A hitchhiker’s guide to the underworld

In regards to Michael Jensen's small quibble about the unnaturalness of death and the phrase that attends Abrahams death “full of years and gathered to his people”, I would point to von Rad who argues (convincingly, I think) that the reference to Abraham's death is a comment on the satiety (the blessedness) of life, rather than on death itself. It is also worth noting that the phrase “gathered to his people” is applied to the wicked (Ps 49, 1 Kgs 22) which would indicate that restraint is required when considering it to mean anything other than that “N died”.

Tony Wright of Lindfield, NSW, AUS (16/07/2008)

Having read the articles regarding Tim Chester and Steve Timmis's book Total Church in the May and June editions of The Briefing, I have to say that, though the email discussions between Tony Payne, Simon Flinders and Steve Timmis were really interesting, positive and helpful in engaging with the issues, I found Chris Green's review of Total Church very disappointing. His preliminary observations all seemed fine, but when he commented (disproportionately, it seemed to me) on the question of training, I think he missed the point, despite appearing to be aware of the potential to do so, given his role at Oak Hill College. Where do the authors say they wish to deny academic in-depth theological training to anyone? Where do they show a desire to “pull up the drawbridge behind them”?

What is being raised is not whether theological training matters, but the question of whether it could be done in ways other than the classic two or three-year residential college model. There is no expression of a desire to dumb down standards. Surely discussion of models of training should be possible without resorting to this? The new Porterbrook Network, directed by Steve and Tim, is one example of an alternative approach, and includes the Northern Training Institute, which is specifically aiming to make accredited college level training available, albeit through a different, more church-based model. The assumption in the review seemed to be that by seeking to train outside of traditional models, there cannot be interest in, or interaction with, heavy-weight theological ideas. This is patently not true.

Furthermore, I was afraid a similar thing was happening on the question of church size. The comments on the Jerusalem church being our model of larger church structures seem to me to be grasping at straws. It is true that church congregations do not have to be small, but dismissing the book's argument that there are many advantages to smaller churches on the basis of the temporary situation the early church found itself in at Jerusalem immediately after Pentecost, again, was disappointing.

Having said all this, to have wider discussions on church life in the way you have in the last two issues has been great, so thank you. And the three lots of interactions between Tony, Simon and Steve were a very stimulating read.

Anthony Adams of Derby, UK (16/07/2008)

Your three-way email discussion on Total Church raised many interesting points—many of which could well do with a feature length article to do them justice. I did find the ongoing debate a little frustrating as I kept wanting to ask, “When is someone going to mention ‘the kingdom of God’?” It seemed to me that the more convoluted parts of the discussion could have been solved by coming back to this biblical concept of Christ's kingdom. Steve Timmis came the closest when he spoke of living “under the reign of King Jesus” (p. 17 Briefing #357), however, he then went on to speak about ”church as God's mision strategy”. But God's mission strategy is bigger than the church. That strategy is a kingdom strategy that includes me as an individual doing my bit in my small corner of society—quite apart from the rest of the Body of Christ.

There were many other ways that a kingdom perspective would have provided much clarity. For example, in discussing the nature of the church, it's certainly true that the three of you engaged “over God's word in real koinonia”. From another perspective, you were simply going about the business of the kingdom of Christ as kingdom citizens.

Perhaps too much ‘church’ and not enough ‘kingdom’ might be one way of evaluating the debate. Here, it's pertinent that Simon Flinders raised the question of “whether the church is as all-encompassing a category in biblical thought” as some of you seemed to indicate. My answer to Simon would be that it isn't; the kingdom is!

John Westendorp of St Albans, Christchurch, NZ (16/07/2008)