Entries Tagged 'Church' ↓

From Jordan archaeologists unearth ‘world’s first church’:

Archaeologists in Jordan have unearthed what they claim is the world’s first church, dating back almost 2,000 years, The Jordan Times reported on Tuesday.
“We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD,” the head of Jordan’s Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan, said.

He said it was uncovered under Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab in northern Jordan near the Syrian border.

“We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians — the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ,” Husan said.

These Christians, who are described in a mosaic as “the 70 beloved by God and Divine,” are said to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan, Husan added.

He cited historical sources which suggest they both lived and practised religious rituals in the underground church and only left it after Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers.

The bishop deputy of the Greek Orthodox archdiocese, Archimandrite Nektarious, described the discovery as an “important milestone for Christians all around the world.”

Researchers recovered pottery dating back to between the 3rd and 7th centuries, which they say suggests these first Christians and their followers lived in the area until late Roman rule.

Inside the cave there are several stone seats which are believed to have been for the clergy and a circular shaped area, thought to be the apse.

There is also a deep tunnel which is believed to have led to a water source, the archaeologist added.

The “seventy” would be Jesus’s followers whom He sent out two by two, as described in Luke 10. I don’t think the 70 made up the congregation of this church, since they would hardly refer to themselves with the veneration reflected in the mosaic inscription. The church, though, was probably dedicated to those very first missionaries and might even have been started by them. The reference to the 70 also confirms a Biblical detail, from before the time the Gospel of Luke was written, an allusion not to a text but to remembered history.

Still, if this is correct, the very first church–and if it is not that, the dating shows it is extremely early, dating from immediately after Christ’s death & resurrection, ca. 33 A.D., to a few decades afterwards, before most of the New Testament had been written–had clergy, ritual (a.k.a., liturgy), art (the mosaics), and considered baptism to be very important (having a water source into the building). This is evidence against the evolutionary assumptions that dominate secular Biblical criticism, that such elaborations developed slowly over time. (It also shows that certain disputed practices we Lutherans have come from the church in Bible times.)

Here is a picture of artifacts–communion ware?– that may have been used by some of our very earliest brethren in the faith:

Here is a story about a Baptist church that is changing its name to escape the stigma of being “Baptist.” This is something a number of Lutheran churches have been doing in an attempt, I would say, to seem MORE Baptist.

Here is something advocates of the church growth movement need to consider: In the not too distant past, being “evangelical” was popular. (Important note: We Lutherans ARE evangelical, the first evangelicals, or the first to be called so, and I support all true evangelicals in the actual meaning of that word, which has to do with fidelity to the Gospel. I use it here with quotation marks to refer to a particular manifestation of contemporary Christianity that goes by that name.) So many Lutherans, their numbers stagnating, thought it would promote the growth of the church to employ what was called “evangelical style/Lutheran substance.” This meant jettisoning the Lutheran liturgy and hymnody to do more what Baptists and other evangelicals did on Sunday mornings.

But now, the “evangelical” brand has fallen out of favor. It connotes the religious right, intolerance, fundamentalism, moralism, and–what postmodern relativists particularly hate–”proselytizing,” a.k.a. evangelism! Now these criticisms are unfair and wrong on many levels. But it is no longer culturally popular to seem like an “evangelical.” Remarkably, America’s largest evangelical church body, the Southern Baptists, which Lutherans had been wanting to emulate, is now facing what church leaders are calling a crisis in membership decline. “Evangelicals” are trying to seem less “evangelical” to escape the stigma. (Unfortunately, some are capitulating to the culture to the point of surrendering their valid moral and theological teachings, including the “evangel.”)

Could it be that a church body that embodies an alternative way of being evangelical–one in which the Gospel of God’s grace in Christ really is central, one that is not legalistic, one that is free of the trappings that are now the subject of mockery–might take the stage?

In Canada I was talking with a pastor who was expressing worries about his daughter, who was getting into the whole “Goth” scene. Another pastor said that he shouldn’t worry, that there are lots of affinities between young Goths and elderly Lutherans. They both, for example, dye their hair. They both like loud music (Goths for the stimulation; elderly Lutherans because they are hard of hearing). They both think a lot about death. They both like crucifixes. They are both obsessed with blood (in the case of the Lutherans, the blood of our Lord–shed on the Cross and given to us in Holy Communion, which we drink not in the vampire sense the Goths fantasize about but for the remission of our sins).

Got in just after midnight from my time in Canada. It’s a good country. I was impressed with what I saw of the Lutheran Church of Canada. Here is a helpful account of the convention from Alex Klages, a blogger I’ve long followed at A Beggar at the Table. I met him there, though missing his wife Kelly, another blogger of note, also an artist and satirical cartoonist. I didn’t even know they were Canadians!

Douglas Kmiec is a pro-life conservative Republican, but he is supporting Barack Obama for president. For this, a Catholic priest has denied him communion.

The California law professor is a leading “Obamacon,” the new term for a conservative who is in favor of Obama. Kmiec says he is voting for him in spite of the candidate’s pro-abortion views, thinking that his call for sexual responsibility will reduce the number of abortions while still keeping them legal. See E. J. Dionne Jr. - For an ‘Obamacon,’ Communion Denied.

Do you think this priest went a little too far? Denying communion to a lawmaker whose actions to legalize abortion contribute to the evil is one thing, but should this extend to someone who votes for that candidate?

According to the official policy of the Catholic bishops, it can be permissible to vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as your “intention” is not to promote abortion. That would seem to rule this priest’s action as being out of line, but is this distinction just an example of Catholic casuistry? On the other hand, would excommunicating voters constitute an impermissible interference of church with state?

Here is a fascinating account of the attempt to canonize the late Pope John Paul II, that is, to declare him a saint: Charting a Path to Sainthood. Catholic scholars are looking for a medical miracle caused by praying to him–and have apparently found at least one–but must work through the counter-arguments by the devil’s advocates, which amount to mainly that he was too conservative. But the process shows that the old Catholicism challenged by the Reformation still remains.

My student Nathan Martin, at Patrol Magazine, launches off after an account of hearing John Piper contrast Tyndale and Erasmus, relating it to contemporary Christian music and other expressions:

The incredibly truncated quote:

…”I linger over this difference between Erasmus and Tyndale because of how amazing it sounds to me like today. Tyndale wrote his books and translated the New Testament and there was a thundering effect, Erasmus wrote his and there was an entertaining effect a, high brow, elitist, layered, nuanceing of church tradition. They satirized the monasteries so they had a ring of radical nature about them, clerical abuses they criticized, but the gospel wasn’t at the center. I’m not going to name any names but there are elitist cool avant-garde, marginally evangelical writers and scholars today who…(feel) as if to be robust and strong and full about what Christ has achieved feels rather distasteful…it is ironic and sad that today supposedly avant-garde writers strike a cool, evasive, imprecise, artistic superficially reformist pose of Erasmus and call it post-modern when in fact it is totally pre-modern, because it is totally permanent.”

Whether it’s in Relevant, Blue like Jazz, or in the Black Cat, it’s hard to find Christians who will explicitly admit that they are Christians, or what exactly being a Christian means. Now, I know why many of these artists and writers have trouble identifying themselves with the particularities of doctrine and teaching; too many of them have been burned by the church in the past and too many of them are still trying to figure out what being a Christian truly means. What I’ve struggled with is when any type of doctrinal or philosophical certainty is greeted with skepticism and condescension, when the gospel is reduced to little more than well-meaning, philosophically vague platitudes that carry no true implications for belief or non-belief.

It’s a difficult thing to get labeled as a Christian in the mainstream or independent art world today, and inspires no end of questions and incessant, sniping prattle. Ask Sufjan Stevens what it’s like to never make it through an interview without his faith being mentioned, ask Dan Layus of Augustana what it’s like to make music with the weight of the faith of his family, church and college hanging over his head. I’ve talked to, and hung out with a number of other artists who face that problem on a day to day basis; what does it mean to be a Christian artist? Or perhaps more precisely, “How much of my faith can I admit to, without being completely labeled as a conservative fundamentalist freak-out?”

I have no great all-encompassing solution to this problem, but I think there are some things you can’t get away from. I’d argue, along with Piper, that Christianity is comprised in the gospel and the gospel is a message that necessarily excludes many other philosophical standpoints from legitimacy. I’m trying so delicately to not make this be a discussion about all these specific points of theology, but at some point and time, Christians have to be willing to be dogmatic about their “theology” because the implications of that theology provides the entire basis for their faith.

The implications of that faith should extend outside of doctrine and into vocation, as another speaker said, the purest theology should produce the most beautiful and excellent art.

Notice how Nathan gets the connection between the gospel and vocation.

Wisconsin leads the nation in people who admit to drinking and driving. The rest of the top five in this particular list of shame are North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. Utah has the least problem with this, followed by a number of Southern states. One reason, according to this AP article is religion:

Eric Goplerud, research professor at George Washington University Medical Center, said cultural and demographic issues probably have a role in the higher rates of driving under the influence in certain states. He said that religious affiliations in the Southeast often strongly discourage drinking, but that doesn’t occur so much in the upper Midwest.

What is mercifully unspecified is what the religion of those Northern states is. According to Adherents.com, the five states with the highest proportion of Lutherans are THOSE very states (in this order: North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska).

And it is true, in something that surprised me when I became one (and later came to appreciate), that Lutherans–for all of their theological, social, and moral conservatism– have NO problem with drinking alcohol. (At least not in the LCMS, though I’m aware there are more pietistic Lutherans that do.) Yes, drunkenness and alcoholism are considered wrong, as is alcoholism, but Lutheranism posits not the slightest guilt or stigma about social drinking. Indeed, beer is often served at church dinners. (I have often wondered why Lutherans don’t promote THAT in their church growth efforts.) And yet, I have not witnessed in my congregations any major problems with this, no more than in my earlier anti-alcohol liberal and evangelical congregations down in Oklahoma. When I was growing up, we actually were in a “dry” county, and yet drunkenness was rampant.

Drinking and driving, of course, is wrong, but there is another part of the story (in addition to questions about how the survey defined the transgression–it may be that citizens in these states are, like good Lutherans, more open to confessing their faults than driving while actually impaired). The fact is, Wisconsin has FEWER TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS than the average. (I don’t have statistics for the other top four.) See this and follow the links.

What are we to make of all of this?

Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz of the marytred “Issues, Etc.” radio show, have put together a new independent radio program that will debut soon! Click this to hear some details: A New Issues Etc. is Arising!

WORLD, 17 May 2008:

‘Issues’ no longer
Cancellation of LCMS radio show raises ruckus

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has 2.4 million members, a vigorous Christ-centered theology, and the largest Protestant network of Christian schools. And yet much of Christendom and the secular culture hardly knows it exists. So a hallmark of synodical president Gerald Kieschnick’s administration has been the “Ablaze” program, focusing on personal witnessing, church planting, and evangelism.

So why did that administration suddenly eliminate what may be its best known, most respected, and most effective vehicle for evangelizing the lost, interacting with other Christians, and bringing Lutheranism into the public square?

Issues, Etc. was a radio talk show hosted by Todd Wilken, a pastor who combined wit, charm, and theological substance. The show’s producer, Jeff Schwarz, arranged conversations with theological heavyweights (Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright) and lightweights (Bishop Spong, Jesus Seminar members). He also put together discussions of movies, politics, and contemporary cultural issues. (Disclosure: I belong to the LCMS and was a guest on the show.)

Much of the show’s content appealed to Christians of all stripes, but it was also distinctly Lutheran. Many people reported becoming converted to Christianity through Issues, Etc. Many listeners became Lutherans.

Then on March 18, Wilken and Schwarz were called to LCMS headquarters in St. Louis. David Strand, executive director of the Board for Communication Services, told them they were fired. According to an official statement from the LCMS, the show was canceled because it was too expensive to operate and did not reach a big enough audience.
Fans of the show suspected another reason: The mode of outreach the current LCMS administration favors comes from the church growth movement, which Issues, Etc. consistently criticized.

Under church growth methodology, traditional worship styles, theological rigor, and denominational distinctives can be “obstacles” to church growth. Being “negative,” as in theological polemics of the sort that Issues, Etc. was known for, “turns people off.”
Though Issues, Etc. was careful to avoid intra-LCMS controversies, recent programs included hard-hitting critiques of Islam, women’s ordination, and superstar preacher Joel Osteen. Such treatments could only be embarrassing for officials wanting to project a kinder, gentler Lutheranism.

But when news of the cancellation came out, the blogosphere erupted. An online petition to bring back the show collected over 7,000 signatures. Congregations and entire denominational districts registered their disapproval.

The last time grassroots Missouri Synod Lutherans got this angry was in the “Battle for the Bible” of the 1970s. Then the issue was whether the LCMS would reject biblical authority to join mainline liberal Protestantism. Now the issue is whether the denomination will reject its theological identity to join generic megachurch Protestantism.

And those are “Issues” not just for Lutherans, but for the Reformed, Baptists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, and every other Christian tradition.

The L.A. Times has a revealing story about John McCain’s faith. A sample:

McCain is most comfortable talking about his religious awakening during his 5 1/2 years in captivity, where his connection to God grew stronger and he served as “room chaplain” for a small group of prisoners.

In his early life he was influenced by his “deeply religious” father, who relied on his faith in a long struggle with alcoholism. Prayer and church became an “ingrained part” of McCain’s life at his high school, where he attended chapel every morning and on Sunday evenings, even after church, he says.

McCain says in those days, he was a self-absorbed rule-breaker who became a hard-partying naval aviator. It was not until after his plane was shot down over Hanoi in October 1967, he wrote in his memoir, “Faith of My Fathers,” that he learned to “grasp” faith tightly. In solitary confinement, he prayed “more often and more fervently than I ever had as a free man.”

“I was very slow in maturing,” he said aboard his campaign plane. “I knew right from wrong; I knew the Bible; I knew the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed and the tenets of my faith. And although I neglected them, the time came that I could fall back on them as a net, as a way of salvation, literally.”

Often his faith helped him “get through another minute,” he said. At the same time, McCain said, he learned to be “careful not to ask God to do things that were temporal rather than spiritual.”

In McCain’s first talk as chaplain, he cautioned fellow prisoners not to pray for their release — reminding them of a parable in which Jesus was asked whether it was right to pay taxes. “He held up the coin and said, ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s,’ ” McCain said, recalling his lecture. “The point of my talk was we were doing Caesar’s work when we went into combat, so we really shouldn’t ask God” for release.

That lesson guided McCain not to pray for his own personal success. “I pray to do the right thing so I won’t look back in regret or embarrassment or even shame that I betrayed my principles and my faith,” he said.

McCain began attending a Baptist church after marrying Cindy McCain in 1980 and moving to Arizona. At North Phoenix Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, McCain was attracted to the pastor’s message “that we’re all sinners, but we can benefit from God’s grace if we recognize those sins and move forward,” he said.

Although some religious leaders contend that McCain has not said enough about how his faith influences his positions, his stance on abortion is clear. McCain is a staunch opponent. He said that his view that life begins at conception is based “to some degree” in his religious faith.

Some quirks (not praying for his own success or even release from the POW camp), some insights (”we were doing Caesar’s work”), some solid theology (sin & grace; dependence on the Creeds). At least he stands squarely against the gospel of success that plagues, the confusion of kingdoms, and the content-free theology that plagues contemporary Christianity. Maybe he associates all of that with contemporary evangelicalism, which is why he keeps his distance. Or do you think this is not an adequate confession of faith?

HT: Mark Stricherz at Get Religion.

The high court in the Presbyterian Church (USA) ruled that a pastor who performed a same-sex marriage cannot be censured, BECAUSE the church does not recognize same-sex marriage. Get a load of this reasoning:

The order issued Tuesday said, “The ceremonies that are the subject of this case were not marriages as the term is defined (by the Book of Order). These were ceremonies between women, not between a man and a woman. … It is not improper for ministers of the Word and Sacrament to perform same sex ceremonies.”

The church’s Book of Order says, “Marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman,” and does not prohibit blessings of same-sex couples that are not determined to be marriages.

The high court said in the ruling that the lower court had erred by finding Spahr guilty “of that which by definition cannot be done. One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister of the Word and Sacrament and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes.”

The church defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A minister marries two women. But the minister cannot be sanctioned because, according to church teaching, gay marriage is impossible. So the minister could not have conducted such a thing.

Thus, the teaching AGAINST gay marriage provides a mechanism for allowing it.