Community of the Risen

This particular chapter deals with a Roman philosopher named Porphyry.  Wilken notes that Porphyry is probably the greatest anti-Christian philosopher, and is considered by scholars today to be the most ardent and most feared opponent of Christianity in antiquity.  Why was he so feared? First, he had an extensive knowledge of the scriptures.  Second, he tried to make a place for Christianity among the other religions of his day.  Wilken goes on to explain the three levels of Roman cosmology: (1) the one high god, the deities, and the heavenlies, (2) the daimones (lesser gods), and (3) the great heroes.  The great heroes were men of piety who revered the one high god and taught others to do the same.

Early apologists claimed that this “one high god” that the Romans worshipped is Yahweh, and Augustine cites Porphyry as praising the Hebrews because they also worship this one high god.  Porphyry, however, disagrees with Christians who venerate Jesus as if he himself is the one high god.  To Poryhyryr, Jesus is simply another philosopher/prophet in the tradition of the men of old who proclaimed that we should follow this one high God (whom Jesus calls the father).

Also intersting is that Porphyry spent a good deal of time attempting to discount the book of Daniel.

This chapter deals mainly with the second century philosopher Galen.  Earlier Roman statesmen such as Pliny viewed Christianity as a kind of socio-political club.  Galen, however, shifted the paradigm slightly be referring to Christianity as a “philosophy” and looked somewhat favorably on Christians and Jews because he believed it allowed people to live a moral and virtuous life.  By the second century, much of philosophy was about a way of life as opposed to way of thinking.   Galen also had one major problem with Christians/Jews of his day.

Galen thought their beliefs were foolish and that they were not thought out.  He especially criticized creation ex nihilo.

This chapter dealt mostly with “piety.”  Most of the time, we do we do not think of the Romans as a very “religious” people.  Wilken attempts to show how the Romans were, in fact, a religious group, but not in the modern sense of the word.  Our personalized exclusive religion of Christianity would have been very foreign to a Roman worldview.  The Romans practiced a very inclusive religion and dismissed many Christians ideas as what they called “superstitions” (foreign beliefs).  They could not understand why Christians would not involve themselves in the Roman world.

I have read the first few chapters of Rob Bell’s second book “Sex God” and watched one of his latest nooma’s entitled “name.”  He is interesting, but there is one thing that I have found most interesting about his theology.

In the preface, he notes that “this is really about that.“  In other words, whatever problems we have about sex, life, culture, or people in general is really about something else–something deeper.  If we have trouble with intimacy, usually it is because of some experience in the past or some way that we perceive and view the world.  And I really like the idea behind this, but I also have some reservations.  I will first admit that I have not finished the book, nor do I have time to (I have to read about a hundred other books for school).

The reality is that we all have deep-seated issues within our hearts, and we need to talk about them and let them come out.  But Bell seems to put a lot of his trust into psychology.  I am a full proponent of pyschology, and I believe that psychologists have a major role to play within the church, but I want to get away from the idea that all things in our lives have some “excuse” for why they happened.  I agree that we probably all have issues that we need counseling for, but I DO NOT think that those ideas should allow us to look at ourselves and put labels to our problems.  All too often, these “labels” turn into excuses for the sin in our life.

We sin because we sin.  We sin because we choose to sin.

I know this is a simple thought, but in my continuing study of Bell and other pastors I want to remind people that sin is sin.  We have to acknowledge it as such and claim our responsibility in it and ask for the forgiveness of God.

I am currently working through Christians as the Romans Saw them for a class on the general epistles.  The book is thought provoking, and I will be spending time on this blog alongside my other topics dealing with this book.  In the second chapter of the book, Wilken deals with the idea that Christianity might be a type of early haeteria “society” that was common during the centuries after Christ.  He compares them especially to the bacchic society that also met for meals, had initiation rights, and other such things.  He notes that many of the early Christian apologists argued that Christianity was a “society” just like all the other societies of that day and age, but the apologists would argue that Christianity was the greatest society of all.

Interesting how Christians have always used the language of their day to argue for or against Christianity.

It is easy to forget their is a world larger than America during times like the presidential primaries, but the world is going on unhindered.  Just two days ago, there was a standoff near the Strait of Hormuz between Iranian and American ships.  President Bush will be going to the countries in the near future to talk about why he believes Iran still poses a serious threat to the world.  Don’t forget to follow the world news in light of presidential politics.  Most of the mainline candidates all hold the same policies anyway.

I need a hope

that is bigger than tomorrow

to get by

today.

the kaleidoscopic colors all blur

when you are driving in the rain

the neon lights bleed neon on the

black streets and blue skies.

this is life in transition

He stands up in front of a crowd of 16,000 flashing a confident white smile that he is so well known for. In a congregation hardly known for liturgy, they always begin the service the same way in their holy sanctuary–the former Compaq Center:

“This is my bible,” they confess together. “I am what it says I am, I have it says I have, I can do what it says I can do. Today I will be taught the word of God. I boldly confess my mind is alert, my heart is receptive, and I will never be the same.  In Jesus’ name. Amen.”

On the other side of the world, another pastor–hardly known for smiling–preaches in a small church with less than 200 members. He boldly proclaims:

“The greatest heresy in the American evangelical and Protestant church is that if you pray and ask Jesus Christ to come into your heart, He will definitely come in.”

The former is pastor Joel Osteen and the latter is pastor Paul Washer. Both have a profound message for the world, but their messages are so different. They cannot both possibly be right, or can they? Washer is hell-bent on discrediting ministries that attempt to preach any kind of a “prosperity gospel,” and Osteen smiles as he suggests that “there are already enough people beating people over their heads with their Bibles. I want to give people hope.”

And it is exactly this message of hope that makes Osteen’s message so accessible to people. He boldly proclaims that God wants us to have our best life now, and thousands of Americans are responding all over the world. But Washer believes that his message is the “true gospel.” It is one that calls Christians to holiness and to be different from the world. But if you listen closely you will notice something missing from both of their versions of Christianity.

Neither suffers from a lack of extremes, but they both suffer from a lack of definitions. They both claim to be the solution to the Christian’s down-trodden state, but neither really coherently explain what they mean. Washer is against the world, but what does he mean by “the world?”  Osteen wants us to live the “good life,” but what does he mean by good life?  There are so many problems that could be resolved if these famous pastors would defining what they mean when they use terms like these.

Wayne said something interesting today about Christianity and power:

“…the church through the ages has always thrived when it was not the tour-du-force or the imperial power or when it was tied into government and politics but rather, when it existed as a struggling (almost) counter-element to corrupt establishment. Cases are: the early Church, the Church in China. So for us to strive to become established in a sense is shooting ourselves in the foot. Sigh. While I’m not sold on starting house churches in the US (I think it’s impractical and unnecessary) I sit at an uncomfortable juncture between establishment and grass-roots, organic faith communities”