MC500 – day nine

Maybe it is just the Vineyard in me, but I loved our conversation about the Free Church/Anabaptists and the Pentecostals.  I have real affinity toward each group and how they are similar (and different) and how they can instruct the future of the church.  I’ve been particularly intrigued by the Pentecostal movement of late as it is such a fast growing and prolific movement.  Having not grown up Pentecostal it is still a bit of a mystery to me, but one I want to dig into more.  How is the Global Church – which is primarily (or almost so) a Pentecostal one – shaping the next 100 years of Christian faith?  I’d also like to study more of the Wesleyan roots of Pentecostalism.

MC500 – day eight

I’m fascinated by the idea of “holiness” that seems to have arisen (at least in our conversations) during the Reformation with Luther and Calvin and later taken up (perhaps to a fever pitch) with Wesley and his ilk.  Does the idea of “holiness” have a distinctive Reformation/Renaissance ring to it?  I’m certain that generations of Christians before the Reformation were concerned with holy living and pure lives, but is there something about the increasing individualism of the Reformation or perhaps reading scripture in one’s native tongue specifically incline someone to think of holy-ness?

MC500 – day seven

One of the perplexing instances of the Reformation is the retrieval of the “Priesthood of All Believers” doctrine that Luther tied so much to the strong criticism of Roman Catholicism.  Certainly, his was a step away from the doctrine of ontological change within the clergy class, but by maintaining a clergy class the ontological change is assumed, or becomes presumed or even subsumed!  So while in principle the priesthood of all believers was promoted the function didn’t quite make it.  Is there a progressive revelation at work here or is an adaptation and contextualization within culture (theirs versus mine) that is at work?

MC500 – day six

Our discussion today of the changes in worship that Augustine grappled with was helpful.  It caused me to realize the different emphases between nominal faith communities and highly committed ones.  Specifically, it was reflective of my experience being part of Vineyard Central (a highly committed faith community) and various congregations of the UMC (more nominal christianity generally).  That reflection connected with noticing that in nominal faith churches the preaching and teaching language is often about what “you” (the average church-goer) needs to do whereas in highly committed contexts the language is more about what “we” are doing, can do, or have done.

MC500 – day five

Three particular items stood out to me from Friday’s class discussion.  First, the significant change from “church” as People of God to “church” as happening when Bishop is present.  I have to say I’m still a bit befuddled by this.  I can appreciate the need for increased organization and, even, some moderate buearcracy (hard to believe I just typed that), but such a core essence change is amazing.  Second, the growth of the church pre-Constantine from AD 100: 10,000 Christians to AD 300: 6,000,000 Christians is astounding and a bit convicting.  Third, the insight from Donald Miller (I want to get his book Reinventing American Protestantism: Christianity in the New Millennium) that whenever the church has grown it has been when the non-clergy, non-leaders become “fans” and bring their friends to faith/church.

MC500 – day four

As we talked about the changes and developments from Jesus and the Kingdom of God through the Early Church into the Pre-Constantinian Church (AD 100-300), I am struck by the obvious increasingly formalization and the devolution of leadership.  I understand that increasing complexity and diversity necessitated the need for more organization, but I can’t help but to grieve what was lost by the process.  I’m particularly interested in the ontological change that Bishops (diocesan, metropolitan, etc…) and later Priests assumed.  Why did they assume that there was such a change and what did that do to the gathered body both practically and theologically?

MC500 – day three

What strikes me most about our discussion of the shape of the communities that are the early church was their dynamism and fluidity. While they were becoming more structured and differentiated than they were as original bands of Jesus-followers in Palestine, there was still a “wild west” vibe about these early house churches. At the same time the church didn’t appear ex nihilo. I think that fact is so often missed by average churchgoers and former church reformers (thinking of Wesley and his ilk). The patterns of “house synagogues” and households shaped and defined how the early church lived its communal life.

MC500 – day two

In this second day of class we dove into the church worksheet, which I find very helpful as a schema to look at church and its accumulated trappings.  Thinking of Jesus and the Kingdom of God in this context was particularly illuminating.  Specifically, viewing Jesus as being counter-cultural and redefining “family”, in some cases scandalously – men and women living together.  Going further the structure of the “organization” was clearly anti-patriarchy/hierarchy.  These Jesus-cells were characterized by forgiveness and reciprocity.  This sets up by a whole new authority structure where women were not seen as property, but were equal members in the “new family” and the early church.

MC500 – day one

So here we are.  Back in Pasadena, CA at Fuller Theological Seminary for a 2 week intensive after living in Cincinnati for the last 6 years.  Weird how so much changes and so much doesn’t…. all at the same time.  Anyway.

For this class (MC500: The Church in Mission) we are to:

write, on the average, 50 words for each class session attended. These 50 words are due at the start of the next day of class in paper, by e-mail, or on your personal blog. The topic will be, “My thoughts on the last class session.”

This is my personal blog.  And these are my 50 words:

It was good to be back in a classroom after taking so many IDL and online courses.  I particularly appreciated our discussion of the shift from Church to Kingdom in Mission.  I think this may be one of the more significant aspects of the ideological shifts taking place across the Christian spectrum.  It certainly has been a key aspect of much of the emerg(ing)(ent) conversation and in missiological circles (see “The Three Eras of Mission History Robby Butler” in Mission Frontiers).  Kingdom is not a human effort – something that we build (we can’t), we can live a certain way as the people of God that allows for the Kingdom to come – we are a sign, instrument, and foretaste (ala Newbigin).  As we discussed this I couldn’t help but think of gardening/farming.  I don’t grow tomatoes, rather I attempt to provide the right environment (soil, water, light, etc…) whereby tomatoes can grow.  Seems that there was a parable that Jesus told about such things too…

(well I went over the 50 words, but hopefully that’s ok)