tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post4551243239158788600..comments2023-04-28T06:59:37.174-04:00Comments on twoTwentyEight: Early Christian Worship: Part 2Joseph Howellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00339898114118904716noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post-47195082780075927682015-10-22T11:33:14.809-04:002015-10-22T11:33:14.809-04:00I would agree that Christian freewill giving owes ...I would agree that Christian freewill giving owes much to Judaism’s concept of alms-giving, and indeed, Jesus’ teaching about alms-giving must surely have been embraced by later Christians as an appropriate framework. At the same time, it should be remembered that the tithing laws of the Torah were not exclusively aimed at the support of the clergy (even though to hear some preachers, one might suppose that they were). Rather, tithes themselves were also for the support of the disadvantaged and powerless, particularly in their Deuteronomic formulations. There seems to have been a three-year tithing cycle. The tithes of the first two years were to be gathered and taken to the central shrine for an annual celebration of God's bountiful blessings (Dt. 12:5 19; 14:22 27). The families of Israel were to feast before Yahweh while generously inviting aliens, orphans, widows and Levites to share their bounty. The third year's tithes were donated for the support of the clergy who had no land inheritance and who, therefore, could not cultivate crops or keep herds as a source of income (Lv. 27:26 34; Dt. 14:28 29; Nu. 18:21, 24 32). Hence, tithing in the Torah was both for reasons of charity as well as support of a professional ministry.<br /><br />In the Christian era, Paul would solicit funds from the churches in Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia for the impoverished Christians in Palestine. In the collection of these relief offerings, some very wise principles were employed to administrate the gifts of the generous Christians in Asia Minor and Greece. In the first place, Paul allowed members of the assembly to oversee the collection and distribution of the money. (This principle, in a modern sense, calls for an open review of Christian finances with all who contribute.) Second, offerings were voluntary, not obligatory, though generosity was certainly encouraged. Paul called this kind of generosity the "grace of giving." Third, the motivation for such giving was a response to the selfless gift of Christ and the desire for equality among God's people. Any gifts which were made were to be evaluated according to the giver's ability to give. Finally, the administration of the gift was conducted in a highly ethical and sensitive manner, for as Paul says, "We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men". <br /><br />Still, when it came to his personal support, Paul refused to take offerings from people while he was ministering to them, though he accepted gifts from churches when he was not ministering among them. This could hardly be called a “standard” for the support of Christian workers, and Paul seems to think that his personal policy did not extend to others, as indicated by his statement, “Don’t we have the right…as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas…or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?” My guess is that the support of the clergy (along with concern for the poor) was generally practiced among the early Christians, but obviously, as in the case of Paul, it was not in some sort of inflexible form that could not be altered. I would suppose that support for synagogue-rulers may later have influenced Christian notions of support for pastors and elders, though this is unclear, and I know of no direct references one way or another. One thing is clear to me: the rigid rules of tithing that have been adopted by some individuals and organizations for the exclusive support of the clergy (and woe be to the parishioner who falls short) is not only absent in the early church, it directly cuts across the ethic of the early church.Dan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12230336952558013110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post-37235580362468845822015-10-22T10:55:42.705-04:002015-10-22T10:55:42.705-04:00My belief is that there was a basic unity that bou...My belief is that there was a basic unity that bound these early Christians together and became the defining element in what constituted a Christian woman or man. This is not to say that there was some sort of monolithic agreement. Unity is not uniformity. Still, in the midst of Jewish Christians who were more overtly Torah observant and Gentile Christians who generally were not, there was a core of beliefs that bound them to each other. This core, as is to be expected, concerned their confessions about Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps no shorter explanation of these two sides can be found than the one propounded by Paul, when he said, “Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel…” (2 Ti. 2:8, and I concur with Luke Johnson that 2 Timothy should be credited to Paul). <br /><br />I would suggest that these early statements do have creedal quality without necessarily conforming to the exact wording of the later creeds, and yes, this is to some degree propositional. I hesitate to use the word propositional, since I very much doubt that early Christianity can be confined to merely a set of propositions. Still, there was a real sense in which all the early Christians believed that God had acted decisively in the person of Jesus, and what one believed about him mattered. This seems to be the burden of John’s letters, in particular, where he moves through a cycle of defining true Christianity both in terms of how one lives (love and moral concerns) and how one believes (what one confesses). <br /><br />With respect to their liturgy, their leadership and their confessions, it seems to me that all these worked together to form a Christian core. While it comes much later in church history and probably should be qualified to some degree, I still think the statement of Vincent of Lerins is valuable when he describes “what has been believed always, everywhere and by all”. So long as this refers to the central core, and not to the multitude of peripheral issues, it is a good statement in my view.Dan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12230336952558013110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post-70258629237873278172015-10-21T18:04:07.204-04:002015-10-21T18:04:07.204-04:00Another Question: Origins of Christian Freewill Gi...Another Question: Origins of Christian Freewill Giving<br /><br />The precedent of Christian freewill giving lies in Jewish almsgiving to provide for the needs of the poor and powerless rather than in the structured obligations of tithing to support a professional ministerial class. <br /><br />In fact, there were considerably diverse attitudes toward the financial support of leaders found in different early Christian documents. Paul seems to take a practical path arguing that the "laborer is worthy of his hire", but in the next breath stating a general principle that those who do not work should not eat. But the later Didache offers a negative assessment of leaders - especially itinerant apostles and prophets - who expect (or seek) financial support.<br /><br />My question is: Was there a standard for supporting Christian workers in the earliest church? Or did the practice vary from place-to-place and leader-to-leader? Did the necessity of financially supporting ministers evolve as the concept of ministry moved from missionary itinerants to local elders, deacons, and bishops?<br /><br />And a related question: Since early Christianity probably continued the worship forms of Palestinian and diaspora synagogues and since early Christian house churches were no doubt patterned after synagogue organization, what role did the Jewish synagogue pattern of charitable giving and ministerial support play in defining Christian attitude toward these issues?Joseph Howellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1230344530531927799.post-73038365266752579962015-10-21T17:14:33.874-04:002015-10-21T17:14:33.874-04:00Another Question: The Creedal Quality of Early Chr...Another Question: The Creedal Quality of Early Christian Confessions<br /><br />Your presentation on the early Christian confession statements - many embedded in the scriptural witness itself - is very helpful. But in addition to these uniting statements, the NT also describes a variety of Christian expressions arising from the Christianity's missionary success, rapidly advancing from its Palestinian Jewish home, following the Roman roads and the forerunners of the Jewish diaspora into the Roman Gentile world.<br /><br />My question is: Was there a basic unity that bound all Christians together despite the obvious diversity in the first century Christian church? Do these early confessional statements have a "creedal quality" that defined the uncompromised core of Christian belief? Did "the faith once delivered to the saints" have - in some sense - a propositional, doctrinal basis? Was the unity of early Christianity rooted in common worship forms (liturgy) or common leadership or common statements of belief or maybe in all of the above? Or was there any such unity at all?Joseph Howellnoreply@blogger.com