From the book:

Frank Thielman’s Theology of the New Testament is an outstanding achievement. The book is marked by scholarly depth, exegetical rigor, and theological profundity. Both students and professors will profit immensely from this lucid treatment of the theology contained in the New Testament documents.” – Thomas Schreiner

“An accessible presentation of the key theological points of the New Testament books by an accomplished New Testament scholar and teacher. Its clear style, lucid organization, and sound theological insight make it a prime resource for serious students in both the academy and the church.” – Karen Jobes

- See more at: http://www.koinoniablog.net/2013/06/wednesday-giveaway-theology-of-the-new-testament.html?cid=6a00e54fc7cbdb88340192ab4d9f7c970d#comment-form

At least by the standards of some.

For the last eight months, I have admittedly been caught in a dilemma. To state I have been “on the fence” concerning my “biblical” worldview would be a relief, but at the current time, remains an overstatement. It is more likely that I have been just looking at the fence, and ignoring it. It has been much easier to know the fence is there without doing much about it than it has to simply take action.

It is also during this time that I have removed my family from the confines of any “church” type structure. Be it house church, organic church, or whatever church, we have simply ceased to participate. Has this affected our spirituality? In principal, yes. Should it be of great concern to me as a husband and a father? You bet! Has that concern motivated me to take action and inject some sort of pseudo normalcy that represents a form of “Christianity?” Not really.

Several reasons are the cause behind my inaction. These are also the leading contributors to the “leaks” in my worldview.

Biblical Christianity seems to me nothing than an Adjective and a Noun: What I mean is, they are just words. The definition is not definitive or conclusive. No two churches, groups, or organizations will look the same. Unless you are a cult (ie. Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints), consistency is not common.

Conforming to acceptable standards of piety are not inherently bible based: Most standards for which churches, groups, or organizations base genuine adherence to the faith of “Christianity” is superficial and/or untrue. Dare I say what is true for you may be so, but it s not always true for me? For me to adhere appropriately in most circles, I have to have a daily bible reading plan, attend specific meetings (regardless of how loose the requirement is), and speak/act in similar cultural fashion. There are also the uncounted and rarely spoken rules of conduct and conformity that also qualify you as a legitimate member that seem unqualified by scripture as well.

So little of what passes as “Christian” has anything to do with what Jesus actually taught: The inspired scriptures, or the writings of 1st Century Saints, are all we have to tell us about what Jesus taught. Harder still, the context by which we see adherence measured in the United States is woefully “American Patriotism.” The teachings of Lord Jesus when adhered to as they are written, often result in shunning from his “followers.” Yet, doing what he has instructed seldom manifests itself in today’s church. If I choose to remain in the minority and reject conformity, I continue as a pariah, or rebel and remain labeled as disobedient and unfaithful to my family.

So, have I gone crazy? Not yet. Am I lost to the faith and never to be seen again? Unlikely. Do I still have faith and trust in the Messiah Jesus Christ? You bet! Do I feel alone in the wilderness? Not really, there are only “one set of footprints” out here, but I know who is carrying me right now. So I guess you can say, I am praying. I am meditating upon the teachings of Christ our savior, and I am confident that true piety is found in how he rates my obedience. Hearing “well done” comes from him, not your pastor so and so or brother whats his face.

Rick Warren’s son committed suicide, and due to his prominence in the “Christian Church Circles” of mainstream evangelicalism, the “Church” is “talking” about mental illness.

Here is my response:

Wow. The Church is talking about mental illness. In reality, the phrase “illness” undermines the true dilemma.

As a social worker, a walking contradiction, a “Christian Social Worker”, the malady is systemic. It is more deeply rooted in the culture and societal approach to how we treat individuals suffering from genuine organic issues, ie. Schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or depression. And those with socio-economic adjustment problems, legal problems, or poor familial supports.

The range of legitimate organic and chemical imbalances compared to the faux disorders listed in the DSM-IV, and soon to come DSM-V, are growing at such an enormous rate that mental illness is more of an excuse than a legitimate manifestation plaguing the sufferer.

Don’t get me wrong, let’s not discount that people really do struggle with bi-polar and depression. But, most clients receiving services in the mental health system in our country, are only doing so to have their lives guided by someone with experience and resources. These things are what once was a staple of the familial and societal units. In large part, these agencies substitute, or are sub-contracted entities providing services that in large part SHOULD be concerns of the CHURCH.

These issues are much deeper than the individuals who actually have depression and are “suicidal.” For us, those who are part of THE CHURCH, listening is a crucial component for our ability to be the BODY of Christ to everyone, not just our brethren with mental health needs. Listening also employs education and empathy. If we are adhering to the principle of loving one another as we love ourselves, this is a no brainer. We shouldn’t be “talking” about mental illness, it should be a prerequisite to our obedience to the instructions of our Lord. No longer should it be tolerated that everyone with a mental health condition should be treated as though they have a demon.

But, we must also not discount the very real possibility that demonic activity is something to be taken into consideration in many cases.

Next time someone explains they are having struggles with mental health, don’t just passively encourage faith and tell them “you are praying for them.” Stop right there, pray right away, but most importantly, step-INTO that persons life.

One of the first places I recommend people go, for plenty of free resources and great material on the subject is CCEF. Do yourself a favor, read an article today.http://www.ccef.org/resources

http://www.ccef.org/sites/default/files/CCEF%20Now%20Volume%203%20small.pdf

(Acts 6:8) And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.

Stephen, means crown, or crowned. This Stephen, selected as a deacon was also selected to die as one of the church’s first martyrs. Along with the many other martyrs down through the ages it is his blood that is considered as a worthy sacrifice to the Father (cf. Lev 4:7, Rev 6:9) Certainly a fitting name for such a one as he. After all, Stephen will be one of a few chosen to wear a white robe (Rev 6:11) and await the judgment of those who chose to take the life of the Father’s selected messengers (Rev 6:10).

It is true that Stephen was a martyr, but he was also a deacon (Acts 6:1-5). We know that the word for deacon is diakonos. Which otherwise means servant or attendant. You can find it used some thirty-seven times in the New Testament to reference the work of ministry in various forms, not just to the modern “office” we are accustom to assigning it.

What are some of the things we know and what is yet left to learn of this Stephen?

Stephen was:

• selected as a deacon (therefore not one of the twelve) (Acts 6:1-5)
• a servant of tables and widows (Acts 6:2)
• full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3)
• full of faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5)
• full of grace and power (Acts 6:8)
• a performer of great wonders, signs, and miracles (Acts 6:8)
• an instigator of wicked men and provoked their conscience (Acts 6:10, Acts 7:54-7)
• accused of blasphemy (Acts 6:11)
• seized by the people to be condemned by a council of conspirators (Acts 6:12-15)
• seen as having the face of an angel (Acts 6:15)
• a man with a vision ofglory and a witness to the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:56)
• stoned by his accusers and of a man called Saul (Acts 7:58)
• a man who chose not to resist evil men (Acts 7:60)
• a catalyst of the church at Jerusalem’s dispersion (Acts 8:1)
• a man who was greatly missed and revered by his brethren (Acts 8:2)

Truly a biography of an interesting man! While his ministry was short lived in the sense of our modern standards of “successful”, it is clear that Stephens actions were purposed! One of the most revealing condemnations of the Jewish rejection of Christ is also found in the message Stephen gave during his defense to the council who would soon put him to death. Certainly worthy of its own extrapolation we will settle for the conclusion that what Stephen stated was prophetic and enraged the hearts of these wicked men (cf. Acts 7:54).

So following the well accepted designation of martyr, let’s explore the duties discharged by this faithful servant, Stephen.

As a Deacon one should be:

• dignified (1Ti 3:8)
• reputable (1Ti 3:8)
• proven blameless (1Ti 3:10)

Stephen was:

• dignified (Acts 6:3)
• reputable (Acts 6:3)
• obviously innocent of his charges (Acts 7:58-60)

It is apparent that Stephen fulfilled the requirements of a Deacon, and did so magnificently. We should count it a guarantee that he heard the words, “well done!” (Mat 25:21).

And so, we see that the ministry of a deacon is not just waiting tables, serving widows, or collecting the offering plate at the ends of pew after pew. The demonstration of deacon is that of service to others, even if those whom we are serving are picking up stones to murder us. So Christian, are you serving your brethren and your enemies?

____________________________________________________

This post is part of a series:

1. Portrait of a disciple: Philip, deacon or evangelist?
2. Portrait of a disciple: Stephen the sacrifice?

Approximately three years ago, a brother and I were discussing the topic of marriage and divorce over lunch. During our discussion, this brother shared with me that one of our own brethren had completed a work on the very subject we were elaborating upon.

At that time, there was a PDF known amongst our brethren in the assembly as the “divorce book” and was appropriately entitled “Let Not Man Put Asunder: A Biblical Study of Divorce.” By H. Van Dyke Parunak. (This version is freely available at the above link to those interested in reviewing the version that surveys the entire bible on this issue). The brother in whom I was in discussion with, charged me with the exhortation to read this brother’s treatment of the topic.

With a conclusion that divorce was at times permissible amongst believers under exceptional circumstances, I could not reason with a free conscience that it was acceptable for divorced persons to ‘remarry.’

Yes, that puts quite a number of folks into a tight position does it not? It is a personal issue for many people, and a difficult and trying topic to wrestle with effectively. In the end, it creates a dilemma for those who would provide counsel or advise individuals facing marriage, divorce, or remarriage. It effects us at home and abroad. Mothers, Fathers, Step-Family, Cousins, Uncles, and Aunts.

Taking the advice of that brother who suggested I read the longer, more in-depth study of brother Parunak’s book, I read it from cover to cover. I was so intrigued by the careful attention to detail and the purposeful and structured approach this brother had taken with the texts concerning marriage and divorce in the Old and New Testaments.

H. Van Dyke Parunak, or as many of us in the assembly call him, Van, has taken his larger study and condensed it for the latest entry in the Energion Areopagus series “Except for Fornication: The Teaching of the Lord Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.” From the preface of the new book:

“This volume focuses on our Lord’s teaching about divorce and remarriage in the gospels. It is drawn from a much longer study that covers the entire Bible. In this volume, I will sometimes refer to that study as “the longer book.” That work also offers more technical detail on the passages considered in this volume. It is available as a free e-book at http://www.cyberchapel.org/DivorceAndRemarriage.”

Without missing a beat, Van brings his teaching into the spotlight of Jesus’ statements in the Gospels concerning the ‘fornication’ clause. He also makes a case for the truth and understanding Jesus would have had and taught by examining the evidence from Old Testament scriptures. What proves most helpful is that Van does not leave us alone with Paul’s comments on the topic, he examines them in light of what our Lord taught as well. Convincingly, Van demonstrates their agreement, and that Paul does not make exceptions to the rule. A position that I found hard to reconcile until reading Van’s work.

Van goes on to make the statement,

“The Lord Jesus uttered only eleven verses on the subject of divorce and remarriage, mostly restating the same two principles: divorce is wrong, and remarriage after divorce is adultery.”

With this in mind, Van establishes his determination in seeking the truth of what the scripture itself says regarding this matter. With so much at stake concerning the impact that divorce and remarriage can have on families, it is essential to be diligent in understanding what the rest of the scriptures teach on this topic.

Dave Black, Professor at Southeastern Theological Seminary, Missionary, and Blogger, who is one of the editors of the Areopagus project, has stated on his blog at The Jesus Paradigm, that he feels this book to be one of the most important and helpful books written on the difficult subject of Christian marriage and divorce. He goes on to note,

“This book strikes me as a model of exegesis and interpretation. Not all will agree with its conclusions, but few I believe, will be able to ignore its biblical arguments.”

I agree with brother Dave Black, and hope you will soon find out for yourself that you do also. The careful exegesis and attention to the original languages are helpful. This entry in the Areopagus series also proves helpful and lends itself to the accessibility of those who have little or no training in biblical languages or classical seminary training.

Van has chosen this undertaking for his own personal benefit and knowledge of the problem as God sees it, and the end result is the benefit of any reader who chooses to pick up this incredible work and read it. It had a profound impact on how I viewed the dilemma of divorce and remarriage, as well as how I viewed my own approach to the woman I was preparing to marry.