Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Gospel

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: RSBrenchley AT aol.com
  • To: corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Gospel
  • Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 04:46:02 EDT



> And what a high gospel it was, the likes of which most ministers today
could
> not tie the shoes of! The fruit of it was incredible. New converts who
> didn't have Bibles, most of whom couldn't read, coming straight out of
> blood-drinking pagananism, and then Paul walking out on them totally,
> leaving
> them helpless without any outside help for years! On top of that... he
only
> spent 3 to 6 months giving that gospel to most of these new churches, then
> walking out on them ... sink or swim! (without appointing elders either...
> that came later).
>
> And when he returned, they were still there... together... following the
> Lord. Now that's some mighty gospel he preached. Certainly, he showed
these
> new converts how to know an indwelling Lord.
>
> I guess I'm attempting to start a new thread here on the heels of Edgar's:
> That is, how did Paul actually plant churches and what on earth did that
man
>
> preach to hold these new converts to hold on to one another as a church
> without outside help for so long (?)
>
> Something to consider... and measure our modern church planting methods
(and
>
> gospel) against.
>
>
> Frank Anthony


Maybe it wasn't so much preaching, as the creation of a new sort of
community? There's one thing about revivals (which seems to be pretty much
what you're talking about, if I understand you right) which doesn't get
commented on much, for some reason. They happen when the church manages to
get in tune with a culture to the extent that people see it as offering them
something vital to them - which may not necessarily be what we think it ought
to be.

If you look at the Methodist revival (or First Great Awakening in the
States), for instance, with apologies if I'm off-topic. In Britain, we had a
situation where there was a terrible social upheaval going on, with
widespread poverty. New communities were springing up, and the church was
failing to reach many of them. At the same time, the influence of Calvinism
meant that people appear to have been going in real fear of hellfire, and
maybe the church had become a bit respectable, perhaps cut off from the new
poor socially to some extent. Methodism began, I think, as grassroots
movement; things were happening all over the country. People like George
Whitfield went out into the fields, to where the people were, physically
making the Gospel available to them, that was the first stage. The second
stage was when Wesley, who was more of a theologian, developed a new
inclusive theology to fit the occasion: 'All men may be saved', etc. (with
apologies to the women). The result was, in an age when heaven and hell were
envisaged in a literal way, people who had been cut off from the church, and
so, they thought, from the hope of salvation, suddenly found it offered to
them in a way that fitted their needs and expectations. Wesley, of course,
became very involved in trying practical schemes for alleviating the lot of
the poor, and this could well be seen as a third stage.

The question that needs to be asked with regard to Paul would be,
firstly, who was he appealing to; what was their situation, what were their
hopes, expectations, frustrations? Secondly, what was Paul doing that
answered their perceived needs?

Regards,

Robert Brenchley

RSBrenchley AT aol.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page