Testing Tradition

Note: This is the first of a two-part series.  You can read part two here . [24] And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ [25] And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ [26] ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’ Luke 19:24–27 I recently finished going through Luke's gospel afresh for advent this year.  And, upon this reading, the Holy Spirit was impressing on me the inescapable socioeconomic implications of the gospel as a thread that—more than any of the other three gospel accounts—Luke in particular highlights throughout the gospel account in his name. A few passages in Luke's text opened up to me like never before.  And what I'd like to do in this post is walk through Luke 19 in particular, of...

Note: This is the second of a two-part series.  You can read part one  here  and part three here .   Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 1 Corinthians 5:7 In part 1 of this series , I raised the issue of how the wrath of God relates to the cross of Jesus Christ.  I suggested that, contrary to popular evangelical tradition, perhaps the cross of Jesus Christ is actually not purposed to satisfy the wrath of God. What I intend to do in this post is to be less suggestive and more assertive .  I want to  assert that the cross of Jesus Christ was never intended to satisfy the wrath of God. Rather, from the very beginning, it would be more accurate to say that the cross of Jesus Christ was intended to absorb the wrath of Satan (Revelation 12:12), God's adversary, and in so doing, to destroy (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8) that ancient serpent. In building any...

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Matthew 5:38–42 NOTE: The following is a re-publish of an entire post written by Santo Calarco on Facebook in a series of posts he did on rethinking Isaiah 53 .  This was the final post of that series in the form of an epilogue of sorts.  I think the contents are so important that I want to capture the whole post here and not just a link to it in case the Facebook post somehow ever gets lost. When, how and why did the idea of retribution re-enter the church in the West? It really began to rear its head towards the 4th Century. Before we look at...

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 1 Timothy 5:17 In my conversations with brothers over the years, the passage that has been presented to me as most foundational to support the tradition of paying pastors is 1 Timothy 5:17.  For a couple of years now, I've had my doubts that 1 Timothy 5:17 means what we've traditionally come to believe it means.  And over the last couple weeks I've become more convinced than ever that the traditional reading of this passage has misunderstood what Paul is trying to communicate. The following article comprehensively deals with the passage in relation to the topic but below I will focus on point two only, which was to me most insightful: http://tithing-russkelly.com/id35.html The context of "double honor" in 5:17 is that of rebuking wrongdoers in the church, and not "salary."  Verses 1-16 and 19-20 are clearly discussions of discipline....

This past week I learned from a brother of this Twitter thread by Mike Leake challenging preaching and the pulpit as the center of church gatherings: I’ve often heard something akin to this: “preaching is the most important thing that happens on a Sunday morning. That is why the pulpit is guarded, that is why it is central in our architecture, etc.” I’m not convinced of this… + https://t.co/CrlK2dtSol — Mike Leake (@mikeleake) August 25, 2021 This thread and the conversation it triggered with this brother reminded me of the following letter I wrote a couple of years ago to the home church I was gathering with at the time.  In the letter, using 1 Corinthians 14 as my main frame of reference, I push back (similar to Leake in the Twitter thread above) on our traditional evangelical tendency to center our gatherings on teaching. The bottom line is this: while our modern evangelical expectation of a church gathering is more akin to going to a sit-down restaurant where a professional ...