The Challenge of Reception: Ungreiffbar Begriff

[i]

Over the last few decades the concept of Reception has become a critical point of interest for many within the ecumenical movement.[ii] The release of Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) by the World Council of Churches (WCC) Faith and Order Commission (F&O) in the early 1980’s seemed to put a spotlight on the subject as ecumenists began to grapple with the “what” and the “how” of ecumenical documents that sought to be integrated into the faith and life of the church. While some look negatively at the struggles for implementing visible unity in the church, as Frank Macchia points out, “the visible realization of the unity of the church in history will not be viewed as a gift that merely ‘comes suddenly from heaven’ but rather through a dialectical historical process involving humble and open ecumenical exchanges and genuine repentance and ability to change even the very structures of the church.”^[iii] Reception is the “how” of the modern ecumenical movement and its efforts. This paper will attempt to establish a general understanding of the biblical, historical and ecumenical concepts of reception and provide suggestions on how the concept can act as a foundation for evangelical entry into the ecumenical discussion.

The concept of reception within a religious context is not a new one. From the beginning of our existence humanity has been actively engaged in the reception of vital information from our Creator. In fact Reception in a Christian context must be understood as a theological process that is central to the life of the church. The very process of reception is demonstrated fully in the life of the Trinity as the Father communicates to us through his Son by way of the Spirit.[iv] Through the activity of the Spirit and the Word humanity receives the blessing of the good news of salvation. Paul’s teacher Gamaliel made an observation regarding reception with respect to the new faith that was highly unpopular amongst Jews. He said concerning the Christians, “keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:38-39 ESV). While there is no indication that Gamaliel himself received the gospel message his counsel should be heeded by an ecumenical community that is seeking to find unity amidst the coral guarded islands of the modern denominationalism.

Defining Reception

As I have briefly mentioned reception is a biblical process that is responsible for the very faith we hold and the theology that has been developed through the ages. Ideas developed in modern literary theories look at reception as including the reader not only in the process of the interpretation but also in the development of meaning within a text. These modern insights are enormously significant to those who engage with the biblical witness especially in the study of diversity within the church. The Word of God is a dynamic resource that has its own clear mandate of truth. Nevertheless, Scripture at the same time calls individual and culture horizons of reality into communion thereby creating a diversity of expressions within the same mandate of truth. We as readers of Scripture or hearers of sermons are deliberately included in the process of interpretation and application; and by submitting ourselves to the process we participate in the full cycle of reception. This level of reception has formed the foundation of the Christian faith. Noted ecumenist William Rusch points out four basic dimensions of biblical reception that show this to be true.[v] First, the Bible is a product of reception of earlier tradition. Second, we can see the concept of reception clearly throughout the biblical text. We can see this in Israel receiving the Law of Moses and passing on; we see this in the teachings of Jesus who taught with authority; and we see this in the early church where tradition was passed down and received by the people like Paul, who, for example, delineates the tradition of communion to the Corinthians.[vi] Thirdly, we note the reception of the canon of Scripture by the church. And lastly, we can identify the process of theological reception in the work of critical scholars throughout the ages. These scholars have continually been searching the Scriptures through their own particular cultural lenses to identify what truths there are that need to be received into (or back into) the faith and life of the church of their particular age. Martin Luther’s epiphany in the simple phrase “the righteous shall live by faith”[vii] is a good example of the ongoing reception that has continued to take place in church life and study.

Classical Reception

Reception as a concept has been broken down by Rusch into two distinctive categories: classical and ecumenical.[viii] Classical reception refers to all reception prior to the rise of the modern ecumenical movement. Conversely ecumenical reception is the phenomenon of reception within the ecumenical movement. Generally defined classical reception refers to the process in the early church used to maintain unity between its members and other local churches. As questions or problems arose in a particular area it was resolved and then passed on to other Christian congregations throughout the region and world.[ix] Classical reception as a process has taken many forms throughout the centuries and as the church has changed so has the way that it has received its knowledge. While Rusch groups all reception before the modern ecumenical movement together as classical reception, the diversity within early reception is quite varied. Regardless of its specific title, reception has always been intimately connected to the way in which the church meets to make decisions. The process of Reception has changed as the form and function Christian councils have changed. These councils existed in three distinct venues before the modern ecumenical movement. The earliest councils were free from the influence of the Roman state while subsequent councils were convoked and influenced by the Roman emperor. Later, those councils convoked in the middle-ages were governed under strong papal control.[x] Each successive change shifted classical reception more and more from a communal and participatory process to a juridical one.

Classical Reception of the Early Church

In the first two centuries before the rise of the Christian emperors reception was centered on the local church. The efforts of these local churches were primarily concerned with the passing along of their received faith as well as maintaining the bond of unity and fellowship between the local congregations. As there was no true formal or hierarchical structure to the church, Rusch comments, these areas of reception were understood as being purely driven by the work of the Holy Spirit. ^[xi] One of the important differences between classical reception and that of later ecumenical reception is the fact that the early local church structure assumed unity between fellow local church bodies. Local and regional councils would all participate in the exchange of doctrine and resolution of problems; some doctrine was received as orthodox or some aberrant teaching rejected (non-reception) as heresy. “Undergirding these councils was the presupposition that any particular local church was authentically the Church only as it lived in communion and fellowship with other local churches.”[xii] These early conciliar meetings represented, to the early Christians, the work and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The innate presence of the Spirit within the gathering of church leaders imbued their outcomes with an authority from God, which thus enabled the process of reception to take place. Reception in these early gatherings was not a complex problem as it is today but was rather a simple act of confirmation and completion. The myriad of alternatives that exist today did not exist at in the first centuries of the church. As evangelicals, if we do not like a particular doctrine or program at our church we can simply leave. However, for early believers the local church was the only place where Christ was manifested and in its doctrine was found the only truth.

Classical Reception in the State Church

Over time this passing on and receiving of tradition began to coalesce into the creedal formulations that were developed by the first formal church councils that met in the fourth century and later. Despite the seeming autocratic nature of the larger councils that began to take place under the Constantine and other Christian emperors the process remained surprisingly participatory. The concept of church consensus (consensio universitatis) and Scriptural soundness (consensio antiquitatis) were the two elements that drove reception in the climate surrounding these historic ecumenical councils.[xiii] The theological and spiritual act of making decisions was a process in which both those in formal ministries and the congregation participated to an astounding degree. As it is still true today, not all of these early decisions were driven by spiritual motives. Early Christians understood that church councils were fallible and therefore reception by the local church bodies played an important role in the validation of a council’s decisions.[xiv] This congregational participation reemerged after the Protestant Reformation and has kept a strong presence in the modern Christian community through movements like the early Anabaptists, Pietists, and Methodists and even more recently in the Pentecostal movement. Unfortunately, to the modern evangelical mind the early ecumenical councils’ equal consideration of consensio universitatis and consensio antiquitatis in reception also allowed the introduction of many of the liturgical and ecclesial traditions that are believed to have eventually supplanted true reception based in the Word through the Spirit.

The Problem of Reception in the Middle Ages

Classical reception until the middle ages was primarily a process of practice; the early church simply lived out its receiving of both teaching and tradition. Central to this unspoken process was the underlying unity of the local churches as a community of believers. Christianity was understood as something that was to be passed on from generation to generation; the faith was passed on through Scriptural teaching while the understanding of tradition was received in the participation in community activities such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper.[xv] In the latter part of the first millennium and most of the second the vibrancy of the Word and Spirit in the life of the church was replaced with magisterial formality.[xvi] This closed magisterium turned reception into an act of simple obedience without participation; teaching became the active and sole domain of the clergy and learning became the wholly passive responsibility of the laity. Reception became a matter of either submission or excommunication. Those from High church traditions who have studied the phenomenon of reception at times seem to fail to recognize the disappearance of Spirit-led reception in the middle ages. Catholic scholar Frederick Bliss acknowledges that “the second millennium saw the disappearance of reception as a visible task of the entire people of God.”^[xvii] While the Protestant Reformation showed signs of a revival of true Word and Spirit led reception, after the Reformation era Protestant churches developed their confessional statements, most churches fell back into the one-sided juridical reception of the middle-ages. Not all people believe that the abandonment of the communal elements of classical reception was completely negative. Bliss continues to say that despite the exclusion of the entire people of God, the middle ages was, “nevertheless witness to an effective reception of papal and conciliar teaching.”[xviii] Regrettably, this facile discounting of the exclusion of the laity stands in stark contrast to the problems of congregational “buy-in” that these high traditions often face when engaged in the ecumenical process. Most of these established Christian traditions struggle to receive the teachings coming from the ecumenical movement because they require the participation of the full body and not just clerical acceptance; all Christians must participate for true reception to occur and all Christians will only participate when led by the Spirit. Thankfully, many are beginning to acknowledge that the ability to receive new teaching and openness to lay activity within their respective traditions has been lost or is not well understood and are beginning to take steps to correct the issue.^[xix] As Catholic theologian Yves Congar stated some sixty years ago “If the Church, secure on her foundations, boldly throws herself open to lay activity, she will experience such a springtime as we cannot image…today more than ever the Holy Spirit moves the world towards an ideal of fullness.”[xx] If that fact was true sixty years ago, how much more is it true now?

Ecumenical Reception

By the beginning of the twentieth century the church was in crisis. Fragmentation of the body of Christ was so drastic that the church’s witness was compromised to an unprecedented degree. The spiritual concept of participatory classical reception had become non-existent in western Christianity; the Catholic church had adopted the doctrine of papal inerrancy, liberal Protestantism had reject the biblical witness and fundamentalism had isolated itself from the rest of the church. It was in that climate that the Holy Spirit chose to raise up in some Christians the desire to search out the unity of the apostolic faith. These ecumenical pioneers believed that this return to the primitive faith would serve as an overwhelming force pulling all of Christendom towards its witness. As it developed throughout the twentieth century ecumenical reception would prove to be a redefinition of the core components of classical reception with one critical difference: instead of a unified church receiving faith and tradition, a splintered church would need to embark on the quest to receive one-another.

The Emergence of an Ecumenical Reception

To fully understand the emergence of ecumenical reception it is necessary to understand the development of ecumenical movement in the twentieth century. The story of ecumenical movement within Christianity flows from the first World Conference on Faith and Order (F&O) held in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1927, which had as its purpose the cautious goal of “comparative ecclesiology .”[xxi] The outcome of the event was, on the surface, a seeming failure with final notes being nothing more than a list of differing opinions. This conference, though more outwardly focused on comparative ecclesiology than visible unity, made an enormous step toward unity by clearly declaring that the true Christian act of reception was in conforming to the will of the Spirit and not manipulating the church to our own. The final report from Lausanne, The Call to Unity, clearly stated this deep desire to work earnestly towards a unified Church: “God wills unity. Our presence in this conference bears testimony to our desire to bend our will to His.”^[xxii]

In 1948 the F&O movement became part of the new larger organization called the World Council of Churches (WCC). Shortly thereafter in Lund, Sweden, the F&O community held its Third World Conference where the theme of outward unity was brought to the forefront of the movement’s objectives. This was a notable shift as F&O’s original focus within the ecumenical community was to analyze and study the ecclesiastical and doctrinal differences that separated the various traditions within Christendom. However, this goal of comparative ecclesiology was no longer seen as a viable step towards unity but rather as leading to an impasse in the work towards unity. The conference of 1952 in Lund changed F&O’s charter of comparative ecclesiology to one that would participate actively in finding a visible expression of the one Church of Jesus Christ here on earth.[xxiii]

A decade after Lund, the Roman Catholic Vatican II council took place. Vatican II represented a major leap forward in ecumenical reception, as Rusch notes:

“it is in the calling of the Second Vatican Council in 1961 that we can find the first motivation for a renewed and contemporary attraction to reception. Vatican II raised serious questions - and not just for the Roman Catholic Church - about the conciliar nature of the Church, the teaching authority of the Church, and how conciliar and other teachings were to be received into and made part of the life of the Church.”[xxiv]

In essence the entrance of the Vatican into the ecumenical dialogue was the largest act of ecumenical reception to date as instead of creating a parallel ecumenical path the Catholic church chose to participate in and receive the movement that had already been active amongst the other Christian organizations for fifty years.[xxv] During this time Catholic ecumenists like Yves Congar, began to develop positions on tradition and ecclesiology that were far broader than had been extant previously. In fact using some of the work done by Conger and others, the Fourth World Conference on F&O, held in Montreal in 1963, took massive steps towards the actualization of the decade-old undertaking of creating visible unity, giving it a foundation from which to work. The conference established that we are Christians by the Tradition (upper case “T”) of the Gospel testified in Scripture; and that Tradition, which is the work of the Holy Spirit, is found in some form or fashion within the myriad of individual church traditions (lower case “t”).[xxvi] These individual traditions, the conference stated, are “expressions and manifestations in diverse historical forms of the one truth and reality which is Christ.”[xxvii]

The statements made in Montreal charted the course of F&O towards a reevaluation of each of the participant’s individual tradition to meet the goal of eventual unity. The Conference succeeded in acknowledging that there is one true Tradition from which the myriad of individual traditions have their basis; these individual traditions are part of and come from a single greater Tradition but do not, in any case, fully express it. With this recognized the ideas and goals of catholicity continued to be developed through the 1960’s and early 1970’s. At the Commission of F&O Louvain in 1971 a new concept of called conciliar fellowship further refined the goal of achieving visible unity within the church.[xxviii] At the commission conciliar fellowship was described as:

The coming together of Christians-locally, regionally or globally-for common prayer, counsel and decision, in the belief that the Holy Spirit can use such meetings for his own purpose of reconciling, reviewing and reforming the Church by guiding it towards the fullness of truth and love.[xxix]

The goal of conciliar fellowship was not the end-game for ecumenical unity but rather was an intermediary step that would create the environment wherein true ecumenical conversations, like those held in early church councils, could commence. The goal of conciliar fellowship is one of the foundational goals of ecumenical reception; in an environment where disunity is prevailing achieving conciliar fellowship is finding common ground in the apostolic faith and receiving one another back into some basic level of communion.

Ecumenical Reception in the Light of BEM

In 1978 the F&O Commission in Bangalore identified the three core areas of difference that needed to be agreed upon to achieve some level of conciliar fellowship and for ecumenical reception to happen in some visible degree. These areas were defined as: (1) a common understanding of the apostolic faith; (2) full mutual recognition of baptism, eucharist, and ministry; and (3) agreement on common ways of teaching and decision-making.[xxx] Despite the fact that these issues had already been areas of focus and study to ecumenists for almost fifty years, the impetus from the Bangalore conference drove the creation of the landmark BEM document. In 1982 at the F&O Commission in Lima over 100 theologians from “Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and others“[xxxi] unanimously voted in favor of releasing the final version of BEM to the churches for reception. Jeffery Gros noted the importance of the event shortly after it happened: “For the first time in history a text produced by such a diverse group of theologians on behalf of their churches is to be evaluated for action in the churches of a divided Christianity.”[xxxii]

The challenge that faced the ecumenical movement in the period following the release of BEM was unique. BEM was truly sui generis and yet it had been delivered to a diverse community of Christian faith for reception. But what exactly did reception of an ecumenical document like BEM mean? It was agreed that reception could not simply mean accepting the document for review; BEM intended to move beyond the concept of pure study and analysis. Those churches engaging in the ecumenical movement were being asked to evaluate the document in the light of its viability in praxis; could the churches look past their individual traditions and see the apostolic Tradition of the gospel.[xxxiii] It is important to note that the historical purpose of BEM provide a foundation for ecumenical reception; finding common ground in BEM represents finding common ground with many other traditions regarding the “faith of the Church through the ages”.[xxxiv] Reception of BEM would hopefully provide the opportunity for conciliar fellowship and a true ecumenical council wherein the unity and diversity of the one true Church could be genuinely addressed. The challenges with reception quickly became apparent in the wake of the document’s release. It was unprecedented that churches were being asked to “accept and make their own something that they did not produce alone.”[xxxv] These difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that even the most supportive members of the ecumenical community could only hope that BEM could serve as a “fragile bridge of words” to reach between the faith life of the many traditions.[xxxvi] However, the largest challenge to reception was the very term itself; no one had a clear understanding, at the time of BEM’s release, exactly what reception meant.

BEM as Successful Ecumenical Reception

There is no doubt that in some respects BEM can be seen as an example of success in ecumenical reception. The explosion of dialogue and reflection within individual traditions as well as between them is one of the most obvious ways in which the document has been successfully received. One of the most striking examples of radically new intra-tradition reflection was with the Roman Catholic church who, over the course of a five year period, developed a sizable, engaged, and serious response to BEM. This was no small entrée in the realm of catholic religious affairs as it represented the first official response of the Catholic Church to the modern ecumenical movement. The response in and of itself demonstrated the church’s commitment and full participation of what it deems to be the “one and comprehensive ecumenical movement.”[xxxvii] Even Pope John Paul II recognized BEM and its Catholic response as important, referencing it on several occasions as an important step towards the unity in the church.

While internal dialogue is good, the larger purpose of BEM was to create external, inter-tradition dialogue; and in this area BEM has become profoundly impactful. First and foremost it has become the standard ecumenical text that is referred to in ecumenical studies. Initially there was doubt that all of the original 5,000 copies of BEM would be needed. However, the WCC is now on its 38^th edition and over 600,000 copies in 37 languages have been sold.[xxxviii] The written dialogue in response to BEM and between traditions is immense. A collection of responses to BEM were published by the WCC around 1988 as a massive 6-volume set. Views that may have been introduced by individual theologians in the past have now been appropriated by BEM. This appropriation provides an intermediary vehicle for transmission and subsequent reception of these previously unengaged ideas. Therefore the adoption of ideas into a broader ecumenical dialogue represents a very real form of ecumenical reception. Most importantly in the area of inter-tradition is how BEM has been used in discussions between of churches on full communion and sacramental sharing. Many other bilateral agreements, such as the Porvoo agreement between the Anglican’s and Lutheran’s, have used BEM for its insights in formulating agreements.

Ecumenical Reception Beyond BEM

Despite these successes the significant number of less positive responses to BEM reveals how difficult it actually is for churches to look beyond their own traditions in an effort to find ecumenical unity.[xxxix] Unfortunately, BEM’s successes have not resulted in widespread inter-tradition sacramental practice nor in the conciliar fellowship that that was hoped for. Rusch notes that it is easy to understand why reception presents a major challenge to churches active in ecumenism. He tells us, “ecumenical reception must be corporate, involving the coordination of many different persons and entities - theologians, parish clergy, and not the least the faithful of the churches.”[xl] As we have already discussed, the unfortunate fact is that most of the ecumenical movement is driven by high church traditions that have little experience in actively involving the laity in more significant church decisions that have to do with theological and ecclesial matters.[xli] Despite these challenges Rusch still offers us a well balanced definition of ecumenical reception saying:

Reception includes all phases and aspects of an ongoing process by which a church under that guidance of the God’s Spirit makes the results of a bilateral or multilateral conversation a part of its faith and life because the results are seen to be in conformity with the teachings of Christ and of the apostolic community, that is, the gospel as witnessed to in Scripture.[xlii]

This definition acknowledges the enduring reality of modern diversity in the church and seeks to redefine and feasibly update the concept of classical reception. Humanity has always placed superfluous expectations upon God and his Word which has led to many unfortunate consequences from petty squabbling all of the way to the Jewish rejection of their Messiah. Our expectations of the church need to be tempered with the biblical witness. The fact is that valid diversity within orthodoxy exists within the church. Diversity and disunity are not the same however, and the church is called to unity within this diversity. Fighting against the reality of diversity within orthodoxy or the call to unity is to “kick against the goads”, resisting the movement of the Holy Spirit. This call, however, is rooted in the gospel itself and its final standard needs to be the biblical witness. Truth must always be the driving factor in what is received in the ecumenical process; truth must never be subordinated to facile pragmatism.[xliii]

Thus far we have established three distinct requirements for ecumenical reception to be effective. First, it must recognize that valid diversity exists within the greater Tradition of the church; second, it must include the whole body of Christ as active participants in the process; and third, the reception process must be founded in an honest and self-confrontational encounter with Scripture. While there have been many attempts to identify the exact steps that the process of classical reception follows there has been little success in finding a clear pattern amidst the historical examples. One detail that does come to light in each case of classical reception is that it is an ongoing process and not something that is accomplished in discrete steps over a short period of time. As ecumenical reception is to date an un-witnessed phenomenon, Rusch provides three theoretical steps that would need to be achieved in some form if the goal of visible church unity is to be achieved, whether in a local or universal context. These three steps are preliminary reception; non-reception; and de-reception. In preliminary reception a church having received an ecumenical teaching that is deemed to be a faithful witness of the gospel, formally and practically integrates it into its tradition. This step is only complete when the teaching is integrated in such a way that inter-tradition fellowship and exchange can exist. The next step, non-reception, is the reconsideration and rejection of the elements of tradition that obscure and/or distort the gospel. The last step in the process is de-reception, wherein the churches reconsider elements of their tradition that are not necessarily in conflict with the gospel, but hinder the visible unity of the church.^[xliv]

Events like the Porvoo agreement, which created significant inter-tradition communion between certain Anglicans and Lutherans, are examples of the success of ecumenical reception. These successes have occurred despite the ambiguity around the specifics of how it is that reception has come into being. Perhaps ecumenical reception as a process is occurring all around us as we struggle to define it? While Rusch claims that strongly congregational church structures will have a harder time with ecumenical reception than highly centralized churches, I question that assumption. Rusch and many ecumenists seem to have little or no experience with the faith and life of evangelical churches and have traditionally fallen back on their magisterial traditions for historical context. However, that context may no longer be sufficient in this era of diversity within the church. The fact is that I can go to most any Pentecostal or evangelical church and receive communion as a Christian. Also, my baptism by a Calvary Chapel pastor has been recognized by all of the Pentecostal and non-denominational churches I have visited in America. And lastly, my ordination as a pastor has been unanimously recognized by the Pentecostal churches I minister to in the Republic of Panama. Only time will tell how reception will end up being defined as it relates to the Christian ecumenical movement. Amid the many possible steps and definitions one clear fact emerges, ecumenical reception will be a long and diverse process

A Clarion Call for Evangelicalism[xlv]

At its core ecumenical reception manifests itself in the active dialogue and fellowship with the ecumenical movement itself. In reading the literature it becomes evident that Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed and others are actively participating in reception, making strides to break down the barriers that divide them. However, in my research I have been struck by the lack of notable participation by evangelicals in these momentous events. While it is true that many Pentecostals and non-denominational evangelicals I have met over the last few years have expressed a sincere desire to participate in the ecumenical process, more often than not I have seen intense resistance to enter into any kind of ecumenical dialogue whatsoever. Many of these church leaders see Christian ecumenism as an issue that has the potential to threaten their core values and truths. The concept of doctrinal truth is often extremely personal and intimately tied to a person’s religious identity. Christian identity rightly stands in stark contrast with the biblical concept of the κόσμος.[xlvi]

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (Jas 4:4 ESV).

Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Rom 12:2 ESV).

Biblical verses like these have taken on a dogmatic and almost fundamentalist absoluteness for many today; for some to consider any inter-tradition ecumenical dialogue is to compromise truth and take the first step down a slippery slope. After all, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Galatians 5:9 ESV).

What is certain is that an ecumenical dialogue requires certain amount of humility. Simply entering in to the conversation requires an implicit acknowledge that no one tradition, including our own, has cornered the market on truth. Nevertheless, there is little risk in joining the ecumenical conversation; it has no requirement for implementing doctrines that compromise the gospel nor does it require that we give-up valued traditions that we desire to maintain. Contrary to hyperbole, the Christian ecumenical dialogue does not promote religious relativism; in fact the truth is quite the opposite. The ecumenical community more than ever suffers from an unbalanced view of the Christian faith due the lack of dialogue coming from the evangelical community. The distinctives of evangelical churches need to be brought to the ecumenical table. Our distinctive such as the power of the Word of God taught in the Spirit, contextually and systematically as well as the life of a church body that is Spirit-baptized are not exclusively for us as evangelicals, but rather holy gifts given to us to share with the rest of the body of Christ. The process of dialogue and reception will provide a view into the universality of these Christian experiences that have been undervalued in formal, high church traditions as well as feed us with nourishing traditions that we may have lost along the way. Theology and practice intersect and overlap more than we recognize within the various Christian traditions and these intersections are clearly representative of a common link we all have to our apostolic roots and the one true Church of Jesus Christ. If we truly seek to be faithful to the biblical record than we will genuinely want to know if and where we have erred. This “de-absolutizing” of our tradition requires, first and foremost, a fresh evaluation of our beliefs in the context of the biblical record. There is no doubt that every tradition has slipped away from the biblical and apostolic Tradition. This is the very reason why evangelical Christianity needs this dialogue: The time has come for us to validate the truth, refine our traditions and, perhaps, even recapture healthy biblical practices that our well-meaning forefathers erroneously removed.

In conclusion I submit that reception is what we must do to know God. Even before the church age, from the time of Abraham until the time of Jesus the promises of God were given to and received exclusively by the Jewish people. Though the purpose of Israel was to be a light to the rest of the world, showing forth the mercy and love of God for the nations to receive, there remained a large wall of separation between those within the covenantal promises and those outside of it. However, with the coming of Jesus a new period of reception began that would shake the very foundations of Judaism. To accept the premise and salvation of this Messiah, the Jewish people would have to reevaluate and surrender the massive and overbearing traditions that had grown like a coral reef around the island of their perceived uniqueness. Many of their traditions were being called superfluous and their identity probably seemed as if it was being swept away. Unfortunately, most did not receive Jesus as the Messiah or his teachings, choosing instead to retain an identity based in their expectation of God rather than in the reality that was presented to them through his Son Christ Jesus. The ecumenical call to unity presents modern day Christians with the same radical call to reception. While it is easy to sit back and simply critique the evangelical attitude towards ecumenism that is not my intention. Those of us who are evangelicals need to begin offering up suggestions regarding how to start the process of participating in the ecumenical dialogue. I have included two appendices to this paper that represent two beginning steps for preparing ourselves for dialogue with other Christian traditions. The first is the development of a centered set theology that will allow us to safely evaluate the weight of individual doctrines and beliefs within our own traditions. The second is an adaptation of “conversational evangelism” to the topic of ecumenical dialogue in the hopes that we may be able to interact with our fellow Christian brothers and sisters with the same courtesy and interest as we are seeking to do with non-believers. It is truly my hope and prayer that we might heed the call to unity, hearing the words of Jesus as he prayed for us before going to the cross on Calvary, “The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me” (John 17:22-23 ESV).

APPENDIX 1: CONCENTRIC THEOLOGY

There are two distinctive ways of treating theology in Christianity: theology as closed bounded set and that of an open centered set.[xlvii] Bounded set groups look at theology as a fence that exists to tell us who is on the inside and who is on outside. Centered set groups look at theology more as a source and what becomes important is how we are functioning in relation to that source. While all Christians should have certain elements of their theology that is bounded and used to distinguish what is orthodox and what is not, there needs to be a shift in evangelicalism to a more centered set view of our theology and beliefs. With the ability to view theology in a centered set manner evangelicals can begin to safely enter the ecumenical dialogue in an informed fashion. A good first step for evangelicals is to take existing theological beliefs and reorganize them “concentrically” based on their importance in the economy of salvation.[xlviii] There should be least four distinct rings in this organization of theology: the essential, the eminent, the explicative, and the expressive. At the very center of the theological circle would reside the essential. The essential consist of those absolutely critical beliefs, without which we are no longer Christian. What does it take to receive the salvation that the Father offers us through his Son Jesus Christ? These views are the non-negotiable elements of our faith and should be the key determinant as to whether we can have Christian fellowship with san outside individual or tradition. Those that do not conform to that inner set of requirements cannot be viewed as Christian; however, those that do conform can and do participate in the body of Christ and should be seen as such even if they have vastly different views on other elements of the faith. An example of an essential element of theology would be an orthodox “4 fence” Christology.

The second ring of theology would be the eminent. Eminent theological issues are those of great importance to maintaining sound biblical doctrines. These should be elements of theology that are believed to be strongly and clearly identified in Scripture. Compromising on these issues puts the health of a church in jeopardy, though it does not disqualify the individual or organization from being considered Christian. Disagreements on elements in this ring can significantly inhibit visible unity in church programs though they should never prevent basic Christian fellowship. Biblical infallibility would be a doctrine that most evangelicals would ascribe this level of importance.

The third ring of theology would be the explicative. The explicative are beliefs that have been developed to explain biblical concepts that are less clearly described in Scripture. The Bible implies many ideas that are sufficiently ambiguous to warrant diversity in interpretation. This diversity should never be a reason for disunity. Churches with differing views on explicative elements of theology can have fruitful fellowship in worship as well as in evangelistic missions work. Theologies of specific end-times chronologies, such as the rapture of the church, should be placed in this ring.

The fourth and last ring is that of the expressive. The expressive are biblical concepts that we can shape to our inclination. The gospel of Jesus Christ seeks to changes cultures from within. As this change occurs, some elements of that culture are rejected as ungodly and some are integrated into the life and worship of that church. Different Christian traditions should have different ways of expressing themselves; this diversity should be encouraged and celebrated. It is plain to see in creation that our God loves diversity; why is it so strange to believe that he would allow diversity of expression within the life of his church? Different expressions of worship music and the flow of church services are good examples of expressive elements in evangelical churches today.

APPENDIX 2: CONVERSATIONAL ECUMENISM

One of the more popular trends in Christian evangelism today is the concept of “conversational evangelism.” Over the last twenty years it has been increasingly difficult to bring the gospel to younger generations due to the rise of post-modernity and its increasing ambivalence towards truth. Many of those seeking to reach out with the gospel in a new and relevant way are those same evangelicals that are reticent to participate in the ecumenical dialogue. The conversational methods that many of these evangelists and apologists are developing to reach non-Christians present incredibly rich and productive models for safely engaging in Christian ecumenical dialogue as well. While many Christians place the priority of evangelism over church unity, there is no doubt that both are required of the church. In this section I will be appropriating the methodology of conversational evangelism from Norman and David Geisler’s book Conversational Evangelism as a method for evangelicals to engage in productive ecumenical dialogue. The book makes the case that with the changing times there is a need to redefine evangelism.[xlix] The same change of thought is needed concerning ecumenism. As evangelism changes from simply handing out a tract to a respectful and well thought-out conversation, evangelicals need to ask themselves a simple question: why is it that I can dialogue with non-Christians respectfully and yet reject those that love Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?

Ecumenism, like conversational evangelism, is a dialogue. In a dialogue sincere questions are asked in an attempt to find common ground. This common ground is subsequently used to advance the dialogue until the stated goal has been achieved; for evangelists this goal is reception of the gospel, however, for ecumenists it is the reception of one another. Geisler points out in his book that there are different types of conversations that we engage in pre-evangelism: hearing conversations, Illuminating conversations, uncovering conversations, and building conversations. These same categories are extant in ecumenical dialogue as well and each of these conversations corresponds to a role that we need to play in the ecumenical dialogue: that of the musician, the artist, the archaeologist, and the builder.^[l] Active listening, positive deconstructionism, identifying barriers, finding common ground, and building bridges are all key activities that need to be developed for the process of ecumenical dialogue to be success and enriching for both sides.[li] Understanding each of the roles above will help evangelicals participate in ecumenism without fear of getting mixed up in some sort of theological “strange fire.”[lii]

The role of musician is primarily concerned with hearing conversations. Unfortunately, most of us fail to hear what people from other traditions are saying, which makes it hard to fully grasp what they actually believe. The musician is first and foremost a good listener and therefore this is the first step in conversational ecumenism. As we hone our listening skills we will hear many points of agreement as well as “sour notes” that conflict with our own beliefs. Regardless of the differences between traditions it is of primary importance to focus attention initially on listening well to gain a clear understanding their beliefs and perspectives. One tool to ensure effective listening is to reflect back what we hear, paraphrasing the concepts being communicated to us to ensure that we are not misunderstanding them.[liii]

The role of the artist is primarily concerned with illuminating conversations. Most individuals, when given the opportunity to express their beliefs clearly will have no problem in allowing others to do the same for them.[liv] Ecumenical Reception is a bilateral process of teaching and learning. We need to be prepared not only to listen but also to adequately describe what it is that we hold to be the truth. As the artist we need to paint a theological picture for those in the ecumenical community who seek to find the common thread of apostolic tradition in our faith. One of the most important pre-dialogue activities we as evangelicals can do is to reorganize our theological beliefs “concentrically” around what we see as the core of our faith. In doing this we focus our energies primarily on those doctrines that are central to our faith while at the same time shifting those less critical ones into less strenuous classifications. Adopting a more centered set theology such as this promotes positive and productive dialogue between traditions. After this “concentric theology” has been organized the artist can more effectively paint the picture. Expressing one’s theological beliefs is not simply a matter of talking but rather an interaction where information is communicated, received, responded to and then clarified. Clear and effective communication is essential in the ecumenical process; both sides need to be able to communicate their traditions completely and unambiguously.

The third role of archaeologist is primarily involved in uncovering conversations.[lv] The very core of the ecumenical process revolves around the search for unity in the Christian church. It logically follows that what prevents unity are obstacles of doctrinal differences that have developed within the church over the last two millennia. Identifying and removing those obstacles is not as much a question of changing others as it is self-examination in the light of the faith life of the apostles and the Scriptures. Just as archeologists look to past as a reference point for civilizations, ecumenists use the past as a reference point for the church in the search for unity. Identifying the nature of a particular obstacle can be challenging work. The general tendency is to hold on to our traditions and sometimes this leads to a bending of Scripture to meet our needs as opposed to applying a more honest hermeneutic. The obstacles that are uncovered are sometimes errors or non-biblical additions in our own traditions and when this happens we are obligated to reconsider these in the light of the importance of unity in the church.

The last role is that of the builder and it is involved in building conversations. As a builder we want to not only remove obstacles to unity but also build a bridge to our own respective tradition for others to experience.[lvi] The building conversation is both about building on the common ground that has been discovered as well as working to overcome obstacles that stand in the way of fellowship. Being a builder is an investment and a process. As with any relationship the more time invested the deeper and more substantial the connection. To keep my metaphors straight, the more time spent in the building process the more substantial the structure. The builder works best with other helping as construction is never a one person job. This fact is even truer in ecumenism as the process is one we will pass on to those who come after us. Undoubtedly, there will be high points and low points but we always have the hope that wherever we are gathered the Lord is with us.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bate, H. N., ed. Faith and Order, Proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, August 3-21, 1927. London: Student Christian Movement, 1927.

Bauer, W., William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Bliss, Frederick M., Understanding Reception: A Backdrop to Its Ecumenical Use. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993.

Congar, Yves , Tradition and traditions: an historical and a theological essay. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

____. Lay People in the Church. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964.

Faith and Order, Louvain, 1971. Faith and Order Paper No. 59. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1971.

Faith and Order, Lima, 1982. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry: Faith and Order Paper No. 111. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1982.

Gassmann, Günther. “25 years of the Lima Document (BEM): a unique document — an extraordinary process — a promising impact.” Centro Pro Unione 72 (2007): 3-10.

Gros, Jeffrey. “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry : introduction.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1984): 1-9.

Kennedy, Daniel. “Sacraments.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. Cited 15 Oct. 2010. Online: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm.

Koskela, Douglas M., Ecclesiality and Ecumenism: Yves Congar and the Road to Unity. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2008.

Macchia, Frank D., Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Kindle Edition.

Olsen, Roger E., The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Kindle Edition.

Peterson, Jim, Church Without Walls. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1992.

Radano, John A. “The Catholic Church, Faith and Order, and BEM.” Centro Pro Unione 73 (2008): 3-14.

Rodger, P. C., and Lukas Vischer, eds. The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order, Montreal, 1963. New York: Association Press, 1964.

Roman Catholic Church. “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” No pages. Cited 15 October 2010. Online: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm.

Rusch, William G. “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry - and reception.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 21 (1984) 129-43.

____. Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007. Kindle Edition.

____. Reception: An Ecumenical Opportunity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Schlink, Edmund, “Ecumenical Councils Past and Present,” Pages 466-509 in The Councils of the Church: History and Analysis. Edited by Hans J. Margull. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Sullivan, Emmanuel “Reception of Ecumenism: A Theological Rationale,” Pages 125-143 in Twelve Tales Untold. Edited by John T. Ford and Darlis J. Swan; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Tanner, Mary. “What is Faith and Order?” No pages. Cited 15 October 2010. Online: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/xii-essays/11-08-95-what-is-faith-and-order-mary-tanner.html.

Tomkins, Oliver S., ed. The Third World Conference on Faith and Order held at Lund. August 15th to 28th, 1952. London: SCM Press, 1953.

---

[i] In 1990 Hermann Fischer captured the challenge of quantifying reception by describing it as “ungreiffbar Begriff” - an incomprehensible concept. William G. Rusch. Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), Location 610.

[ii] Throughout this paper the term ecumenism is referring to the Christian ecumenical movement that is seeking to find visible unity between the various traditions and expressions of the Christian faith. The term is not referring to inter-religious ecumenical activities that seek to find common ground between the various world religions.

[iii] Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), Location 3913.

[iv] William G. Rusch. Ecumenical Reception: Its Challenge and Opportunity. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), Location 83.

[v] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 84.

[vi] 1 Corinthians 11:23.

[vii] Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17.

[viii] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 150.

[ix] Emmanuel Sullivan, “Reception of Ecumenism: A Theological Rationale,” in Twelve Tales Untold. (ed. John T. Ford and Darlis J. Swan; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 128.

[x] Edmund Schlink, “Ecumenical Councils Past and Present,” in The Councils of the Church: History and Analysis. (ed. Hans J. Margull; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 468.

[xi] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 155.

[xii] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 172.

[xiii] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 216.

[xiv] Schlink, “Ecumenical Councils,” 488-89.

[xv] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 236

[xvi] It is important to note at this point that this paper will being dealing with the concept of reception as it evolved in the west. The Eastern Orthodox tradition will not be discussed but rather only the Roman Catholic and Reformation traditions of the west.

[xvii] Frederick M. Bliss, Understanding Reception: A Backdrop to Its Ecumenical Use. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), p. 2.

[xviii] Bliss, Understanding, 2.

[xix] Bliss, Understanding, 15.

[xx] Yves Congar, Lay People in the Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964), xviii-xix.

[xxi] Mary Tanner, “What is Faith and Order?” n.p. Tanner, Mary. [cited 20 November 2010]. Online: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/xii-essays/11-08-95-what-is-faith-and-order-mary-tanner.html.

[xxii] H. N. Bate, ed., Faith and Order, Proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, August 3-21, 1927 (London: Student Christian Movement, 1927), p. 460.

[xxiii] Oliver S. Tomkins. Ed., The Third World Conference on Faith and Order held at Lund. August 15^th to 28^th, 1952 (London: SCM Press, 1953), pp.15,33-34.

[xxiv] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 371.

[xxv] Bliss, Understanding, 10.

[xxvi] Yves Congar’s paradigm will be used throughout this paper: Tradition (upper case “T) represents the original biblical and apostolic faith; while tradition (lower case “t”) represents the individual manifestations of ecclesial practice that emerged through the history of the Church. Yves Congar, Tradition and traditions: an historical and a theological essay (New York: Macmillan, 1967), p. 287.

[xxvii] P. C. Rodger and Lukas Vischer, eds., The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order, Montreal, 1963 (New York: Association Press, 1964), p. 52.

[xxviii] William G. Rusch, “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry - and reception.” JES 21 (1984),p. 134.

[xxix] Faith and Order, Louvain, 1971. Faith and Order Paper 59 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1971), p. 226.

[xxx] Rusch, “BEM,” p. 136.

[xxxi] Rusch, “BEM,” p. 138.

[xxxii] Jeffrey Gros. “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry: introduction.” JES 21 (1984), p. 1.

[xxxiii] Rodger and Vischer. Montreal, 1963, p. 51.

[xxxiv] World Council of Churches, BEM, 1982, p. X.

[xxxv] Rusch, “BEM,” p. 142.

[xxxvi] Gros, “BEM Introduction,” p. 9.

[xxxvii] Radano, “The Catholic Church,” p. 12.

[xxxviii] Gassmann. “25 years,” p. 4.

[xxxix] Günther Gassmann. “25 years of the Lima Document (BEM): a unique document — an extraordinary process — a promising impact.” Centro Pro Unione 72 (2007): p. 5.

[xl] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 597.

[xli] Shortly before finishing this paper I came across a Spanish language program called “¿Cuál es la duda?” On this program people ask a Catholic priest questions regarding the Catholic faith. I was pleasantly surprised that many of the questions were concerning unity and sacramental sharing, especially between Orthodox and Catholics. While the priest had an obligation to state that an Orthodox priest could not preside over the Eucharist in a Catholic church, he did state that he would gladly give communion to an Orthodox believer as well as take communion from an Orthodox priest. This is practical ecumenical reception that incorporates the whole body of Christ through a popular medium like television. It gives me great joy to see practical application of reception like this in high church communities that have in the past struggled to incorporate the laity.

[xlii] William G. Rusch, Reception: An Ecumenical Opportunity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), p.31.

[xliii] Rusch, Ecumenical Reception, Location 648.

[xliv] Rusch, “Ecumenical Reception,” Location 810-840.

[xlv] In this section I use the term Evangelicalism and Evangelical primarily to mean biblically conservative non-denominational and Pentecostal churches. While there are some small independent groups engaged in the ecumenical discussion from these groups, the vast majority of these organizations avoid the work and dialogue of the ecumenical movement.

[xlvi] “The world, and everything that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God.” W. Bauer, “κόσμος,” BAGD 445-447.

[xlvii] Jim Peterson, Church Without Walls (Colorado Springs: Navpress, 1992), p. 173-175.

[xlviii] Organizing doctrinal beliefs around the concept of salvation speaks directly to the evangelical mind, which generally places personal salvation above all other biblical doctrines concerning man and the church.

[xlix] Norman Geisler and David Geisler, Conversational Evangelism: how to listen and speak so you can be heard (Eugene: Harvest House, 2009). p. 23.

[l] Geisler and Geisler, Conversational Evangelism, 32-33.

[li] Geisler and Geisler, Conversational Evangelism, 38.

[lii] Leviticus 10:1 KJV

[liii] Geisler and Geisler, Conversational Evangelism, 48.

[liv] Geisler and Geisler, Conversational Evangelism, 66-67.

[lv] Geisler and Geisler, Conversational Evangelism, 88.

[lvi] Geisler and Geisler, Conversational Evangelism, 104.

Bible Studies, Ecumenism, General Information

The trip at the end of OCtober/beginng of November was a blessing. short but full of fellowship, encouragement and the Spirit of God. please continue to pray for the Church that the fire of revival burns brightly in Panama. Many start but it seems that few finish…

Also please pray for our upcoming trip maybe over Christmas, maybe shortly after - I am hoping that the whole family will be going to bless the saints and be blessed by them.

General Information

Day One:

Oops I missed my flight!

Day One (Let´s try this again):

After a long flight I arrived in Panama City with all of the wonderful donations that were offered up by friends and neighbors in the States. Pastor Bert and Tonly Gill (aka Cretino) from Calvary Chapel La Chorrera picked me up from the airport and took me to Bert´s home/missionary hostel. After some time studying and thanking God for bringing me safely to my second home, I headed over to the church to teach a message on Spiritual Warfare to the Bible College class they have on Friday nights. They happened to be covering Spiritual Warfare and I happened to have prepared a series on the same subject - God is good.

Day Two:

Bert and I spend Saturday in Panama City looking for and purchasing equipment for the church so that he can begin to record his messages. this is in preparation for the Internet radio station we are coordinating. The station will broadcast Spanish language, verse x verse Bible studies (with a little music) to anyone that wants to listen. This resource give pastors and missionaries a valuable tool for ministry into areas that they cannot reach every week or even every month. There will be some opportunity to help on this financially and technically (if you have set up Internet radio before or have web development skills). Fellowship and study with the saints - all is good.

Day Three:

Sunday was a full day. Church in the morning in La Chorrera, fellowship and food afterwards and then back to Panama City to a convention for home mortgages/new home sales/remodeling/construction equipment. CC Panama is looking to buy their building BUT it is impossible to get a loan here if you are a church/pastor and even harder if you are a foreigner. The loan amount being only 20k doesn´t change anything. After 6 or 7 denials (credit fine, paperwork fine…oh! you´re a church) we left. There is a need to help in this area since the downpayment has already been given on the house - if you would like to help please contact me or Pastor Bert. On the way back we stoped to get some more equipment for recording recording system. Arrived back in Chorrera late but the lovely ladies of CC La Chorerra were up and had Zancocho and rice waiting for us (chicken and yuca soup).

Day Four:

Off to stay with my friend Anselmo (Chemito) Avedaño and his wonderful family in the San Miguelito district of Panama City. Things have been challenging for the church in Panama, lots of resistance to the change to a more biblically centered ministry.  There is a spirit of confusion happening that seems to be interfering with the plans.  Despite the fact that we were all clear it seems that the church was expecting me yesterday morning to speak at the service.  Additionally the Tuesday-Thursday seminar we had planned has been scheduled over at the last minute by a visitor from Tampa Florida.  God knows and I have encouraged my friends here that it is nothing to get angry about.  I was able to begin a series in my friend Anselmo’s father’s house which went great - bunch of family gathered around learning about the Spiritual Warfare that is happening as we speak.  Tomorrow Anselmo is going to get us a car to go to La Chorrera to work on the church.

Day Five:

Spent the whole day studying and sharing with Anselmo Sr., Julyann (Anselmo’s sister), Cleiry (wife), Augustine (son), Yarelis (daughter) and Isaias (nephew).  THey are taking care of me and feeding me every two hours it seems.  the neighborhood is rough.  you could hear the gunshots and fighting going on outside but here inside I am among friends and covered by Gods grace.  In the evening several of us went to Bert’s first Bible Study in Panama City.  The study was incredible with a sweet time of prayer and waiting on the Spirit afterwards.  Anselmo missed the study as he struggled with problem after problem with the car he had borrowed.  Spiritual Warfare!  There is serious opposition to what we are trying to do here.  keep praying!

Day Six:

Anselmo and I Spent the Day in La Chorrera with Bert pouring concrete, scraping paint and building a pulpit with some missionaries from Mexico and Romoland (California).  Great fellowship and work. In the evening we returned to San Miguelito to do another home fellowship.  We have a large crowd show up, including some local pastors and leaders from other churches.  The study was a blessing.

Day Seven:

In the morning Anselmo and I went to meet with Pastor Calixto from Cristo Vive and had a great time of fellowship in the Word.  The Pastor asked me a very strange question about what I thought regarding the idea of people being “slain in the spirit”.  I voiced my views and asked for his to which he wisely replied that Jesus came to raise people from the dead ad not slay them in the spirit.  After that we spent the day again in la Chorrera helping with the church and sharing.  We headed back to San Miguelito to teach another home study but decided instead to go the last night of the studies from the visitor from Tampa at the Cristo Vive church in San Miguelito.  After asking me to share for a few minutes, the visiting pastor from Florida got up and delivered a good exhortation on not tempting ourselves in areas we know we are weak.  Unfortunately, after the service during a time of prayer for the sick and needy the man began to slay in the spirit.  I understood then what Calixto had been alluding to in the morning. The first guy went down after some coaxing from the visitor and I prayed hard, and out loud in English for God to fall on the congregation with order and peace.  After the service I had a chance to speak with the pastor to try and understand his views and to share my concern that regardless of what he thought he was doing, the people were seeing a spectacle that brought him and not the Holy Spirit glory.  I was more than a little disappointed and all of the misunderstandings are adding up to produce a bit of frustration in the trip.  Hopefully we will have a good trip this Saturday to Chiriqui.  Lord give me strength.

Day Eight:

Friday was more encouraging.  I said goodbye to my good friends who were so wonderfully hospitable to me and met up with Bert around lunchtime.  We headed back to Chorrera and then to visit and have lunch with the people  in the town of El Sigual, which lies in the country outside of La Chorrera.  After our visit we headed back to La Chorrera for Bible College class where I taught my second study on Spiritual Warfare (ironic with all of the stuff that has been going on this week).  As we were talking throughout the day Bert asked if some of the people from the church could come with me to the outreach in Chiriqui.  Of course, it would be a blessing!  they managed to rent a small 15 seater bus and after the Bible college class we were off and headed to Paja Blanca, Chiriqui some six hours away.  This is going to be good…

Day Nine:

We drove all night, and all night it rained , and rained, and rained.  In fact it rained hard for over 48 hours where we were headed so that when we arrived everything was under water.  To top off the challenges we got lost coming back from the border with Costa Rica and almost got stuck.  I got dropped off in Paja Blanca where the Cristo Vive brothers and sisters were sleeping while Bert took the others on a tour of the area.  After spending a few good hours fellowshipping with my friends as they woke up (they drove the night before as well) Bert and the gang showed up frazzled.  It seems that they got lost for 3 hours and ended up at the Costa Rican border again instead of going to Boquete.  We hastily decided on a common theme for the three studies that were happening in an hour or so:  I would start and preach on the remaining in the Spirit (Gal 5); Angel would speak on Persevering in the Word; and Bert would come in last with a call to unity in the Spirit.  The stage was set and off we went with some worship, some prayer and with the people trickling in I set into my message of encouragement and exhortation - speaking specifically to the issue of the “slaying in the spirit” incident on Thursday night.  Having begun in the Spirit, how do we believe that we can finish in the flesh.  God has provided us with so many examples of His grace, love and desire for us to be humble that these “spectacles” can hardly be glorifying to Him but are rather more about glorifying the flesh.  Pastor Angel from Ensenada, Mx was up next.  The room was filled now and after another worship song he set into his exhortation to not lose focus  while persevering in the Word.  **CRAZY STUFF WARNING** What happened next can only be described as a demonic attack.  As the words left Angels mouth about staying focused a literal plague of mosquitoes appeared in the sanctuary attacking with a fierceness I have never witnessed.  Bert said that you grab at the air and catch five at a time.  Understand this - I do not get bit by mosquitoes - i received over 40 bites on my two feet hands and head in the course of a 45 minute message!  Angel struggled (he was getting chewed up too) as we sprayed Raid and mesquite coils burned with no success BUT he stayed focused, no one left and the Word was delivered.  As instantly as the plague started, it ended when the message was wrapped up.  Another song and then Bert.  By this time there was no room left; everyone was seated or standing  despite the fact it had been almost 3 hours since we began.  Everyone was quite and attentive.  Remember this is a church that has very charismatic pentecostal roots and yet they sat quiet during prayer and during the messages paying very close attention to what was going on.  Bert’s message on unity in the Spirit was based on Philippians Chapter two and focused on the difference between being outwardly uniform (which we are NOT trying to accomplish) and being unified inwardly because of the Spirit.  The unity of the three messages was uncanny and Bert’s final message was the same Clarion call I had been crying out for the last two years.  The Message was powerful and by the end there were more than a few tears being shed.  We spend time in prayer as a community, as THE Church, weeping and asking God for strength, mercy and forgiveness as we begin steps to work in a more unified way in the coming days, months and years.   Anselmo, my dear friend, was so touched by the whole event that he could hardly contain himself.  He had harbored a grudge for the way I had been treated by some of the people at the church BUT now he realized that that was the devil’s trick.  The whole trip had been a big lesson on Spiritual Warfare - I came to preach it but instead we fought it.

Day Ten:

We left immediately after the service.  Bert and I drove all night top make it to the church for Sunday services.  Everyone was content, filled with the Spirit; everyone knew that something special had happened - my good friend Cesar told me that he was so extremely blessed to have been on the first missionary trip to ever leave out of Calvary Chapel Panama.  Anita, Chavalita, Angel (all from Ensenada) - Cesar, Javier, Tony, Myra, Bert (all from CC Panama) - And me; we were all there.  Oh man, how hard was the drive.  For the last few hours my only company was Cesar’s snoring, Bert’s sleep-talking and Javier’s sleep-responses.  My eyes were barely open when we arrived at CC Panama at around 5 AM.  Unload, off to Bert’s for 2 hours of sleep and then back up for Sunday service.  Obviously the message was around the experience we had all had the night before and was a blessing to tell and for everyone to hear.  At the end of the service the men got up and recognized my ministry as one of their own and invited me to be part of the ongoing leadership of the effort going out from the Church.  After church we headed to Panama City to have dinner and celebrate the many things that had happened.  three days - three hours of sleep.

Day Eleven:

I woke up knowing that I had to go home and I was sad.  I feel like I belong in Panama but I know that God is using me in a role that doesn’t permit me to leave now.  I have a church-family in Colton, a family-family in Costa Mesa and Panamanian-family in Panama.  I am a missionary from the US to Panama and now a missionary from Panama to the US.  The ministry of reconciliation and unity is hard and slow but worthwhile and it is the work God has given Theophilus Ministries to do.  I said my “hasta luego” boarded my plane and had one final blessing - a complete row to myself to sit, relax, read and wonder why it is that God loves me so much that he let’s me participate in His wonderful, amazing and lovely Gospel.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. (Jud 1:24-25)

Panama Missions

INTRODUCTION

Luke’s story of the Transfiguration is a distinctively strange and mysterious event from the life of Jesus that causes the reader to first, scratch his head and second, read it again.  However, the Gospels were originally meant to be read aloud.  The option of going back and re-reading difficult sections wasn’t possible.  For this very reason the Evangelists placed literary clues, and at times traps, to help the reader understand the reason for including each event they recorded from Jesus’ life, including the Transfiguration.  However, despite the literary bread crumbs that have been left, this particular story has been interpreted in vastly different ways in the past.  It has been considered a misplaced resurrection story, an exaggerated redaction, and even pure mythology.  Luke’s account, which this paper will consider, adds some complexity to the job of the exegete as he differs significantly with Mark and Matthew with respect to the details of the event as well as adding additional information that is not found in either tradition.

Contextually there are a few points that need to be understood to properly interpret the story.  First and foremost Luke is most likely not from Palestine and it is generally understood that he was writing for a non-Jewish, Gentile Christian audience¹.  Luke’s intended readers did not have access to the same cultural “schemas” and therefore Luke makes his references to past events in Jewish history in a different way than the other authors².  Despite this fact the concept of a mountain-top encounter with God would have been recognizable by the first century Christian community as their Jewish roots were still very strong because of the continued involvement of the Jewish community in the church.  Luke’s writing as a whole tends to focus on the role of Jesus as the one who came to take the place of the law and the prophets, ushering in the hope of the coming eschaton for not only the Jew but also the Gentile.

Despite the fact that the book of Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome during the early 60’s it is generally believed that Luke’s books were written later than A.D. 70, after Jerusalem was destroyed.  This is important for the shape of the Gospel as it backgrounds the prophecies of destruction that Jesus foretells about the city.  These fulfilled prophesies give the book a sense of confidence and hope, which was critical for the early Christian communities that were suffering intense persecution.

Within the flow of the story, the placement of the transfiguration is not random.   After the feeding of the 5,000, Jesus’ most notable miracle to date, he has a very important conversation with his disciples asking them two questions: (1) who do they say I am? And (2) who do you say I am?  These two questions play an important role in backgrounding the events “some eight days later” on the mountain as in them the reader is told that, while the people think Jesus is just another prophet (perhaps even Elijah), they believe that he is the Messiah.  With this understanding Jesus predicts his rejection, suffering and death as well as the high cost of discipleship.  The prediction comes directly after the Peter’s confession and, in fact, seemed to be born out of it.  It seems that it was appropriate to reveal certain hard things to the disciples at this time since they were ready to accept him as the Messiah.  Verse 27 of Luke (Mark 9:1 NASB, Matthew 16:28) provides a transition from this story by way of a prophecy that Jesus will shortly fulfill when some of the disciples “see the kingdom of God” in the transfigured Jesus³.

The Transfiguration serves a very important role in two very different ways within Luke’s gospel account.  Just as Jesus represents both natures, “of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time, of one substance with us as regards his manhood,”⁴ the story of his transfiguration deals with the heavenly, spiritual and the earthly, practical needs of those that hear the story.  On the spiritual side the reader gains both confirmation and additional insight into the nature of the person who has so recently been recognized as the Messiah.  On the practical side, the humanity of Jesus is seen on the mountain as he is ministered to in fellowship and prayer as he embarks on the difficult stage of his earthly ministry.

THE TEXT

Verse 28

Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.

The Transfiguration story does not begin as an independent section of text but rather Luke immediately points the reader back around eight days to the important discussion between Jesus and his disciples where Peter recognizes Jesus as the Christ⁵.  In this conversation Jesus details his rejection, death and resurrection as well as the heavy cost of discipleship.  Luke purposefully begins this story with those revealed truths as the backdrop for what is about to happen.  With this background in place, Luke begins to introduce the cast of characters by showing Jesus personally selecting his three closest disciples Peter, James and John for a special trip up the mountain⁶ to pray.  The mountain-top theophany experience was a very real experience not only for the Jewish population but also for the Hellenistic communities as well.  Luke’s audience, traditionally believed to be more Greek than Jew, would have been open to this literary “trail of bread-crumbs” as waking-visions were a part of their religious reality.  Moreover these visions were the unique domain of those who were “beloved by the gods”⁷ a suitable description of Jesus who was declared a “beloved Son” of the Father at his baptism (Luke 3:22).  However, for the Jew the stage is more clearly set; just as Moses prepared to approach the Mountain of God with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu (Exodus 24), Jesus selects his three beloved companions and sets off to the place where God communicates with man.

Verse 29

And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming.

Luke immediately jumps over the details of the climb to a common scene in Luke’s writing:  Jesus in the midst of prayer.   As Jesus prays he is changed.  Luke is careful to avoid any misinterpretation of the type of change that Jesus undergoes by choosing his words carefully.  Where the other Evangelist’s choose the word μεταμορφόω to describe the transformation Jesus underwent on the mountain, Luke simply states that his face and appearance became different. The word μεταμορφόω had religious connotations that would have led to a potential misreading within the Hellenistic Roman world.⁸Luke is careful to ensure the readers understand that the change that Jesus underwent was ἕτερος, completely different, and not just an ἄλλος change in his physical characteristics.  As Jesus prays he is changed, however, his change is out of the ordinary for those that are expecting the storyline of a theophany.  In the theophany stories that we see recorded in Exodus 3, Exodus 24, and 1 Kings 19 we see a storyline that is similar.  Both Moses and Elijah, righteous men is the tradition of Israel, climb the mountain where God appears to them commissioning them for the work that he was calling them to do.  At this point it is important to keep in mind the close proximity of Peter’s confession because, though they had confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, they still did not fully understand what that meant about who Jesus was with respect to his divinity.  At the point in which God is supposed to appear in the Theophany script, Jesus is transfigured, dropping the bottom out of the readers understanding.  Luke heightens the effect of this “gotcha” by referring to Jesus in terms reserved for the divine.   Luke tells the reader that Jesus becomes λευκὸς and ἐξαστράπτων⁹; this lightning/whiteness combination which is a construct used in appearances of the divine where it is representational, showing absolute power and absolute perfection. In this case these qualities are attributed to Jesus; he is more than just a recipient of the divine blessing of God’s presence, he is the presence of God.

Verse 30

And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah,

With the shock of the last verse still reverberating in the mind of the reader, the story takes another turn in an unexpected direction.  From out of nowhere two men appear.  Clearly their appearance is not surprise to Jesus who, the reader is informed, seems to have been already engaged in a conversation with them¹⁰>.  In the midst of the conversation the narrator is suddenly given the ability to see the true nature of the scene¹¹/a>.  Just as Elisha’s prayer opened the eyes of his servant to the reality of God’s angelic armies at Dothan (2 Kings 6:17), as Jesus prays reality is peeled back for the eyes of the reader about the divine nature of Jesus Christ.   The abruptness of the reader’s entry into the “vision” is quickly followed up by the startling revelation that the two men speaking with Jesus are none other than Moses and Elijah. This is extremely significant because only on one other occasion has scripture shown us the dead appearing to the living, when Saul sought help from Samuel by way of the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28).  The context in 1 Samuel was negative but here it is most definitely positive; the two individuals that most represent the coming of God’s restoration now stand, speaking with the man that will usher that restoration into effect.  The appearance of these two individuals is at the center of the many diverging interpretation regarding the meaning and function of the Transfiguration within the Gospel accounts.  What does is mean that these specific figures appear here and now?  One of the most common interpretations is that these two men simply represent the law and the prophets¹². However, while there may be some validity to this assertation, to specifically see Moses as being representative of the law and Elijah of the prophets fails to take into account that Moses was, in fact, seen as the greatest prophet and a prototype for the messianic prophet that would usher in the restoration of the nation¹³.  The truth about what Moses and Elijah represent in the story of the Transfiguration is far more complex than a simple one dimensional metaphor can represent.  However, understanding their role within this event is critical to understanding its significance.  The reader must fully track each layer of meaning in its context as each of them individually provides the clues necessary to understand the story.  For non-first century readers this process is a bit cumbersome but it is important to recognize that today’s readers do not hold the appropriate cultural, historical and literary schemas.

The reader of Luke does not yet fully understand the relationship between Jesus and the “law and the prophets”.  They do not yet understand that Jesus himself came to supersede the old covenant but in this short encounter Moses and Elijah begin to show the disciples that they are to be subordinated to Jesus just as the old covenant is to be subordinated to the new.  Moses and Elijah do not individually represent the law or the prophets but rather collectively stand as symbols of the system that ended with John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). They stand as witnesses to the authority and position of Jesus, as Paul reminds us:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; (Romans 3:21-22a)

However, the law and the prophets are not to be thrown away as useless, they are simply to be subordinated to the more complete revelation that is manifested in Jesus Christ.   This is where the eschatological significance of the two men begins to make its presence known. Just as Moses and Elijah witness to the “righteousness of God being manifest” they also simultaneously announce the beginning of the final act in the drama that began to unfold when man rebelled against his perfect, righteous and gracious creator in the Garden of Eden. Both men will be called upon in this new period to serve as witnesses to the nature, role and authority of Jesus Christ.  With this in mind the testimony of Peter which sits contextually in the background of the event, although important, is not sufficient to serve as a confirmation of Jesus’ messiahship as it is only on the evidence of two or three witnesses that a matter is confirmed (Deuteronomy 19:15).  These two witnesses continue to play an important role in Luke’s writing, bearing witness to pivotal events in the life of Jesus: the Transfiguration, the Resurrection and the Ascension¹⁴.  Luke ensures that the reader is clear about the role of the two men in each story by constructing his own witness “script” that begins with the repetition of the phrase καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνδρες δύο; a phrase only found in Luke’s writing in the context of the two heavenly ministers. It would be reasonable to characterize this layer of significance regarding Moses and Elijah as the “spiritual” and theological, which is notably different from the more “earthly” and practical layer that Luke codes over the theological base¹⁵.

Luke gives the reader a much more human Jesus to interact with during his gospel account.  Only in Luke are we able to see the Messiah as a child and do we see the agony of anxiety in bloody sweat before the ordeal of the cross.  Here too, Luke presents the reader with an intimate look into the personal journey of Jesus in his ministry.  Luke’s heavy emphasis on prayer throughout his gospel certainly speaks to Jesus’ (and by extension, our) need for regular spiritual nourishment.  Prayer is critical but for man it is only part of the Spirit-filled life.  By adding the presence of Moses and Elijah Luke raises the reader’s awareness of the need, even for Jesus, for fellowship and support.  These two men who had very similar life experiences to that of Jesus, are the perfect ones to encourage him in what lie ahead.  Both men “prefigure Jesus in being rejected by the people and vindicated by God: the details of the rejection and vindication differ but the structure is the same”¹⁶.  Both were rejected by Israel; both suffered extreme persecution in their ministry; and ultimately both were vindicated by God¹⁷.  Coded over the prodigious theological imagery is the warmth of Jesus’ humanity in the form of a need of fellowship and encouragement from those that had “been through it before”.

Verse 31

who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Luke alone reveals to the reader the content of the conversation between the three glorified men on the mountain.   They spoke of his ἔξοδον which is rendered in the modern translations as “departure”.    According to Kittel, this word simply refers to the end of Jesus’ life and does not carry any more complex meaning¹⁸.  While ἔξοδον is used by Peter in his second epistle (2 Peter 1:15) in the context of his death, Luke’s selection of the word conveys much more than a simple reference to death.  The word is hapax legomenon for Luke and who more often opts for the more straightforward θανάτος to refer to death and it is not found in either Mark or Matthew’s account so it is a detail that is of note.  Mánek notes correctly that “it is best to leave this word in the original, untranslated”¹⁹ as the English word “exodus”.  It is important to note that this is the same Greek word used in the LXX to denote the event by the same name when Israel was led out of Egypt by God.   Exodus as a concept held great theological significance to the Jewish community.  This theological significance was integrally tied to the concept of salvation; it was not just representative of the journey from Egypt but rather the full journey from slavery to the Promised Land “the high point of Old Testament redemptive history”²⁰.

Jesus is at the height of his popularity; he has just been recognized as the long-awaited Messiah; and now, as his true divine nature is revealed, the reader also gets a glimpse of his ultimate purpose: to provide a salvation that the first Exodus only foreshadowed²¹>. Whereas Moses led the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, Luke looks forward to Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension as mankind’s “exodus” from the greater bondage of Satan²².  This is what Jesus is to accomplish in Jerusalem, not just the freedom from the oppression of sin but also entry into the true land of promise.

This understanding may also shed a bit of light on the timing and purpose for Elijah and Moses’ visit; as Jesus is about to begin the journey out from hope and popularity towards suffering and rejection, as a man, Jesus needs fellowship and encouragement.  With this in mind, another thing that the two prophets have in common is that they were both, in the end, vindicated by God, a fact that would have been especially encouraging to Jesus who knew the heavy price he had to pay in obedience.

Verse 32

Now Peter and his companions had been overcome with sleep; but when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men standing with Him.

At this point focus again shifts back to the three disciples who, Luke tells us were “burdened down” with sleep or as we might say in our own idiomatic way, they were “sound asleep”.  As the story unfolds there is a sense that it is building towards a grand climax.   Jesus, being first transformed into his resplendent form, is then accompanied by the two greatest Jewish prophets who appear on the scene speaking with him about a great salvation that he will accomplish in Jerusalem and then, with Beethoven’s Ode to Joy playing in the background, the skies open up and Yahweh crowns Jesus with Glory and honor we find the disciples slowly come out of their deep sleep, rubbing their sleep filled eyes trying to get a grasp on what they are looking at.

Verse 33

And as these were leaving Him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three tabernacles: one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah”– not realizing what he was saying

Most likely still half asleep and seeing the two prophets leaving, Peter blurts out his recommendation to build three tabernacles so that they all might remain and continue their encounter.  The narrator’s normally silent voice steps out to ensure that the reader not mistake Peter’s comments as in any way wise or appropriate.  Peter’s statement shows a continuing and deep misunderstanding of the purpose of Jesus’ coming and failure to recognize the superiority of the Messiah in relation to those that had come before.  Moses and Elijah are not here to stay; they have been superseded by one who is greater.  Peter see’s three great men of faith conferring with one another, when in all reality Moses and Elijah stand in the presence of God as they had done before on the mountain-top.  The reference to the tabernacles in this instance do not serve as a reference to the Feast of Tabernacles nor is this a reference to establishing three tabernacles like unto the one created for God at Sinai to house the men as gods as there is no other corroborating information outside of this passage to suggest these theories²³.  Rather the outburst is simply Peter’s impertinence as he interrupts the conversation in a misguided effort to show respect and keep the prophets from leaving.  Instead, the reader is confronted once again with Peter’s clear lack of understanding of the significance of the events happening around him²⁴.   But let’s be fair to Peter, the two other disciples didn’t get it either.  To be honest, neither did I; and admit it … neither did you.  We as readers collectively benefit from Peter’s mouth moving faster than his brain.  As we will see in the next verse, his mistake sheds great clarity on the situation.

Verse 34

While he was saying this, a cloud formed and began to overshadow them; and they were afraid as they entered the cloud.

Unfortunately this is not a mistake that Peter will be allowed to make publicly without correction. Cementing the references to God’s prior appearances on the mountain, the Father appears in the midst of Peter’s comment.   The scene has changed from a glorious revelation of the nature of Jesus to one of horror as the cloud falls upon the group in seeming response to the inane comments that were, at that very moment, falling from Peter’s mouth.

Verse 35

Then voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”

The voice of God comes from the cloud to clarify to Peter and the other disciples the true order of things.  Peter’s outburst presumed to put Jesus on equal ground with the two prophets but  God, from out of eternity, comes down and informs them that it is Jesus that they need to give honor and attention to.  Jesus supersedes the law and the prophets, he is not just another prophet - he is The Chosen One, God’s Son.   As Jesus would declare shortly in Luke’s gospel:

“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (Luke 16:16)

This voice silences the many questions about the identity of Jesus once and for all.  He is not John the Baptist, he is not Elijah, he is not just a prophet like Moses; he is the Messiah, the Son of the most high God.  The voice that comes from the cloud not only corrects Peter’s mischaracterization of Jesus’ preeminence but also commands them to listen to him.  The command stretches beyond simply listening to Jesus teaching and rather speaks to the position of authority that the new exodus holds over the old.  The law and the prophets are not gone but they stand subordinated, ministers of the new covenant that Jesus brings.    The panorama of Jesus’ ministry is unfolded for the reader.  The voice in the cloud hearkens back to the baptism, the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and his glorified form points towards his resurrection and parousia. The Transfiguration marks a vital stage in the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah.  It looks back to the Old Testament and points forward to the New Testament glory²⁵.

Verse 36

And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent, and reported to no one in those days any of the things which they had seen.

As suddenly as the event started, it ends, leaving Jesus and the three disciples alone on the mountain once again.  It is the final punctuating moment of the experience, the reader sees Moses and Elijah disappear while Jesus remains to finish his work.  As the Father finishes his correction of Peter, the vision ends; the law and prophets pass away as Jesus’ ministry continues. The prophets are his help, and they will continue to have a ministry in Luke’s writings but their names won’t be mentioned again because, as John the Baptist stated “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).  The ministry of the prophets, in fact, always has been one that is a shadow of the Messiah’s ministry to come as Peter reminds us in his first epistle:

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven–things which angels desire to look into. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

CONCLUSION

As a postscript to Luke’s Transfiguration story he makes one final redaction to his Marcan source.  He skips immediately to the story of demon possessed boy that the disciples cannot heal.  While this paper does not intend to fully exegete this encounter, it serves as an important concluding message, reminding the reader that Jesus correctly leveraged the mountain-top experience to spiritually fuel his earthly ministry.  This is also consistent with Luke’s more social theology and his concern with the disenfranchised; Jesus, though Messiah and God, still comes down from the mountain to accomplish what the Disciples cannot.

Ultimately Luke’s account succeeds in communicating to the reader the lessons that he intended:  Jesus is confirmed to be the Messiah, the Messiah is confirmed to be God, and God is confirmed, in the person of Jesus, to be man.  The mountain-top theophany form gives both effective guidance as well as a little subtle misdirection to the reader.  Where Moses went up, encountered God and came down with the old covenant, Jesus goes up and is revealed as God, the embodiment of a new covenant.  The story is not finished and the exodus is not yet complete but there is now a clearer understanding of the purpose and mission that is to be achieved.

There must have been a lot of pressure on the preachers that had to read these gospel accounts.  To tell the story with passion, bringing the language to life would have made all of the difference in the world to those listening.  If the story was told correctly the layers of meaning would have erupted in the mind of the listener confirming their suspicions about who he was while at the same time leaving them with a sense of dread of the things to come.  While it is true, the story of the Transfiguration is not an easy event to understand on the surface.  With careful consideration, and a grateful nod to Peter’s rash comment, the Spirit is faithful to keep his promise and teach us “all things” that need to know.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Best, Thomas F. “The Transfiguration: A Select Bibliography.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 24 (1981) 157-61.

Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry. Reading the good book well. Nashville: Abington Press, 1997.

Chilton, Bruce D. “The Transfiguration: Dominical Assurance and Apostolic Vision.” New Testament Studies 27 (1980) 115-24.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Vol. 38 The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1981.

Garrett, S. R. “Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52 (1990) 656-80.

Geldenhuys, Norval. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1979

Hooker, Morna D. “‘What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?’: A Look at St Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration.” Pages 59-69  in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. “The Transfiguration of Christ.” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967) 133-43.

Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1989

Lasor, William S., David A. Hubbard and Frederic Wm. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.

Mánek, Jindřich. “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke.” Novum Testamentum, 2 (1958) 8-23.

McCurley, Foster R., Jr. “‘And after Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device.” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974) 67-81.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration?” Bible Review 3 (1987) 8-21.

Pamment, Margaret. “Moses and Elijah in the Story of the Transfiguration.” Expository Times 92 (1980-81) 338-39.

Pilch, John J. “The Transfiguration of Jesus: An experience of alternate reality.” Pages 47-64 in Modeling Early Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context. Edited by Philip F. Esler.  Routledge: London, 1995.

Ramsey, Arthur Michael. The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1949.

Reid, Barbara O. “Voices and Angels: What Were They Talking about at the Transfiguration? A Redaction-Critical Study of Luke 9:28-36.” Biblical Research 34 (1989) 19-31.

Rogness, Michael. “The Transfiguration of Our Lord: Luke 9:28-36.” Word & World 9 (1989) 71-75.

Stein, Robert H. “Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrection-Account?” Journal Biblical Literature 95 (1976) 79-96.

Trites, Allison A. “The Transfiguration in the Theology of Luke: Some Redactional Links.” Pages 71-81  in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.

_____. “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm.” Evangelical Quarterly 51 (1979) 67-79.

NOTES

1. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. (Vol. 38 of The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1981) 35,57-58

2. For a discussion on schemas and their role in biblical interpretation see - Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, Reading the good book well.  (Nashville: Abington, 1997), 83-97.

3. Allison A. Trites, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: The Gospel in Microcosm” EvQ 51 (1979): 69

4. Taken from the Chalcedon definition.

5. Luke’s eight days approximation and Mark and Matthew’s absolute six days are not a conflict. Luke includes the time between the two preceding incidents (about two days) adding them to the six that he most likely had from his Marcan source.  Mark and Matthew’s cultural understanding of the importance of the seventh day in Semitic literature would most likely have eluded Luke who was notably unaware of many of these types of cultural patterns.     For more information on this please see Trites “Microcosm,” 72; and  Foster R. McCurley Jr. “‘And after Six Days’ (Mark 9:2): A Semitic Literary Device.” JBL 93 (1974) 67-81.

6. Of the candidate mountains that are generally considered, two rise to the top as most likely:  Mt. Tabor and Mt. Hermon.  Although Tabor is generally considered, Josephus makes note that the top of that mountain was the location of a walled fortress at the time.  Alternately, Hermon better fits the “high” mountain as described in Mark (over 9,000 feet, while Tabor is only slightly more than 1,800 feet) and better fits in with the previous activity in and around Caesarea Philippi.  Luke most likely did not have a sufficient understanding of the geography of the reason and therefore any of these specifics would not have played a part in his rendering of the event. For Luke it was sufficient to note that this was a mountain-top experience.  Trites, “Miscrocosm,” 72.

7. For more on the subject of waking-visions as a possible parallel to the Transfiguration experience please see: John J. Pilch, “The Transfiguration of Jesus: An experience of alternate reality.” in Modeling Early Christianity: Social-scientific studies of the New Testament in its context. (ed. Philip F. Esler.  Routledge: London, 1995), 47-64.

8. “In the Hellenistic mystery religions transfiguration is a parallel idea to regeneration or deification. To be changed into a god-like being is the great goal which the initiate, moving from one stage to another, strives to reach by vision of the deity.”  Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., “μεταμορφόω” TDNT.

9. λευκὸς and ἐξαστράπτων are unique in Lukes writing with the former being found only twice, here and at Jesus’ ascension describing the robes of the “angelic beings”, and the latter which is hapax legomenon for Luke and only found in the LXX when referring to God or angelic beings that are in the presence of God.

10. The imperfect indicative tense indicates that this was an in progress conversation, not one that started when the narrator saw they were there with Jesus.

11. Whether or not this was a waking dream or a physical transformation would not have affected the readers understanding of it as a valid experience.  The tendency to rationalize the experience as poetic description of Jesus inner enlightenment (Murphy-O’Conner “What really happened,” 18) does not take into account these vision experiences as being an understood and accepted part of ancient near-eastern  life despite the fact that western minds and conceptions of reality generally tend to disregards any such experience as unreliable and unscientific. (Pilch, “Alternate Realities,” 53-56)

12. Trites “Microcosm,” 74

13. Morna D. Hooker, “‘What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?’: A Look at St Mark’s Account of the Transfiguration.” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. (ed.  L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 63; Margaret Pamment, “Moses and Elijah in the Story of the Transfiguration.” ExpTim 92 (1980-81) 338.

14. Luke 9:30, 24:4 and Acts 1:10 respectively.

15. Moses and Elijah’s significance from an eschatological standpoint are not limited to Luke’s writing, nor is the concept of the two fulfilling the role of witnesses to the role Jesus plays in the last days.  John’s references to the two witnesses in the book of Revelation 11:6 is a clear reference to the two men as they are described by having the very same powers that they exhibited in their lifetime.

16. Pamment, “Moses and Elijah,” 339.

17. See Exodus 17:4, 32:32; 1 Kings 19:2

18. Kittel,  “ἔξοδον“, TDNT.

19. Jindřich Mánek, “The New Exodus in the Books of Luke,” NovT, 2 (1958), 12.

20. William S. Lasor, David A. Hubbard and Frederic Wm. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996) 63-64.

21. Mánek has an extreme comparison between the Exodus from Egypt and the exodus that Jesus is about to accomplish in Jerusalem.  According to Mánek, for Luke, In the light of its recent destruction, Jerusalem becomes the theological “Egypt” of the new exodus.  Instead of Egypt’s oppression and hard-hearted attitude we see Jerusalem’s; It is not Moses but Jesus that leads the captives free with the Ascension foreshadowing the entry into the promised land; and lastly, instead of the Egyptian’s being destroyed at the Red Sea we see the destruction of Jerusalem with a 40 year delay that is somehow supposed to represent the 40 years of wandering.

22. S. R. Garrett, “Exodus from Bondage: Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1-24.” CBQ 52 (1990) 659.

23. Michael Rogness, “The Transfiguration of Our Lord: Luke 9:28-36,” WW 9 (1989) 72; Hooker, “Elijah,” 65.

24. Hooker, “Elijah,” 63-66.

25. Allison A. Trites, “The Transfiguration in the Theology of Luke: Some Redactional Links.” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. (ed. L. D. Hurst et al. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987) 78.

New Testament

We are BLESSED to be back.  As always these trips are profitable and very worthwhile but at the same time very draining.  The main goal of our trip was two-fold.  The first part was to take a small team to help finish some of the construction projects at the Calvary Chapel in la Chorrera.  The second part was to make a connection with the brothers at Radio Faro de David to look into getting on this great station that covers a large portion of the western part of the country. 

While we were in country we were able to spend a considerable amount of time with our brothers and sisters at Iglesia Cristo Vive, who have churches all over the country from the province of Chiriqui in teh west to the Darien Jungle in the east.  The day we arrived we had the honor of being invited to the one year anniversary of their church in Via Maria, San Miguelito - a very poor slum outside of Panama city.  The worship and messages were great and I was able to introduce my friend and student Aguilar who gave his very first expositional sermon.  As we have been teaching them to do, Aguilar covered part of the 1st chapter of Romans beautifully, he ”read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading.” (Neh 8:8)

Our 6 hour trip the next day from Panama City to David to meet with the Radio station people served as an opportunity to take the Pastor from CC La Chorrera to take care of some documentation as well as provided a time for us to fellowship and talk about inter-fellowship opportunities between Cristo Vive and Calvary Chapel.  My good friend and brother in the faith Anselmo Avedano joined us for the long trip where we worked out schedule for conducting a New Believers/Inductive Bible Study class on Tuesday nights.  It is interesting to see how similar we are as churches - they need a bit of instruction on how to study and teach but we definately can learn about how the church needs to serve as a commnity of believers that is truly led by the Holy Spirit.  I love my church but I feel that we have some rough times ahead - my encouragement to the faithful: STAY FAITHFUL AND FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.  We have the quote from the radio station and intend to move forward with the programming.  Sergio Lopez, pastor from the Logos hispanic ministry will be the first on the air.  We will inform you about when the programming comes on so that those of you interested can tune in on the internet.

We always appreciate your prayers.  We have some specific financial needs: (1) we need a consistent commitment for donations to support two fulltime ministry workers.  the cost for both is around $600 a month.  if you can help with this (or a part of it) for a minimum of a year please write me at erick@1john.com.  (2) We need a consitent flow of $500 a month for the radio progarm - this will give is 5 days a week of programming on Faro de David (www.farodedavid.com).  we intend to add other programs but want to start with this one.  (3) we are looking for help as we get the defunct KWAVE en Espanol going again as an independent ministry.  If you have web designing skills or can help with the financial aspect of this project we would be blessed. (4) we are planning two trips later this year to do construction projects - one in Honduras and one in Panama.  If you feel the call to come and help out or can help with giving, we will need around 4,000-6,000 per project to get them done.

The rest of the week provided ample opportunity for teaching, fellowship and work.  I was blessed with the opportunity to teach through teh 1st chapter of 2nd Peter, encouraging the brothers and sisters down in Panama that our calling as Christians is one of action.  We are called to respond and add diligently to the faith that we have the good works that God has prepared for us.  As you read this I pray you will also be both encouraged and motivated to respond to the call of Christ in action.  There are far more opportunities than there are people.  Truly the harvest needs workers. This economy needs to be a wake up call for those of us who have put our trust in Christ - the riches and comforts of this world are not for us, they can dissapear in a second.  You are not a Republican, you are not a Democrat, you are not for this cause or that one - you are a slave to Jesus Christ, and a slave does only what his master commands.

Your master has commanded you, as He said to the disciples before ascending:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Mat 28:18-20)

 

Panama Missions, Spanish christian living, christianity, God, Jesus Christ, Panama Missions, practical living