The Timeline.
After years of exposure to the law, the prophets, the psalms, and the covenants, at just the right time Christ finally arrives. Virgin born, according to a specific interpretation of prophecy, in the right place, he's hailed as a King from early on. We see a couple of events from his early life but for the next thirty something years, we hear nothing. When he finally does reappear in the text, immediately after being baptized by John, he begins preaching the Kingdom of God. While He's doing all this, He's gathering followers, which includes a core group who He continues to teach.

He tells them that He's going to build the Church (either on Peter or Himself), He tells them He's going to equip them by dying and going to God the Father and sending them a Helper.

The Helper's Work.
But what is the Helper's Job? In the John 14-16, this Helper is to comfort them, bring everything they've learned (from Christ) into remembrance, teach them and is also to work in the world convicting it of sin (because it rejected Christ), of righteousness (because Christ's death has been overturned and Christ went to the Father) and of judgment (because the ruler of the world has been judged).

Fast forward to Pentecost. The message that Peter goes out to preach--the message that winds up winning three thousand converts from the priest caste--is a message of sin (because they've crucified Christ), of righteousness (because Christ now sits on the right hand of the Father) and of judgment (because now the one They crucified is waiting).

A jaunt through the book of Acts and we'd notice Paul doing the same thing. As Paul speaks to the Jews he argues for the resurrection from the dead, as Paul discusses with the Athenians their waywardness in worship, he discusses the resurrection from the dead.

Even when you get down to the letters that Paul writes to the Churches, he constantly brings their activities back to the cross and the resurrection of Christ from the dead. What is the gospel that he preaches? The Gospel of God based on Christ who is the son of David by lineage and the son of God via the resurrection of the Dead. What is the message that Paul preaches? Christ crucified and resurrected from the dead which is a stumbling block for the Jew and foolishness to the Gentile.

Constantly, the repeated message of the Church to those Outside of the Church is the historical crucifixion of Christ, His resurrection from the dead and the imminent judgment of God resting on Christ's bestowed authority (Revelation 1-7, 19-21; Romans 8; John 5)

The Living Dead.
Paul then shows a very deep connection between the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of people (1 Cor 15) in a manner that is consistent with Jesus' own preaching (John 11).  With such a resurrection in place, it becomes important for Christians to Grow Up. Why?

This Growing Up, argues Paul, is a complete unity of Believers in Christ's Crucified Death and Resurrected Life (Eph 1, Eph 4, Rom 6) and culminates in a unity in Christ's glorification (Rom 8:17).The Church Universal (as in the entire Church, not any single local gathering), says Paul, has been gifted with apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers for this very purpose. As if that were not enough, Paul mentions (in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 12) that believers have been individually gifted so as to support the entire body in this endeavor.

These gifts are to edify the saints (build them up as Jesus stated the Holy Spirit would do) and to equip them (to evangelize in the World: a task the Holy Spirit would help in). But the equipping is not merely a task of arming forces but actually focused on molding individuals in the model of Christ. Therefore, Paul would argue, that since Christ has equipped the Church with these helps, God is in fact fully reforming humans with these aids (Romans 8) by ending one life and supplanting it with an eternal one.

This completely ties the resurrection from the dead with the church's gifting. The Church is made up of people labeled "A New Creation" (Romero might say the Living Dead). A creation formed in the image of God and reformed in the image of the son. This Image is molded to speak properly with God, to interact with God, to work with God and to rule with the Son. Paul would call them co-workers with God (1 Cor 3) who have a responsibility to continue doing these tasks (2 Tim 4). It's the Fall Reversed.

Therefore, the Church's goal and purpose is crystallized by its two major works which are merely two sides of one coin. The Church reflects the work of the Holy Spirit by bringing into remembrance Christ (via His teaching) and exposing the world to Christ (His love and mercy via his death and resurrection) until He returns.

Most of us are familiar with Romans which is broken into four Gospel focused sections.

As a skeleton structure this means nothing but once we zoom in and examine Paul's argument the implications become obvious.

Chapter three of the first movement finalizes a major dilemma, that all men, both Jew and Gentiles, are sinners before God and under God's wrath. And yet, Christ became a propitiation for God's wrath so that Sinners wouldn't be wiped out. The section culminates with the love of God and the end of hostilities pointing out that the equal footing of both Jews and Gentiles before God: under His wrath, propitiated on behalf of God and justified by faith apart from works.

The second movement's great dilemma is that man is besmirched and bemired by sin: they continue to sin because they are sinful. Both Gentiles and Jews find themselves law struggling with the carnal desires against conscience and/or command-moreso when the command becomes explicit. But this section also culminates in God's solution once again in Christ. Both Jewish and Gentile believers have died in Christ and have risen in Christ and are therefore able to try to walk as perfect as God always demanded. There will surely be failures but God's solution is not merely giving access to that bounty but providing all the power to generate that bounty. Specifically God imbues with His Sprit, has a plan for those in Christ to be conformed into the image of the Son, and they will surely be perfected. This section also culminates with the love of God and showing that God is altogether on the side of those who are in Christ.

The third movement's great dilemma is potent: If God has discarded His promises to Israel how is it possible that He'll keep His promises to those in Christ in regards to ensuring their ultimate conformation and glorification? Paul deftly argues that it's not a matter of the created person's desires but the fact that God has figured a way possible that no one stands head and shoulders above another in respect to race, creed, age-ranking or even works. All people stand on the same ground of God's absolute right to show mercy giving Him unrestricted usage of His mercy. God can therefore freely show mercy to Israel and to Gentiles because it's His prerogative. Of course, God can also choose to refrain from showing mercy and take an individual or group who already stands under His wrath and make that individual firm in their decision against God: they then become a vehicle of God's wrath to save others. With these facts in place, Paul establishes the length of God's mercy towards Israel and the fact that Israel is only partially hardened but will fully be realized in a later time-a time after the Gentiles have received their full mercy. The Gentiles stand on the mercy of God for Israel is partially hardened and the Jews stand on the mercy of God since they're only partially hardened and not full-on. In fact, the Gentiles are being saved to provoke Israel to jealousy but how much greater (argues Paul) will it be when the Jews finally do believe. This section winds up culminating in the wisdom of God.

The final movement then deals with a great problem which is an expansion of Chapter 7. The Church is a new entity where she stands on God's mercy, love and wisdom and promised to be perfected but her members are wracked by their old sinful ways. Therefore God's solution is this Measure of Faith. This is not a little faith for X person or a little faith for Y person: that would be contrary to Paul's constant argument that no one has a reason to boast.

The measure is a measuring rod, or a ruler-stick, of the object of Faith which is Christ Himself. There was wrath, Christ propitiated; there was sin, Christ empowered; there was needs for mercy, Christ was provided; there was need for love, Christ illustrated; there was need for wisdom: God was personified and died. So this measuring rod winds up being used for everything.

Like a regular measuring stick asks "How long is this?" this stick does the same thing. Yet the question this measuring rod wants to answer is twofold. Question one: How do I measure up to God's Gospel? Question two:Do They stand on the same ground (before God) as Me?

Constantly through the final chapters of Romans the measuring rod is used.

• How does it work in the body of believers? We're all segments of a Whole, saved by grace, justified by faith, standing on God's mercy and equipped by His Sprit to function as a whole.
• How does it work in the government? We are sinners, just as they, the powers that be are established by God therefore we are to respect them as God ordained.
• How does this work in regards to things that are doubtful? Christ died for me while I was still a sinner and Christ died for Them while they were still sinners: should I then beat them down over food when they stand before Christ and His righteous decisions?
• What about dealing with these legalistic Jews in our church? Well, both Jews and Gentiles stand on the same ground but they have the commandment that really makes them aware of their sinfulness-just as myself with my conscience.
• Should I rob them of their convictions if they stand before God's mercy, wisdom and love?

So here finally is my concluding practical point. Cynicism looks at everyone else as having some ulterior selfish motive. Pharisaicism is that position where we look at all others as beneath us. Judgmentalism is that position where we self-righteously preside over others in matters that aren't black or white and in fact, may be extremely minute. In each of these positions we're stepping away from the Gospel's message (you are a sinner, you have no place to stand but the same ground as those next to you, beneath God's wrath, on top of His Mercy, needing His Love and grateful for His wisdom in sending His Son who died so that Humanity may live). But when we step back under the shadow of that cross, we are put on the same level with everyone else: completely reliant on the Lord. We can't be cynical, pharisaic or judgmental since we don't have that prerogative.

Admittedly, I'm influenced by my context. We all are. If I was Methodist, Roman Catholic or Plymouth Brethren (woops, I am!) I'd find that the goal of the Church starts to skew more towards the work or duties of the Church but I have to work mental gymnastics to pull away from that. Instead, I force my eyes to look at redemptive history.

From Genesis, the creation and existence of Man consisted of a relationship as viceroy beneath Yahweh God. Man was to rule Earth but not as an independent agent: one who is in direct relation and subservience to his creator. When the relationship was disintegrated by man's sin, man is cast out away from God. From that moment on, we see God enacting a plan to bring man back into a proper relationship.

Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve tribes: all of it leading to a people who are specified as a royal priesthood, a nation of priests. Now what was it that priests did? Sure they served in the tabernacle but the duty of priests, throughout history, has always been twofold. (1) As an authorized worshipper of deity and (2) as an intermediary between men and deity. The weird thing with Israel is that even though they have a specific tribe doing the priestly services in the tabernacle, the entire nation has a hedge planted around it with a big sign that says Nation of Priests.

So the Israelites were given the law, the covenants, the promises, the tabernacles, the patriarchs for the very purpose of (1) properly worshipping God and (2) educating the nations about God. But even so, that's a gross oversimplification since part of their educating the nations consisted of a mandate to show mercy-but this a post that looks at Purpose/Goal not so much action. Israel's goal was a light to the gentiles which shone on God.

Enter the Church who is also demarcated by Peter as a royal priesthood, a nation of Priests (of course making direct allusion to the Israelites of old) but the Church's message is clear to a level that would cause the majority of Jews to trip: (1) The Church is to worship God via the intermediary Christ the Son of God and (2) the Church is to educate the nations about who God is as revealed in Christ.

In a very real sense, the Church is continuing Israel's mission but in as just an equal and real sense Israel couldn't conceive of the extent of what was being done by God. Whereas in the Old Testament God's glory was seen in the tabernacle through a veil and which much thunder and fear, now we see God clearer than ever before. God became flesh, was handled, was seen, was crucified and was resurrected. When we see God's glory now, we see a cross and God hanging on it.

The Church then winds up shining a light (yes, just like the Israelites) but pointing it at the revealed, unveiled Glory of God who is Christ Jesus. Christ Jesus becomes the Church's all in all. He's the Church's foundation, the Church's life, the Church's only hope, the Church's only place to glory: the Church's point of adoration.

For in worshipping Christ, the Church is acknowledging what God has promised in Genesis, has carried out through time, and has finally revealed on the cross and empty grave. Therefore, a broad purpose of the Church I'd have to say it is to glorify God via glorifying God's son who is Christ Jesus. A goal, I must say, which allows Roman Catholics, Protestants and Greek Orthodox say "Amen."

I alluded to several sections of Scripture: but since the topic is so broad, I'd point a person to some important reading in Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Acts, John and Hebrews. The subject is broad enough to demand reading the full books which I stated, Isaiah taking the longest but it can be read in a few hours.

All of us work with assumptions. A Social Darwinian would look at the emergence of the Church as the end result of the natural progression of an evolving creature attributing survival to a higher purpose to give its existence meaning. Perhaps some remnant of previous forgotten survival which has no real historical basis save as some form of coincidental situational magic (like worshiping the God of Corn in the hopes of good crops, having a good corn harvest and thus having the worship verified) . Those would be fine assumptions to make in the Social Darwinian framework when speaking to a crowd of people who have already assumed the Darwinian model but that wouldn't do as a scientific breakdown or Historical study.

That being the case, when I make my assumptions it's within the framework of Christian thinking. I've already accepted God is true and I've already accepted Christ is who He claims to be therefore the further assumptions follow.

For example, why assume the Church is people at all? Doesn't it make just as much sense to assume it's the epitome of an ideological concept? "The Church is the Best of Us" (or some such) instead of entering an almost weird mystical explanation?

Well, in Genesis, I've long noted that Creation culminated in Man as a viceroy of the Most High God. After the tragedy of the Fall (Gen 3) we can follow Man's story as being an oft- repeated message that Man needs redeeming: apart from God Man's prospects are worst than dim: they're damned.

Its not that Man has to attain a higher moral goal (as in achieving the Best of Us), it's that Man isn't capable of reaching a higher moral goal. When man is in charge of the world, he fails; when he has God's law, he breaks it; when he's ruling as God's King, he squanders his position; when God's grace is outpoured, he either liberalizes it or legalizes it. Man repeatedly messes up and personally needs God's remaking. Therefore God's Church isn't people attaining a moral or philosophical concept; it is a gathering of people who have been reformed.

So you see, this one assumption, obviously Christian in thinking, was framed by the Torah and the New Testament in conjunction.

Each assumption I've stated operates the same way, here's another example:

1. For the Church to house the Holy Spirit within its members the Spirit had to come
2. Christ said the Spirit could only come if He died and was resurrected and asked the Father
3. Therefore the church could not exist without Christ's death and resurrection. 

Now with that broad range of meanings it makes pinning down the actual New Testament principles difficult, yes, but it illuminates a further point: that all of Church History appealed to the New Testament source in some manner. That's only reasonable being that the New Testament documents contain in them the origin of the Church-it's a historical authority that can't be thrown away without seriously straying from those origins.

So we all appeal to the New Testament but then have gradating shades of application (as listed earlier). In other words, its every church's unspoken assumption that they are trying to go back to the principles established in the New Testament if not the outright structure (although recently with renewed interest in the New Testament Church, some believers are gathering in homes and forming churches there).

With so much diversity, who can be right?
Any look at the Church will inevitably result in a lot of areas of correction and a lot of areas that deserve praise. Looking out across the Christian Landscape its real easy for someone to see the errors in all other churches save their own and thus fall into a trap of self-deception.

The goal then is not so much to point out the practices of who is doing what wrong but to look at major principles laid down in the New Testament and then compare our church actions to those. If the two differ, even if our church appeals to some authority of semi-current revealed revelation, we would have to acknowledge that the New Testament (the source document of why and how the Church exists) overrules even the newly revealed revelation. This isn't to deny the possibility of newly revealed revelation but it is to appeal to God's consistency for even in the Old Testament as early as Genesis 3 (to Adam and Eve) and then again in Genesis 15 (to Abraham) the salvation of humanity was always to start with the Jews then culminate with the gentiles. When Peter and Paul are preaching its in light of an already revealed revelation from Scripture being confirmed in their experience.

The benefit of the early apostles is that they personally saw Christ. Even if we wanted to disregard Paul's vision (which would be absurd since the man as a persecutor of Christians went immediately to a vocal believer) and appeal only to Peter and John it would still be on the Ground that they heard God's message straight from the one who established The Church. And even in that case, Peter still points to Paul's writings as Scripture!

Therefore, adherence to New Testament principles is a proper assumption because (1) New Testament principles are already appealed to in some form across Christendom (2) because the New Testament documents contain the origin and purpose of the Church and (3) because Christ (thus God) personally spoke to the apostles on whose teaching the Church is built.

1. Assumption One: The Church was something New. Jesus points out that upon this rock (being Peter or Christ, depending on your interpretation) the Church would (in time: future) be built (Matt 16:18). And even though the church may have been hinted at in the Old Testament or spoken of as a Gathering (such as the Congregation of Israel), Paul points out that the Church, when it became realized, was an unveiled thing (Rom 16:25-27)
2. Assumption Two: The Church is made up of people. It does not consist of a building or institution but a group of people gathered not for an ideological position but underneath a person (Eph. 2:20-22; 1 Pet 2).
3. Assumption Three: The Church could only be built after some historical requirements were fulfilled. Paul would say that the prophets, the coming (suffering, death and resurrection) of Christ, and the apostles were all historical requirements for the Church. (Rom. 11; Eph 5:25-27; Col 1:24). Jesus points out that upon this rock (being Peter or Christ, depending on your interpretation) the Church would (in time: future) be built (Matt 16:18). And even though the church may have been hinted at in the Old Testament or spoken of as a Gathering (such as the Congregation of Israel), Paul points out that the Church, when it became realized, was an unveiled thing (Rom 16:25-27) [I've changed my mind about the four assumptions deciding that I was correct in thinking that the first and the third assumption were too similar. I'll operate with this framework and modify the bottom of the post accordingly.]
4. Assumption Four: The Church's leadership is divine. In other words, the head authority of the Church is Christ (Eph 1:22; 5:23) and the entire Church belongs to God (1Ti 3:15). It is altogether God's church (2 Tim. 2:19). This is not to say that the leader's in the Church are divine or that any one human in the Church has a divine authority-this is to say that the origin, purpose, duty, equipping and demarcation of the church is solely divine. He specifies who is in, who is out, how the Church will operate and for how long.

With these four assumptions in place there winds up being several entailments which I'll deal with later but first I want to make sure: are there any other assumptions that should be made? Or are some of these assumptions repetitive--such as 1 and 3? [I've decided that these two assumptions are in fact repetitive and together they give stronger support to what the Third assumption was already stating]

REVIEW SUMMARY: Decent overview in very easy language.

MY RATING: [rating:4]

OVERVIEW: A basic overview of church history in readable English, good to read and helpful but only a primer on a very complicated subject. Definitely pick it up if you're looking to do research or plan to teach and need some refreshers.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Perfect introduction to church history, easily accessible with plenty of references to introduce the reader to further study.

MY REVIEW:
THE GOOD: The strength of the book is summed up in the cover: it's written in plain, easy to read English. That is not to say that other books on this very complicated subject don't approach it in "plain English", but it is to say that whereas more involved volumes get into many aspects of church history and embroiled in several of the controversies and terminology, this book either glosses over them explaining the fundamental issues or mentions them in passing. Much to be applauded this book then is geared at the person who wants to start looking into Church history but is overwhelmed by the breadth of information available. What's also good is that there's plenty of footnotes to have a reader go off and do some (necessarily) deeper studying and where to look. These two things make the book a definite must read (and must buy) for anyone starting to look into Church History or anyone who wants to find a way to paint in the broad strokes of the church's history without being embroiled in a morass of sometimes overburdening details. One of the best details in the book is by closing with the church in developing countries after wading through years of church conflict and so forth. Really great.

THE BAD: I read the first edition so my comment has to be limited to that and I also must say that this is a very minor, nitpicky comment. Some of the later sections of the book got a little clunky for my taste and I can attribute that to the fact that so much of the current era is documented. The author then finds himself spending several pages on political developments (necessarily so since history can't be separated from the political upheavals of the era). But whereas political problems are painted in very broad strokes in earlier chapters (even during the Reformation era) when the author gets to our own time he winds up getting stuck in some places and perhaps spending more times than he needs there.

THE UGLY: The book jacket for the first edition was unremarkably plain with a cheesy enhancement on the PLAIN type. Thankfully, they redesigned the jacket with a very good looking piece in the 2nd Edition.

MY RATING: [rating:5]

OVERVIEW: Roy Zuck follows his classic Teaching as Jesus Taught with a focus on St. Paul (Teach ing as Paul Taught). Zuck makes sure to focus on Scripture and from there draw any and all conclusions.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Biblically focused to draw any conclusions about Paul's teaching, the book is an excellent resource and deserves a place on a teacher's shelf if he/she needs Paul's teaching labeled and categorized. Otherwise, the long lists might make some weary in reading. Definitely recommended, but know what you're buying.

MY REVIEW:
THE GOOD: Completely focused on Scripture. If Zuck points out that Paul uses Questions as a teaching method he'll cite two hundred and fifty verses, in a numbered list, and quoting the question. If he wants to expose the reader to Paul's Diatribes he'll feature a table with references , preceding premises, false conclusions, initial brief responses and then the subsequent reason for the rejection: this method is excellent. You're not going to come out of this book thinking Paul's teaching style was something you can confine to a school of thought.

THE BAD: Although helpful to have these lists, they are very much like a concordance: long and dry. Now that can be negative to a certain type of reader who automatically looks at long lists as mere reference.

THE UGLY: The original book jacket is pretty ugly but the newer softcover jacket is nie with an excellent painting on the cover. The font is easy to read and the use of footnotes was done in a manner equal to any scholarly commentary.

Back when Dan Brown's DaVinci Code came out I had a few buddies quietly admit to me that they were facing a crisis in their faith. They had read the book and kept going back to his introductory page: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

It made them wonder. It made them doubt. Was Christianity a carefully orchestrated religion? Dan Brown's evidence was very compelling and as far as I know, not many of us went to the book store to separate his facts from the false. Indeed, my friends would come through their crisis stating "it's all about faith and Dan Brown can't take that away from me."

Well, here's the cold fact: it's not all about faith. Christianity claims that its origin is founded in a historical person and a historical event. If Christianity's historical claims are false then it is probably the stupidest religion around. Yeah, stop and re-read that.

One oft-repeated claim that (also in the DaVinci Code, pg 231) was that the choosing of the New Testament Bible was by council where there were over 80 gospels to choose from, four of which are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Presiding over the council and making the final decision was Emperor Constantine.

Lie: never happened. In fact, the first council that ever stated which books are the official books of the Bible happened in the 16th Century during the Reformation.  And then it wasn't even a decision it was pure acknowledgment and something that both Catholics and Protestants agreed with, besides a few apocryphal books not included by the Protestants.

Historically speaking, the books we have today were mostly accepted within the first century when there were no other Gospels. Paul (in or around 35A.D until about 60A.D) wrote a bunch of letters to churches and those stuck. They were passed around the churches as official since the get-go and were never doubted. We have historical documents of folk from the First Century quoting from Paul's letters. Not only had that, around 150AD we actually have letters being passed around sometimes labeled The Gospel According to Matthew (and Mark, and Luke and John respectively).

The First list of the books of the New Testament came about from a guy named Marcion (150A.D) who thought there was too much Jewishness in Christianity so he proceeded to take his ancient X-Acto and cut out everything which he didn't agree with.  We notice that his list had most of Paul's letters (the same ones in our Bible today except for 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus) and a trimmed down version of Luke.

Luke-not even an apostle!

Here's interesting: the Four Gospels of the Christian Bible claim to be written by two actual disciples (Matthew and John), some guy who wasn't one of the original twelve (Mark), and a doctor who was a traveling buddy of Paul (Luke). These were the books that were always seen as official.

The Gospels (the 80 to choose from) that Brown is talking about came about much later written by People known as Gnostics. They believed a whole mess of weird stuff that you can probably find by watching the Matrix and Star Wars a few times over (the Real is not what you feel with this crude matter, but the Spiritual).

A marked point of interest in all of the Gnostic Gospels is that

1. they attributed their origin to one of the Twelve (like Thomas or Phillip, etc)
2. that they're mostly a collection of sayings that reinforce Gnostic teaching and
3. they're not Gospels.

Gospel, to Paul (and the early churches) was Good News. The Good News being that God became flesh, was seen, was touched, died on the cross and on the third day rose from the grave. If anything the letters of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are just long introductions to that main point.

The Gnostic Gospels don't bother with a crucifixion:  it wasn't their point.

Anyway, around the 18th Century a guy named Muratori discovered an ancient document (scientifically dated to about 190AD) with a list of the books of the Bible that has been authenticated by the early Churches. Those books being the four gospels, Pauls letters: in fact, most of our New Testament. Around 250A.D we have another document that has some disagreement about some of the books (like James and Hebrews) but the four gospels and Paul's Letters are still in there.  Another document from 300A.D has a similar list, but the authorship of Revelation is in doubt. In an Easter Letter from 367A.D we have the list of books in our Bible today.

So here's a historical shoe anybody can put on and get some wear out of: the Books in our Bible today are the same books that have been marked official since early on.

If you want to do some easy and fun reading on all this, check out Church History in Plain Language.

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

The Eighth Day