I haven't ignored your acknowledgements of the institutional churches, Eutychus. I said that I knew you weren't dismissing them.
I think we are talking past each other to a certain extent.
I don't think anyone, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant would argue that the Apostles weren't playing catch-up during Acts. As I've said, one of the Orthodox clergy I know exploited said that God is I on anyone's pay-roll. Even at the conference where they asserted that Ananias had some kind of authorised mandate - it may even have been that they believed he was one of the 70 on account of some ancient tradition or other, I can't remember - they were very happy to acknowledge that such things aren't a pre-requisite for grace to operate.
You will find Orthodox, and Catholics, if course who would insist that anything and everything else is completely empty and invalid unless it carries their official stamp.
But then, in a different kind of way, you find some Protestants who'd insist that everything else was flawed unless it conformed with their particular 'take' on things.
Anyhow, as far as the OP and the Great Commission goes, this is all very moot as I've not made any disciples in my life.
I have no basis to argue with your scholarship, but in terms of living out the commission now, we have to take into account that there is almost no part of the world, and no people in the Western world or its former colonies, who have had no contact with Christianity.
Inasmuch as our church supports "missions", it supports a young guy who works in a factory for six to nine months in France saving up before going to a sub-saharan African country for a couple of years at a time to work amongst street children. He got thrown out of the mission he originally went with (who quickly put the word around about him to other Western missions) for decrying their systemic racism and failure to address corruption. They hate him because he lives like and with locals. He is admittedly young and naive but if we give him a small amount of financial help it's because I believe that it's people like him who can pioneer a new and better face of cross-cultural mission. He certainly seeks and sees conversions to Christianity but that's not all he does, and he appears to be welcome in communities of other faiths too.
Could I shift the discussion slightly at this point? Jesus talked about "making disciples" rather than "increasing the number of bums on your church's pews" (which, if we're honest, most Ministers/Pastors/Vicars would love to see!) So why is it that, even in places where people do seem to be coming to faith, few of those folk appear (and I realise that I'm making a somewhat critical assumption here) to want to do more than attend services and the like?
Or, to put it in a different way, Jesus said"make disciples" rather than "make converts"? So why are so many Christians apparently content to stay at a relatively superficial level in their faith? (Perhaps 'twas ever thus).
My only contribution to such things that I'm aware of is having convinced several people that it is possible to be a Christian without conforming to their stereotype of how Christians must be.
Otherwise, I find your example very heartening, though personally I would suggest that service is the only outcome that should be desired, and any propogation of faith incidental. Fundamentally, disciples of Christ can only be made by accident, or grace if you prefer/insist.
So why is it that, even in places where people do seem to be coming to faith, few of those folk appear (and I realise that I'm making a somewhat critical assumption here) to want to do more than attend services and the like? (...) why are so many Christians apparently content to stay at a relatively superficial level in their faith?
Woah. What metrics are you using here? I think I agree with @ThunderBunk . Discipleship is tangential to church programmes in my view (even if I too would like it to coincide more!)
Or, to put it in a different way, Jesus said"make disciples" rather than "make converts"? So why are so many Christians apparently content to stay at a relatively superficial level in their faith? (Perhaps 'twas ever thus).
What I've seen in a lot of the most "successful" C of E programmes is that they are very good at making followers of that particular church, or members of a crowd within it, but the church has no adequate way of making followers of Christ. It simply doesn't seem to be interested in doing so, and I believe this is because the associated independence of thought is to dangerous for it.
If such discipleship happens, that really is accidental.
On the superficial level thing, I suspect it's partly because our presentation of the Gospel is often so superficial - or reduced to consent to a set of propositions - that it's hardly surprising that it creates converts who are content to leave it at that.
I've read that Calvin was partly aware influenced towards his convoluted musings on election and reprobation and so on because he noticed that some of his congregation were keenies and others weren't.
That's always going to be the case.
Why did the Desert Fathers and Mothers head off into the wilderness? Because they believed things had descended to such a low level in the towns.
There does seem to be an anomaly in play in that those churches that are big on conversionism can be pretty poor at what the Catholics call 'spiritual formation.' Conversely, some which are big on spiritual disciplines and development are poor when it comes to conversions - although that's not simply a matter of bums on seats of course.
Incidentally, at the Orthodox conference I cited earlier, for all the very High and some would say exclusive ecclesiology, they readily acknowledged that the Holy Spirit can and does work way beyond the boundaries of the Church / Tradition and Orthodoxy as they understand it.
I have heard it said, "We know where the Spirit is. We cannot say where the Spirit isn't." Of course the Orthofundies hate this saying.
I think it's from Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy Ware). Not sure what "Orthofundies" is all about (non-liberals I would guess), but I don't particularly want to get into another mud-slinging match.
The Orthodox have their fundies the same as any other Christian tradition, and no, it's not simply a case of non-liberals. Rather, it's the sort of folk who swap biblical fundamentalism for Church fundamentalism on the one hand or certain forms of highly nationalist and xenophobic cradle Orthodox on the other.
Every tradition has its crazies and Orthodoxy is no different to the rest of us in that regard.
Perhaps a better word could be used. "Fundamentalist" used to refer to a very strict protestant movement 100 years ago, but now it seems to mean anyone who has strong beliefs of any kind that you don't agree with, as a way to deride them.
It's an odd word, because shouldn't we all be interested in the fundamentals of our religion? But it never actually meant that. Perhaps "fanatical" would be more appropriate.
Strangely enough, the original "Fundamentalism" was, I believe, a much more intelligent and nuanced approach to Christianity, albeit very conservative, than later iterations of the word have made it. I don't know when the word spread it to non-Christian (and indeed non-religious) uses; I recall reading Martin Marty's study on the subject back in the late 90s and his view is that it became used in (say) Muslim contexts as long ago as the 1920s.
One can trace a similar trajectory for the word "Evangelical" which has changed from being a strand of Christianity with particular emphases to anyone who wishes to strongly promulgate their views on health, diet, animal welfare, the environment or whatever!
Strangely enough, the original "Fundamentalism" was, I believe, a much more intelligent and nuanced approach to Christianity, albeit very conservative, than later iterations of the word have made it. I don't know when the word spread it to non-Christian (and indeed non-religious) uses; I recall reading Martin Marty's study on the subject back in the late 90s and his view is that it became used in (say) Muslim contexts as long ago as the 1920s.
One can trace a similar trajectory for the word "Evangelical" which has changed from being a strand of Christianity with particular emphases to anyone who wishes to strongly promulgate their views on health, diet, animal welfare, the environment or whatever!
….and of course "Evangelical atheism." However, outside of Christianity it is always used in the metaphorical sense, whereas this is less so for "fundamentalist".
Continuing with origins of words, according to the Oxford Dictionaries blog the origin of gossip (link) the etymology comes from godparent, so it looks as if the meaning of telling the gospel for gossiping is wishful thinking. According to the blog:
In the time of Shakespeare, speakers mostly used gossip as a noun, not a verb, although that usage was already changing. As a noun, gossip originated in the Old English godsibb: god sibling, the godparent of one’s child and therefore one’s intimate friend. Shakespeare’s uses of the noun reflect this meaning, which was slightly derogatory because it described womanly behavior: “Shall she live to betray this guilt of ours—A long-tongued babbling gossip?”
the article concludes:
... it takes reflection to acknowledge that our worst moments, not our best, are the real gossip’s feast.
Continuing with origins of words, according to the Oxford Dictionaries blog the origin of gossip (link) the etymology comes from godparent, so it looks as if the meaning of telling the gospel for gossiping is wishful thinking. According to the blog:
In the time of Shakespeare, speakers mostly used gossip as a noun, not a verb, although that usage was already changing. As a noun, gossip originated in the Old English godsibb: god sibling, the godparent of one’s child and therefore one’s intimate friend. Shakespeare’s uses of the noun reflect this meaning, which was slightly derogatory because it described womanly behavior: “Shall she live to betray this guilt of ours—A long-tongued babbling gossip?”
the article concludes:
... it takes reflection to acknowledge that our worst moments, not our best, are the real gossip’s feast.
Yes, "gossip" is often used in a derogatory sense today. Example: "I've never been one to gossip, unlike HER!" However, in current contemporary usage, its meaning has broadened to include everyday chat.
As a general point (and possibly as an attempt to close this tangent, which I have of course aided and abetted!) - it's very difficult in ordinary conversation to drag words back to their original meanings and strip them of their baggage, however much we might want to do so.
'As a general point (and possibly as an attempt to close this tangent, which I have of course aided and abetted!) - it's very difficult to strip back the Great Commission to its original context and meaning and to strip it of its baggage however much we might want to so so.'.
It isn't really a tangent, because in the Gospel according to St. Mark, ch16, we read the following, which people often associate with the Great Commission (although this does not take place until chapter 28):
Matthew 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature.
It is this "preaching the gospel" which is associated with "gossiping" (meaning everyday chat).
As a side note, at this time the 12 had not yet been commissioned, or given Authority, so for them to preach the Gospel was no different to any Christian preaching the Gospel, in my opinion.
It isn't really a tangent, because in the Gospel according to St. Mark, ch16, we read the following, which people often associate with the Great Commission (although this does not take place until chapter 28):
Matthew 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature.
It is this "preaching the gospel" which is associated with "gossiping" (meaning everyday chat).
As a side note, at this time the 12 had not yet been commissioned, or given Authority, so for them to preach the Gospel was no different to any Christian preaching the Gospel, in my opinion.
I'm taking rubbish here - I was comparing Mark to Matthew. In St Mark's gospel, the quoted verse IS the Great Commission.
It isn't really a tangent, because in the Gospel according to St. Mark, ch16, we read the following, which people often associate with the Great Commission (although this does not take place until chapter 28):
Matthew 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature.
It is this "preaching the gospel" which is associated with "gossiping" (meaning everyday chat).
I've used the "gossipping" meme more in relation with Acts 8:4: "Now those who were scattered went from place to place, proclaiming the word".
I'd be slightly wary of using Mark 16:15 as not everyone regards that "longer ending" as being authentic - though it does rather repeat Matthew anyway.
Hmm, I'm really not sure about that. Most of the effective evangelism in Acts seems to have been done informally, by accident, or as the result of arguments!*
The Apostles, doggedly staying on in Jerusalem despite Christ's words to them at the outset of Acts, spend most of their time trying to contain things after the fact (e.g. Acts 8:14; Acts 11:1-3).
One of my most-quoted verses in Acts is 8:4:
Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went
I have heard, but cannot properly source, this being referred to as "gossiping the Gospel".
I really think that's how this is supposed to work.
I think that ideally, churches should be the byproduct of the outworking of the Great Commission, or what I would refer to as "seeking the Kingdom", and that they should not be a locus of institutional power (quite influenced in my thinking here by Roger Forster).
I think that power being consolidated in churches (and thus Churches) is an unhappy accident of history during which the exercise of this power has been legitimised by leaders appropriating the notion of authority over evil enshrined in the NT and repurposing it to their own ends to mean, in practical terms, authority over other people.
But I'm starting to rant now.
==
*Coincidentally, Two cheers for anarchism, which I'm currently plodding through, notes that most major democratic progress has been the result of mass uprisings, not incremental institutional change.
where the author writes:
Jesus' parting words to His disciples at His ascension into heaven were, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" (Mark 16:15). Jesus planned for us to go "gossiping the gospel."
In Mark 16.15 the Greek verb is the one often translated as ‘preach’. Acts 8.4 uses a different verb which describes sharing/telling/proclaiming specifically good news. It is this one which gives rise to the ‘gossiping the gospel” idea, to indicate something rather less formal than preaching. Of course the etymology of ‘gossip’ takes us in a rather different direction, but etymology is a very unreliable guide to present meaning.
It sounds as if the author I quoted in the above book was wrong too, as "gossiping" has more to do with the verb used in Acts (I don't know much Greek, but I'll take BroJames' word for it.)
Practically, I think there's a cognitive aspect. We can legitimately seek to see that good is done and evil is not done, whilst keeping our pride in check because the legitimacy we have to do that has been acquired in/by Christ. And I think there's a spiritual aspect, in that I believe God changes our hearts to actually want to do the right thing.
I'm still struggling to understand how the 'authority over evil' thing works out in practice.
How do thee and me and the man on the Clapham omnibus (own woman) have authority over evil'? Are we talking about the capacity to resist sin?
What exactly do we mean?
Sorry if it's been said upthread, but isn't it just a reference to exorcism of the kind that Jesus performed? Now, there are other threads debating what exorcism really means, but it seems to me that exorcism is maybe what this is referring to.
Taking the long view, the same as it has done ever since Pentecost. And your point is?
Nothing like Pentecost has happened since... Pentecost. We've been in dubious battle quickly since.
That could be right in that it was a unique encounter, and the tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians aren't quite the same thing, nor anything since. To make a point, notice that no interpreter was required, the people heard the disciples in their own language - yet the miracle was in the speakers, not in the hearers. I don't know for certain of course, because I wasn't there, but it's a thought.
To keep on topic, Pentecost was the beginning of the time when the disciples were empowered to go out and do the things required of them in the Great Commission.
Aye. ('quickly' ain't wot I wrote. And just then it became 'studio's! 'ow queer! It were 'ever'). We are. But here isn't there. Here is nothing like there even if there is (post) gospel. Which I want it to be. Like I want the non-autographic gospels to be, including the Pericope Adulterae of course. It's all so tenuous. Disconnected. Attenuated broken signal after an initial, mythic burst tranmission which included the Great Commission.
Tenuous does not mean the same thing as disconnected. Which is it? You seem almost hell-bent, if I can put it that way, on there being a disconnect, with the side bonus of ruling out rationally inexplicable events today.
I believe there is continuity.
If there isn't, the Scriptures are a museum curiosity and nothing more, and the Resurrection along with them.
Tenuous does not mean the same thing as disconnected. Which is it? You seem almost hell-bent, if I can put it that way, on there being a disconnect, with the side bonus of ruling out rationally inexplicable events today.
I believe there is continuity.
If there isn't, the Scriptures are a museum curiosity and nothing more, and the Resurrection along with them.
Both. The disconnects are in the unknown authors, editors, the priestly class, the centuries of streams of text copies in the evolving myth. Which makes it all rather tenuous. Foggy. Lost in the mythts of time. Which rationalism puts me on the road to perdition eh? (Which in the sense of the).
Comments
I think we are talking past each other to a certain extent.
I don't think anyone, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant would argue that the Apostles weren't playing catch-up during Acts. As I've said, one of the Orthodox clergy I know exploited said that God is I on anyone's pay-roll. Even at the conference where they asserted that Ananias had some kind of authorised mandate - it may even have been that they believed he was one of the 70 on account of some ancient tradition or other, I can't remember - they were very happy to acknowledge that such things aren't a pre-requisite for grace to operate.
You will find Orthodox, and Catholics, if course who would insist that anything and everything else is completely empty and invalid unless it carries their official stamp.
But then, in a different kind of way, you find some Protestants who'd insist that everything else was flawed unless it conformed with their particular 'take' on things.
Anyhow, as far as the OP and the Great Commission goes, this is all very moot as I've not made any disciples in my life.
Inasmuch as our church supports "missions", it supports a young guy who works in a factory for six to nine months in France saving up before going to a sub-saharan African country for a couple of years at a time to work amongst street children. He got thrown out of the mission he originally went with (who quickly put the word around about him to other Western missions) for decrying their systemic racism and failure to address corruption. They hate him because he lives like and with locals. He is admittedly young and naive but if we give him a small amount of financial help it's because I believe that it's people like him who can pioneer a new and better face of cross-cultural mission. He certainly seeks and sees conversions to Christianity but that's not all he does, and he appears to be welcome in communities of other faiths too.
Or, to put it in a different way, Jesus said"make disciples" rather than "make converts"? So why are so many Christians apparently content to stay at a relatively superficial level in their faith? (Perhaps 'twas ever thus).
Otherwise, I find your example very heartening, though personally I would suggest that service is the only outcome that should be desired, and any propogation of faith incidental. Fundamentally, disciples of Christ can only be made by accident, or grace if you prefer/insist.
What I've seen in a lot of the most "successful" C of E programmes is that they are very good at making followers of that particular church, or members of a crowd within it, but the church has no adequate way of making followers of Christ. It simply doesn't seem to be interested in doing so, and I believe this is because the associated independence of thought is to dangerous for it.
If such discipleship happens, that really is accidental.
On the superficial level thing, I suspect it's partly because our presentation of the Gospel is often so superficial - or reduced to consent to a set of propositions - that it's hardly surprising that it creates converts who are content to leave it at that.
I've read that Calvin was partly aware influenced towards his convoluted musings on election and reprobation and so on because he noticed that some of his congregation were keenies and others weren't.
That's always going to be the case.
Why did the Desert Fathers and Mothers head off into the wilderness? Because they believed things had descended to such a low level in the towns.
There does seem to be an anomaly in play in that those churches that are big on conversionism can be pretty poor at what the Catholics call 'spiritual formation.' Conversely, some which are big on spiritual disciplines and development are poor when it comes to conversions - although that's not simply a matter of bums on seats of course.
I have heard it said, "We know where the Spirit is. We cannot say where the Spirit isn't." Of course the Orthofundies hate this saying.
I'd imagine this equally rules the Orthofundies.
The Orthodox have their fundies the same as any other Christian tradition, and no, it's not simply a case of non-liberals. Rather, it's the sort of folk who swap biblical fundamentalism for Church fundamentalism on the one hand or certain forms of highly nationalist and xenophobic cradle Orthodox on the other.
Every tradition has its crazies and Orthodoxy is no different to the rest of us in that regard.
It's an odd word, because shouldn't we all be interested in the fundamentals of our religion? But it never actually meant that. Perhaps "fanatical" would be more appropriate.
One can trace a similar trajectory for the word "Evangelical" which has changed from being a strand of Christianity with particular emphases to anyone who wishes to strongly promulgate their views on health, diet, animal welfare, the environment or whatever!
Yes, "gossip" is often used in a derogatory sense today. Example: "I've never been one to gossip, unlike HER!" However, in current contemporary usage, its meaning has broadened to include everyday chat.
'As a general point (and possibly as an attempt to close this tangent, which I have of course aided and abetted!) - it's very difficult to strip back the Great Commission to its original context and meaning and to strip it of its baggage however much we might want to so so.'.
It is this "preaching the gospel" which is associated with "gossiping" (meaning everyday chat).
As a side note, at this time the 12 had not yet been commissioned, or given Authority, so for them to preach the Gospel was no different to any Christian preaching the Gospel, in my opinion.
But when I read the blog the discussion had moved away, so I left it (as an open tab on the laptop), at the time.
I'm taking rubbish here - I was comparing Mark to Matthew. In St Mark's gospel, the quoted verse IS the Great Commission.
I'd be slightly wary of using Mark 16:15 as not everyone regards that "longer ending" as being authentic - though it does rather repeat Matthew anyway.
Here's one reference:
"In the Shadow of the Cross: Walk with Jesus from the Garden to the Tomb" by Randal E. Denny (1995).
where the author writes:
Jesus' parting words to His disciples at His ascension into heaven were, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation" (Mark 16:15). Jesus planned for us to go "gossiping the gospel."
How do thee and me and the man on the Clapham omnibus (own woman) have authority over evil'? Are we talking about the capacity to resist sin?
What exactly do we mean?
Sorry if it's been said upthread, but isn't it just a reference to exorcism of the kind that Jesus performed? Now, there are other threads debating what exorcism really means, but it seems to me that exorcism is maybe what this is referring to.
Nothing like Pentecost has happened since... Pentecost. We've been in dubious battle quickly since.
That could be right in that it was a unique encounter, and the tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians aren't quite the same thing, nor anything since. To make a point, notice that no interpreter was required, the people heard the disciples in their own language - yet the miracle was in the speakers, not in the hearers. I don't know for certain of course, because I wasn't there, but it's a thought.
To keep on topic, Pentecost was the beginning of the time when the disciples were empowered to go out and do the things required of them in the Great Commission.
Aye. ('quickly' ain't wot I wrote. And just then it became 'studio's! 'ow queer! It were 'ever'). We are. But here isn't there. Here is nothing like there even if there is (post) gospel. Which I want it to be. Like I want the non-autographic gospels to be, including the Pericope Adulterae of course. It's all so tenuous. Disconnected. Attenuated broken signal after an initial, mythic burst tranmission which included the Great Commission.
I believe there is continuity.
If there isn't, the Scriptures are a museum curiosity and nothing more, and the Resurrection along with them.
The church believed in, and worshipped in, the Rsurrection a good while before the NT was written.
Both. The disconnects are in the unknown authors, editors, the priestly class, the centuries of streams of text copies in the evolving myth. Which makes it all rather tenuous. Foggy. Lost in the mythts of time. Which rationalism puts me on the road to perdition eh? (Which in the sense of the).
I believe in the ineffable Spirit, yes, working in tradition. In tension with myth.
I'm already there Eutychus. Lost. Scared. Carrying on. Still taking the wager and talking to my Friends.
G x
Carry On Kerygmania.
Carry On up the Exegesis.
Carrying On. Yes. Only just. Now. Myth. Incarnation. Lost. Alone. More? No. Yes. Infinity. Or not? Just.