tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post4020696216795272415..comments2023-05-07T09:56:23.909-04:00Comments on The Christian Curmudgeon: Not the Great Cultural MandateAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-16659833591939193282011-11-02T12:56:04.512-04:002011-11-02T12:56:04.512-04:00Bill,
I cut and pasted a passage from Ken's f...Bill,<br /><br />I cut and pasted a passage from Ken's foreword which quoted and commented on Peter Leithart's thinking on this issue.<br /><br />"The Church is not a club for religious people. The Church is a way of living together before God, a new way of being human together.” This was surely the perspective of the early Church, though one wonders how common it is today. The assemblies of believers in the First Century and long after were not perceived to be resource centers for the promotion of merely private spirituality, they were not religious branches of the<br />larger Greco-Roman project. Rather, the early Church lived with the formative conviction (in<br />Leitharts’s phrase) “that God has established the eschatological order of human life in the midst<br />of history, not perfectly but truly.” Therefore, the Church’s life—the shared relationships and<br />practices of the redeemed community—was truly a matter with public consequences. Leithart<br />argues that these public consequences reflect the eschatological character of the Church. “The Church anticipates the form of the human race as it will be when it comes to maturity; she is the ‘already’ of the new humanity that will be perfected in the ‘not yet’ of the last day.” So<br />conversion necessarily led to discipleship that had extensive consequences. “Conversion thus<br />means turning from one way of life, one culture, to another. Conversion is the beginning of a<br />‘resocialization,’ . . . and ‘inculturation’ into the way of life practiced by the eschatological community.”<br /><br />Would you agree that this is the church being the church.Don Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252758119376534001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-86175018275205562192011-11-02T10:43:24.820-04:002011-11-02T10:43:24.820-04:00Vaughn, Which title? If you mean the one attached ...Vaughn, Which title? If you mean the one attached to the text, then we just disagree, as I think the text is about the commission. If you mean the title used for Facebook, etc, my response is that it is supported by the exposition of what the commission is, which serves as well to define what it is not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-83195174072983875492011-11-02T10:39:13.167-04:002011-11-02T10:39:13.167-04:00Don, perhaps you said it for effect, but I think y...Don, perhaps you said it for effect, but I think you know that D.G. does not label all who disagree with him about anything as promoters of World-and-Life view. As to Ken, I know him, and have even been edited by him! I think of him as something of a kindred spirit. Thanks to your father-in-law I do have for the second year an online subscription. The times Ken and I ran into each other at Wallace, he was unfailingly gracious toward me. And with much more frequent contact, both your father-in-law and mother-in-law have been not only unfailingly gracious but wonderfully encouraging to me and my wife. Les, and I know a curmudgeon when we see one!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-12798059922006500172011-11-02T10:35:25.480-04:002011-11-02T10:35:25.480-04:00Your subtitle is not supported by the brief.Your subtitle is not supported by the brief.Vaughn Hathawaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-85834303668436082362011-11-02T10:17:13.060-04:002011-11-02T10:17:13.060-04:00Bill,
You definitely got my attention. I am fine ...Bill,<br /><br />You definitely got my attention. I am fine with your definition of "Church's culture", as far as it goes. I'm not sure what you mean by "world and life view" though I know from what I've seen on Darryl's blog that this label is attached to all who disagree with him.<br /><br />I don't know if you are a Mars Hill Audio subscriber, but you may have read Ken Myer's new forwword to "All God's Children and Blue suede Shoes" which he recently sent to all subscribers. In it, he directly addresses this issue. I would be interested in your thoughts, if you have read it.Don Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252758119376534001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-85494588364697214002011-11-02T09:25:33.441-04:002011-11-02T09:25:33.441-04:00Don,I try to make the "public titles" - ...Don,I try to make the "public titles" - what shows up on Facebook or Twitter, for instances - provocative to try to attract readers. That said, I am not sure what you mean by the "Church's culture." If you mean, the church being the church, the kind of unique society it is by our Lord's constitution and calling, then, of course. If you mean something else, say along "world and life view" lines, then I think not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146011447109951026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934298301663499561.post-50705489949519712882011-11-02T09:15:10.598-04:002011-11-02T09:15:10.598-04:00Bill,
Are you saying that the Church's cultur...Bill,<br /><br />Are you saying that the Church's culture should have nothing to do with discipling the nations?<br /><br />Just curious since your title seems to suggest that.Don Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17252758119376534001noreply@blogger.com