The Evangelical Universalist Forum

GOD is love

Theology Biblical Theology
#21

The organic church is very diverse and I wouldn’t think of responding for anyone but those I know, but if you look in the epistles, you’ll find barely a mention of the position of “pastor,” and that without a job description. From appearances, the pastors in a church are those who embody the gift of nurturing and helping others. Very important. The modern day office of the pastor isn’t to be found. We just read it back into the text because we “know” what a pastor is, after all.

Deacon means servant. It’s always translated “deacon” when it refers to a male, and servant when it refers to a female. (sigh) But originally it wasn’t talking about a specific office – just a servant of the church. As for elders, these were older believers – not necessarily in age, but in maturity. Paul appointed elders in some of the churches, but not until the churches had already had some time to develop, and not in all churches. Viola speculates that these people who were appointed as elders were those Paul or his associates observed as already effectively being elders. In other words, it could have been a recognition of these people who were already performing the function of more mature advisers to the body.

If you want to know more about this, you might like Frank Viola’s books,* Pagan Christianity *and Reimagining Church. There are a lot of books out there on this subject, but I know these particular ones address the questions you’ve asked me. :slight_smile:

#22

I haven’t read any books on this topic at all yet, but I’m working through my own “organic” interpretation at present. I don’t know whether my view is “orthodox”-organic though (or, to be honest, entirely Biblical at this point) – it seems different to Cindy’s understanding. But I suspect that every Christian is a deacon (***diakonoi***1249: servant) and every qualifying Christian presides as a personal “bishop” (***episkopēs***1984: carer) for a deacon (or a couple of deacons) of lesser maturity. It would be expected that everyone, as a growing Christian, would become a bishop for a less mature Christian. I partly think this is the case because ***Episkopountes***1983 is the verb-equivalent of ***episkopēs***1984, that every Christian is called to perform in Hebrews 12:15.

This all might sound radically hierarchical with some super-bishop on top of the pyramid, but of course, I am presupposing that bishops (as mature Christians) are radically humble and servile, not lording over others but ministering purely as an example (an unrealistic presupposition, I know). And everyone, including bishops, are called to “clothe themselves with humility toward one another”. This organization would be similar to the organization of a family, in that older brothers aren’t instructed to be fathers, but are told to be an example to their younger siblings. It would be like the radical discipleship of the early monastics (as I currently understand it), and unlike current church organization.

There were some pretty strong translator biases in favour of preserving religious offices and terms in the KJV. James knew that if the Puritans abolished the Bishop, he would be next to go as the protestant Pope (he famously stated: “I know what would become of my supremacy … No bishop, no King”. My favourite translation is in 1 Timothy 3:1 in the KJV (and the ASV, NLT, NASB): “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” The “office of a bishop”? From one word: ***episkopēs***1984, meaning “look after” or “care for”? An office? Really? The same is done with deacons in 3:10.

#23

thank-you Cindy and I do believe we are closer on the topic than we both realise :wink: as I said before true unity requires the truth as a foundational basis ‘‘how good it is when two brothers are in agreement’’ but to be fair to myself I have also recognised
the various difficulties involved in this process. goodness you haven’t found anything worth separating over !
can I come round :laughing:

#24

GOD is love !

what about all the times where GOD directs the Israeli to go into battle ? :astonished:

#25

Stuart,

You bet! :slight_smile: Anytime you’re in the area (western SDakota, USA), let me know. We can probably find you a place to stay, too.

Blessings, Cindy

#26

would anyone else care to join in ??? :smiley: how about the Canaanite massacre ? remember GOD is love !

#27

Well, I’m not someone else :wink: but I’m here anyhow. I’ve struggled with the violence in the OT and I believe I’ve come to an understanding – at least an understanding that works for me and seems in my spirit to fit. So I’ll share that, and others can make what they will of it; accept or reject it. This is my take on the situation, such as it is.

First, we must understand that all souls (lives) come from God and that God calls them ALL back again sooner or later. In the case of the Canaanites who died in the invasion of Israel, it was a bit sooner. War does not increase the mortality rate. Nothing increases the mortality rate. It is and has always been precisely 100%. If we see this life as the only thing we have, being slaughtered young may be seen as either a great mercy or a great evil, but this life is NOT all there is. Frankly, if this life WERE all there was, it would be meaningless and so would be the slaughter of the Canaanites.

Regarding that, however, it is typically represented as greater that it likely was. Not that that would excuse it, but people see the entire population destroyed. This is not the case. Israel never drove out all of the Canaanites, much less slaughtered them all. Yes, they were told to, but they lost God’s blessing long before it was achieved. Not only that, but the non-combatants most likely fled before most battles were joined. So while it was hard knocks for the Canaanites, it was far from wholesale genocide. Add to that the fact that God gave the population quite a long time (more than 400 years) to repent from their sins, not least of which was sacrificing their children to Molech in gruesomely macabre rituals. In fact, He tells the Israelites that this was the reason He drove the Canaanites out of the land into which He had installed the Hebrews, and it was for this same reason that He also sent the children of Israel into exile.

So why the little children as well? Why the innocent? The way I see it, God had decided to send Israel to wipe out an entire culture – an evil culture He wanted destroyed. Of course He knew Israel wouldn’t actually succeed in doing this, but I think He made His point. People are still talking about it. Taking the children was part of it, and any instantaneous death in time of war would have been far more merciful than that many of them received at the hands of their own parents and priests. And don’t forget that these children, if raised in this culture, were destined to do the same horrors to their own offspring.

We mustn’t imagine that God sees physical death in nearly the same way we do. To Him, this is not the end. All live to Him. While death is an enemy, it is not the loss of all hope or the end of a person. These are people (as we now know through a closer study of scripture) who we will know as brothers and sisters one day. Think of that! Some beautiful afternoon, you’ll probably have the privilege of sitting and drinking lemonade at the riverbank with dear Canaanite brothers and sisters who were (physically) killed during the Hebrew invasion but have since been redeemed, washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, and entered the Holy City.

#28

Cindy, I’m right there with you. I’d also like to add

1 Co 10, those things happened for our example. All those things in the OT, were symbolic for what happens in us. We are called out of Egypt, into the wilderness, given the law, tested, given manna, told to cross the Jordan and drive the giants out of our land, so that we can live in Rest.

What are the giants? sin

What is jericho? a stronghold

The end doesn’t justify the means, except in the case of God, because He has declared the end from the beginning, and all His ways are good. All those things, were given for us. To bring us on whom the end of the ages have come. All those stories are roadmaps for us, they are stories of our lives, to show us the way back to the promised land, even all the way back to the garden(of gethsemene)/eden.

#29

Wow, RHM!

Beautiful grasp of the analogy and thanks for bring me back to the reality of scripture! As I was reading what you wrote, I was also thinking how the giants (the sin in our lives) sometimes don’t look like what we would call sin, though of course sin means, really, missing the target. Sometimes the giants look like unhealed hurts, fear, lack of trust, lack of love, lack of trust in God’s love and good intent toward us (and even in His ability to carry out His good intent for us). It kind of limits us, I think, to see sin as always something of ill intent that we’ve done or fallen into. It really is, ultimately, missing the mark.

Love in Him, Cindy

#30

Like you, I do believe that everything God does is bore out of love but, we can’t forget his other characteristics. Justice and righteousness.

Ultimately, we can’t understand everything God has done. Some things may seem very over-the-top to us. But, God does know the inner thoughts and intentions of the heart. If at some time he says that we don’t think is right, we have to remember that he knows what he is doing.

#31

*well said Cindy ,you covered it quiet well in those two small paragraphs !. U.R. should make the ‘‘violence’’ of the old testament far more palatable :wink: * in a similar way I would suggest should apply to the issue of loving your neighbour and your enemy when your enemy is intending to cause harm to your neighbour ! :astonished: :smiley: :wink:

#32

Like you, I do believe that everything God does is bore out of love but, we can’t forget his other characteristics. Justice and righteousness.

Ultimately, we can’t understand everything God has done. Some things may seem very over-the-top to us. But, God does know the inner thoughts and intentions of the heart. If at some time he says that we don’t think is right, we have to remember that he knows what he is doing.

for me its not so much a matter of understanding everything GOD has done even the most gifted mind can’t fully understand everything regarding GOD this side of shall we say enlightenment, but more a case of coherently putting together what we can see ! not just for our benefit but for the greater benefit of our fellow man . :slight_smile:

#33
#34

I believe the division we see is part of plan a also. I see it as all part of the grand story, its quite similar to what happened in Israel, the story is being repeated.

Creation days:
1 light 1 moses/tabernacle
2 separation of waters 2 solomon/temple
3 earth/trees 3 zerubabel/3rd temple(including tabernacle as 1st)
4 lights 4 Jesus/sun, ecclesia/moon
5 birds 5 roman church
6 beasts/man 6 reformation
7 rest 7 reconciliation

The pattern repeats
1 moses/light-pure, 4 Jesus/lights-pure, 7 reconciliation
2 solomon/pagan mixing, 5 roman/pagan mixing
3 zerubabel/reformation, 6 the reformation

I’m sure its all coincidence but Jacob lived 147 years
Jesus came in the 4000 th year
we are dawning in the 7000th year

This pattern is also seen
Adam, cain, able, Seth
Noah, Japeth, Ham, Shem

#35

if division isn’t a part of love in the temporal sense in the context of a sinful world then it should follow that GOD isn’t in complete control or a version of control whereby he both can and would want to counter it
this is still something I’m coming to terms with :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation:

#36

Stuart,

I think I know where you’re coming from (not sure, of course). It makes sense to say that in an overall sense, God IS in control in that He both knows of the division and is quite capable of countering it (and WILL counter it at the right time). That said, I don’t think that, in a minute sense, it follows that division is His will. In an overall sense, He knows that it can be worked out to accomplish His will. His need to allow humankind to follow our own individualistic bent to the ultimate conclusion (save those who surrender to Him now) also requires Him, imo, to allow these divisions. Is it a part of our own realization process, by which we are matured in our sufferings? In other words, by which we learn and know in our very core that this (division) is a BAD thing?

He allows other horrible things, presumably for the good of those called (and scripture does clearly tell us that He commands all to repent and therefore it makes sense that ultimately, all are called in one group or another). So you have a very real point in saying that the divisions will serve His will. I believe you’re right. Everything allowed to occur will ultimately serve His will. That doesn’t mean that we, as His children, aren’t to fight those things we know to be evil. That too serves His will. If hunger is allowed, in His knowledge that it will ultimately work to the good, does that mean that I, confronted by a starving man, should not give him food and drink? And likewise, when we are confronted with divisiveness, shouldn’t we, following His wisdom as to the “how to” do our best to make peace by our words and actions?

I think that God has created the best possible world in which His will will ultimately prevail for the greatest joy and the least suffering possible in His creatures. We can’t do anything He hasn’t foreseen (or if you don’t believe in that degree of divine knowledge . . . we can’t do anything He can’t turn to advantage). Whatever we do to try to make peace or war, He will work together for the good. It falls to us to do the best things we know to do, as He guides and enables us by His Holy Spirit. In this way, I believe we cooperate with Him by being the branches to His vine and the conduit for His producing of fruit to eternal life.

So . . . my metaphysical musings, Bro. :confused: Best I can do, but He’s still working on me, as they say. :wink:

Love in Him, Cindy

#37

Everything allowed to occur will ultimately serve His will. That doesn’t mean that we, as His children, aren’t to fight those things we know to be evil. That too serves His will. If hunger is allowed, in His knowledge that it will ultimately work to the good, does that mean that I, confronted by a starving man, should not give him food and drink? And likewise, when we are confronted with divisiveness, shouldn’t we, following His wisdom as to the “how to” do our best to make peace by our words and actions?

So . . . my metaphysical musings, Bro. :confused: Best I can do, but He’s still working on me, as they say. :wink:

Love in Him, Cindy

amen ! , so applying that sentiment to the issue of falsehood and the divisions it brings compared to unity in the truth , just how would you say we oppose evil ? ‘‘speaking the truth in love’’ per chance ? but just where do you ''draw the line as it were ?
this is yet another issue where one finds vastness in opinion :exclamation: :question: :exclamation: , plus bearing in mind the original gist of the post
that GOD is in some form of control so how is this love :question: :smiley:

#38

In ourselves alone, Stuart, it would be impossible to know what (and what not) to say. We as a people (the people of God) need to be led by the indwelling Holy Spirit every step of the way. In the case of UR, for an example, there may be a mention of ECT in our church gatherings. Should I confront that right then and there? I could. We speak out whenever we have something to say, so it wouldn’t be out of order. But would it be the right time? Even if we’re discussing some other subject, it COULD be the right time. Jesus leads our meetings (or that’s the goal), and He might want to lead us off into an unanticipated direction. The only way I can know is by the inner nudging of the Holy Spirit.

I generally tend to wait until God presents me with an opening if I’m going to disagree with a brother or sister. If it were an important matter that needed to be addressed (or at least, I felt that it needed to be), then I might, with God’s permission, set up a time to chat with them (or if it was a brother, ask one of the other brothers to consider doing so), and prayerfully broach the subject with them. Otherwise, I figure we’re each at a different point in our journey with our Lord and He knows just as well how to lead my sister into truth as He knows how to do it for me. If He wants to use me as an instrument for that, I’m available and (I hope) ready, but I don’t necessarily consider it my duty to set everyone straight who disagrees with me.

That doesn’t mean, btw, that I’m afraid to share what and how I believe. It just means that I don’t feel it’s up to me to change anyone’s mind. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job, and while I’ll do whatever He leads me to do, it’s not my mandate to set anybody straight. I’ve been wrong far too many times for that! :wink:

#39

it’s not my mandate to set anybody straight. I’ve been wrong far too many times for that! :wink:

:slight_smile: :wink: as we have all been ! but if truth is a part of ‘‘love’’ as I believe it is, is it not unloving to ever ‘‘bring it up’’ ?
not that I’m suggesting you take this approach !, but lets just sayfor the sake of the argument , the idea that you never
'‘feel’'the holy spirit lead you ! , perhaps he is leaving it up to us so to speak as to when to broach the issue
what also comes into this discussion is the idea of ‘‘loving GOD’’ more than your ‘‘brother’’ :sunglasses: for example
if you were to come across a street preacher who was spitting hell fire at everyone going past and it was fairly plain to
you [and everybody else] that **all **he was doing was bring gross discredit to GOD and turning everyone off ! if you were to say nothing
as you felt nothing , wouldn’t that be unloving :question: :wink:

#40

Stuart,

Clearly in a case like that, I might have something to say. I’ve been known to wait around until after a tent crusade in order to confront the evangelist concerning his unfaithfulness to his wife – it’s not like the Holy Spirit never speaks to me. But if a brother or sister privately believes in ECT and isn’t spouting off on it all the time, I don’t feel that I’m automatically deputized to set them straight. If we’re conversing over coffee and the talk drifts to that subject, I won’t hesitate to share my beliefs (and this has happened on several occasions). If a friend doesn’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, I will make sure the conversation “drifts” over to this subject and lovingly explain to her that while I realize her husband is a problem, Jesus IS in fact God the Son and not just another “prophet” of Islam. (and yes, this also has happened)

The thing is, this last-mentioned problem is an essential article of faith and the dear sister in question had asked whether we might just talk about God and not so much about Jesus in our gatherings. Alas, she is no longer meeting with us, though fellowship hasn’t been cut off. We still love one another, but she is too frightened of her (now ex) husband to have much to do with our assembling together. This was a situation that needed to be dealt with as she talked about it all the time and wanted to remove Jesus from the fellowship. While she was and is welcome to meet with us, it had to be understood that the whole point is Jesus and of course her requests couldn’t be granted.

I’m not afraid to say what needs to be said. I allow myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and of course by those things which I know, from the word, need to be done. I don’t confront everything that I consider to be an error in belief. I know how many times I myself have been wrong, and how Jesus has gently led me by the hand deeper and deeper into truth, and I trust Him to also do this for my brothers and sisters. I’m not so much worried about what, precisely, they believe, as I am about Who, precisely, they are following. If they’re following Jesus, He will lead them into all truth. I trust Him to do this.

So . . . I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. :slight_smile:

Be blessed, Brother

Cindy