GCC Q&A

Grove City College has a study abroad program in France. One of the profs, Debra, had her class interact with excerpts from my Dr. Klaw & ET blog on how the past has contributed to shaping the spiritual climate in France today.

Terraformer (SG1) shaping the physical climate on planet P5S-381

Subsequently the students submitted questions that they would have liked to ask me had I been in class. While I have not been able to carve out the time to make a guest appearance, I nonetheless wanted to respond, especially in light of the fact that the these questions are amazing, showing both interest and insight.

So let’s do some Q & A. Here is the students' first question (see full list below):

Why didn’t America have so many philosophers that spoke against God like in Europe?

The French philosophers decried the abuse of religious power. Voltaire actually stood up for Huguenot refugees inviting "all of Europe to cry out" against the Roman Church + Monarchy's oppression. His solution, however, was to guide France toward the amorphous belief of deism.

An example of his diatribe against the Church is found in Candide ou l’optimisme (required reading in many French high schools today). Candide, the main character, was fascinated by the priests of the country of Eldorado. The old man with whom he spoke replied,

“My friend, said he, we are all priests.” Candide retorts, “What! You have no monks who teach, who argue, who govern, who plot, and who burn the people who are not in agreement with them?”

America was, and remains, pragmatic. Free from the religious oppression experienced in Europe, the philosophers turned their pens elsewhere.

Benjamin Franklin is a prime example: "A penny saved is a penny earned." Such advice was much more pertinent to the people of a developing nation than railing against religious atrocities that most people had neither experienced nor ever would.

Later on, another folksy philosopher, Mark Twain, would write against organized religion. But Twain's mockery was not aimed at brutality, but rather at hypocrisy and the nonsensical aspects of 19th century American religion.

The current French and American societies were both founded at the end of the 18th century, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French revolution (1789). Both agreed that State Religion—at the time the Roman Church wedded to the Monarchy—was dangerous, even lethal. And the Church had become a formidable obstacle to creative, free thought, the Inquisitions torturing and killing those who deviated, or were suspected of deviant thought, from the Church’s approved positions.

Some of the American Founding Fathers—Jefferson, Franklin & others—were profoundly influenced by the French (see the helpful HBO series “John Adams”). So it is no surprise that both fledgling nations codified "the separation of Church and State." But they took different tacks in doing so.

American society was designed to protect freedom OF religion. French society was designed to protect people FROM religion.

France had experienced numerous religious wars between Muslims, Catholics and later Protestants; the Catholic Church won out. The European emigration to N. America had a large number of God-fearing people who sought freedom from persecution by the State Church—English, German…. They settled in N. America hoping to find a refuge where they could live out their faith, as they understood it in the Scriptures, without interference from the State Church or Monarchy.

This was the case for the Brethren denomination to which I belong. It was founded by Alexander Mack and seven others in Germany in 1708. Influenced by the German pietistic movement, they sought to be obedient to Christ’s teaching in Scripture and baptized one another in the Eider river. This made them anabaptists, thus, persecuted by the State Church and government causing them to flee to N. America.

The French, with centuries of religious infighting and abuses, began to see religion as inherently

dangerous, thus their Founding Fathers protected people against religion and founded a secular state, hostile to religion.

The Founders of the United States were favorable toward religion, but adamantly opposed religious power. They passed legislation which forbade ecclesiastic authorities from imposing religious absolutes on citizens, and gave people freedom to live out, or not, their faith as they saw fit.

Here is the students' full list of questions. I am not sure that I will get to them all, but will respond to some:

1. Why didn’t America have so many philosophers that spoke against God like in Europe?
2. What are the atheistic philosophical assumptions or presuppositions that many Europeans carry?
3. To what extent is the French’s study and love of philosophy actually good for Christians, and what should we do to prepare for this heightened sense of philosophy?
4. Is the French culture more anti-Christian or anti-Religion?
5. America’s plausibility versus France’s plausibility structure?
6. Depth of French friendships without shared beliefs?
7. Best way to broach the subject of religion, starting point?
8. What do French people think of Christians as individuals?
9. How knowledgeable are they about Christianity?
10. If a French person were to choose a religion would it tend to be one other than Christianity?
11. Do they not think about death?
12. What about the Huguenots, origins, beliefs, what happened to them after they left France?
13. What does the average French person know about believers?
14. What are they taught in school about religion? Crusades? Inquisition…?
15. How successful has Klawitter been in his ministry?
16. Where did the 7 year-old girl’s cynicism likely come from – her parents or her teachers?
17. Is the government essentially indoctrinating all school children to be irreligious/anti-Christian?

My grownup Noël wish

I just returned from ten days in the States, ten days in the month of December, ten days of Christmas carols everywhere I went. “On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me…”

(By the way, if there are any artists out there who would like to write some NEW Christmas carols we would all appreciate a break from Burl, Bing and everybody doing the ∞ + 1st version of “Frosty.”)

In the USA decorations and lights were everywhere. “O tannenbaum, o tannenbaum…”


Now I didn’t arrive until Dec. 1, but feel pretty confident that the decorations were up in time for Black Friday. Does the "Christmas spirit" really need to include bracing oneself for hysteria when embarking on an “elfing” trip, i.e. shopping? “Toyland, toyland…”


Call me jaded but I can’t seem to disabuse myself from the feeling that some high power Scrooges (greedy people) have co-opted Christmas.

Do you want to sing to me, “You’re a mean one Mr. Grinch!” ?

Well, before you do, please know that I am processing all of this too. I like candles and trimmings, getting and giving presents. The latter so much so that I grow anxious about whether they will actually make the recipients happy. “I’m dreaming of an anxiety-filled Christmas just like the ones I used to know”?!

Nope, I don’t have this all straightened out either. It just seems like Christmas has taken on an artificial life of its own divorced from an original sense of celebration, of anticipation. “O come o come Emmanuel…”

I wrote this entry in the train, traveling through the French countryside on my way home to Dijon. I went through Paris' Gare de Lyon and heard no carol nor saw a single decoration. In Paris, I overheard an American woman declare, "They don't have enough decorations here!"

In France Christmas is not about naked materialism; it’s all about food, family and friends. But most of my French friends are cognizant of the fact that grandmère imposed gluttony, (as much as they may appreciate grandma’s cuisine and grandpa's wine) is not the primary meaning of Christmas.

Here, however, most people would be hard pressed to come up with the fundamental meaning for Noël beyond somehow being about “le petit bébé Jésus dans la crèche” (the little baby Jesus in the manger). “Il est né le divin enfant” — the French equivalent of “Away in a Manger”.)

Between the extreme approaches of hijacking or ignorance of Christmas is reflective celebration of CHRIST-mass. P-R Delcamp put it in song (here is a rough translation from the original French):

Jesus—Yahweh is salvation
Emmanuel—God with us
Luminary that enlightens
Shines to the Father’s glory
Royalty! Majesty!
Peace in the hearts of people
Who honor the Son of God!

Glory to God to the heights of the heavens
Peace on earth to those who praise him
Brilliant glory blazes out
Transcendent joy resounds
Holy infant! Divine child!
Peace in the hearts of people
Let's praise the Son of God.

My friend Wayne, recently shared some reflections on faith, hope and love. He said that faith manifests itself in quiet confidence, hope in peaceful joy, and love… well in Jesus. “Joy to the world the Lord has come!”

My grownup Christmas wish for us this Noël is to discover, re-discover or deepen our appreciation for these most precious gifts: faith, hope and love—quiet confidence, peaceful joy and Jesus.

On behalf of my teammates and our families of faith here in Europe we wish you a:
Feliz Natal
Feliz Navidad
Nollaig faoi mhaise duit Frohe Weihnachten
VESELÉ VÁNOCE
Joyeux Noël !
Merry Christmas!

Warmly, paul

P.S. some of the above photos were taken in the Dijon Fair Trade Café, others at the Evangelical Protestant Church of East Dijon. I'll let you try to figure out which ones :-)

The company of disciples

So, a disciple is described by following Jesus, faith in Jesus and ongoing faithfulness to Jesus that results in fruit that honors Jesus. This is living the gospel and being a disciple.

QUOTES:
“Following Jesus as a disciple means the unconditional sacrifice of his whole life for the whole of his life.”1

“A disciple’s duty does not consist in maintaining and passing on particular teaching about Jesus. The essence of discipleship lies in the disciple’s fulfillment of his duty to be a witness to his Lord in his entire life.”2

Therefore the whole of the disciple’s life (her/his words included) is witness to Jesus’ redemption and transformation of that life.

DISCIPLES
Now we’ll keep going in our study of the word “disciple,” moving to the plural, “disciples.”

It is interesting that in John’s writings “any word for the church, such as ekklesia, is entirely lacking, the word mathetai “disciples” comes to stand for the gathered community.”3

"congregation gathered"

public-domain.zorger.com

Many view the farewell discourses in John chapters 13-17 as by-laws for Jesus’ Church, yet John never uses the word “church.” This especially intrigues me in light of the fact that he wrote near the end of the first century when the Synoptics were already in existence, and the words “Christian” and “church” were in circulation, according to Acts.

In Acts, Luke uses disciple (mathetes) “almost exclusively to denote the members of the new religious community, so that it almost = Christian (Acts 6:1,7; 9:1,19; 11:26,29; 13:52; 15:10; 21:16).4 And he “uses the term disciple to describe the post-Easter community of faith” (Acts 6:1,2,7; 11:26).5

Note that Acts 5:11 is the first use of ekklesia “church” in Acts. Does this mean, for example, that the gathering that Luke describes in Acts 2:42-47 was not “church” simply because he does not attach that label to it?

Luke's focus is on essence. The disciples gathered and they focused on: apostles teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, prayer. Then he recounts what that looked like (descriptive not prescriptive):

“And all the believers met together in one place and shared everything they had. They sold their property and possessions and shared the money with those in need. They worshiped together at the Temple each day, met in homes for the Lord’s Supper, and shared their meals with great joy and generosity all the while praising God and enjoying the goodwill of all the people. And each day the Lord added to their fellowship those who were being saved."6

And in Acts 6:2 we also see the disciples gathered; Luke calls them “the congregation of the disciples” (to plethos ton matheton). Plethos here means “a full meeting” of disciples.7 The lexicon says that plethos is, “in the usage of religious communities,… a technical term for the whole body of their members, fellowship, community, church… group” (Lk 19:37; Ac 4:32; 6:2, 5; 15:12; 15:30.6).8 F.F. Bruce adds “congregation” and “Christian company” to increase the breadth of meaning. And he notes that in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the O.T.) plethos usually means “multitude”; twice it is rendered ekklesia.9

I.H. Marshall comments on this company of disciples in Acts 4:32:

“Two facts characterized the life of Christian community. The choice of word (company) reflects the growth in size of the Christian group. Despite its size it had a common mind and purpose; in other words it was united in its devotion to the Lord.”

Everyone “was prepared to regard [property] as for the use of the community as a whole.”

“The two characteristics correspond broadly to the two great commandments of love (or devotion) to God and love to one’s neighbour.”10

What does a focus on “making disciples of all nations” mean for a “church planting” mission like mine? Does it lead to a neglect of evangelism or the planting of churches? Absolutely not.

As we have seen, "making disciples" involves the entire spectrum of activity from pre-evangelism through conversion through gathering through maturation through multiplication (of both disciples and "companies" of disciples = churches).
RECAPITULATION
A disciple is described by following Jesus, faith in Jesus and ongoing faithfulness to Jesus that results in fruit that honors Jesus.

This is living the gospel which results being a disciple.

Disciples together help others to become what they should be.

This is living and sharing the gospel together which results in church (whether one uses the word or not).

Disciples together continue Jesus’ mission in community which is a free sample of Jesus’ kingdom offered to the world.

This is living and sharing the gospel missionally which results in multiplying disciples and churches.

1. NIDNTT vol.1, 488.
2. NIDNTT vol.1, 490.
3. NIDNTT vol.1, 490.
4. BAGD, 486.
5. ISBE vol.1, 948.
6. Acts 2:44-47 NLT.
7. Zerwick in loc.
8. BAGD, 668.
9. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 159 (see Ex. 12:6; 2Chr. 31:18).
10. Marshall, Acts, 108.
SUNDRY THOT
Is it therefore possible to be a disciple and to live ekklesia even if one does not use current nomenclature? John was comfortable talking about essence without mentioning labels. He uses neither “Christian” nor “Church,” but successfully explains the essence of both.

Our prime directive

So if our prime directive is “make disciples of all nations.” What does that mean?

Charis Europe—European Grace Brethren Churches, Charis Partners and the GBIM Europe Team—are in negotiations on how we might partner together across Europe around the mandate to “make disciples.”

We are currently having Regional Team Talks—the Isles, Germany/Czech Republic, Iberian Peninsula and France—to discuss this important topic.
Team Talks (Birmingham, November 1, 2010)

During these talks we are looking at the breadth of Jesus’ command to make disciples. Here is the first part of a recapitulation of our word study, biblical theological study:

Luke and John both begin their gospels with a loose meaning for the word “disciple” (mathetes in greek), essentially someone who was following Jesus.



Luke 6:17 “Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a large crowd of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon” (see also Lk 19:37).

John 6:60-66 "Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, 'This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?'… But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble?… As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore."

Here disciple = followers of Jesus. But some stop following because they do not have faith in Jesus.

Followers of the Beatles (1963)

Then there is a shift in John and Luke’s usage of the word; following alone is no longer the only condition for being a “disciple.” Luke stops using the word “disciple” at Gethsemane and doesn’t pick it back up until Acts 6:1. He seems to be taking a wait-and-see approach.

John’s change of the meaning of the word occurs between chapters 6 and 8 when Jesus says (John 8:31) “to the Jews who had believed him… ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.”

So after John 8 and Acts 6 “disciple” means someone who follows Jesus, has faith in Jesus, and remains faithful to Jesus.

Some things (and people) are faithful

Other data:

• Unconditional obedience to Christ is ongoing, from the beginning and constantly throughout; there can be no renegotiation of the disciple-master contract in order to add exception clauses (à la Matthew 8:21). Luke 9:23 “If anyone would come after me, he must… take up his cross daily and follow me.” Therefore readiness for suffering and death are perpetual norms.

• The Shepherd promises safety (not necessarily physical) in suffering (John 10:28) and disciples will participate in his glory (John 17:22). [I believe that glory is adoption, we are loved by the Father—see Frederic Godet.]

• Learning to put the Word into practice in all circumstances is a goal, therefore a disciple’s duty does not consist solely in passing on particular teaching about Jesus. Matthew 28:20 “teach them to obey… everything I have commanded you.”

• Service is normative, an identifying mark of the disciple and where fellowship (with Christ and others) finds expression.

• Love, not works or words, for other believers is the mark by which unbelievers will identify a true disciple (John 13:35).

• Fruit is the proof that one is a true disciple (John 15:8).

To be continued… because if, as Neil Cole says, there is no command in Scripture to plant churches (and he is right), what is a church planting mission like mine to do?

Stay tuned…