“… the prophet makes clear that [Amos’ audience] celebrate a different god, one they might call Yahweh but one who was nevertheless a deity of their own making. It was a god of blessing and goodness, with no rough edges.

“Theirs was worship disconnected from reality and the living God.”

“Prophetic Anticipation Builds: Unblemished Red Heifers for Temple Ceremony Soon Come of Age” CBN (March 17, 2023).

Messianic teacher Kevin Williams writes: “In case you follow such things, it looks like we are about a year away from a potential Red Heifer update. The article says during the spring of 2024, but based on the other things in the article, I think the fall feasts are more likely. The article is intriguing though, regarding nine pure priests, the secured location, and the notion that the next temple will be ‘a house of prayer for all nations.’”

Richard R. Hammar, “Expanding Abuse Victims’ Rights and What It Means for Churches” Church Law & Tax.

From this landing page, Attorney and CPA, Richard Hammar launches a 4-part series on what the expansion of abuse victims’ rights means for churches.

“50,000 mosques have closed in Iran – Are Iranians seeking truth outside of Islam?” AllArab.News (August 16, 2023).

Here is exciting confirmation that God is doing something in Iran. Thanks to Iran Alive Ministries for pointing out this story of how 50,000 out of Iran’s 75,000 mosques have closed.

Image: Steven Coffey

Sam Storms, “Why Are Charismatics So Weird?” Enjoying God Blog (August 21, 2023).

No thinking Pentecostal/charismatic has ever denied that some that identify with that label do bizarre things and teach strange doctrines. Retired pastor and scholar Sam Storms argues that when cessationists (those who say the miraculous ministry of the Holy Spirit has ceased) hold up these undeniably bizarre examples as if they represent all Pentecostal/charismatics they are being deceitful and not acting like Christ.

Daniel K. Williams, “Evangelicals’ Theology of the Church Must Be Born Again: The ‘Great Dechurching’ is an opportunity for our tradition to rediscover a more enduring ecclesiology” Christianity Today (August 24, 2023).

PR

Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 305 pages, ISBN 9780802841827. This book is a recent release of Eerdmans (2000), as the second volume of the series called “First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World” for the Institute of Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge. As a historical search, the book gives a fascinating socio-historical background of the New Testament which will be helpful to students of Biblical studies. However, the content will also benefit students of practical studies as its major concern is about leadership practice in the early Christian community.

The focus of the book is to discuss “the nature of leadership in the early Christian community … taught by Paul and practiced in the congregations of the first century” (preface, ix). The book is divided into two major sections. The first of these sections mainly deals with different leadership practices of first century Graeco-Roman world, in which Christians had to locate themselves as a distinct social community. The second section is about how early Christians practiced their leadership within the church (and in front of the surrounding culture) as an application of their faith, while living in such diverse social contexts.

After first warning readers about “the hermeneutical gap” between distant Graeco-Roman world and modern society—in language, culture and philosophy—Clarke opens with a confession of the historical ambiguity related to his current topic. He promises that better answers will eventually come from the “significant wealth of archaeological finds” of recent decades (p. 5).

In part one, to overlay his background studies, Clarke categorizes five socio-political parties of Graeco-Roman world and gives detail discussion on each while indicating that how each party could undoubtedly influence the emerging Christian community. These are: wider Graeco-Roman cities and their political leadership tradition, growing Roman colonies (and cities) and their leadership system, less influential Graeco-Roman voluntary associations and their leadership practice, wide use of Roman household structure and patria potestas (absolute authority with the head) concept, and Jewish synagogue structure as the nearest leadership model for emerging Judeo-Christianity.

This chapter is from John P. Lathrop’s book Answer the Prayer of Jesus: A Call for Biblical Unity.

The Prayer of Jesus

In John 17 we find the longest recorded prayer of Jesus; the apostle John, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, included it in his gospel. In fact, it is preserved for us only in John’s gospel. Jesus prayed this prayer just prior to his arrest and subsequent crucifixion. The prayer is very significant for a number of reasons: because it is included in the Scriptures; because Jesus, the Son of God, prayed it; and because of its content. As you read through the prayer you will see that Jesus was anticipating a time of transition, a time when he would be leaving the world and his disciples, to rejoin his Father in Heaven (John 17:11, 13). As this time of transition drew near, Jesus offered up this prayer. In his prayer he made a number of requests; he prayed for himself and he also prayed for his disciples. A quick reading of the prayer will show that the majority of his prayer was given over to making requests for his followers. In this chapter we will focus our attention on the portion of the prayer that he offered for his disciples. This section of his prayer falls into two parts; there is a section given to prayer for the disciples who were present with him in the first century, and a section given to prayer for the disciples who were yet to come. Let us briefly consider each of the parts of the prayer that Jesus prayed for his disciples.

Jesus’ Prayer for His Disciples Who Were Present With Him

In the first part of his prayer for his followers Jesus prayed for the disciples who were present with him (John 17:6–19). As he prayed, he acknowledged the good spiritual qualities in his disciples’ lives. He said that they knew that everything that Jesus had came from the Father (John 17:7), that they accepted the words that Jesus gave to them, that they knew with certainty that Jesus came from the Father, and that they believed that the Father sent Jesus into the world (John 17:8). In short, his disciples had some spiritual perception; this was because they had received divine revelation. One example of this is the Lord’s words to Peter; he told Peter that he was able to make the declaration that Jesus was the Christ because it had been revealed to him by the Father (Matt 16:17). After listing these positive qualities of his followers, which were clear evidence of the work of God in their lives, Jesus moved on to make some requests on their behalf. His requests included prayers for their unity, protection (John 17:11, 15), and sanctification (John 17:17). These requests, at least in part, arose out of Jesus’ concern for his followers. He knew that he was no longer going to physically be with them to help them as he had been in the past (John 17:12), so he asked the Father to minister to them and meet their needs. The disciples had already endured harsh treatment in the world (John 17:14), and they would again as the book of Acts makes clear (Acts 4:1–22; 5:17–40; 8:1–3; 12:1–19). In addition to harsh treatment from people, the attacks of the evil one would be directed toward them as well (John 17:15); these things caused Jesus to intercede for his followers. Jesus wanted his followers to be sanctified, or set apart as God’s people in the world. But Jesus’ prayer for his followers didn’t end there; it went on.

Editor’s Note: This is the full review of Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love. For the Review in Brief, see the full Fall 2012 issue of Pneuma Review.

Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline, 9-Marks Building Healthy Churches Series (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2010), 375 pages, ISBN 9781433509056.

When was the last time you read a significant discussion on church membership, discipline and excommunication? Jonathan Leeman’s contribution stands out for three reasons: first, he rethinks the case for church membership grounded in the nature, rule, charter, and covenant of God’s love and not the concept of love as conceived by contemporary Western culture. A critique of the churches’ subtle acceptance of popular conceptions of love is in order, and in that sense, Leeman’s work surpasses significant contributions such as by Clark, Dulles, Lawless, and White-Duesing-Yarnell.^[1] Second, Leeman bridges theoria and praxis, speaking as an elder in a Baptist Church (Washington, D.C.) and a PhD candidate (University of Wales). In this volume, his greatest contribution lies in the practical ramifications to his proposal in Part 3: “Loved Lived.” Excommunication—which is a form of church discipline made public—is necessary to preserve God’s glory and for the church to reconsider whether it is able to affirm the individual’s faith, only in areas of formal sins of unrepentance that are serious in nature (though he excludes those who renounce the faith from this list). Church officials enforcing discipline should not exercise coercion (a sign of the workings of the flesh) but they should rather appeal to the gospel and depend on the Spirit (since all humans are utterly helpless and unable to repent and submit apart from the Spirit of grace). Third, he correctly views his own project as an attempt to support British theologian John Webster’s claim in a footnote that ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) is only as strong as its membership, whose identity and shape must be built on the doctrine of God.

In a nutshell, Leeman argues that local church membership and discipline (implied, excommunications when necessary) understood biblically is the best structure for the corporate life of the church in her witness to the gospel. Believers who fail to submit to biblical injunction for church membership raise questions about their authenticity in the faith. He further postulates that those who are offended by church membership merely reflects their own offense at God’s love; this is because, the prevailing culture’s idolatrous understanding of love will pull in the direction opposite of the church’s understanding of the exclusionary nature of God’s love. Leeman draws the analogies from sources such as Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter to demonstrate the difference between the pursuit of unsanctioned and adulterous love and the love instilled by the church’s holy discipline. Contemporary understandings of love as freedom from strictures (i.e., boundaries, institutional/moral judgments, and authorities) contravene Christian civilization, doctrines, and ecclesiological structures.

The contemporary church has succumbed to the “realities of enculturation in the churches” (p.41) when it follows contemporary culture to keep boundary-markers out of the churches, charges Leeman. When love becomes self-expression and self-fulfillment, “the gospel … becomes refashioned for therapeutic purposes” (p.49). Consequently, churches become objects for satisfying humanity’s unquenchable desires (p.50); the commitment expected of love is replaced by the notion that “ask little of others and gives little in return” (p.56). When moral absolutes that accompany true love are rejected, skepticism’s motivation of “love as anything goes or whatever works for you/us” becomes the new mantle for how churches relate with church members and newcomers. Ultimately, this hatred for authority of the church and the premium placed on communal individuality rests on a diminished concept of God (p.63).

From the Conversations with Readers department appearing in the Spring 2011 issue.

A Reader writes about a review that appeared in the Winter 2011 issue:

In his review of Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Brazos, 2009), Wolfgang Vondey writes, “At least in their understanding of the church, Pentecostals in North America cannot consider themselves to be evangelicals.” I do not disagree with what he is saying in this instance about how the Pentecostal/charismatic working definition of ecclesiology does not fit the book’s description of what “Evangelical” ecclesiology is. However, I have always considered myself a Protestant (identifying with the Great Reformation and Radical Reformation) that is an Evangelical (with a capital “E” to identify with what I understand of Evangelicals historically) that is a charismatic (or choose a similar label: non-classical Pentecostal, postcharismatic, etc.). Maybe I would approach this differently if I had not grown up in a Baptist tradition and “came into the fullness of the Spirit” as an adult. But am I wrong in wanting to retain my connections to these “older” yet living expressions of Christianity even though I have significant theological and practical differences with them? Are we not defeating the idea of the unity we share in Jesus and the real purpose behind developing an robust ecclesiology when we seek to exclude ourselves from other traditions?

—TS

Response from Wolfgang Vondey:

I am thankful for the response to my small review and for the engagement of wider ecclesiological issues as they are discussed in the book. The comment on my review is particular valuable because it connects questions of ecclesiology with concerns about ecumenism, that is, our understanding of the church with our desire for Christian unity. Even more important is the fact that such issues are now raised in the context of Pentecostalism. Today an increasing number of scholars and pastors are engaging in both ecumenical and ecclesiological conversations.¹ At the same time, an ecumenical Pentecostal ecclesiology has not yet been proposed. My conclusion at the end of the review suggests that when such a proposal will be submitted, it will unlikely be the evangelical ecclesiology we see in the book under review. My conclusion therefore relates exclusively to the issue of ecclesiology and in the limited context of Pentecostalism. While I do not deny that Pentecostals in North America have been widely influenced by Evangelicalism, I suggest that a classical Pentecostal ecclesiology, if it were fully formulated, would not be synonymous with a contemporary evangelical ecclesiology.² I have similar doubts about the potential range of global Pentecostal views on the nature and purpose of the church.

Exploring Ecclesiology promises “an evangelical and ecumenical introduction” to the doctrine of the church. This subtitle to the otherwise aptly entitled book is multi-faceted and, judging from the nature of the book, intentionally so. On the one hand, the book is an introduction for evangelicals to the discipline of ecclesiology and the ecumenical discussions on the nature and purpose of the church. On the other hand, the book is an introduction for non-evangelicals to the problems and concerns of the church as they are perceived and discussed in the evangelical community. The authors define their use of “evangelical” with reference “to that post-World War II movement in Protestant American Christianity that prized the ‘fundamentals of the faith’” (p. 13). With that in mind, the combination of “evangelical” and “ecclesiology” is a welcome contribution to the growing debate about ecumenical ecclesiology.

The history of evangelicalism in America shapes the ecclesiological perspective of the authors. Emerging from the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of the early twentieth century, and shaped by the development of fundamentalism after World War II, evangelical ecclesiology exhibits a considerable diversity. While this diversity makes it difficult to speak of an evangelical ecclesiology, in a doctrinal sense, the authors lament the neglect of ecclesiology among evangelicals and reject the common perception that evangelicals have no ecclesiology at all. Instead, Harper and Metzger intend to make this diversity their advantage and propose that the image of a mosaic is perhaps the best metaphor for ecclesiology from a contemporary evangelical perspective.

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen is a Finnish Pentecostal who teaches systematic theology both in Europe and at Fuller Theological Seminary. He brings to his writing his vast ecumenical and extensive missionary experiences of worldwide Christianity. And arguably, Kärkkäinen is the most prolific Pentecostal theologian in the world today. Building on his dissertation research on the Pentecostal-Roman Catholic dialogues-two volumes: Spiritus Ubi Vult Spirat: Pneumatology in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1972-1989) (Luther-Agricola Society, 1998), and Ad ultimum terrae: Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue (1990-1997) (Peter Lang, 1999)-Kärkkäinen has since produced a number of introductory texts on key theological topics in an amazingly short period of time. In the last year, two books have appeared: Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International and Contextual Perspective and Christology: A Global Introduction (both from Baker Academic). Within the next year, a volume on the doctrine of God in global perspective will be available (also Baker Academic), as well as two other books on religious pluralism (InterVarsity Press) and the doctrine of the Trinity in relationship to theology of religions (Ashgate).

This background provides a window into the format and objectives of the volume under review. The material presented in this and much of Kärkkäinen’s other books have been shaped by his teaching, and the survey character of these texts make them eminently suitable for classroom use. And, of course, what is most valuable about Kärkkäinen’s introductory surveys is their global awareness, a feature practically absent from most evangelical treatments of these same topics. I gather that this global sensitivity has been nurtured in part because of Kärkkäinen’s background, but also in (perhaps larger) part because the Pentecostalism which nurtures his faith, spirituality and piety is now truly a worldwide movement. Thinking theologically as a Pentecostal today requires just this kind of global vision in order that justice can even begin to be done to the topics under consideration.