The Letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation

In February we're going to start 20 weeks in the book of Revelation, which is getting more and more daunting the closer we get. Of course, embarking on the book is a a good thing, as we want to hit that sweet spot between ignoring Revelation to our own detriment, and reading only Revelation, also to our own detriment. That is, not reading Revelation means we miss out on the final book of the New Testament and the Bible (in its canonical order), we miss the promises and encouragements there, we miss the unique imagery and messaging used in this book alone, which will speak to some people in ways an Epistle or Gospel just won't. Similarly, reading nothing except for Revelation usually means reading Revelation through a particular lens of dispensationalism, another of those peculiarly American tack-ons to the Bible. That's usually quite dangerous, it means trying to interpret everything that happens in the world as a secret message disclosing another sign-post in the book for "whoever has ears to hear."

After the first chapter we're going to spend seven weeks looking at the seven letters to the seven churches which Jesus transcribed to John in 1:11,19. As such, 1:9-20 serves as the introduction and framework through which to read the letters. This also means a lot of the vocabulary in 1:9-20 will recur throughout the letters, which it's good to keep an eye out for.

There are lots of points of correspondence (inescapable pun) between the letters, and some of it suggests a structure, but there are more points which go against that structure that I think it's best to just read them as is, to see where there are parallels, but not get all worked up. There are seven, and seven's good and complete and so on, but that's as far as we can go.

If you look at a map, the churches are in a circuit through Asia Minor, so that if a messenger was to bring the book of Revelation from John in Patmos to the churches in Asia Minor, with its batch of personalised letters just after the introduction, they would be able to deliver it in order of the writing without too much trouble. That, to me, seems to be the sole organising principle.

The only other thing to say is that although the actual churches may have had the actual problems described, in terms of Nicolationism and persecution and so on, the "seven-ness" of the letters commends them to all people everywhere to consider how they can learn from this. It's always right to ask how we may have become like the Laodiceans or how we could be more like the Thyatirans, so long as we don't say " we're clearly the Smyrnans here and have nothing to worry about." We aren't these churches, they were and are no more, but we still need to heed the warnings where appropriate, and take encouragement where appropriate too.

Sanctuary - first secular or sacred?

In Australia at the moment, in response to the dehumanising treatment of refugees under our care, not a few churches have offered sanctuary to any refugees the government may want to deport against their wishes. Which led me to think about the origin of the word sanctuary.

Sanctuary in the Bible renders either the Hebrew word מקדש (miqdash) or the Greek word αγιος (hagios); sanctuary is the Latin version of a word which means holy place. You may be familiar with the word sanctification which means 'to be made holy.'

Some time in the middle ages, any church which had been sanctified and was thus a sanctuary could offer safe haven in the pattern of Numbers 35. There were to be cities in the land nominated as refuges (the word sanctuary is never used to refer to such a town) so that those worried they would be the victims of retributive justice after an accidental murder could flee and be assured of a fair trial.

What I am interested in is the order. The idea of sanctuary is that God is the true judge; his faithful officers are most able to administer justice when the other powers may have lost their way (think Psalm 2!). So the idea of sanctuary flows from our knowledge of God, and it is in his name that safe have is offered these people vulnerable to the whims and excesses of our governments.

Whether they have any legal status in this country or not is another question; despite the evils uncovered in the royal commission against institutional child abuse, the imagery of churches protecting the people is thankfully an even stronger statement, and one which most Christians will be ready to identify with.

the first australian lutherans

enjoy this quick summary of an essay for australian church history. i haven't included any references, please ask if you would like to know how i know all this!

the east coast of Australia was first colonised by the British in 1788. South Australia was first colonised in 1836 (a convict-free zone).
the first Lutherans, fleeing the latitudinary Prussian union church, started arriving in SA in 1838.
they were led by their pastor Augustus Kavel, and named their two main settlements Klemzig, after their home-town, and Hahndorf, after Captain Hahn who piloted many of them to their new home.
the happy environment meant they invited others to join them, including another pastor, Gotthard Fritzsche, and his flock.
these were happy times, but schism was in the air:

• the group had entered into financial agreements with their sponsor, George Fife Angas (no relation), and some had second thoughts over arrangements to buy such large amounts of land. Kavel saw this reneging as a breach of faith, and considered withholding communion from the offenders.
  
• the doctrinal sloppiness in the Prussian union church meant Kavel saw Australia as a chance to start again, to be like the church of the apostles. in this vein he wrote the Apostolical Church Constitution, which among other things, was heavy on discipline. this would be another bone of contention; Lutheran missionaries in the colony refused to sign, and Fritzsche pushed for changes.
  
• the religious air in England, where Kavel had stopped over briefly, was one of expectant hope of the return of Jesus. Chiliasm, or millenialism, became an increasing feature of his preaching. one listener recalls him teaching that God would provide them with reeds with which to build an ark with which they could sail to Israel or Egypt! Fritzsche in response preached against chiliasm, forming another fault line for this infant church.

1845 synod - the two pastors thrust into the fore, despite warm feelings to one another, cannot agree. they decide to take the next year to think through their positions.

1846 synod - neither had the time to do what they promised. they both became firmer in their stances, and Kavel, rather than critiquing his views by the Lutheran Confessions he held as regulative, critiqued them, finding them at points decidedly unscriptural.
he brought to the 1846 synod his Protestations for discussion. the synod quickly became a yelling match, Fritzsche tried to restrain Kavel from walking out, but in the end Kavel and his group had to leave.

from 1838 to 1846 there was one Lutheran Church of Australia, which would take 120 years to unite once again.

as an outsider, having only been to a Lutheran church on several occasions, it seems that both Fritzsche and Kavel would be unhappy with the basis for the reunion. the doctrinal latitude of the LCA is probably wider today than even the union church which persecuted them.

being Hauerwas

in between prolonged illness and exegeticals, i've managed to squeeze in a fair bit of Hauerwas. dan, pretty much the closest thing to a Hauerwas specialist, recommended i start with Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir, which i really loved.

i should add - Stanley Hauerwas is an American ethicist, who is strongly influenced by John Howard Yoder who was a Mennonite pacifist.

Hauerwas has worked at a variety of institutions - most notably Arkansas (which i was taught this week is actually said Arkansaw - who would have guessed!), Notre Dame and Duke. he came over to do the New College Lectures back in 1990, and as well as being named by Time magazine America's best theologian, he presented the 2000/2001 Gifford Lectures.

he's a really interesting guy - as mentioned above, Hannah's Child is a great introduction to him. there are also some great anecdotes about him.
an untrue, yet very funny one, is that he visited Harvard, asked 'where the library was at', and upon being told that people at Harvard didn't end sentences with prepositions, rephrased his question, 'where's the library at asshole'.
he denies this ever happened - but not that it is at all against his character (i.e., it could've, but didn't happen).*

my biggest problem with Hauerwas is he's written so voluminously! it's really hard to get through all he's written, particularly with others wanting to borrow the same books from the library! what i like about him is his emphasis on the centrality of the church, and the importance of simple acts such as kneeling and doing communion as signifying what it is to be a set-apart community. although he perhaps overstates the importance of for example doing the eucharist weekly, in the Australian, and particularly Sydney context, we have definitely gone to far in the other direction - there is a fear of making church look like church.

anyway, i'll keep trawling through. will say more when i have more to say.

* in The State of the University, 2007, p133.

ecumenism 1

a lot of thoughts in the last few months about ecumenism [= the promotion of unity among Christian churches], one of a few experiences and reflections:

vision valley snow camp
i did some talks on a camp where the leaders were from a variety of denominations which could in really broad brush strokes by typecast as evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic, liberal. one real positive was that there was a unity in purpose, in that we sought to care for and love the campers as taught by Christ. another positive for me was that i (because i'm perfect in doctrine and understanding!) got to set the theological brackets for the discussions that took place over the 3 days, in framing the gospel as a response to God's love for us shown in the death and resurrection of Christ. there were only positive responses to the way i explained the gospel from the other leaders.

some of the discussions i had with the other leaders showed some very different expressions, language like 'journeying', 'claiming' and so on. very different expressions for what i would maybe describe as 'seeking to live out in concord with the scriptures' and 'receiving new life given by grace'. what this shows is perhaps that it's not the base definition where we differ, but in what we'd add to that basic gospel outline. but the emphasis for the camp and the discussions on the ski lifts over the time was that basic outline.

so i was really happy to be a part of it, but was really thankful i was doing the talks. which goes to show, i'm all for ecumenism when i get to set the agenda. it definitely reeks of arrogance on my part.

more to come.

an important quote about a man you don't know.

Barmen helped the church seek to be a faithful community of witness and service, but it did not require it to develop a prophetic, "watchman" or public theological role, shaping the moral and spiritual architecture of civilisation. [...] it distanced itself equally from all social theories and political systems. In asserting that the gospel stands far beyond all forms of human wisdom, Barmen limited the church's capacity to develop modes of discourse and social convictions necessary for creative participation in society.*
you may not know who Barmen is. in fact, it's maybe better if you don't. the question is one of relevance. what is the church? what does it seek? from what does it distance itself from? from what does it shirk from discussing, interacting with?

at my old church, i was really excited at the 'untouchable' series we did every year, as we do exactly what the quote above maintains of Barmen. it was a great testimony to God as we saw many people from the community drawn not to an irrelevant piece of architecture from another age, but to a church that speaks the truth in love.

* quote from Revisiting the church in socialism. Max L. Stackhouse, in Christian Century, 115 no 25 S 23-30 1998. p867

empty church or full mosque

that's the question raised by a senator in Hamburg,
Karin von Welck said,

"Bevor ein Gotteshaus abgerissen wird, würde ich es lieber als Moschee an eine islamische Gemeinde abgeben."

full story here

("before a church gets torn down, i'd rather give it as a mosque to an Islamic congregation.")

and you can understand it - i mean, churches turning into mosques? - it's been happening for millenia.
just never in a Christian-state-sanctioned way.
and new churches starting up in Germany are using non-church premises like cinemas or other premises because of the negative connotations tied up with the traditional idea of church and church buildings.

or should i care? i'm not sure.
do you?

liturgising

as previously discussed on this blog here and here, as well as on Byron's blog at various times, i've thought a little about the formality of "Church".

in our introduction to Chapel and Prayer Book today at college, it was interesting to reflect on a bit of history.

in reforming the church against the abuses of the Roman faith, the protestants had various ways of trying to reinforce the "new" way that we are saved, namely justification by faith.
and as well as writing and preaching against the deviation from the truth, the reformers also liturgised for the truth.

it is good for us to remember this as we consider how to do church better, and even more so as we reflect on creeds, with their odd wording - actually thinking through, "why would they have said it like this?", "was it really necessary to say that?".


things like the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed (neither of which being appropriately named!), why say, "we believe in one God,"? why not edit out "one"? it goes without saying does it not? but then you learn about Marcion, and you think, yeah, right on, hammer it home.
not to mention the dual progression of the Holy Spirit later on...


i like history.
and am thankful for my (spiritual) forefathers.

mere informality

seeing as i just received a new hit on my post from way back when on the informal church i thought it was noteworthy to mention;
a german friend, when asked to compare the evangelical churches in germany with the australian ones, was struck by the informality here.
he said that although he in some ways expected australian churches to be informal, for them to be so informal was a real shock.

the quest remains then to retain the helpful, the welcoming, the revering, liturgy; and to remain free from the stilted, the unhelpful, the deterring, the unthinking formulaity that has so plagued us.

i might have to well to discuss with this friend about the reasons for their formality, versus our informality - though of course informality is rarely the true case (song, welcome, announcements, bible, song, supper - sound familiar?), non-liturgical being probably more accurate.

Athanasius and the APB

leading church last week i did a spot on Athanasius, a true Hero of the Faith.

i thought it would be good to hand out the old-school green an Australian Prayer Book, so we could actually look at the creed attributed to him *, i.e. the Athanasian creed.

with calls to return in a post-modern way to Morning and evening prayer (see here for one), i thought this would be welcomed.

unfortunately the look on people's faces as they walked in belied my expectations, with an "aaah... does Kurt (our Pastor) know about this???"

in the end, we read through it, and read out the Nicene Creed together instead (which i think was put together at Constantinople in 381, but what's a few decades between friends?), and we could then put them down, to the relief of many!


but a little on Athanasius (c.296 - 373):

exiled 5 times from his bishopric of Alexandria in Egypt, he's most well known for these four things:

1. Monastacism: he spent the first decade as bishop cruising around looking at monks, and most famously wrote a history of Antony
   
   
2. Wrote out in full the canon, which was the final Christian form thereof
   
   
3. He really hammered home the exegetical manner of hermeneutics, freeing the Christian world (for a time) from a-historico-contextual allegorising of scriputre
   
   
4. Actually set orthodoxy against the majority, he said Christ was co-equal in substance with the Father

Hooker wrote of him,

“The whole world against Athanasius, and Athanasius against it; half a hundred of years spent in doubtful trial which of the two in the end should prevail – the side which had all, or else the part which had no friends but God and death – the one a defender of his innocency, the other a finisher of all his troubles.”

* well, more accurately dedicated to him as it is believed to have been written a couple of hundred years later

the informal church

last month there was a lively discussion over at byron's blog on liturgy.

at wild street @ 5ive we're three weeks into a series on Judges, called (apparently uninventively) Heroes. personally i find the informality helps me as a preacher - you aren't limited by time, convention, expectations. you can talk with people, not at them. you can give a talk that is appropriate to the passage and the preacher and the people, not compromising due to unnecessary formality.

this freedom is something people really appreciate, comments have been great, and the topic of Heroes has been a catalyst for the meeting (gathering) leader to be hip and happening.

so far we've had Apostrophe Man, Butt Man, and Life B(u)oy leading church.

though disturbing to see him in tights, this informality has definitely been helpful, making "church" much more accessible.

HOWEVER (of course there was going to be a however), my question is whether this is an appropriate starting point.
that is to say, for people who did not have bad experiences in really "churchy" churches, this super-relaxed attitude may give them no deep understanding of the sanctity of God, of what it means to meet together as God's people.

sure, the word of God will be preached in a positive atmosphere, relationships may be more genuine, but in that setting, how can you make sure people get that it's not just a party?

do we need to roster people on to go to the 8:30am traditional service? do we need to run a meeting from the prayer book every now and then?

or do we all get it already - i should loosen up and enjoy it, just like everyone else is?

the sword & the spirit

this morning i preached at St Bede's, Drummoyne.

i imagine the conversation between the archdeacon and my pastor went a little like this:
AD "hi. i need someone to fill in for me this sunday"
P "oh, right"
AD "yeah, so, who's your best man?"
P "sorry, he's preaching"
AD "well, you then?"
P "nah, i really need to be here"
AD "well, who's next on your list?"
P "yeah, he's busy too"
AD "you got anyone who can string two words together?"
P "um... i'll get back to you"

and then i get the phone call.

it was nice to speak to a different group of people, but, just as when i speak to our 8:30am congregation i always feel under-qualified to be speaking to people who've been Christians 2-3x longer than i've been alive!

it's always encouraging, therefore, to chat afterwards, as they share how the Word of God has been opened up anew to their ears.

i heard a great quote that makes sense of this, tho i am unaware who spake it;

the word without the spirit is powerless,
and the spirit without the word is weaponless.

a great encouragement indeed!

in Christ alone

today marked the final in a series we've been doing at CBS Core* on church; what it is, what it isn't, when it is, and isn't, what it should, shouldn't be and so on.

as pontius pilate asked, the ultimate postmodern question, what is truth?**, when you think about it -

do you believe the same thing you did 10yrs ago?

will you have arrived at "the truth" by the time you die?

after my recent jude extravaganza, the question of truth - what it is and who arbitrates over the grey, fuzzy areas, came up again.

"we" would of course say that truth is what we declare it to be; what we teach, exposit, explain, live.
but we must humbly admit, as per the above questions, that even our own understandings will shift over our lives.
therefore to rule others out of God's kingdom (very risky business indeed! c/f 1Cor4) is extremely short sighted considering our own unsteadfastness.

so, for example, the lovely jehovah's witness ladies who visit me every now and then, whose hope is 100% rooted in the propitiatory act of Christ's death, whose lives speak volumes by their prayerfulness and other-person centredness - apart from continuing to try and show them how the Bible speaks of Christ's divinity, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, what am i to say to them?

stepping back and trying to focus on what is of central importance, am I to exclude them, or anyone who believes an alternative doctrine, from God's kingdom?

* also known as i can't believe it's not SOCM
** John 8:28

the author of this blog reserves the right to make inflammatory posts, raising questions that he may or may not have completely resolved, in order to either help him or others be more sure of what they may or may not believe. ätsch!

one-stop shop two

A quote from John Chapman at the MTS Challenge Conference (formerly known as Club 5):
We need to be like the Americans and plant churches next to the Golden Arches.
I think this may have been borrowed by him from someone else, but nevertheless it is something to think about; how different to the world do we need to be? If there's nothing wrong with Maccas, why not use them for us?
(if you really believe this, don't look here!)
welcome to St Ronalds. here's your outline. would you like fries with that?

(i especially like the reminder of the promise God made with Noah in Genesis 9! any out-there theories of what the rainbow may have to do with Maccas are welcome.)

one-stop shop?

listening to sunday night safran on the 10th of september, right at the very end of the show they started discussing the paradigm boundaries that should exist.
the example they discussed was in a doctor's surgery you expect traditional western medicine. if you wanted crystals or reiki, there'd be more appropriate places to go.
in the same way, a church should be clear about what their business is. if they are about preaching the word, then they should preach the word. if they are about support groups - surely AA or GA or wherever else, may be more appropriate.
the boundaries around the world are becoming more and more blurred - do we really want to be a one-stop AA-Bible-Cafe-sporting club?
maybe we do...
i'd appreciate your thoughts - do we need to be more careful about our role, but more particularly how that role is perceived?