Christian Origins and the Question of God

[Wildflower]

I am currently re-reading volumes one and two of N.T. Wright's "Christian Origins and the Question of God" before I continue with the rest of his series. I have also read other books of his including his commentary on Romans and a couple of his popular-level books. For those of you who have read his books and generally agree with N.T. Wright, I have some questions.

Is the difference between the historic first century Jewish Christian perspective and the modern American Christian perspective especially troubling to you? Why or why not?

Do you find it difficult to attend a church that has no understanding of the original context/understanding?

And finally, if you have found these troubling or difficult, what are you doing to cope or to change the situation?

[robrecht]

Excellent questions!

1. Is the difference between the historic first century Jewish Christian perspective and the modern American Christian perspective especially troubling to you?
- Yes.

2. Why or why not?
- Because Paul is greatly misunderstood. He was a messianic Jew and not an early 16th Lutheran critic of Catholic abuses.

3. Do you find it difficult to attend a church that has no understanding of the original context/understanding?
- Yes.

4. And finally, if you have found these troubling or difficult, what are you doing to cope, or change, or whatever?
- I bring my Greek New Testament with me to church services so that I can read Paul over and over again when the homily is no good. I also try to teach my 6th-grade Sunday school class about the Hebrew scriptures and Jesus.

[Adrift]

I am currently re-reading volumes one and two of N.T. Wright's "Christian Origins and the Question of God" before I continue with the rest of his series. I have also read other books of his including his commentary on Romans and a couple of his popular-level books. For those of you who have read his books and generally agree with N.T. Wright, I have some questions.

Is the difference between the historic first century Jewish Christian perspective and the modern American Christian perspective especially troubling to you? Why or why not?

Do you find it difficult to attend a church that has no understanding of the original context/understanding?

And finally, if you have found these troubling or difficult, what are you doing to cope or to change the situation?

Yes and no. NT Wright's material on this is tame compared to those in the Context Group, who (as Wright himself has pointed out) sometimes go too far in their evaluation of scripture in the context of the collectivist society of the Ancient Near East compared to our more individualistic Western society.

There's a lot to learn from Wright, and from those who study the social context of the Bible, and it is regrettable that so many people are completely unaware of how that context changes so much of what we read and understand. On the other hand, while reading the early church, I'm constantly surprised how often modern understandings of scripture is reflected in their discussion and debate of the same. Christianity really hasn't evolved so drastically as some sometimes claim. The broad strokes are definitely still there.

Still, I would love for the church to get a better grip on the historical and contextual nuances, and finding a church that moves in that direction at all can be difficult.

[Wildflower]

Personally, it seems that the more I learn, the more distance I see between the 1st century understanding and the modern one. And with that distance comes the realization of the difficulty in bringing this understanding to the modern church. It's like a whole new grid. Not just particular doctrines, but a change of perspective before doctrines can be talked about meaningfully. Foundations need to be discussed before doctrines.

Also, the time and attention such discussions would take...is so unappealing to most in the church today. It's like I'm speaking a different language, incomprehensible and not worth the time it would take to understand.

I like Robrecht's idea of teaching the children. My goal is to learn this material well enough to teach it.

[One Bad Pig]

I am currently re-reading volumes one and two of N.T. Wright's "Christian Origins and the Question of God" before I continue with the rest of his series. I have also read other books of his including his commentary on Romans and a couple of his popular-level books. For those of you who have read his books and generally agree with N.T. Wright, I have some questions.

Is the difference between the historic first century Jewish Christian perspective and the modern American Christian perspective especially troubling to you? Why or why not?j

Yes.

Do you find it difficult to attend a church that has no understanding of the original context/understanding?

I would, yes.

And finally, if you have found these troubling or difficult, what are you doing to cope or to change the situation?

I became Orthodox.

[Wildflower]

Do you find that the Orthodox church has maintained the original Jewish Christian foundation? Do you accept that all that has been built upon that foundation has maintained the original historic focus?

I did a search and found an Orthodox church in my area. Actually found three, one is Russian and the other Coptic. Perhaps I'll visit!

[Cow Poke]

Still, I would love for the church to get a better grip on the historical and contextual nuances, and finding a church that moves in that direction at all can be difficult.

What are some specific things for which you would be looking?

[One Bad Pig]

Do you find that the Orthodox church has maintained the original Jewish Christian foundation? Do you accept that all that has been built upon that foundation has maintained the original historic focus?

When I was reading N. T. Wright's first two books in the series, as well as other books on the early church (IIRC), it looked surprisingly (to me) much like what I was reading about Orthodoxy at the time. I wasn't looking to convert at the time, just found it interesting. I think it has maintained the original foundation better than any other. The first half of the Orthodox liturgy is a recognizable development from the Jewish synagogue service (the second half is the celebration of the Eucharist).

I did a search and found an Orthodox church in my area. Actually found three, one is Russian and the other Coptic. Perhaps I'll visit!

Make sure the service is at least partially in English (the Russian church nearest me has one service in Slavonic and one in English).

[Adrift]

What are some specific things for which you would be looking?

Just a general focus on the history of the early church. How they understood and developed some of the ideas found in the Bible. An appreciation for the social context (agrarian collectivist societies under the thumb of Roman rule), which I haven't found many churches discussing. I'd also love to see something more than just the barebones basic lexicon style explanation of Greek and Hebrew words and phrases. I've found that sometimes a pastor thinks they're digging into the word by doing a Strong's word search, and deriving all sorts of meanings out of it that are often less than accurate. I've mentioned this a couple times before, but Michael Heiser has a great podcast series on how well meaning preachers and students have gotten into some bad study habits that tend to confuse more than clarify the meaning and context of Biblical words and phrases.

The church I currently attend hits a few of these notes, but they could certainly be more rigorous in my opinion. I think, though, that they're nervous about getting too deep as to avoid alienating or putting to sleep some of the congregation. Probably best in a Bible class/study environment anyways, which they also do.

[mikewhitney]

Personally, it seems that the more I learn, the more distance I see between the 1st century understanding and the modern one. And with that distance comes the realization of the difficulty in bringing this understanding to the modern church. It's like a whole new grid. Not just particular doctrines, but a change of perspective before doctrines can be talked about meaningfully. Foundations need to be discussed before doctrines.

Also, the time and attention such discussions would take...is so unappealing to most in the church today. It's like I'm speaking a different language, incomprehensible and not worth the time it would take to understand.

I like Robrecht's idea of teaching the children. My goal is to learn this material well enough to teach it.

What are you imagining should be brought forth into modern church gatherings?

[Cow Poke]

Just a general focus on the history of the early church. How they understood and developed some of the ideas found in the Bible. An appreciation for the social context (agrarian collectivist societies under the thumb of Roman rule), which I haven't found many churches discussing. I'd also love to see something more than just the barebones basic lexicon style explanation of Greek and Hebrew words and phrases. I've found that sometimes a pastor thinks they're digging into the word by doing a Strong's word search, and deriving all sorts of meanings out of it that are often less than accurate. I've mentioned this a couple times before, but Michael Heiser has a great podcast series on how well meaning preachers and students have gotten into some bad study habits that tend to confuse more than clarify the meaning and context of Biblical words and phrases.

The church I currently attend hits a few of these notes, but they could certainly be more rigorous in my opinion. I think, though, that they're nervous about getting too deep as to avoid alienating or putting to sleep some of the congregation. Probably best in a Bible class/study environment anyways, which they also do.

Ok, thanks.

[Wildflower]

What are you imagining should be brought forth into modern church gatherings?

mikewhitney, I hope you will forgive me but I am completely overwhelmed thinking how to answer. I see SO MUCH that is different in focus, perspective, vision, hope....

I think before doctrinal details are even fleshed out, the whole grid of 1st century Christian thought needs to be historically understood.

[KingsGambit]

I've heard people criticizing the modern church by asking questions like - "do you really think St. Augustine would attend a modern (insert evangelical denomination here) church?" The answer implied is no.

But let me ask a different question - do you think Paul would attend some of our churches? He was flexible about non-negotiables and willing to adapt to different cultures. I dare to think the answer just might have been yes - even if he might have a thing or ten to tell us about what we should do better.

[One Bad Pig]

I've heard people criticizing the modern church by asking questions like - "do you really think St. Augustine would attend a modern (insert evangelical denomination here) church?" The answer implied is no.

But let me ask a different question - do you think Paul would attend some of our churches? He was flexible about non-negotiables and willing to adapt to different cultures. I dare to think the answer just might have been yes - even if he might have a thing or ten to tell us about what we should do better.

Both would be aghast at the current state of disunity - and I think both would find some modern services unrecognizable. I don't think the question is a good one, however (particularly as most Protestants couldn't care less what St. Augustine thought).

[Wildflower]

I've heard people criticizing the modern church by asking questions like - "do you really think St. Augustine would attend a modern (insert evangelical denomination here) church?" The answer implied is no.

But let me ask a different question - do you think Paul would attend some of our churches? He was flexible about non-negotiables and willing to adapt to different cultures. I dare to think the answer just might have been yes - even if he might have a thing or ten to tell us about what we should do better.

Yes, I do believe he would attend. And for the reasons I see in scripture, I also attend.