarian for her liking, but come on, talk to me!

The problem with defining "submission" is that most people cannot take the principle and extrapolate it based on the situation. I hope none of you are "most people" that I've dealt with, but chances are good. I believe that the woman was created to be the helper. I don't think this is an inferior position, not do I believe it means that women are to "lose themselves."

Insofar that I have "lost myself" in Christ by dying to self, Yes, women and men alike are to lose themselves. But no one is to give up their humanity.

2. I believe the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus (NIV) has the short answer to your question(s) #2.

9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. 10 For there are many rebellious people, full of meaningless talk and deception, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

In my longer answer (immediately following), I synthesize many more passages of scripture, hence the length.

I think there are different groups of people being referred to by these passages ("preach the word" and "don't cast pearls before swine"). It may be that people can be viewed along a continuum (spectrum) by degree of repentance. I draw a line in the sand between evangelism and discipleship. I believe we should call all people (believer and unbeliever) to repentance in every area of thought and life. When someone initially repents, we refer to this as conversion and the preaching that got them there as evangelism. As they continue to repent, we find more areas in which they can repent. This is called discipleship.

In my mind, the difference is only by degree. Because we cannot know who is elect, to a person (save Jesus, "The Elect" one), we must call everyone to repentance (but not necessarily in the same way) and treat everyone as sincere if they say they believe (for none can say Jesus is Lord unless it is given to them). So, can we ever stop calling people to repentance? I say, No. Even if they apostatize, I must still call them to repentance, but there is a nuance which must be achieved in each of these cases.

For evangelism specifically, here are the patterns I see. Jesus sent out his disciples in pairs. (Compare with this, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the truth be established," as well as, "where two or three are gathered in my name I shall be in the midst of them.") Take no money. Go to a city. Say peace be on this house. If they accept you, remain in that house and don't move from house to house (a laborer is worthy of his hire). If they reject you, the peace of God will return to you. Shake the dust from your feet and move on.

The fields are white to harvest. We should not over exert ourselves with those who are not interested (maybe we're only meant to plant the seed there and someone else will come along and water and another reap the harvest!). Maybe we are to reap where we have not sown. There are hearts which God has prepared to receive his word, they are the ones we should scour the earth to find. In a way, we should be canvassing people "are you ready?" That's how white to harvest people really are. Think: dragnet (the dictionary definition, but also the parable!).

If they are not ready to hear and repent (i.e., the swine), the only thing we'll be doing by "calling people out" is to invite violence upon ourselves. The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Essentially, we are told that we don't need to go and make ourselves martyrs, it will happen soon enough! So, instead, live at peace with your neighbors. Love the brethren. Some (not all) are called to be evangelists, by the way. But everyone should be ready to give an answer, again when the people white-to-harvest ask you about the hope within you! Walk circumspectly; be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

On the question of discipleship, we should not weary with doing well. You who are spiritual should restore such a one, taking heed lest ye fall. This task is not given to the immature in the faith (and we cannot count the years as a Christian, because some are still drinking milk, when they should be eating meat!), but to the mature, who will gently work with the wayward, foolish, and immature. The minister of God must have endurance.

If one is called to such an office, one should never stop (70x7) having faith, loving the brethren, rebuking the wayward, teaching pure doctrine, opposing the proud, suffering for righteousness, speaking with authority, and taking up ones cross daily (and so much more). The ability to teach well, is curiously included in the list of qualifications for overseers. Those who intend to lead, need to cultivate the critical leadership skills to do so. Where does one do this? Did God provide us with a "leadership factory" of a sorts? This goes back to your first question on what a godly ordered home looks like. This is the most fitting place for leadership to be learned.

If there are swines in the church, it would be easy to drive them away in my estimation. Use the stench of death to do it! Church discipline (excommunication) does not have to be daunting. Hold the line on accountability. "If you want access to the table, you need to repent of ... "

I don't know what context you intend to "stop listening" to people. I'd recommend you never start listening to fools (who say in their heart there is no God) anyways. If it's fruitless conversation, we need to avoid it (I need to repent in this area), such as quarrels and arguments over theology where it's clear that people don't need to be convinced by arguments when they really just don't want to obey the clear teachings.

Humanly speaking, I would rather attempt to prove my theological point than call people to repentance in light of the argument they're trying to have. We must stop with the debate over theology and simply follow the clear teachings. I know as far as epistemology is concerned, that last statement can be torn apart. Don't misunderstand me. I realize that even "clear" teachings come laden with interpretation. But most don't require interpreting beyond basic comprehension (itself an interpretive function). The parts that are more difficult can be interpreted in light of the ones which are more easily apprehended, especially, I believe, in a life which conforms to them.

My Second Attempt:
1. After much reflection, I take the straight forward reading of it. I don't believe it's only culturally relevant or only written to deal with some particulars of their situation. That being said, I also take the straight forward reading of the husband and father's responsibilities.

I have erred more in my role as a father and husband than my wife in her roles of mother and wife. In fact I think her submission (or lack of it), is more a reflection on my suitability to be followed (or lack of it). Granted, like Eve, she doesn't get to excuse it, but, like Adam, I bear the greater sin in the failings of our marriage due to my poor leadership.

I am naturally more egalitarian and I think this is part of the reason (another reason was immaturity) why I have failed to lead as I tried to implement my views of marriage. My wife brings a more complementarian perspective to the marriage.

What I don't believe in is dominance, from either party. Both must serve sacrificially; both must submit mutually. But men have certain roles in the family and women have certain roles. It may sound like I side with every complementarian out there, I don't. I probably agree with the egalitarians in most things except for the view of the biblical doctrine of authority. They are close to a good explanation of it, except that they reject hierarchy (rightly understood).

In other words, I'm a complementarian who has never heard a single complementarian actually explain the biblical views, merely worldly views superimposed on marriage. "Well, the man leads so..." conjuring up images of 'lording it over,' "it looks like [this]." They have the "right words," except that they accept a distorted view of hierarchy. *sigh*

I want both: right words and right concepts. Adam was created first, then Eve, to help him. Man is to serve the Lord by tending to creation ("the garden"), Eve included, but also Eve is to help him. That's the basic principle. If it's not based there, it's foundation is made of sand.

We can try to get more sophisticated in our reasoning, but to me, it's always a game of obscurantism and obfuscation. That's why I try to keep things simple. Truth should be spoken of with accessible language, it takes more work by the scholars to do it, but they have the responsibility to do so.

They (as a group, and I have been party to this) suffer from laziness and intellectual pride. These concepts and debates are accessible to all spirit-filled Christian, but they are not being included in the discussions leading to theological 'ink to paper.'

2. If at all possible live at peace with everyone. If you cannot speak peaceably, then don't. If you are an elder/overseer, part of your role is to deal with these things. If you cannot, you should not be an elder/overseer.

It's easy to preach at people; it's difficult to speak with people. Open up to the vulnerability of learning why people are in their sins and you will gain compassion and learn how to cure their souls. It may take a lifetime to cure them, one must be patient.

I have offered advice to people (including unbelievers) and have not had many people "turn and rend me." For those who have approached that level of vehemence, I learned that they will not accept what I have to say, so I could stop being pushy. I had to stop preaching at/to my brothers. They were all raised in the church, but have walked away/apart.

It was straining my relationship. I stopped preaching and started listening. But, like you, I can only spend so much time with unbelievers. I try to stay on good terms with them (live at peace). But there is really not much of a relationship. Part of that is my fault. I'm terrible with long distance relationships (but that's also just a human thing).

I was starting to ramble ... so I went for a short answer and left my long, incomplete answers for the blog.

My Third (Final) Attempt:
Short answer:
1. I take the straight reading to be the correct one.

2. I find it remarkable that Paul calls Timothy to endurance. I would base my discernment on how people respond. If they turn and rend me, then I will stop casting, but not until then.

"Listening" is another thing entirely. I agree with John Bunyan's characters Christian and Faithful, "We only buy the truth!"

Long answer:
I posted lots of thoughts, though it's not as coherent as I like:
https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/08/one-tough-question-this-week-other.html

If you are in my class, I disable the comments to prevent robots/spam comments. Feel free to comment in Google Classroom.

Do we need Deliverance beyond Shepherding people to Obey?

My thoughts after reading, "The Holy Spirit, The Missing Finger: Comparing the Pneumatology of Alexander Campbell and Don Basham." by Cletus L. Hull III

I'm a Recovering Cessationist

Have you been "baptized by the Holy Spirit" in the way you described it?  If so, how does that happen?  Admittedly, I come from the "rationalist school" and yet I was exposed to Pentecostalism as a boy (5-10 yrs old), so I don't want to give up on the idea that signs and wonders may still exist (I hear the reports but I do not see them personally).

Even though I was among the cessationists (Reformed Presbyterianism) for a time, a young charismatic on the submarine (below several hundred feet of water) asked me if I "believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit".  I knew what he was driving at, so I said, "Honestly, I don't know.  Let me read the passages about the gifts and I will get back to you."  After an honest read, I couldn't sustain an argument for cessationism.

I went back to him and said that I do believe in them but I don't believe that speaking in tongues is singularly required or even preferred.  He was okay with that response, though I think he disagreed to some extent.  I have been in suspense since then (6 years).  I have a couple of friends, one who was in the Vineyard movement and another who is a Wesleyan.  Both have talked to me about these things, but haven't given me any practical direction.

My church hasn't been much help either.  We've done the 'uber' rationalist spiritual gifts inventory (I'm an INFP and I forget what my enneagram number is, you get my point).  Then we followed up with exercises to encourage word of knowledge (I think) and speaking in tongues (my wife's group).  "Say the first thing that pops in your head."  My wife and I both laugh about what popped in our heads (we were not in the same group, but we both thought it kind of silly, after the fact).  So not helpful.

Disciples of Christ
It's like everyone talks about the few who have experienced signs and wonders, but no one seems to be able to do them.  I have some experiences with Disciples of Christ at college.  Do you want to hear about it?

I sat through their "bible studies" at lunch.  They were pretty well-scripted and made clear points (though I didn't believe the points to be correct and/or of the priority they designated them to be).  I asked questions which they could not answer, though they tried.  They passed me off to a disciple attending Cornell.  We had an email exchange or two and then nothing.

I eventually roomed with several of the guys for a while.  They never got me to go to the Syracuse Church of Christ, but I did hang out with them that Halloween.  They all had their daily lives scheduled out.  If they had free time, they were expected to be spending it with members of their church.  It seemed a bit too controlling to me, though I recognized the benefits.

My Feelings
My "experience with the supernatural" has been extremely limited.  I have "felt" things, but I have a hard time knowing what it is.  Some people say it's the Holy Spirit.  I have no need to deny it, but cannot know for certain that it's not emotionalism: feelings arising because of my thoughts (which they oftentimes are, so why not those times as well).

I have felt what I call spiritual oppression (before and during some arguments with the wife).  I have seen what has appeared to be the face of a demon on a couple of occasions, where the person in question has had some kind of malice directed towards me (two people on the submarine).  I have also seen it in my children during "battle of the wills" as I train them in the way they should go.

Experiences While Parenting
Maybe it's merely extreme selfishness and not a demon, but they literally shiver when I see them go from having a rebellious attitude to a submissive one.  I had one child giving me an extended (many months) antipathy.  I asked him why he was upset with me and he said it was because I spanked him.

I explained why and he understood it.  Then the antipathy left him as sure as a demon was exorcised.  Instantly the next younger son had that antipathy, which he did not have prior to that very day.  I have dealt with my personal "demons" and as I fall prey to temptations, I see the negative consequences on my family members (I learned about this idea from IBLP, but have actually seen it play out).

When I am relying on the power of Christ to resist the devil, it seems there is more peace in my home.  It's like the demons know they are not welcome and the head of the household is not allowing them any quarter in his heart, so neither in his house (generally speaking).  I have seen the demons of pride, selfishness, rebellion, fear, and more in my wife.

Experiences While Strengthening the Marriage

This is not fun to talk about, by the way.  I fear I might be completely misunderstood.  Anyways, I have worked hard to get the log out of my eye.  When I was in my twenties, I was trying to help with the speck in my wife's eye, but I should have been worrying more about my log.

Fast forward 10 years or so and I'm working with my wife.  And oh boy are we dealing with demons (it seems).  We have experienced increasing pressure as we began to pursue ministry and declared a desire for ordination.  As I've worked with my wife in her parenting to get her to maturity, the attacks have been fierce.

Recently, a lot of that is me not being able to win her to my side of the argument.  So her flesh sides with the "whispers of the enemy" as I call it.  I'm learning how to reason (aka employ "sales") in order to be able to tell people what they need to be able to resist, let alone the whole idea of resisting temptation and it's relation to demons.  

She is coming around but it's a fight.  The enemy has used the world to capture the minds of Christians on such basic topics as faith, hope, love, personal ethics, and all the fruits of the spirit for that matter.

The Rationalists' Spiritual Warfare

I have rationalized that I don't need to see signs and wonders (it would be cool in a scary sort of way, so I don't know that I really want to see that stuff).  I figure, it's real.  It's happening unseen even in me.  But the effects are seen.  And the effects are ethical.  All I really need to do is to hold my self, wife, and children accountable to the highest standard.  The fight to do so, is the spiritual battle requiring prayer and fasting.

The battle for the heart and mind is where the war is being waged, in my home and in my country.  Other countries may require the sign gifts, but this country doesn't seem to need them, yet.  We are quickly approaching full open paganism (wondering if it will also be accompanied by magic, etc.).  At least in the Pacific Northwest, there is a strong presence of wiccanism (there's a wiccan seminary in WA) and I hear of satanism (in several of the port cities).  I think there may also be earth-based religions among the native peoples.

Is it possible that my approach works?  It's a covenantal approach with an acknowledgment but not a hyping-up of the supernatural.  Mt idea is to hold people to the highest of ethical standards and help them rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to resist the devil.  It's been said that if you don't believe in the supernatural, just try resisting a temptation, any temptation.  You will believe in the supernatural if you simply try to do it.  You cannot resist, not without help.  It almost constitutes proof that God exists.

Is my approach still too rational?  Does it achieve the same end?  I think my approach will work until I come face-to-face with blatant demonism.  But because I don't deny it, in fact I acknowledge it, I would like to think that I would discern it, and recognize that a more proactive exorcism (etc.) would be required.

Talking to Others About This Stuff

I see the boy falling down in the gospels, afflicted with a demon.  I think about the rebellious children I see acting in (if not identical, certainly in) similar ways.  Do I start talking about exorcism?  I think not!  But if I start talking about, the parents learning how to train their children, they will write me off...as the demons of pride, rebellion, fear, and anger have their ears.  How do we approach this?  I'm not so sure that I can link these sins/vices to demon influence like I have, but I'm not so sure that I cannot do otherwise either.

I do not mean "the devil made me do it" kind of thinking, but a "demons are tempters" like in the Screwtape Letters, kind of thinking.  Is this too rational?  I cannot see the wind, but I can see the effects of the wind, and I'm kind of suspicious of those who say they can "see the wind."  I really want to believe them.  But they tend to be immature people (at least the ones I've met).

There seems to be a huge divide between the spiritual school and the rational school.  I feel like I've moved away from rationalism, but I can't embrace the spiritualism I see.  I prefer objective covenant with subjective confirmation, to be sure.  I know how difficult enough it is to simply hear Jesus' words and do what he says (the general call).  As a special call, He only gave the power to cast out demons to his apostles (directly, I guess, there were others who cast out demons).

It does seem that there may be a correlation of demonic activity with sexual immorality, drugs, and rebellion.  At least when consulting contemporary history.  And my brother's experiences (while drifting from the faith).  Though I think they've left him alone now that he claims agnosticism.

In Closing

If you've read this far, you've given me grace.  Thank you.  I know I shouldn't blast all of my thoughts, but it's a topic that dogs me a bit.  As I have indicated, I've tenuously settled.  But I'm open to learning.  Any direction (spiritual, educational, or otherwise) would be appreciated.  Jesus said, "Your faith has healed you."  Can I go to a demon-possessed person and ascertain that their faith would do the same?  I suppose not without prayer and fasting, but then after that I still see no guarantees.  Oh Lord, increase my faith!

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Too Many Questions, So Little Time

My Prologue:

My thoughts spun and spun for a while.  You'll see that I craft my final answer from a lot of spread out thoughts (mostly seen in bold through the blog post) with which I hope to have said something succinct.  For my Intro to the New Testament class, this week, I have to answer this student posed question:

Drane shows that, while the book of Matthew reflects a “strong Jewish interest,” nevertheless it has “a great emphasis on the universality of the Christian message” and “a striking emphasis on the missionary work of the church” (p.196). As an example, he points to the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20), where Jesus commands his disciples to go, teach and baptize “all nations” (vv.19-20a). Jesus also says, “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14; also Mark 13:10). The book of Revelation shows a multitude of ransomed in heaven “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).
The Greek word translated above as “nations” is ethnos, which has been defined as “ethno-linguistic people groups” (thecgcs.org). 11,755 people groups have been identified worldwide, of which about 60% are classified as “unreached” (imb.org). In light of the above Scriptures and this definition/understanding of the Greek word ethnos, what does it mean today for the church to be (as Drane puts it) “universal in its Christian message?”
Does it mean targeting anyone and everyone in all geographical areas, as Paul and his coworkers appear to be doing in their missionary journeys? Or does it mean targeting particular people groups at home and abroad, like some mission agencies are busy doing today? Are some people groups being neglected in our evangelism and discipleship efforts because, for whatever reason, we are not crossing ethnic/linguistic lines? Is there another way to translate/understand the Greek word ethnos or interpret the above Scriptures, and thus arrive at a different conclusion, with different implications, regarding home and foreign missions? Is “the end” of the age really pending our completing the Great Commission? Didn’t Jesus’ disciples complete the task when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and became his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)? What does Paul mean when he says, “from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation” (Rom 15:19-20)?
Are all these questions and issues relevant to the church today, such that we need to be concerned with them? I look forward to your responses.

My First Attempt:

Wow!  Great questions.  I have a "love/hate" relationship with evangelism.  I feel guilty whenever the subject comes up.  Is it me? Or is it the way it's presented? Something else?

I have found that more people talk about evangelism than actually do it.  Are we missing the mark as a church?  Are all members hands only, feet only, mouths only, etc.?

I have stood on a street corner (a couple of times) and handed out tracts and/or talked to people about Jesus using "The Way of the Master" stuff, which is pretty neat by the way.  I have shared my faith with people at college, work, bars, etc. (I went to sunday school at a Pentecostal church, so I had the fire put in me as a kid, haha!)

I have read through the scripture and come to some conclusions, which may or may not be correct or popular.  Please let me know if you think I am off-base or there are other things I need to think about.

My working thoughts:

The average Christian is commended to be ready to have an answer for the hope that is within them.  Study to show yourself approved and live at peace with your neighbor as much as possible.

In a pastoral epistle Christians leaders are commended to do the work of an evangelist.  They are on the "pointy end of the spear" and should lead by example, not by prodding (which may be how a few actually apply "equipping of the saints"!).

The church is a body made up of many parts.  Some are called to be evangelists and if that's not you, it's okay.  But we have a responsibility to support each other, so if you're not evangelizing you should be praying for those who do, give them encouragement, and if possible support (i.e., food, shelter, clothing...money(!), rest/furlough from fieldwork, etc.).

Evangelism isn't very different from discipleship, or at least it doesn't have to be viewed so differently.  If my basic message is one of repentance, that message applies to the believer as much as it does the non-believer.  The depth of the call is different, as much as the response we would expect to receive based on the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life.

So the vision I have looks like this.  Missionaries go out and evangelize, raising up local leaders who really do the work of discipleship with their people.  The people are taught to live a life worthy of the calling and encouraged to share their faith.  From their midst, God calls some to be evangelists and the process continues.  Visually it's like what strawberries do.

Naturally it would spread gradually across the geography.  But in this age of transportation, we can of course go much further than a strawberry's stolon/new plant can!  This is good.

But we can't all be evangelists, it would subvert the building of the kingdom.  Not all citizens are in the military at the same time, it would be unsustainable.  And like Jesus said, the poor you will have with you always (I'm not against the poor!  We just can't get them all help at this exact moment, I have to feed my kids first).

I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house.  But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I take those words like this, try and pass on the message but if they're not ready, move along.  Someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I was raised on a fare of Christian stories.  I loved the story about the leader of a tribe in Papua New Guinea who became a Christian and converted his whole family.  They prayed for bible teachers.  People who wanted to evangelize the tribal peoples of Papua New Guinea came over and worked with this leader to teach them the bible!  This fills me with hope that IF WE LISTEN, the Holy Spirit will direct our missionary efforts.

The reality is that we cannot “target everyone”.  With human limitations (i.e., time and space), we are forced to make choices, which would seem to be life or death in some salvific sense.  If we do this continually and learn from our choices, my suspicion is that as we look back, we would see that the Holy Spirit was always involved.

God does not override our choices and we cannot subvert the will of God.  With this in mind, we need to evangelize in faith and not worry.  We can seek the best use of our time, for sure.  I would absolutely be in favor of conversations which would seek to maximize effort.

But unfortunately, I usually see these kinds of questions leading to “conclusive answers” which are then used to judge other Christians for not doing it “the way we decided to do it, because our motives are pure and if yours was, you’d do it our way”!

I don’t think you mean it that way.  At least I hope not.  Some of the hardest people to talk to are the spiritually proud.  And it’s not always easy to spot.  “Everyone should be evangelizing!” goes the common refrain.  Why?  “Because it’s all about Jesus and if you’re not aggressively evangelizing, you must not have a burden for the lost.”

My burden is for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  I grew up in the church and see the brokenness in our own ranks.  Judgment must first begin at the house of God.  My version of an evangelistic program looks like what most people would call discipleship.

When the flock is healthy (in the process of healing, at least), other sheep which are not of the flock will be drawn in because of the Great Shepherd!  I truly believe that we need to focus on growth in maturity, and that will take care of the growth in numbers.

Are people more concerned about numbers for the sake of the kingdom or the budget?  If people knew what it took to “save a life”, they would not be so quick to say “we need more people!”  Helping one or two is grueling work.  Why would you want to help a hundred?

Are you equipped to lead a hundred sick sheep to the great healer?  I’m not.  I’m trying to learn how to be a leader to my wife and six children.  I am a terrible leader.  Some may think me a good or even a great leader, but I’m not...yet.  I want to be one.  I want to follow my master.

“Who do I evangelize?” seems like the wrong question to me.  For most of us, the scriptural paradigm is to “bloom where we are planted.”  If we thought about the people in our lives who “need Jesus” we could come up with a few names.

The first task is to start praying for them by name, asking God to send someone into their lives.  The next task is to start asking who that person may be, while praying for them, so as to prepare the way.  Then you should ask, “Lord, is it me?”

To me, this is the normative process.  How do we apply this process to the “ethnos”?  I don’t know.  How do we apply Jesus’ advice to his apostles?  I don’t know.  Maybe we’re already doing it.  It’s easy to criticize what other Christians are doing if it doesn’t fit our mental model.

It’s a preeminently more difficult task to seek out how they are already fulfilling the mission to which they have been called.  This is the task of ecumenism on the denominational scale.  This is the task of irenicism, at any scale.

My Second Attempt:

Presuppositions matter.  I think I may disagree with how you frame the discussion, but we can come back to that later.

"What does this mean?"

"How may this be applied?"

These are two separate questions.  Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" when most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted.  It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.

It can be applied as generally as the word was used, but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so.  If there are groups trying to ascertain the will of the Lord, God bless them!

I don't expect them to impose their view on me; neither will I attempt to impose my specific application onto them.  But the basic understanding of the intention of the text must not be misconstrued.  It is not intended to be a manual on how to conduct evangelism.

It is merely a commission to go and do evangelism!  Furthermore, it's a commission to evangelize every individual person of every nation on earth!

My Third Attempt:

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any?  No.  We should go to all nations and preach the gospel.  If it is accepted, we stay and teach.  If it is rejected, we move along.  It may be that someone else will come along and try again when they are ready to hear!

My Final Answer (drawn from the material above):

Wow!  Great questions.  "What does this mean?"  "How may this be applied?"  These are two separate questions.  Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" even though I think most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted.  It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.  It can be applied generally (which is how I believe it was used), but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so!

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any?  No.  We should go to all nations and preach the gospel.  I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house.  But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I think it also means that someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I have more extensive thoughts, and if you read them, please don't take them as combative.  I tend to be sharp in my analysis, but I don't intend to be sharp with people, if that makes sense.  Anyways, God's peace be with you. (Go to the following link for my extremely "long answer"! https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/06/too-many-questions-so-little-time.html)

My Epilogue:

I really want to address the eschatological (last things/end times) questions.  

Interpreting prophecy and parable, I believe that the church will grow and grow to fill the whole world until the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea!  I believe that one day swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks!

I believe that Christ is reigning now and that one day all nations will "bow the knee" to Christ (not a utopian vision, mind you).  At which point, he will deliver the world to the father, so that God may be all in all.  I believe that the apostles did fulfill the call to evangelize the nations as it says in scripture.

But that is the "here now, but not yet" paradigm.  Their work will continue, however Christ could return at any moment.  We are to "occupy till he comes".  These questions are relevant because they reflect our (mis)understanding of the purpose of the church.

We understand it in broad brush strokes, "It's all about Jesus!"  But we misunderstand it in the details as he said we would, "Jesus when did we love you with our whole hearts?  When you properly nurtured your children, you were nurturing me" for instance.

If you are still reading, feel free to comment on this in the Google classroom.  Every topic is deep and wide, but we only have so much time.

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

My Terribly-Stream-of-Consciousness Answer

Michael, I also appreciated your blog post. I am curious about the danger you see in studying too deeply the arts of the Enemy. Do you mean something along the lines of what Jerome meant when he dreamt that Jesus told him, "thou art not Christian, thou art Ciceronian?" Do you think there's danger in learning about Greco-Roman culture because it can lead to what happened in the Renaissance, a turning away from Christian orthodoxy to classical ideals? (Extreme, gross simplification, but just wondering if that is kind of what you meant.) Or do you mean we should be careful about immersing ourselves too deeply in contemporary culture or philosophy that is un-Christian or anti-Christian, in secular learning, etc? I think that would be a very fascinating discussion!

Yes. Haha! I think all of those are dangers because there as many ways to stray as there are people! The way of truth and life is narrow and found in a person. Jesus was scrupulous, ethically and philosophically. It behooves us to mimic him. 

Lara, generally speaking, I'm thinking of what we often do to quantify sin and measure our success in overcoming it.  Some groups I've been in seem to be preoccupied with sin and cannot seem to get past staring at the thing as they fall into it.

As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence.  Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.

I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought.  The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions.  If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.

We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles?  If God is for us, who can be against us?

I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture.  I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).

There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture.  All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives.  To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.

Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points.  Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.

This undermines consistent reasoning.  If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.

Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.

In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.

If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?

The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it.  They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.

I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God.  I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision.  I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.

I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program.  I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.

I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes.  As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more.  Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.

After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating.  This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism.  In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.

If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad.  That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it.  This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly.  Instead it will be a by-product.

Knowing that secular philosophies are like bad maps from the outset should always allow us to have a healthy skepticism of every aspect they present.  Do leftist ideologies really result in saving the world?  Do far right ideologies preserve a holy way of life?  Only  Christ does these things and yet you will find Christians on both sides of the political divide saying "Yes" to one my questions.

Secular philosophies and eastern religions are even more treacherous.  They tend to "feed our flesh" and seem 'so right' at times.  When they do, we tend to be disarmed and accept what is being presented.  Rhetoricians have been practicing these methods for thousands of years.

Do we fashion ourselves to be too clever to be beguiled?  You betcha!  And it is then that we are taken.  Every time.  Whether as an individual "Hey look guys, we were wrong this whole time..." or as a body "Miracles were their way of explaining..." (at least the part of the body that chose "science").

Some may consider me uncultured.  Sour milk is cultured, well, it's on its way to be!  But I believe strongly in reading the bible devotionally, primarily and critically in support of devotion.  And I am a critic.  I will take the word of God to task, but as a son demanding to understand his father.

That is the only safe premise, or as safe as we can be with the God of the universe!  Academic theology is a waste of our resources when we are producing  PhD theses on the "cutting edge" which are not internally consistent.  These guys are convinced they are right because of their much studying.

Their depth exceeded their breadth.  I am too broad, which is why I am trying to gain some depth by working through the MDiv (and a masters of theology? I don't know).

I know what I subscribe to and I have barely plumbed the ideas core to my theological camp.  I may never get around to reading the pagan literature myself.  I trust those whom I read who have done so.  If God sees fit to promote me to the service of slogging through the swamp to rescue some pearls, I will do so.

But we have so much work to do with what we already know we are supposed to be doing.  Why entertain fantasies?  Are we so good with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, faithfulness, and self-control (did I get 'em all? ha!). 

Once we have mastered (as a church) all virtues, let the speculative theology begin!  We will be so grounded in the truth that we will never accept speculations which would turn our hearts away from God.  But maybe I'm describing our life in glory.

I think we should be very careful how much time we spend advancing our knowledge while our character remains underdeveloped.  Character first; knowledge second!  Tree of life first; tree of the knowledge of good and evil second (if at all).

Our thought life has a very real impact on our moral life.  If we cannot discern truth well, we have a good chance to be swept with every new teaching (Eph 4:14, the first part of that chapter is on 'unity in the body', which should be our premier task).

I do believe we should interact with the world, but how we interact matters.  We should influence, not be influenced.  This proposition is not a simple one to implement.

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

The Long Answer to a Fairly Complex Question (Short Answer is Bolded)

NT 500:  Introduction to the New Testament
Dr. Cletus Hull
Starter Question (in italics) - Week 1 (posed by a classmate)

My first question is: I wonder if there is anything instructive for us today in looking at how the Hellenistic world received the gospel.

Do we know such things?  Can we homogenize the Hellenists that came to faith into a single group in order to do such things?  If so, we should figure it out and employ what we learn.  

We are saved as individuals and a body...Yes, but can we really talk on grand scales?  I see balance between objective/corporate faith and subjective/individual faith, but I have a hard time talking about overarching schemes at the expense of the introverts of the world.

I think we need to be careful about viewing our efforts on the grand scale.  Did the "Hellenistic world" receive the Gospel, or did individuals receive the Gospel?  I ask these questions, but as I come to the end of these thoughts, I realize that half of people (possibly more than half) are extroverts.  

But this thought only complicates matters.  Some people align themselves along social norms.  Are they to be condemned for doing so if they are aligning themselves with the Christian faith?

Does this bear out the necessity of the Christian nurture of our covenant children?  If so, shouldn't we be fighting for Judeo-Christians ethics as the basis for civil law? More than that?  I think I raise more questions as I attempt to share my thoughts!

Are there any similarities with how people are inclined to hear the story of Jesus today? 

I hear your question about similarities, but first I have to address a dissimilarity so that I can move past it to your questions.  The Greeks and Romans lived in a time before Christ and the ascendancy of the Christian church.  

We, in the West, live among pagans who know that Christianity is/was the dominant religion of the West.  I think it's important to keep this in mind as we talk about the enemies (aka, the mission field) of the cross.  It is especially important if/when we discuss a special case: militant/hostile ex-Christians.

"It's all about peace man."  I feel like a lot of people (in the Pacific Northwest) hold to the idea, "It's okay to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone."  Partnering with the idea of peace, we can talk about the Prince of Peace.  

People will resonate with the idea that Jesus was "all about peace."  It gets tricky when we have to talk about forsaking all else to follow Jesus (i.e., the point of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 10:34).  Ultimately Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  

We will eventually have to teach ethics, which will run contrary to "do whatever you want."  I think we need to learn how to understand, then teach the concept of accountability as a tool for promoting peace (cf. Matt 18:15).  I believe there is a way to have these discussions with pagans, ex-Christians, "unchurched," etc.

Could we describe certain aspects of our culture as neo-pagan, and should this impact how we minister and bear witness in our own present day?

Absolutely!  Self-consciously so, in fact.  People in the West are purposely throwing off the "schackles" of Judeo-Christian ethics.  You don't have to look far to see the cultural fascination with pre-Christian paganism.

Before we got rid of Netflix, there was a whole slew of new shows coming out which heavily featured pre-Christian paganism.  While we had Netflix I watched/knew of several shows featuring magic (the practice of which was a capital crime in the OT).

As the ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Gospel spread, we will come to face violent opposition (until/unless revival really happens; I'm neither a doomsdayist nor a revivalist).

Understanding where people are coming from will always help in how we frame the discussion.  Ultimately, that's what we're talking about, right?  How should we frame the discussion knowing what people believe?

See Matthew 10:16ff.

I wonder what their experiences of living under oppression and waiting for a messiah can teach us about bearing witness to Jesus in our own age, in which we wait not for a messiah but for his return. 

As long as we understand a few things.  Jewish captivity came as a result of covenant breaking.  We are not under severe oppression in the West, though it could happen.  Anything can happen!

Did they obey the law of God?  Did God bless them as He promised to do so in the law?  I think these would be strong indicators of what model of faith to follow.  Even after God could have rejected them for breaking covenant with Him, he continued to bless them when they were faithful, even in the years of captivity and oppression (brought about by their own disobedience!).

But this is the pattern shown to us by scripture.  God's mercy endures forever!  He wouldn't bring back the Israelites from Egypt too soon.  He wouldn't bring judgment on the Amorites before their time.  God is gracious and we should not presume on His kindness.  

He left a Priestly order in the city of Salem (Melchizedek, cf. Hebrews 7:3) calling them back to repentance.  How many generations scoffed and God was patient?  We don't know.  We only know the bits we have in scripture.

So we wait.  We occupy till He comes.  No matter what.  I believe that's what the faithful Jews did.

Overall, my question is: What is important about the religious and cultural milieu into which Jesus was born? 

For me, understanding this milieu helps me tie in even more strongly to what Jesus did and said.  If he had grown up in an ascetic community, it might be easy to write him off as a product of his upbringing.

However, he astounded people because a "person of the land" was not 'supposed' to live a holy life or speak with such authority/doctrine.  But he did.  We would be wise to hear him.  I am encouraged that what I learned as a Pentecostal youth still applies.

I can live for Christ with abandon!  If this statement does not make sense, try to follow Jesus words explicitly and see what opposition you find.  Apply Jesus' words principally and even more resistance will develop.

Jesus grew up around people like us.  He gave us an example of holiness we can follow.  He gave us an example of learnedness that we can follow!  Praise be to God!

Should we study it purely to understand the history of the early church, or can we see in that world a parallel to our world, especially now that we are living in a society that many are calling post-Christian?

History is as bad as memory.  We can learn from it.  We can also "rewrite" it.  How we frame the narrative matters a lot.  I think we should study history so that we can learn from it.  In my mind, there would be no greater purpose for "understanding" the history of the early church.

Of course, I'm a fish in water.  I live in a "post-Christian" world (haha).  Transport me to a different time and place; maybe I would think otherwise.

Dr Hull chimed in:

I would love to hear about the methods people in the class are reaching others for Christ in a neo-pagan and post-Christian world. What can we learn from how the apostle Paul dealt with this situation?

See Ecclesiastes 12:9-12.  I think there is wisdom in understanding Greco-Roman culture and beliefs but there is also a danger.  I think there is wisdom in learning what people today believe, but there is also a danger.  

As Tolkien said in the Fellowship of the Ring, “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill.”  Be careful in trying to integrate worldly philosophies/ideas (note: I am an "integrationist" according to the Assoc. of Certified Biblical Counselors; though I consider Biblical counsel 'alone' to be the starting point.  I know, I know, we always read from our context!).  Colossians 2:8 may apply here.

See Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

Truth is truth.  Philosophers will eat me alive for saying what I just said but [T]here is a simple truth (wisdom) in obedience.  It is not complex, but it is true.  

Growing up in fundamentalist circles, I have seen the misuse of Scripture as pretexts for whatever rules seemed right.  And yet, I also see that the scriptures may be reduced to principles and adapted/applied.  

However, I have come to learn that a lot of people do not read things the way I do.  For those who can get to the principles of scripture using an English bible, the study of languages, history, and culture will move us from reading "black and white" to reading in "technicolor"!  

For our more linear thinkers, these studies are indispensable.  They must get to the original mindset of the writers with more effort (they have incredible strengths elsewhere, but intuitively getting to the writer's mindset is not one of them.  The ability to predict what someone would say is reason enough to assume you understand them.  Take 'em or leave 'em; those 'er my thoughts!).

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

Notes: Comparing The Trinity and The Three Aspects of Transcendence/Immanence

Transcendence/Immanence: Creation, Redemption, Revelation

[Five Point] Covenant Theology

Reference:  That You May Prosper, Ray Sutton (at https://www.garynorth.com/SuttonCov.pdf)

Here are the five points identified (for an explanation read Sutton's book!).

T - Transcendence/Immanence/Sovereignty

H - Hierarchy/Authority/Legal Representation

E - Ethics/Laws/Obligations

O - Oath/Sanctions/Reward/Punishments

S - Succession/Continuity/Inheritance

Sutton quotes Meredith Kline, 

The purpose of the covenantal Preamble is thus to proclaim the lordship of the Great King, declaring transcendence and immanence and making it clear from the outset that his will is to be obeyed by the vassals, his servants. Biblical treaties set forth God's transcendence and immanence by referring to one or more of three activities: creation, redemption, and revelation.

Sutton's footnote citation: "David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), p. 49. Emphasis in original."

Heidelberg Catechism

Reference at:  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iv.vi.html

Part of the discussion of the necessary articles of true Christian belief (i.e., the "Apostle's" Creed) follows.

Question:  "How are these articles divided?"

Answer:  "Into three parts:  The first is of God the Father and our creation; the second, of God the Son and our redemption; the third, of God the Holy Ghost and our sanctification."

My Thoughts

I have previously identified (though it appears I have never written it down) the connection of the five points of the biblical covenant with the three persons of the Trinity in terms of roles(? Help me clarify this connection!).  I will outline it here.

T - God the Father
H - God the Son
E - God the Son
O - God the Son
S - God the Holy Spirit

This lends credence to the emphasis on Jesus, but reminds us that we are Trinitarians and why it matters.  I will have to write more on the reasons and implications in another post.

The point I am trying to make concerns the three aspects of transcendence/immanence and its explicit-though-not-exclusive relation to the roles of each person of the Trinity (I don't think the Heidelberg Catechism would have intended an exclusive position either. Certainly the Father created, but we know He created through/with/by the Son).

Incidentally, the Heidelberg Catechism identifies two aspects of transcendence/immanence with two persons of the Trinity (i.e., Father and creation; Son and redemption).  I am merely proposing identifying the third aspect of transcendence/immanence, Revelation, with the Holy Spirit.  Instead of sanctification* we should talk about the work of the Holy Spirit as the work of revelation, specifically general revelation** as realized through the growth/maturity of the church on earth.  Or as Jesus said it, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples" (John 13:35, ESV, emphasis mine).

Conclusion

Anyways, getting back to the Heidelberg Catechism, this means that the true articles which must be believed are simply statements concerning God's transcendence/immanence (point 1 of the covenant).  

Philosophical Postscript (I'll toss this in here for free!)

We see the full participation of the Trinity in the first point of the covenant.  If we looked at each point of the covenant, we would find the same pattern.  It is fractal-like.  This implies (or maybe I've merely inferred) that as we break down all of reality into its component pieces, we should be able to identify the full participation of the Trinity at each distinctive point.

Footnotes:

*On a side note, sanctification as a theological term may not be enough to quantify the relevant issues (I have previously posted about the weaknesses of the theological terms: justification and sanctification at http://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2015/02/using-bible-to-define-justification-and.html).  

**According to Sutton, special revelation aligns with the third point of the covenant, ethics, which I explicitly-though-not-exclusively associate with Jesus.  To illustrate this, Sutton, supporting his supposition that "history is covenantal", has a footnote which contains the statement, 'the third point of covenantalism called "ethics," or law, being "special revelation" to man'.  This forces me to clarify my association of revelation to the work of the Holy Spirit with the term general revelation.  Also implied, is that Redemption, an aspect of transcendence/immanence, through the person of Jesus shares a connection to Hierarchy, Ethics, and Sanctions.  To be clear, you are not saved by external observance of God's laws.  You are saved by the lawgiver, unto good works (as exemplified by Hierarchy, Ethics, and Sanctions).

PSA: Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You

PSA or PST or (P)
I continue to think about the critiques of the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement.  Here are my latest meanderings!

The article at this link isn't a defense per se, but it's a good read.  I hope that it could help as you think through your take on penal substitution.

Years ago I wrote a blog post pertinent to sin and redemption, which covers Christology, Anthropology, and Soteriology.  I identify the only two internally consistent rival theological systems of thought in Christianity and a third compromise system.  Most Christians likely fall into the compromise position, somewhere along a spectrum of developed theology.  You can find it here.  The post largely captures what I believe, though I might state things today in a more nuanced way to achieve a greater specificity in some areas or to open it up to more debate in other areas.

Flipping through the dissertation (The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: A Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution as An Explanatory Feature of Atonement by Blaine Swen) has led me to some further conclusions:

• I believe the author is Arminian and develops his theology along these lines.  This means that many of our fundamental premises will differ (I am a Calvinist).  Also see my blog post linked above on why this is an issue.  His reference list is radically different from what mine would be, if that makes sense.
• I am interested in the idea that Jesus appeared to forgive without demanding reparation.  The author of the dissertation does not put a citation in that sentence, but cites a Calvinist presentation in the previous paragraph (a bunny trail here, I follow up in the fourth bullet) (read it here).  As I am a Calvinist, I am interested why a speaker would say something that I would take issue with.  But it became clear to me after listening (reading software!) to most of his speech that we come from different camps regarding the continuity between the OT and NT as specifically relating to the application of biblical law in the NT church (I am a Theonomist).
• In searching for the speech I just mentioned (I found the above link on this page), I discovered a [late] former evangelical christian then agnostic atheist who criticized penal substitution.  Interestingly he also criticizes Philosophical Theology.  I kind of agree with his assessment of Philosophical Theology as he sort of agrees with my position (I am a Presuppositionalist), though he does not perfectly represent it.
• After realizing I was looking at the wrong citation, I edited the second bullet and followed through on the relevant citation. Perusing the Google book, looking up names (Rene Girard ... mimetic desire and scapegoat mechanism ... NO!), and reading the back cover has left me bewildered why the author of the dissertation would even quote this book favorably.  Maybe the philosophies align with his Arminianism.

I truly believe that the biblical approach to be taught is to reason from scripture (theology) not to reason to scripture (philosophy).  There is an inherent danger in attempting to reason to scripture.  I think that all Christians should be shepherded to reason from scripture and only mature Christians should be encouraged to join the great discussion (speaking with the enemy in the gates) and attempt to reason to scripture.  There is the danger of sophistry and making shipwreck of ones faith as Ken Pulliam did.

Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You
As I have reviewed these issues I am reminded that theological camps differ greatly and that premises determine outcomes (if arguments are cogent).  That being said, I don't wish to end the discussion but I would rather discuss presuppositions, world views, philosophical underpinnings, etc.  If you want to know why someone would be a Calvinist or the type of Calvinist that I am, I would love to discuss it.  Anything else is window shopping (as opposed to "how did the product get there?").  Choosing your theological camp largely determines your theological positions with regard to specific doctrines.  That sounds like a tautology.  But my point is to say that arguing which building has the greater structural integrity without discussing foundations is futile.

Delaying Moving for Seminary, Maybe Indefinitely

We have made the decision to stay in Washington state for the time being.  That time could be one year or indefinite.  We don't really know.  What we do know is that as a family we are not ready to go into the crucible that is seminary.  It is a crucible because it would involve three years of intense study, little disposable income, homeschooling challenges in PA, challenges regarding housing, and maybe a few more things that do not readily come to mind.

I think that deciding to deny myself something I've wanted to pursue since I was 18 years old is wise.  It is wise because it is the best choice for my family.  It is also wise because God has called me to minister in our local context. 

First, I have been called to minister to my family.  I have recently taken over the finances and am paying off our debts as well as starting to set up budgets and spending plans that will be forward looking rather than merely resolving day to day needs.  I was not able to serve my family in this way during my navy days.  I have been out of the navy for four years now and we are in a position where I can now do this.  I am also the primary disciplinarian in my home.  If I focus more on my studies, I will focus less on the nurture of my children.  This is only natural.  But what is better, four classes at a time that max out my ability to focus or one class at a time which raises a challenge but allows for focus on the nurture and care of a large family with several young children?

Second, I have been called to minister in my parish and diocese.  Ministering to youth and families is the closest to my heart in terms of passion and calling.  I have a strong sense of informal calling to a parish that is experiencing the addition of energetic families and young couples.  I may also have a formal calling; we will see if it comes to fruition.

Third, there is the general calling and admonition given to all Christians in the Great Commission.  We have spent six years here and are building community.  We have many connections through church, work, and homeschooling.  We want to get more involved in responsibly sourcing our food.  That involves purchasing grass fed beef, buying from local food coops, and starting to experiment with growing some of our own food!  I want to transition to working from home.  We'll see if this one pans out, but it has already provided opportunities to talk to people and hone my skills in writing.  Just the other day I was reading On Writing Well while waiting for my eye exam.  The optometrist took down the title of the book because he also has an interest in writing!  These connections are built over time.  Entrepreneurship is a way to serve the people.  A career in writing does just that.  It is also a way to influence people.  Preaching the Gospel isn't merely an exercise in spewing facts or logic, though it may include those aspects, but it is an opportunity to create fresh and vivid vision with words that people can readily accept and cling to as if their lives depend on it; they surely do.

Why leave?  Why leave when everything that I truly feel called to do is staring at me in the face?  My work is cut out for me.  If I fail it is because I knew what the right thing to do was, but I didn't do it.

Revisiting Writing as a Career

What has gone on that you want to know about?  Well, I haven't blogged as you know.  I have participated in music a lot more this year than any other year of my life.  I am getting comfortable with singing into a microphone (it was weird the first dozen times, or so).  I made the decision to attend seminary.  Really, it was a decision 16 years in the making, but the plan is for the fall of 2019.  Trinity School for Ministry (TSM, aka "Trinity")(near Pittsburgh), here we come!  I have learned to type, finally!  I am getting up at 4 am, reading a bit of scripture, then reading a book on homiletics (in preparation for seminary).  How did we get here?

Singing
The volunteers for serving at the altar have increased in number.  The amount of times I am on the schedule for each quarter has dropped, freeing me up to join with the musicians in leading congregational worship.  Some days I fare better than others.  No, it's not a "performance."  Yes, the word "perform" still applies to how a person 'does' music.  In that way, my performance isn't always where I would like it to be.  I want to aid in the worship, not distract.  Enough on that.  Morning singing?  Yuck!  Who knew?  Not I.  I don't have enough time to warm up my voice and then give it time to recuperate following the inevitable over use/straining/whatever I am doing.  I am left on the horns of a dilemma.  Do I warm up or do I risk losing my voice (due to fatigue, yeah, I think that's what it is)?  Any morning singers out there who could help me on this one?!  (Maybe I should ask my voice coach.  I just stopped going after 5 sessions in 2017 partly due to time and partly due to money.  But if your'e ever in Seattle and want a good coach, check out Chris McCafferty, he really helped me on my journey of getting to the next level.)

Seminary
It started back when I was 18 years old.  I have never lost that desire to attend seminary and become a pastor.  Is it the INFP in me?  More on that later.  Anyways, I attended the Diocese of Cascadia 2018 Spring Men's Retreat and was confronted with many thoughts.  What is God trying to tell me?  Will I leave this weekend with answers?  If I get quiet enough, maybe.  My Bishop poked me about attending Trinity for something like the third time in as many years.  God, do you really want me to uproot my family and leave all of the connections we have been making here in the Pacific Northwest?!  I was brought up in Evangelical circles.  If there is anything that we want to hold onto more than God, let that be ANATHEMA!  I put my growing attachment to this area on the "altar" and it became abundantly clear to me that it was time to pack my bags.  Three years prior, when I was leaving active military service, we counted the cost and realized that we would not be able to afford going to seminary at that time (we are on track to be debt free as we embark on this journey, God willing).  Then I threw a proverbial dart at the dartboard, aiming for the Fall of 2019.  And here we are!  Time will tell if God is with us.  I have a sneaking suspicion, He is.

INFP
Speaking of typing, er, I mean type; I love my 'impossible' segues, sometimes they're all you've got.  I slowed down my typing a year ago.  I was henpecking with the best of them, but I wanted change.  Now I'm typing about as fast (maybe faster, at times) than when I was a full time 'chicken.'  That has no relation to this paragraph's title "INFP" to which, we will now turn!  I have always tested as an ISTJ when taking those fun, online MBTI tests.  I have never been fully satisfied with it however.  Or I cannot just leave well enough alone.  Unfortunately people (read: I) take these things in a predictive manner (think: astrology).  I didn't intend to, it just came too easy in self-analysis to use what I learned and in verbally presenting myself to others.  In 2014 I learned about cognitive functions and I realized that my earlier assignment may have been wrong and I could likely determine what my personality type really was and is.  After a bit of reading and analysis, I determined that I could not be a J type and was clearly a P type.  So, I did the second worst thing you can do with personality typing (my created list of worsts, of course; the first of which I mentioned above) and I changed one letter of the four in ISTJ.  I now identified myself as an ISTP.  This I have learned is totally NOT legit'.  My brother, in one of his prescient moments over the years, said that he thought I was more intuitive than I gave myself credit for (uh! ending with a preposition, I know; hence the parenthetical, oh yeah!).  Reading more about cognitive functions, I came across this website:  Type in Mind (that's a link to my type, BTW).  I knew enough to figure out my type, finally!  I knew my cognitive functions and I could only be one of two types:  ISTJ or INFP.  Well now, doesn't that give you pause for reflection?  Maybe I am an ISTJ.  Really drilling down on my personal history (all in my head, so you cannot validate this, you'll have to trust me, or not), bending my powers of thought to the task, and trying my best to be frank with myself, I have concluded that I have always been an INFP and that I will probably test as an ISTJ for the foreseeable future given my upbringing and the first 30 years of my life spent in a "Te grip."  Look it up.  It took talking to a psychologist to break me out of this grip (none of this was discussed then and there, BTW.  This is all hindsight analysis).  It is all kind of a "laugh."  I should not have put so much stock into this stuff and yet I could not ignore it either.  If you suffer from what I do, I'm sorry for your plight.  Talk to me, maybe I can help.  After all, I'm a "healer" type (INFP), at least I think I am ;)

Homiletics
I have a suggested reading list for seminary preparation.  On that list is a book on exegesis and hermeneutics.  But as I was reading that book, I was starting to get "that" feeling.  You know what I'm talking about.  "We are probably going to argue, a lot."  My ink started to spill into the margins of the page as I progressed through a book which promised to be as helpful as a bowl of warm soup to an empty stomach (my metaphor, not the publishers).  Alas, I was disheartened.  Am I such a contrarian that I can't get along?  Does this foreshadow my seminary experience?  But before I could succumb to the "just deal with it," I remembered that I had a book in my library which pertained (if you are serious, you have a library full of books which you have not read and may never read, yeah, that serious, now you know).  As I started reading it, my fears and anxieties transformed into an excruciating intellectual "suck."  By that, I mean that it feels like I'm having to vacuum my mind of cobwebs and other junk which may be clouding my ability to put what I am learning from this book into practice.  Backstory - I read Days of Vengeance when I was 17/18 years old and became hooked on the way of thinking presented in the pages of that volume.  Fifteen years later, I finally read the book outlining a thesis which helped that former book to take shape.  This book is titled That You May Prosper.  In the bibliography, a seminal book was identified Sola Scriptura.  It is this book, the author intimated, which should be read by everyone who desires to preach the Word of God.  It is here, in the pages of this doctoral thesis, where my mind has been of late.  It is here where I grieve through the process of purifying my thinking, blundering about, trying to understand the author.  If I have cracked out any meat from the husk thus far, it has left me sore grieved to think about how badly we have preached the Word of God to the people of God.  I'm not talking about a "we've all been doing it wrong until now" kind of mentality.  I'm talking about an open discussion/debate which took place in the 20's and 30's in reformed churches in the Netherlands and was never settled, to the detriment of the reformed theology preaching community.  I haven't finished the book, so I really cannot say more without (probably) misrepresenting the issues at play.  Suffice it to say that, if Sidney Greidanus is right, I have a lot of work to add to the "a lot of work" I already knew I had to do in getting into this particular vocation.

Writing
Now to be more definitive (in line with the title of this post).  If you google the careers for an INFP, I have done the ones that are "bad" for my type.  Don't I know it!  I am revisiting the old ideas which have never quite left me alone.  Writing is one of them.  In a writing career I can tap into my strengths as long as I develop my career along those lines:  independent, creative, and innovative (not the qualities that the military is looking for, despite recent initiatives to the contrary).  It is scary to say the least, to contemplate another career change.  But I know that I have the support of my family and that a happier me (not that happiness is everything, but it is something) will alter our family life for the better.  I don't know if the "pulpit" of writing is what I have been called to or a pulpit in a parish setting or neither.  All I know is that I have thoughts, healing thoughts and they are burning in my chest.  The time to share them with the world has come (prompts like this help too!).  Stay tuned for more.