James 3 this week, and as I am filled with regret at our shabby treatment of chapters one and two, we may sneak down to the Bible fridge for some chapter 1-2 leftovers.
At very least read chapter 3 prior to our group!
Better is to read the whole book, each week!
Best is to also make an attempt to memorize the assigned memory verses!
Blessings-
Dave
Monday, February 25, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Justification
Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on justification. It is pretty good. Note I can not and do not agree with every little nuance in the article, but largely they get it right-on.
Thanks...notes...
Great group last night. Thank you all for coming and for your great participation.
Are Anglicans protestant?- the easiest way to answer that question is in the context I used it- the answer would be "yes." By protestant, we mean the formation came out of the intense period of change known as the Protestant Reformation. The doctrinal standards are distinct in several key ways from Roman catholicism, or as we did not get to last night, Eastern Orthodoxy. Remember, I said the key difference between Roman Catholics and those groups that came out of the Reformation is not worship style, vestments, liturgy, etc....but justification. The Roman Catholic view of justification- at least as traditionally stated- is, in my view, clearly wrong.
The Anglican Communion is rich and large and varied, and in many ways it represents a via media- middle way- between the continental Reformation, and the Roman church. Also remember: the status of Catholic v. Protestant emphasis varies through the many years. For hundreds of years, the more or less typical Anglican approach looked very much like what a Presbyterian would be familiar with. Many things you may take for granted as being "decidedly Anglican" are relatively recent innovations- weekly Communion, the sign of the cross, etc....not that old at all in Anglican usage (though both of the examples I used are, in fact, ancient practices of the church catholic). Which brings us to...
Finally, know that the Roman Catholics do not own the word catholic, nor do the Orthodox own the word orthodox. Both are not only names of "tribes" of Christians, but perfectly wonderful words that all believers can and should freely use to describe their faith. We should at all times be both catholic (recognizing the unity of the church through the ages, transcending time, space, and denomination) and orthodox (right-thinking) as we follow Christ.
Are Anglicans protestant?- the easiest way to answer that question is in the context I used it- the answer would be "yes." By protestant, we mean the formation came out of the intense period of change known as the Protestant Reformation. The doctrinal standards are distinct in several key ways from Roman catholicism, or as we did not get to last night, Eastern Orthodoxy. Remember, I said the key difference between Roman Catholics and those groups that came out of the Reformation is not worship style, vestments, liturgy, etc....but justification. The Roman Catholic view of justification- at least as traditionally stated- is, in my view, clearly wrong.
The Anglican Communion is rich and large and varied, and in many ways it represents a via media- middle way- between the continental Reformation, and the Roman church. Also remember: the status of Catholic v. Protestant emphasis varies through the many years. For hundreds of years, the more or less typical Anglican approach looked very much like what a Presbyterian would be familiar with. Many things you may take for granted as being "decidedly Anglican" are relatively recent innovations- weekly Communion, the sign of the cross, etc....not that old at all in Anglican usage (though both of the examples I used are, in fact, ancient practices of the church catholic). Which brings us to...
Finally, know that the Roman Catholics do not own the word catholic, nor do the Orthodox own the word orthodox. Both are not only names of "tribes" of Christians, but perfectly wonderful words that all believers can and should freely use to describe their faith. We should at all times be both catholic (recognizing the unity of the church through the ages, transcending time, space, and denomination) and orthodox (right-thinking) as we follow Christ.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
How To Become A Christian...
See this: How To Become A Christian.
For me, Ken is on to something. He gets a couple things wrong, in my opinion, but generally, how does this mesh with what we discussed about Faith in chapter 2, big picture?
Note:
Ken Collins is a minister in the Disciples of Christ denomination- his view of baptism is perhaps different than yours (or mine). Further, reformed Christians see the ministry of the Holy Spirit as essential in regeneration, logically preceding conversion. Shoot me an email if you want to chat.
For me, Ken is on to something. He gets a couple things wrong, in my opinion, but generally, how does this mesh with what we discussed about Faith in chapter 2, big picture?
Note:
Ken Collins is a minister in the Disciples of Christ denomination- his view of baptism is perhaps different than yours (or mine). Further, reformed Christians see the ministry of the Holy Spirit as essential in regeneration, logically preceding conversion. Shoot me an email if you want to chat.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Regroup For Week Two...
I will have to adjust our flow a bit, but we'll be ok. All remains the same- just lop off week one (and to an extent, chapter one) from your mind.
That being said: there is material- and your leader's comments- from week one that are key to understanding and living this epistle. Most notably: the relationship between the life of faith and trials (you'll have them). Do not be deceived: Godly men and woman can go through the worst suffering. This world is not all there is. Your trials are leading to something better, in this life or the next.
Secondly (key to the whole book): we are not called to merely hear the Word of God and smile at how wonderful it is, or in the case of a sermon (by Father Ken or others) nod or contemplate our appreciation at the fine turn of a phrase or impressive vocabulary of the preacher. Scripture- and key, the whole of our life in Christ- is meant to produce action!
Based on where we are, I will briefly mention perhaps both of these points and move on, next week. We will not have time for authorship, occasion of writing, or date-all issues that I find more interesting than perhaps you do. Consider yourself spared! Quickly:
Author: for many years, the consensus has been "James" is the brother of Christ, as found in Matthew 13 (yes, Mary had several other children, the plea to perpetual virginity by our RCC friends notwithstanding). I see no particular reason to challenge that, I will l just say I do not find the evidence overwhelmingly compelling. James (Jacob in Hebrew) was a very common name- there were several in the early church that would have had the prestige to produce an epistle that was generally accepted as weighty enough for the whole church. It is interesting enough to note that if this James was the brother of the Lord, the book of Jude, also, was likely penned by another brother. "All In The Family," indeed.
Occasion Of Writing: I find this quite fascinating, more than most of you would have. It is good we must skip it! It seems the letter is quite pastoral in tone- it certainly is not a general theological treatise, in the manner of a Romans or Ephesians. Some have mused it is a response to the earliest persecution after the death of Stephen (and before the ascendancy of the apostle Paul in the life of the church). I'm not convinced. The whole parallel to Proverbs..the superb Greek construction of the underlying text..the hebrew loan words...it all adds up to a mixed bag of uncertainty, at least to me. Most simply, I believe it fair to mildly say James was written by a pastor to a group of Christians struggling to keep their faith active and in step with the heart of God.
Date: It seems rather clear to many that James was written sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by the Roman general Titus- some say much earlier for reasons we do not have time to consider. Again, I suppose I generally agree, but as a student of history the whole concept of "there is no way this could be after 70ad as the events thereof would have taken center stage in the text" I find less than totally convincing. Still other internal evidence agues strongly for a very early date- perhaps the oldest book or second oldest in the New Testament?
That being said: there is material- and your leader's comments- from week one that are key to understanding and living this epistle. Most notably: the relationship between the life of faith and trials (you'll have them). Do not be deceived: Godly men and woman can go through the worst suffering. This world is not all there is. Your trials are leading to something better, in this life or the next.
Secondly (key to the whole book): we are not called to merely hear the Word of God and smile at how wonderful it is, or in the case of a sermon (by Father Ken or others) nod or contemplate our appreciation at the fine turn of a phrase or impressive vocabulary of the preacher. Scripture- and key, the whole of our life in Christ- is meant to produce action!
Based on where we are, I will briefly mention perhaps both of these points and move on, next week. We will not have time for authorship, occasion of writing, or date-all issues that I find more interesting than perhaps you do. Consider yourself spared! Quickly:
Author: for many years, the consensus has been "James" is the brother of Christ, as found in Matthew 13 (yes, Mary had several other children, the plea to perpetual virginity by our RCC friends notwithstanding). I see no particular reason to challenge that, I will l just say I do not find the evidence overwhelmingly compelling. James (Jacob in Hebrew) was a very common name- there were several in the early church that would have had the prestige to produce an epistle that was generally accepted as weighty enough for the whole church. It is interesting enough to note that if this James was the brother of the Lord, the book of Jude, also, was likely penned by another brother. "All In The Family," indeed.
Occasion Of Writing: I find this quite fascinating, more than most of you would have. It is good we must skip it! It seems the letter is quite pastoral in tone- it certainly is not a general theological treatise, in the manner of a Romans or Ephesians. Some have mused it is a response to the earliest persecution after the death of Stephen (and before the ascendancy of the apostle Paul in the life of the church). I'm not convinced. The whole parallel to Proverbs..the superb Greek construction of the underlying text..the hebrew loan words...it all adds up to a mixed bag of uncertainty, at least to me. Most simply, I believe it fair to mildly say James was written by a pastor to a group of Christians struggling to keep their faith active and in step with the heart of God.
Date: It seems rather clear to many that James was written sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD by the Roman general Titus- some say much earlier for reasons we do not have time to consider. Again, I suppose I generally agree, but as a student of history the whole concept of "there is no way this could be after 70ad as the events thereof would have taken center stage in the text" I find less than totally convincing. Still other internal evidence agues strongly for a very early date- perhaps the oldest book or second oldest in the New Testament?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Preparing For The First Meeting
What To Bring-
For The Very First Meeting (and each thereafter)..
we have no text but scripture. We will briefly chat about the entire chapter. Where there are cool theological or grammatical concepts that may be lost in English or in popular thinking, we'll pull those out. Otherwise, we shall let the text speak for itself. This will be the first half of the group.
The second 30 minutes will be a focused discussion on one topic from the chapter. In this way, we will touch briefly on every theme in the epistle, and still find time to give more attention to the major themes.
I have never gone through James in 5 weeks- we will need to move! But I also think the rapid pace will help to keep us engaged, and allow opportunity to digest a truly incredibly "right here and now" text.
- Please bring a copy of the Bible to group, preferably a NIV or another contemporary translation.
- Please bring an open mind to what it is the Holy Spirit may want to teach you. If you are not a believer in Christ, please bring an open mind if you can, or at least a respectful attitude for those in the group that may be devout Christians.
For The Very First Meeting (and each thereafter)..
- read the Epistle of James- the whole thing, each week. At the very least, read the chapter we will be discussing in our group time. I strongly encourage you, though, to set aside the 15-20 minutes each week to read the entire epistle!
- We have memory verses for each group session that will aid in your internalizing the epistle. This is an optional (of course) but wonderfully beneficial addition to your Lenten disciplines. Please know the first verse FOR THE FIRST SESSION, the second set for the second week, and so forth.
we have no text but scripture. We will briefly chat about the entire chapter. Where there are cool theological or grammatical concepts that may be lost in English or in popular thinking, we'll pull those out. Otherwise, we shall let the text speak for itself. This will be the first half of the group.
The second 30 minutes will be a focused discussion on one topic from the chapter. In this way, we will touch briefly on every theme in the epistle, and still find time to give more attention to the major themes.
I have never gone through James in 5 weeks- we will need to move! But I also think the rapid pace will help to keep us engaged, and allow opportunity to digest a truly incredibly "right here and now" text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)