Central Park Bible Community A community of young adults at Irving Bible Church

Joshua (Week 5) Preview

Hey guys, George will be leading this week's Joshua lesson. The following is from him:

This week we will be covering Joshua 5:13-6:27.   I would ask that you just read it.  It's short and it's probably the coolest part of the book.  Then, read it again.  Then, one more time, read it again.

So, in class we joke, ok, I joke, (and sometimes feel slightly bad afterward) about calling people for jumping to interpretation.  So, I wanted to write a few sentences about that which will helpfully guide our discussion in class.   We naturally observe the text when we read it.  It's as simple as that.  By definition the process of reading is an act of observation.   The problem is not that we're not good at it, the problem is that we're too good at it.  As the words float through our brain we immediately begin attaching them to feelings and experiences of our own without having to concentrate explicitly on the words themselves.  But do you remember when you first starting reading?  I had to compete with my older brother so I learned to read a very young age. I struggled forming words and then sentences and oftentimes I would read aloud the sentence and still not know what I read.  Suddenly, the words would become ideas and I would realize that the sounds I just made meant that there was a "big dog" somewhere in the plot of the thriller I was working through.   So, it's our job to assign meaning to words and we all do it differently!

Today that process happens automatically. The words naturally flow into meaning but as humans we color everything by our current state of mind of past experiences.   When we get a letter from an old friend, depending on our disposition we assume different meanings as we read the words.  You could wait until your disposition changes, read the letter again and get a completely different meaning.  We are "reading into" the letter-  or doing  eisogesis-  eventually you might have to sit down with that friend and say, "I read this and assumed it meant X and I don't want to assume so would you tell me what you meant by that?"  This is exegesis!  Attempting to find the meaning of text from the text, and not assigning meaning to text from our own desire to make it say something it doesn't.

If we apply this to the study of Scripture we have the Holy Spirit who guides us into truth.  We should be quick to ask the Holy Spirit to give us insight from the text that would change how we think about God and how we think about ourselves.  However the goal is to attempt, as best we can, not to color the text with our own feelings and experiences.  We do this by forcing ourselves to sit in the observation process for a while.

I think some confusion comes from the simplicity of what we're being asked to do:  Here are some examples from our reading in Joshua:

• The man with the sword told Joshua to take of his sandals.
• Troops marched in front of the ark.
• Chapter 6 concludes with a statement about Joshua's political and spiritual state.  God was with him, and the whole land knew of him.
• No one could get in or out of Jericho

Some observations can be very clever but never lead to any significant application. Some observations can be extremely simple and lead to profound insight into your own life.   But either way we need to pay attention in such away that we can attempt to see the text for what it is first.   So, I would challenge you to while you read the text (today and tomorrow)  jot down observations- as simple as you can make them.    If you find yourself saying "because" then it's now an interpretation!  The next step is to ask the questions and try to find out what is being communicated to the original audience.   Finally, we ask, what does this mean to me today?   This is the part where the richness of our experiences comes into play.   For example we might agree that one general interpretation of the text is that God keeps his promises.  Simple, but what is some way that this can or does affect your life right now?   This is where we can use the diversity of our backgrounds and the continuum of logic and feeling we have as a community to share with one another, encourage one another, and grow together in loving God and loving people.

Here are some verses that might give us some clues about those observations we'll be talking about.
Dt 20:16-18
1 Kings 16:34

Thanks for letting me bloviate!
George

Joshua (Week 4) Preview

Hey folks, our 4th week in Joshua is coming up, and this week Richard will be leading our discussion. Below is the homework. I look forward to seeing all of you on Sunday night.

What to Read?

Joshua 3-5:13

Observations and Background:

Israel is referred to as a nation, which suggests that Israel was unified at this time, and that the book was written earlier in Israel’s history. Later in Israel’s history, the term “nation” took on a negative context and was only used to refer to foreign nations.This is the first time the ark is mentioned as explicitly leading Israel. This could be an example of the metaphor called synecdoche (“part for the whole” or “whole for the part,” e.g. “The White House says,” is synecdoche for “The President says”) referring to God’s leading.

2000 cubits is about 1000 yards or about ten football fields. One commentator says this is far enough to see but too far to accidentally touch it. What are your thoughts on the distance?

Joshua says “by this, you will know!” when referring to the crossing. This term was only used once before, in Num 16:28. What does it refer to here?

Joshua’s role is less direct in this crossing that was Moses’ in the crossing of the Red Sea. Moses himself led the Israelites then, while God, through his ark, leads now. The ark had not yet been built during the crossing of the Red Sea.

3:13 is one of the only times the ark is referred to as the “ark of the LORD” and not the “ark of the Covenant”.

During the rest of the year, the Jordan is easy to cross. It is only during the spring that it can become difficult. This site in particular was unusually wide and difficult to mount a mass crossing.

Of the 83 usages of the term “to this day” in the OT, 15 appear in Joshua, which is more than in any other book. Scholars believe there may be a deep cultural context to the term as it is used in historical works. It routinely appears in other ancient histories, such as in the works of Appian.

In Hebrew, the term “Gods people” is used to describe the older generation as it left Egypt. This generation was later described by the term “nation of God’s enemies”. The younger generation was born “in the wilderness” before becoming a “nation of God’s enemies”, but then was circumcised and became “God’s people”

Gilgal means something similar to “roll away.”

Things to think about: What is the purpose of this section?

3:7 & 4:14 Joshua needed to be exalted in the eyes of Israel. Why is this so? Can you think of any examples of any other leaders in the bible who needed to be exalted? What role does 3:7 play in the passage and how does it relate to 3:10? What is the reason for the explanation in 3:15 about the banks of the Jordan overflowing—why would the author’s contemporary readers need to know this? What is the sign and the memorial of in 4:6 and 4:7—in other words, what is the memorial testifying to? How will the memorial effect future generations? There are two piles of rocks—one directly commanded by God and the other placed by Joshua in the river which lasts till “this day”—did Joshua add to the command of the Lord or was this also implied? Is the purpose of this passage to suggest to the author’s contemporary readers that they too ought to make memorials or is something else going on here? What is the significance of 4:14 to the passage? Does 4:24 suggest an evangelistic purpose—why or why not? What significance does 5:1 and 5:9 have to the passage? 5:12 How does this correlate to the first passover in Exodus 12?

Joshua (Week 3) Preview

Hey folks, Kyle will be leading us through Joshua 2 this week and we've got some homework to do to prepare for class.

This week read Joshua 2 (and reread Joshua 1 if you have forgotten what happened) before class.

As you read about Rahab and the Spies (wbagnfarb), think about the purpose of this story. What possible purpose could this story serve?

Also, like we learned last week, make sure to take note of the plot, the actors involved, the dialogue, thematic events,  and the setting.

Some background factoids to think about-

• harlot.
  • "a woman professionally committing fornication"  OR
  • "a single woman tavern keeper"

• Rahab has been determined to be a common Canaanite name prior to the time of Joshua. just like Ashely or Callie now.
• There is a literary device called a 'chiasm' in this chapter, where similar clauses are repeated later

A:  (9)  and said to the men, "I know that the LORD has given you the land,

B: and that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you.

C: (10)  "For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Seabefore you when you came out of Egypt,

C': and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed.

B': (11)  "When we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you;

A':  for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath.

• The spies quote Rahab word for word when they report back to Joshua. Weird?

See you Sunday!

Joshua (Week 2) Preview

Hey folks, the following is from John in preparation for this Sunday's lesson. Please read it before class so we can have a lively (and informed) discussion.

REVIEW:

1. Geography plays an important role in the strategy of Joshua’s Conquest. Note especially the key fortresses conquered along the International Coastal Highway—Lachish and Hazor.

2. Authorship is…well, difficult. What are our options? Joshua + later editor(s). Later author +  oral and/or literary tradition.

3. Audience is also difficult. The book could be written to people living shortly after the time of Joshua with editors modernizing the text to refer to events during the period of the Judges. It could also have been put together during the time of the Judges as a reflection of the conquest in relation to contemporary events. Some put it much later during the monarchy, but the literary evidence seems to point to a time earlier.

PREVIEW:

1. Dating: 1400s or 1200s? What’s the big deal?

2. Introduction to Joshua with discussion on Joshua 1. REREAD JOSHUA ONE AND GET ORIENTED TO THE TECHNIQUE OF BIBLE STUDY BELOW:)

GETTING INTO THE TEXT:

OBSERVATION: Some of us see, but we do not observe”

Grammatical observations: verbs, subject/object, dependent and independent clauses, phrases—especially prepositional, connectives

Literary observations: key persons, places, events, ideas, times, emotion, tone, figures of speech

Relationship observations: comparison, contrast, repetition, continuity, continuation, climax, cruciality (pivot point), interchange, cause/effect, purpose, instrumentation, explanation or analysis, preparation or introduction, summarization, interrogation

INTERPRETATION: Engaging the text on the terms of the text

Historical: questions about the author, audience, location, perspective of the writing, problems, purpose of writing

Culture: political, geographical, economic, legal, agricultural, military, family, dietary, architectural, clothing, social, religious

Literary: Setting, Characters (direct description, word and thoughts, actions, responses, self-characterization), Plot development (Type: physical, character, or moral plot?, What creates suspense: danger and tests, question of destiny, divine human encounters?, What are the nature of the tests or choices of the main character: strength, intelligence, resourcefulness, morality? What changes take place from the beginning to the end: plot changes—tragic, punitive, pathetic, comic, admiration; character changes—reform, degeneration, revelation? What foils, dramatic irony, poetic justice is there? Do the selected details communicate reality, morality, values?)

Grammatical: word meanings, figures of speech (similies, metaphors, metonymy, synecdoche, personification, hyperbole, irony, paradox, euphemism, rhetorical questions, etc), clause meanings (assertions, commands, questions, requests), supporting clause contributions (causal, concessional, comparative, conditional, purpose, result, temporal, local, relative)

APPLICATION: Christ in you

1. Know the Interpretation

2. Know the Applicational Situation

3. State the Application in the Form of a Principle

4. Think of the Principle in Terms of Relationships to God, Self, Others, Enemies

Joshua (Week 1)

John introduced our new series on the book of Joshua this past Sunday night by leading a discussion on time period, context, and authorship. He set the stage for our study by introducing us to the geography and peoples of the ancient eastern Mediterranean region. The intention was to break into chapter one, but we didn't quite get there. I should have taken notes, but, in short, here's what I remember.

Time Period: We're not exactly sure when the events of Joshua took place, but it's sometime between 140o BC and 1200 BC.

Context: The back drop for the events of Joshua is that the Israelites having been freed from Egypt by God, led by Moses, had just concluded a 40 year meandering through the desert. A whole generation of Israelites has died off, including Moses, without seeing God's promise of a land of their own fulfilled. Joshua is the new leader of Israel and part of the younger generation that gets to enter the promised land. Interestingly, parts of Joshua sound as if they were written in the later period of Israel's judges.

Author: We don't know, but it may not be Joshua since the book of Joshua eventually records Joshua's death.

Since we'll likely be breaking into Joshua 1 next week, it can't hurt to review the "homework" we had for this week. It's pasted below. Any additional instructions from the teaching team will also be posted here.

As always, feel free to use the comments section to share insights and ask questions. And please feel free to correct my rough recollection of Sunday's lesson.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

1. Who wrote this thing anyway? External evidence says it is Joshua, the book’s main character, but the external evidence is 1000 years after the book was written. Weak sauce.  Internal evidence? It couldn’t have been completely written by Joshua because the book records his death, although an editor could have come back and added this scene (some suggest Phinehas). It probably wasn’t written long after Joshua because the book presents Rahab as still being alive (6:25), the sanctuary not permanently located (5:27, 2 Sam 21:1-6), Jebusites still occupying Jerusalem (15:8, 2 Sam 5:6), Canaanites still in Gezer (16:10, 1 Kgs 9:16), etc. On top of that, several clues suggest this is pretty ancient including the practice of having meeting with spies at a prostitute’s house, the list of ancient civilizations that are distinctive to the 2^nd millennium BC (e.g. Hivites), and contemporary parallels of a Hittite account of walls falling down.However, there are several things that point to some time after Joshua—mentioned is the relocation of the tribe of Dan (19:40, Jdg 18:27), Judge Jair (13:30, Jdgs 10:3-5), and the expansion of Caleb’s territory (15:13-19, Jdg 1:8-15). Finally, the phrase “to this day” seems to push it past Joshua a little. Are these notes explained solely by an editor reworking Joshua’s stuff? If it was written in the time of Judges instead of the time of Joshua, how might this impact the interpretation of the story?

2. How in the world was this put together? Modern critical theory places a lot of emphasis on a hypothesis that claims a bunch of editors collated a some different ancient texts together pretty late in Israel’s history to come up with the Old Testament (JEDP). This theory is not without significant flaws, but it does raise a valuable point—the Bible used sources and is not ashamed to admit it.  Even Joshua points to some “Book of Jashar” that recorded the event of the sun standing still before Joshua did (10:13). In any case, Joshua is more similar to Deuteronomy than any other book of the Bible in style and language—phrases such as “love the Lord your God” and “Moses, servant of the Lord” are repeated in both. Some say this reflects the same author. Others explain the similarities as coming from the same school of thought. What do you think?

3. What’s going on here? Jumping into Joshua is like watching Back to the Future II without having seen Back to the Future I—you can make through all right, but it is always better to have some background. Moses has led the Israelites from the Egyptian captivity through the desert for 40 years and the first generation has died because of disobedience. Moses would die too because of his own disobedience, but he would be highly revered by the people and it is prophesied that one like him would be raised up (read Deuteronomy 18:15-19). Joshua was Moses’ chief assistant. His original name “Hosea” meant “salvation,” but Moses called him Joshua instead meaning “Yahwheh saves.” He was personally chosen by Moses as his assistant (Ex 24:13), he was in charge of a group of Israelites to drive back an Amalekite attack (Ex 17:9), he was one of twelve spies sent into the land (Num 13:8), and he was commissioned by Yahweh to succeed Moses as leader when he died (Deut 31:14).

GETTING STARTED: READ JOSHUA 1 FOR 7/11.

In every good story, the beginning and the end are the most important parts to determining the message—they are the covers on the book that set the tone and bring it to clarity.  You see this in movies—in Avatarthe main character is called “meat” in a somewhat awkward scene at the beginning where soldiers dehumanize him for his handicap—this “dehumanization” carries through the rest of the film as a major theme. In the classic Apocalypse Now (much like its written counterpart The Heart of Darkness), you have to pay close attention to the main character’s eyes to finally grasp where the movie is taking you.  So pay attention here!  Joshua 1 sets the tone for the message of the book—while it may not be immediately clear here, you should be able to start formulating some ideas as to what the message is going to be. Start thinking in terms of plot, characterization, theme, foreshadowing, etc.

Things to consider as you read:

v. 1. Note the abrupt beginning. In the Hebrew, the verse begins with a conjunction that demarks a continuation of something previous.  The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy all begin the same way.

v. 1-2. Whenever “the Servant of the Lord” appears in Joshua (around 15x), it always refers to Moses with one exception.  However, the title “Servant of the Lord” is never directly attributed to Moses outside of this until his death in Deuteronomy 34:5.

v.1-2. “Servant” with a theological referent can either mean a “slave to God” or a “dependent upon God”

v. 5: God with Joshua. What is this?

1. A divine spiritual presence

2. A metaphor substituting cause for effect (metonymy): God’s of blessing (effect) substituted for God’s accompaniment (cause). E.g. “He speaks in a strange tongue:” Language (effect) substituted for a muscle that produces it (cause).

v. 6. “be strong” can mean 1) to be stronger than, 2) to take courage, 3) to harden (the heart)

v. 7 two translation options: 1) “Only be strong and very courageous IN ORDER to be careful to do according to all the law…” or 2) “Only be strong and very courageous. INDEED, be careful to do according to all the law…”

v. 8. One commentator has said what is to literally “read quietly here” is the practice of memorization. Some translations have meditate.

v. 12-14. The Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh cut a deal with Moses—they would fight with the rest of Israel until the promised land was secured if they could take land east of the Jordan river (and east of what was promised) (Deuteronomy 3:18-20).

A History of the Church (Week 5)

It's been a while since we had anyone share their story with us, but this week Betsy graced us with hers. If you missed it you're just going to have to ask her yourself next time you see her.

George continued our series on the history of the church picking up where Brent had left off by talking about establishing Christian doctrine.

Early Christians struggled with leadership and doctrinal authority in the church. One example is Clement's letters to the Corinthian church after they had overthrew their leadership. What gave Clement the authority to admonish and correct the church? Tradition has it that the apostles passed their spiritual authority down to spiritual successors to guide the church. The name these church leaders were given was "Elder" or "Bishop".

During this time scripture was being established, particularly the gospels. There was some confusion as to the nature of God. Gnosticism and Marcionism established a dualistic view of God. Arianism said that the Son was created by the Father. The elders of the church combated these heresies and established important Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicea and other church meetings.

Here are some of the primary doctrinal points established by the early church:

• Scripture is inspired.
• The God of the Old Testament is also the God of the New Testament.
• Tradition is important. (apostolic teaching)
• Jesus is the same "stuff" as God.
• The son is "co-equal" with God.
• Only God initiates salvation.
• The Holy Spirit is also God. (added shortly after original Council of Nicea)

Two systems of thought began to develop in the church, one in the east and the other in the west. In 1050 they would later become the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches.

We will learn more about early theology, church leadership, and the councils that helped to determine doctrine this coming week.

Announcements

• May 1st - Go And Be! - Day of service. Details here.
• May 5th - Cinco De Mayo Celebration - 6:30 pm at Los Cabos in Addison.
• May 15th - Single Parent Carnival - with Central Park Afterparty! Sign up at irvingbible.org.

A History of the Church (Week 4)

Brent continued to teach us about Constantine, the ruler who legitimized Christianity in the Roman empire.

Constantine, after taking control of the western empire, formed a bond with Licinius who controlled the east, but it wasn't long before he set his sights on the entire empire. And when a relative of Licinius got involved in a plot to assassinate Constantine, Constantine saw his opportunity to increase power and took Byzantine, encroaching on Licinius's territory. The two rulers forged another short-lived pact until 322AD when Constantine again attacked Licinius. Licinius surrendered in 324 AD and ruled the entire empire until his death in 337 AD.

Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium and changed its name to Constantinople. He attempted to restore the greatness of Rome under the banner of Christianity.

So what was Constantine's experience with Christianity? We discussed a couple of possibilities. The first is that he was a true believer, used by God to establish the church. The opposing view is that he was a political opportunistic using religion to his own ends.

As a class we had a discussion on what marks a true Christian conversion. We discussed confession, baptism, growth and discipleship.

With these in mind, was Constantine a true Christian? The church at the time was divided, and some of the church leaders didn't know how to deal with him. He did not have the typical Christian conversion experience and was not baptized until just before his death. Then again he had little political reason to try to gain the favor of Christians. They certainly didn't have any political power.

Constantine did believe God was on his side, but he was still a very shrewd politician. He knew he couldn't throw out the pagan religions suddenly without revolt so he worked at it slowly. He was at odds with the senate. (Who ironically declared him a god after his death. )

Constantine did do many thing for the church.

• Halted the persecution of Christians.
• Made Christianity the official religion of the empire.
• Abolished slavery, concubines, and gladiator fighting as a result of Christian values.
• He had a huge impact on church worship. Meeting on the first day of the week. Use of incense. Separation of the clergy and laity. Rituals. Signs of respect like kneeling and crossing. Building of church buildings. Introduction of choirs. Systematizing theology. Constantine was responsible for council of Nicea. Generally unifying of the church.

He had some negative impact on the church as well. Many Christians despised Constantine for the direction he took the church, making it the official religion, taking it in a secular direction. In response, some Christians withdrew from society, creating monastic movements. Some broke from the official state church. Others focused on doctrine creating councils and systematizing the faith.

The question of whether Constantine's impact on Christianity was positive or negative is an interesting one. Did he strengthen or weaken Christianity as a whole. He certainly helped it expand which many would see as good. Others might argue that he weakened the message of Christ. What do you think? Feel free to discuss below. Please keep it civil.

Announcements

• May 1st Day of Service - More details to come in an e-mail. This is a day out serving for all young adult ministries.
• May 15th Single Parent Carnival - Sign up at online irvingbible.org.

A History of the Church (Week 3)

Brent continued our series on a history of the early Christian church.

Towards the 3rd century the Church enjoyed a relatively peaceful existence despite the anti-Christian laws. In 284 AD Diocletian became the ruler of Rome. He was a brilliant leader and administrator who divided rule of his empire into eastern and western regions with heads who reported to him.  Galerius, Maximian, and Constantius Chlorus helped Diocletian rule. Diocletian was open to Christianity; his wife and daughter were Christians.

Galerius who was pursuing extending the empire in the north began having problems with Christians in the military. Many soldiers had a crisis of conscience when they converted. Galerius was not content with kicking Christians out of the military. He demanded that Diocletian create an edict where soldiers who wouldn't recant their Christian faith be killed. This was extended to all Christians in the government. Then they began to burn Christian buildings. Diocletian rather impartially went along with Galerius's ideas until the imperial palace caught on fire. Galerius convinced Diocletian that the Christians were to blame and helped him produce a law where all Christians had to sacrifice to the Roman gods or be killed. This edict extended through most of the empire.

In 304 AD Diocletian became ill and retired, leaving Galerius in charge. Galerius forced Maximian out of office by threatening military force. Galerius replaced Maximian with a weak ruler who did whatever Galerius said. However, the sons of Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, were well respected military leaders who enjoyed much influence over the army and the people in the west.

In 311 AD Galerius becomes ill, and someone told him it was a result of his persecution of the Christians. In response Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration marking the official end of the persecution Christians in the Roman empire. Galerius died three days later.

The Labarum - A superimposed "X" (Greek: Chi) and "P" (Greek: Rho) representing the first two letters in Christ's name.

Constantine (son of Constantius Chlorus) saw his opportunity to take over, and went to battle against his former ally Maxentius (son of Maximian) . Before going to battle Constantine received a vision of the labarum (a symbol of Christ) and made it his army's banner. Under that symbol he won the battle and took over the Western portion of the Roman empire. Christians see this as Constantine's conversion to Christianity. He issues the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, reinforcing the end of persecution and adding the return of confiscated properties.

Brent finished up by discussing the various classifications of Christians who had gone through the persecution of the church.

Martyrs - People who didn't deny Christ in the face of persecution and were killed for their beliefs.

Confessors - People who didn't deny Christ in the face of persecution and somehow managed to live through it all.

The Lapsed - These people fled persecution or recanted temporarily before returning to the church.

Apostates - These people denied Christ in the face of persecution.

In the 4th century church martyrs and confessors enjoyed the highest respect among their peers. Confessors often became church leaders. And so a natural church hierarchy beganto emerge.

Next week we'll learn more about Constantine's beliefs and his impact on Christianity in the Roman empire.

Announcements

• May 1st Church Service Project - A sign up sheet is going around in class. More details to come!
• We continue to raise money for our car project.
• "What's your story?" also continues.

A History of the Church (Week 2)

Paul continued our series on historical Christianity by talking about Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was born around 30-40 AD. By the end of the first century Ignatius was a leader in the church, and in 107 AD he was arrested and sentenced to death for reasons that are still unclear. As he was being sent to Rome to go on trial leaders from various churches intercepted him en route and received letters of encouragement for their churches. Among these leaders was Onesimus, the run away slave from Philemon, who had become a leader in the church at Ephesus.

The church in Rome began to make plans to break Ignatius from prison. Ignatius instructed them not to because he believed it was God's will for him to be martyred.

Polycarp was another early church leader who was martyred in 155 AD. Roman authorities went on the hunt for Polycarp after were insighted by a crazy old man named Germanicus. Polycarp fled and narrowly escaped capture a few times before giving himself up. At his trial, the crowd cried, "Out with the atheist!" (Christians and Jews were seen as atheists because they only believed in one God and followed Christ.) Polycarp turned turned the crowd's words back at them by pointing back at them declaring, "Out with the atheists!" He then publicly thanked God for the opportunity to serve Him before being sentenced to death.

Then as a class we discussed how our church today interacts with culture. We discussed everything from mimicry to politics to concern with image.

The early church also struggled with how to interact with culture. Everything from military service to the acceptance of classical Greek philosophy was debated among early Christians. And while some believe in a severe separation between the church and the surrounding culture, others like Justin Martyr looked for points of contact. He built upon the classical philosophies to explain how Christ and the church were the answer to the questions the philosophers had posed.

Paul finished up by reminding us that the question of how the Church should interact with the culture is not new, and we can take some comfort in that. As always feel free to discuss your thoughts below.

Announcements

• Spring Retreat - It's about time to go spend some time at Mary's Mom's lake house again. We're not sure when it will be, but look for information to come soon. It will likely happen the last weekend in April...or the first weekend in May.
• We're continuing to practice generosity by putting aside a little each week for the car fund.
• To support this we're continuing to forgo eating out in favor of dinner at someone's house each week. If you have a nearby house or apartment you don't mind sharing, please let us know!

Interesting Post on Leaving Christianity

Today I read this interesting blog post by a local bible teacher who has a passion for teaching theology. He believes there is an epidemic of young people leaving the evangelical church because the church has not done a good job of answering questions and doubts.

Do you agree or disagree with the article? If you agree, what do you think needs to be done? What role can small communities like Central Park play in helping to develop the intellectual side of one's faith? What role should intellect even play in faith?

I'm curious to hear peoples' thoughts on the matter, so feel free to discuss.