gee Journal Volume 2 Number 3 } Winter) 1985 A Journal of Theology for the Apostolic Christian Church = Editorial Page 2 Church Leadership Survey Page 3 Editorial Replies to Letters Page 4 | The Influence of Greek Thought Page 6 on Christian Theology: Part 01Subscriptions to the ACC Journal are $5.00 (US.) per 4 issues. All issues of the current ‘ollie wile inc in the subveription rate Volume 2 begins with the Summer issue of 1984 and includes the Autumn and issues of 1984 along with the 1985 Spring issue. Volume 3 begins with the 1985 Summer issue. Subscription renewels are due at that time. All correspondence with the ACC fouraas should be sent to either editor: fares Dennis Peucht 15 114A St, Apt 301 ‘5275 Crown St_ Bai ‘Alberta ‘West Linn, OR Continuing with the arlist and style of the front-cover scene of the last issue, depicted here is the return of the rebellious ton Who spent his inheritance in strange places fer away. But ‘alas, life has its wodesicable side as well, und lt took a direct exposure to the consequences of sin fo convince him that he should return to his roots. But that in itself Is not the lesson of tthe parable; his father took him beck anyway iato full fellowship upon his return. $0 too, we ‘are thus taught, to take back into full fellowship those who have truty repented of their sins. May ve, 21 & church, not find ourseives siding with the older soa!Editorial Facing Present Challenges in the Church In every age, the church has faced challenges to its continued development and even existence. The original church spread to many cultures, and over the years these various Christian groups have developed their own forms of Christianity. In each of these traditions, similar chaltenges to the church have arisen. As Apostolic Christians, we too have ‘a distinct tradition of about two centuries. The current issues among the leadership in Apostolic Christendom, however, are not unique to our tradition. We can learn much by reading church history and paying attention to Christendom as a whole. For example, the current “hot” issue of whether adulterers (or is it fornicators?) should be readmitted to the Church membership was played out at tength in the first few centuries of church history. What attention has been paid to our roots there in dealing with this issue? I would suggest two other issues which I believe are even hotter than’ the one mentioned above. Agein, church history is full of examples. The first is the problem of aberrant church leaders. In the early church, it was fot uncommon for various influential individuals to push unorthodox doctrinal beliefs or practices. How did the church leadership handle’ this? Convening in councils, as we do today, troublemakers were aften| decidedly dealt with by declaring their teachings or practices to be heretical. This did not mean that these people were thrown out of the church but thal their influence was to be countered by the orthodox view. It wasn't always clear a3 to what was “orthodox” (ie, the “straight opinion") but, what was exemplary was the affirmative action of the councils im recognizing heresy. At some Poin eying im to evil to) boxea, eo arae or some other greater social good has its limits. / The second issue is how we traditionally have dealt with differences among leaders in church councils. The tradition, datirig back to Froehlich, is simply to split the church. Thus we have many AC splinter groups. The issues which led to these splits we usually look back on today as petty, But how often do we look at the form of solution - that of splitting, of “separating ourselves from ‘worldy’ church members", /as being the real tradegy? Surely we can overcome our traditional method and replace it with a better one. But which one? Well, back to the church history books for precedents! — - Dennis FeuchtIntroduction to the Elder Questionnairre Project Several months ago the ACC/ editors began a project with the goal of better informing our readers of the perspectives of Church leaders on a ‘Wide range of issues, including the future of the Church. We sent all those listed as “elder” (or assistant) the questionnairre printed below. For Organizations in general, the church being no exception, a sign of health is geod communications among leaders and the other members of the Organization. Our intention with this project is to enhance that communication so that, with a common vision, we can go forward united behind those leading. In this spirit, we sent our questionnairre. We then waited, and continue to wait, for responses. Although we did not expect the questionnaire to be returned by everyone, so far the returns have been disappointingly few. In a future issue, some of the results will be Published, giving, hopefully, a clear picture of what the outlook and goals of (some) Church leaders are. The surprising lack of response (after several months) could be explained by the usually overloaded schedules of most Church leaders and the sensitivity of some of them to Church “politics” or unimportance of ACC/ surveys. Yet, it was nevertheless a surprise to receive so far less than a handful of responses. Perhaps the readership has some further insights into this Church social phenomenon. ‘The questions were as follows: 1. What is the biggest challenge the Church faces today? How should we respond to it? 2. In your time in church leadership, what have been the best and worst changes within the church? What are our Chruch’s greatest strengths today? Weaknesses? 3. What are some effective ways of nurturing spiritual growth in your local congregation? In the Apostolic Christian Church as a whole? 4. What do you understand by “church tradition"? What is its value in the 3life of the church? Is its overall effect beneficial or detrimental? 5. What, in your estimation, is the major Christian doctrine that needs to be emphasized in the church today? Why? 6. An increasing number of Apostolic Christians, especially younger members, want a more articulate understanding of Christianity than is possible through our present educational activities and methods. Are we ripe for establishing our own Bible school? 7. In what ways could Apostolic Christian members make your job [as an Eider] easier? Editorial Replies to Letters of Last Issue ‘The symbolic, and evidently cryptic, design on fast issue's front cover was motivated by Paul Blattner’s article. In a publication which generally promotes a rational rather than a purely existential or even mystical hermeneutic, the lack of explicit representational content understandably could leave readers wondering what it meant. Such is the nature of “art”. However, here is the intent behind it. In the box with “ACC” are circles representing focal AC churches. The lines between shapes represent relationships in a general sense. The size of the shapes represent the size of the local church membership or influence. The different shapes are churches of different traditions or denominations. And finally, the fading of some shapes indicates a fading in the dynamic activity of these churches. (This interpretation was not discovered until the cover was drawn, however, but it seemed worth leaving at the time - though it compromised the overall aesthetic appearance of the drawing!) Notice too that some churches are substantially independent from the rest of Christendom. Perhaps these are “cults”. The significant and well-reasoned replies to my editorial, “Christian Faith and Politics” causes me to have second thoughts about the extent to which I should have asserted that ACs think liitle about this subject! Partially in response to similar comments made in both letters, a brief extension of the discussion follows. In a recently published book, Creeds, Councils, and Christ, by Gerald Bray (IVP) - a rare book of the kind that is both readable by the non-specialist and yet profound - is insight into how Christian dogma ( that is, much of what we believe as Christians) was 4worked out by the early church. On pages 87-91, Bray explains how neo-Piatonic philosophy exerted a powerful influence in intellectual circles in the fourth and fifth centuries. Earlier, Christianity, in comparison, was not given serious notice until Justin Martyr and Athenagoras wrote their defenses of Christianity which were sent to the emperor. Marcus Aurelius ‘was not impressed, and in 177AD he ordered the first general persecution of Christians throughout the Empire. About the same time, Celsus, an unknown pagan philosopher, produced the first serious work attempting to refute Christianity on intellectual grounds. To quote Bray (p. 88): Celsus’ book marks a turning-point in intellectual history — It was the first non-Christian work which sought to take Christianity seriously, which in itself makes it a landmark of importance. But even more significant is the way in which Celsus apparently argued his case. .. in order to make his points, Celsus was obliged 10 adopt the fundamental presuppositions of his opponents. _ What Celsus ended up trying to do was to explain that a basically monotheistic way of salvation could be constructed out of Platonism, a fact which made conversion to Celsus did not destroy Christianity. On the contrary, he embraced its main ideas and adjusted his philosophy to cope with them - thereby revealing that the new religion had gained the upper hand intellectually and could introduce major modifications in the accepted philosophical notions of his time. Something of the same may well have been true of Piotinus. It certainly was the case with Porphyry, who attacked Christianity violently whilst at the same time absorbing its main ideas. It must be remembered that all this was going on at a time when high government officials were Neoplatonists and Christians were still a despised and persecuted sect. The intellectual battle was in full swing long before the official recognition of Christianity in 312-313, and the Christians were winning from the start. .. it Jooks strongly as if Platonism was refashioned to meet the challenge of Christianity, not the other way round. Christians may well have been influenced by the philosophical schools, but they remained on the offensive and gave far more than they got. In this way, the Roman Bmpire “fell” to the new order based on the Christian world-view. The revolution was not in terms of military might 5 a