[Jollyblogger](http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/01/jolly_digest_11.html) writes:
>I have been a bad blogger of late. One of the cardinal rules of blogging is that he who blogs should read the blogs of others. A corollary is that he who blogs should link liberally to others. I haven’t been doing this lately – time has been a bit scarce and so whatever blogging time I have had has been used to do my own posts and I really haven’t been reading too much of others stuff, nor have I been linking.
Heh. Who’s he kidding. I don’t hardly link to nobody. That and the fact that I don’t hardly post, of course, probably explain our phenomenal lack of readership, which right now, I think, consists entirely of family members. Ah, the devotion of family.
Nevertheless, David Wayne has a [great aricle](http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/01/jolly_digest_11.html) up discussing the meaning of *Logos* in John Chapter 1. He’s coming from a reformed background, which has a tendency to equate *Logos* with the “Logic of God.” This makes sense to a certain point, since that’s bascially what *logos* came to mean in most Greek philosophy. But, of course, John wasn’t a Greek philospopher. Apparently there is a great deal of Hebrew thought on the Word of God that was there before the foundation of the world–thought which is actually accounted for in the Bible, and which therefore ought to be given at least a little more weight than Greek philosophy. On the other hand (and David discusses this a little), John’s intended audience wasn’t exactly Jewish fishermen either.
On a slightly tangental note, I’ve been re-thinking some [articles](http://www.puretext.us/archives/2003/11/09/logos-and-rhema/) I’ve written on the *Logos*. Because of a slight Pentecostal influence, I was interpreting *logos* to mean “the written word” as opposed to *rhema*, meaning “the spoken word,” a binary opposition that’s particularly familiar to graduates from [Rhema Bible College](http://www.rhema.org/education/rbtc.cfm), located just a mile from my home when I was in highschool. But that’s a false dichotomy. Both *logos* and *rhema* refer to the spoken word in scripture. In the Beginning, God didn’t *write* the world into existence, he *spoke* it. There’s a completely different word in Greek that’s used to refer to the written word of God–*graphe*, usually translated *scripture*, and always refering to the Bible itself.
On a shallow glance, I’m fairly confident that my original interpretations in that article are still accurate (or is that, “fake, but accurate”?). That is, I still belive there should be a distinctive difference between *logos* and *rhema* – no matter how a particular person uses a word, if we’re going to have synonyms in a language, there has to be some criteria for picking one over the other – but it looks like my little dichotomy was a little two small. There are at least *three* words in the Greek New Testament that refer to some kind of communication. If you’re going to have a doctrine on them, you’d better include all the evidence. All this means is that we have yet another field that’s ripe for study.
*Which gets me thinking…*
[Rick Joyner](http://www.nelsonministryservices.com/nms/bio.asp?cid=1136 “Bio: Best link I could find”) in one of his books gives an outline of the major movements in modern church history. He demonstrates that they’re getting closer together as we approach the end times, and makes the comparison with the phrase “pangs of childbirth” which apparently come more frequently as the labor progresses. It’s been a long time since I read these, so I’m doing this from memory, but… The other comparison he makes is that each movement, from the reformation on to the charismatic movement had a particular focus on one of the branches of the five fold ministry. For instance, the Reformation was supposed to have been a major movement of the Pastoral and the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement of the last century was supposed to be the one emphasizing teaching. Somewhere in the middle, during the Great Awakenings, was an emphasis on the Evangelist. If I remember correctly, under this understanding, the next upcoming move of God was going to be of the prophetic, followed quickly by the long awaited Aposotlic move.
Maybe.
Since I don’t have any medical training, and don’t know nuthin ’bout birthin no babies, I’m not going to knock him on thebirthpangs point. Actually, it sounds pretty good, and I’m sure Mr. Joyner checked with his wife, a mother of five, before putting forth that teaching. It’s the part about the *nature* of these movements that I’m starting to have some problems with.
In all the things that I’ve been reading about the Reformation, nothing I’ve seen matches up with a pastoral emphasis. It was doctrine, plain and simple. Go ahead. Read Martin Luther. Read Calvin. They loved the people and wanted to care for them, but the focus was clearly on Doctrine (and doctrine is just a Greek word meaning “teaching”). Luther stated boldly, that everything he had done and been had come about as a result of God calling him to become a doctor of Theology (again, a huge paraphrase, since I can’t be bothered to look up the reference on a short notice).
Conversely, I’m not so sure the Charismatic movement has been primarily a movement of teaching. First, there has been an awful lot of bad teaching mixed in with the bunch. Some of it terrible teaching that has been swallowed whole by great swaths of people. Secondly, what true doctrine there has been that has come out of the Charismatic movement, powerful as it has been, none of it has even come close to matching the fundamental shifts in the way people relate to God as we had in the Reformation period. If anything, the greatest impact of the charismatic movement has been evangelistic, since more have come to know Christ through any other movement or sect in history. The evangelistic impact of the Great Awakenings, even combined pale in comparison, by sheer numbers, to the Charismatic movement.
And as for an ‘apostolic’ movement of the church, it all depends on what you mean by ‘apostle.’ I’m sure it isn’t what Mr. Joyner means, but one understanding is simply that apostle has the same dictionary definition as missionary – “one who is sent on a mission.” In that case, what could be more apostolic than the missionary movement started by William Carey in the late 1700’s?
It’s nice to think that you can divide history up into nice neat periods, but it just doesn’t work like that. There is far more depth and complexity to God’s plan than that. Honestly, I for one, am glad to know it. God is clearly moving with purpose as he directs our history, and the scripture is pretty clear that history is building toward some great summing up in the end. But, the greater and richer the complexity of the tapestry he’s weaving, the greater and richer the glorty of God. I’m all for that.
In the mean time, let’s forsake any hubristic idea that we somehow have a greater knowledge than some other group of people did at some other point in history. Or a greater outpouring of the spirit, or greater anything at all. What God did in former generations, he did for his purposes, and he used the people he had available to the fullest extent that they offered themselves. It would be a mistake to think that somehow Christians in times past weren’t as *pious* as we are. What then, was it *God* who was unwilling to distribute to them everything they needed? Instead, let’s study those generations, blessing them for what they had, and weighing their words to see if what they believed was true. You never know what there may be left to be uncovered.
neumatikos 