2.21 Reading Notes on 1 Pet 4:1-6

1 Peter 4

New International Version (NIV)

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. ² As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. ³ For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. ⁴ They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. ⁵ But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. ⁶ For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Rebecca brought up the question last night in our reading as to what v6 actually means. A lot of people apparently had this question even back into Spurgeon's day (if not much earlier).

The difficulty hinges on v5 where God judges the living and the dead. V6 then references those who are now dead, that the Gospel is preached to those now dead, so that they might (present or future tensing) be judged. From 5a and 5b, the immediate feeling is that God is the one judging these dead. This is problematic because we have 5c where the implication is that these are Saints who live in the Spirit.  The phrasing "for this reason" ties this verse immediately into its predecessor.

Further and more glaringly, does this suggest that the Gospel was preached to those now dead after they died? Is God judging His Saints in some way according to human standards that then allows them to live according to Him?

Spurgeon commented on this and it makes a fair amount of sense.

"This is a very difficult passage to expound, but I suppose the meaning is that the gospel was preached to those departed saints who had been called to die for Christ’s sake, and that it was preached to them for this very reason, that, while they were judged by wicked men, and were by them condemned to die, they still live a far more glorious life than they lived here, because they were thus enabled, by their martyr death, to consummate their consecration to God."

The trouble is likely that despite the obvious links between "dead" and "judged" between the two verses, we're looking at different groups. V5, where God judges the living and the dead is a comprehensive statement of God's judgement purview. The "they" (sinful Gentiles abusing Christians) from v4 will be forced to give account of their actions to the One who judges everyone. In v6, the contrast is with the saints, judged "according to human standards" (i.e. by humans) negatively, according to their evil standards as referenced in v4, where they heap abuse on them.

The words sound the same so we're caught up in a problem question. But the context appears fairly straightforward. If we reserve our immediate inclination to say the "dead" in both verses must be the same and "judges/judged" is the same judgment from God, then the greater context establishes the meaning clearly.

The rendering of Verse 6 may be thus that the Gospel was preached to those Saints when they were alive, who are now dead, who are judged by sinful humans. It was preached so that those Saints may live according to God and in regard to the spirit. Further it was preached to invite censure from the Gentiles, which in turn would help the Saints living according to God.

The meaning is quite rich in retrospect.

Church Hunting: BB Church

BBC

Ugh. Unpleasant to write this.

BBC is nearby. As near as TCC. The pastor is a fair teacher. The theology is correct on the fundamentals. Rebecca is not overly fond of the frequent overuse of the drumset but I like the singing. It's strong and people seem to really enjoy it. This is good for corporate worship.

The first sermon we heard as a family was on Nehemiah and for the first time in a long time, I was really interested and Rebecca left hoping to hear the rest. The pastor did justice to it. Unfortunately, we were invited by friends to another church and missed it. But I liked that feeling of wanting to go back to hear more about the scriptures.

The next few sermons, most of which Rebecca wasn't able to make, more topical, less well done. And an illustration of what happens when fair teachers step away from just take the text, explain it, and don't stray farther. But, generally correct.

Even the last sermon on membership, which sets off triggers in me because I know how much the concept of modern church membership is abused, was handled fairly well. You could take "membership in the local church" and replace it with "commitment/involvement/affection for" and that would make sense and accord well with scripture.

The pastor isn't terribly young, but he feels young. Like sometimes he's playing a part, not quite ready for the big coat he believes he's already wearing. It's endearing at times. At other times, I'm not convinced he's comfortable with the part. That he doesn't have the age and experience to make what he's doing feel natural.

Wow... did they do an excellent job on their business meeting. They invited outsiders, told them this was a great way to understand how the church worked, they were transparent to extremes through the long meeting. This... was... well... done. Best I've seen. They really want people to know and understand and they have every reason to think this will glorify God and people will like it.

Pretty much, though, that pastor is the only one who will talk with me. The consistent impression from the church is ambivalence to visitors. We've gone there several months and don't know anyone. A handful of people have said a few words. One person actually engaged me in conversation, only to be interrupted by another women, disinterested in my presence, who needed to talk with him about some administrative matter in the church. I think he attempted to introduce me but beyond a quick acknowledgement she was back to business. A wonderful way to highlight how insignificant a visitor is and how irrelevant he is to the group. That may not be everyone there, but we've been going there at least 10 Sundays. This is probably the worst personal impression of any church we've visited, and I'm biased to like this church.

Here, for all of the good, there is a feeling of a lack of life in the church. Maybe they are friendly to each other, but as visitors, we might as well be coming as consumers, just to be served, then to leave. Less that we're obviously not a part of their life (we're new) but it's that we're obviously not a part of their potential life. They're good as is.

I'd wonder if maybe it's us, but then, we've been received well at many other places, even those with obvious red flags.

The pastor seems perhaps even a little overly friendly, possibly understanding that the church's life depends on new people coming, but it can't just be on him.

We will likely not go much longer if another option presents itself or if we don't break through soon.

Sad. Because there's a lot to like about it. But if you "have not love..."

We can't be part of another country club.

Church Hunting: Ch Baptist Church

ChBC

One family we knew had been going there. It turns out they stopped before we visited so although we'd expected very much to see them, and asked some of the regulars, none of them knew that family. Strange.

This church is a startup, pastor apparently trained at Capital Baptist. Sermons sounded all right. They also meet in a high school.

The first rainy day we visited, we were late, by even 30 minutes! We got to the front door of the high school, could see the signs for the church, but there was no one and the door was locked. That's our fault. I was upset with myself for not pushing us out our door faster. So we left, now too late to go to a church close to our house. We went to Costco and family Bible Study instead. I understand, but still a locked door wasn't pleasant.

It turns out, the regulars go around the school to the back where an unlocked door right into the sitting area exists. Didn't know that. We went by the posted signs.

The second time we went, we were there. Lots of people, young families, navigating the halls, depositing and recovering children. They brushed right by us. We awkwardly got into the meeting room. And a few people came up to us, one by one. One young man, Achill, chatted with us at length.  Usually the younger adults are more shy around older adults, but this guy seemed very excited to meet a new face. And we spoke until frankly I was tired of the conversation. But it was very welcoming, and nice to trade information about lives with someone else. It made the distance feel smaller. Another family, apparently visiting, was a source of conversation too. It was a lovely group.

The young pastor started speaking to Rebecca, happy to have us. Now it's something I've noticed in many young pastors, that there is a degree of separation, even in their friendliness. Like they have to maintain the sense that they are pastors, leaders welcoming followers, as opposed to equals, even having his role and job in the body.

Contrast this with Tom Leake and HBC who, for all my criticisms as to how that church has gone, he exuded overt humility and had a weight-of-the-world-on-his-shoulders burden to him. You wanted to like him, wanted to trust him, and he seemed serious. The sense, and what you want, is that any authority he had was there, necessary, for our benefit. At least, that is how it seemed at the time. And we wanted to come back, knowing little about the church, but impressed with how it's leader comported himself. The humility and pleasantness and kindness won us over very quickly.

I don't see that often.

This young man, was like many others. Maybe there's a feeling like he has to prove that he's a leader before he has a record to show that when he leads people they benefit. That's probably it.

The sermon was... iffy. On Jesus calming the waters. Not necessarily wrong, but the same sin as GBC. You picked a verse, and then used that as the launching point for what you wanted to say. At least he stuck more to the text, but he missed a few big deal take-aways, and highlighting things which were comparatively minor. Strikes me as a lack of attention, or maybe being too focused on what he wanted to say than let scripture speak for itself.

But there was another red flag. I don't remember the context, but membership seemed to be emphasized more often than would seem natural. Of course, any church has the right to include/exclude based on membership, but wisdom suggests that the more open the church is to outside, the better. There was a regular meeting to accept new members, that was apparently only for members to attend. In my mind, this is a great way for outsiders to see those who become part of the church. We want our practices open, and observable, in large part because we want to show Christ on display in our lives as often as possible (assuming He is).

When I got home, I read through their constitution carefully, and found the segment about membership where the church has a right to reject the withdrawal of membership for a number of reasons, not all of them linked to sins. That withdrawal of membership is conditioned upon consent of the elders.

I did more research and found this is a common function of 9marks churches which push heavily for membership, and many of those churches have numerous reports of the abuses. I can't accept more restrictive clauses for church constitutions where you trust that elders granted authority don't abuse it, but that pre-supposed evident trustability in specific people. Simply joining a church, and you pledge to submit generally.... while it may not be abused, it increases the potential for abuse.

Rebecca liked the church, I did too, but I didn't not think it would be wise staying. That covenant read much more like a legal document. HBC's and another I read were refreshingly less restrict. And even at HBC, we saw what was properly abuse.

I don't like how church membership is done, principally because I think it attempts to do with numbers and outward behavior what we really want in terms of substance, and the way we do it simply isn't geared to producing the substance. It isn't necessarily wrong when done. If you're already "there", the membership process is fine. But if you're not "there", the way we prioritize membership can take you further away.

Church Hunting: A R Church

ARC

We decided to try the Mark Dever church, Capital Baptist, that so many at HBC spoke about as a good alternative. But frankly, it's about as far away as Hope was, and with our myriad reasons, going to that church would mean we would be an uninvolved as before, which would have been the principal reason we would leave Hope, had the fun of 2017 not happened which pushed us out.

However, late leaving our house, we reached a decision point where we either cross the river to Capital Hill, deal with parking, and arrive late, or go to the nearby ARC, which was also on my list. So we went to ARC.

I liked this church. Very informal. They meet in a giant High School auditorium. I had heard the pastor online and he seemed very solid. Now, this is a black church, and I'm white. I was definitely a minority (but not the only white face by far). Still, I felt comfortable. It didn't have the chaos my friends tell me reigns in "the Black Church" (at least that's what my African American friends keep calling it as a general group of churches). Unfortunately, another guest speaker (who spoke well). But the senior pastor was there and spoke a lot about several programs they were doing, things to help the community.

First, I was impressed. Yes, it's not in a wonderful area of town, yes, I'm a minority white face, yes, statistically I have a higher chance of being mugged on my way to the car. But this church had a freshness, a life to it. I loved singing the old hymns with them. There was energy. I liked that they had a sense of mission in their community. I liked that they are engaged in job training, practical things, and that when they called for volunteers for this or that, it is practical, aimed at practically impacting lives, but doing it clearly in Christ's name. I expect a number of people come into the church having experience kindness from them. And they're not small. I liked that for such a huge size, the church felt poor, drawn from a poorer segment of the community. Shared inconvenience, and I'm not sure any minded, and I really believe that brings people together. And the greeters were chatty and engaging and they seemed to genuinely like speaking to us. Now one old black sister confided something in Rebecca (expecting Rebecca would agree), judgmental, I forget what, that really offended her, but it was also raw and honest. After the years, it felt refreshing to me to not to have to wonder what people are thinking.

But there were also red flags too, that reminded me that I was a foreigner. The visiting (white) preacher, preached a LOT about justice. He knew his audience. That word was repeated again and again and I couldn't shake the feeling that if you replaced the word "justice" with "kindness" and "Christian charity" (behavior, not money) it would have fit better. When you label your desire for respect and kindness and justice, you confer on it however the sense that it is fair, it is owed, and you strip out of it the component of love. But I get the sense this is exactly how this community thinks of what they want and hope for. They call it justice, wanting people to treat them decently and kindly.

The real lack of kindnesses to them, care for them, is processed as an injustice, instead of being the default condition of humanity where we have to regularly teach people to be kind and loving to one another where it is foreign to sinners and simply manifests itself, inconsistently and in a myriad of ways.

I would prefer to love someone, and it be recognized as love, than a function of justice. Because it's not. And we should encourage others to love because it reflects God's image, rather than appealing to some sense of fairness.

Subsequent controversies that the senior pastor seems to have gotten himself into confirm a sad impression that the church has a racist twist to it. I'd be just on the other side this time. Still, I think I probably could live with it. I proposed going back. Rebecca looked at the area and was very uncomfortable. Having gone to church, growing up, in a part of Los Angeles that was very sketchy (many brethren had their cars broken into), I didn't feel so out of place. But I understand. And my risk sensor needs general tuning in my life anyway.

Still, sad, because I really liked that church. While they were calling for volunteers, my mind was racing, processing "well, I could do that" and "I like to do that". I felt alive thinking about what I could be doing to fit this good need and purpose. That doesn't happen often. My general struggle is believing there are many places my talent my be useful but thus far, I'm only useful at home and work.

And the teaching appears otherwise very solid, even exceptional. The strongest by far in this area, with the possible exception of its parent. I've listened to a number of their sermons online.

But we wouldn't be able to do it, be a real part of the life of the group, just as a function of the distance.

And that excluded Capital Hill Baptist as well for the same reason.

Church Hunting: F C Church

FCC

This is a bit unusual since, after visiting and deciding I didn't want to go back, that is likely what we will do. I think the pastor is an excellent teacher, and by and large many of the fundamentals seem solid and we are not yet settled.

I visited once, by myself. The visiting speaker was a missionary, preaching on missions, and it was powerful. But this church is big, felt impersonal, felt polished (in the corporate sense). Lots of process, greeters here, welcome desk there. But I felt very anonymous in the crowd. It felt like the sort of place where people go, as consumers, to be served, rather than hoping to be part of a family and common worship of the Almighty God and His redeeming Son.

The second time, we went as a family. The visiting speaker preached very strongly. But same effect, that we could go in and come out without anyone noticing. It's the sort of church where you're not needed. Where you must plug in. Right or wrong, this is the feeling. We left without speaking to anyone, but were caught by a dad from our school who raced out to give us a little gift bag. I like this guy. Very soft-spoken, sweet father. Very likable. His kids were disappointed hearing that ours were there but they hadn't seen them.

The gesture was nice, but I have a poor feeling about gift bags. They had a CD or a sermon (good) and a coffee mug with the name of the church. It's kitch, branded... stuff. It's giving coffee machines at banks for your first transaction. It's not why we're there. Maybe it works on some people. But I felt worse, like people hope a gift bag can change whether people come.

Strip it all away! Take out the traditions, the rituals, the welcome desks... get rid of it all! Boil it down to a handful of simple things, teachings, behaviors. Let this be a place of genuine worship (no performances, no worship bands, etc.) and motivated people will come. At least I will.

The last memory, very strong, was that the "worship band" that sang (they rotate), was off key (I can live with that), did a lot of modern, repetitive songs (not a fan), but most tellingly, no one in the congregation was singing with them (what's the point?). That lack of song, that was hard.

Church Hunting: T Presb. Church

TPC

TPC came highly recommended... from very sweet, wonderful, good friends, who had previous recommended a church that Rebecca had to walk out, mid-sermon, and it was only through sheer will power, amid a growing migraine, that I endured. I never thought I would be in a church where the pastor said "the church is not just the people, it's also a building." No surprise they were trying to raise money for a new place. He said so much that was wrong. My friends didn't stay too much longer there. They are salt-of-the-earth people, but it is hard not to look askance if this is what they'll settle for.

This new place, I listened to the sermons online, and it seemed ok. It was a Presbyterian church, so if we stayed, if it ever happened I wouldn't have any significant function since I hold to a believer's baptism. But we went. A lot of people from our school go there. They were very excited to see us and we had to disengage from conversation with difficulty.

But when we got to the car, Rebecca was very upset with me for recommending it. The sermon. It was... How do people sit through that and affirm they have been taught? At the beginning the pastor condescended (nicely) to the young children and tried to help them understand some points about sin. But then the whole sermon wasn't much above that level and although I don't remember the specifics, he got some major points about sin very, very wrong. Things he taught to us, things to the children.

And this is a pastor who I understand from later conversations, is fairly well learned. But the sermon was a train-wreck in my book. And it makes it doubly hard to stay when everyone is milling around after and is this had been a perfectly edifying day and they were well fed spiritually.

I'm not convinced it's about truth. People just settle for the traditional forms of church worship. If you have those, you think this is what it is all about. If you have ever had more, and want more, it is difficult to settle for this and understand how anyone else can.

Church Hunting: TC Church

TCC

We settled here almost by default, based on existing relationships with a couple families we already knew. Honestly, it felt very comfortable for me and because the group was so tiny, it felt very informal, unlike church, basically a small familial group. I got along well enough with all of the men, and began to develop friendships with several. And I came to really enjoy the pastor's weeknight Bible study. Sunday's preaching was not strong, but neither was it weak or generally wrong. But, he's a fairly good teacher in a small group and well studied, I found myself very engaged during the weeknight study. Frankly, I loved it and it was the first time in nearly a decade I really wanted to go.

My thinking is this, ditch a lot of the Sunday ritual. Have the pastor/teacher, sit down, form a circle of chairs, and do that. Because the content and impact of the small group is much stronger than Sunday sermons, and because of the small size of the group, you can do this. There's nothing that mandates we have to keep up the Sunday rituals. Do only what contains and fosters meaning, that most brings us back to the resulting dynamic that the early church had (which we know was effective).

Unfortunately, in a small group, Rebecca found herself very uncomfortable with a small set of people. She went because she knew I liked it and was encouraged seeing I wanted to go. But her experience was different and she didn't integrate here.

When the pastor gave a particularly well meaning but insensitive and poorly put message on a subject that made both her and her visiting father very uncomfortable, she turned to me and said "I don't want to come anymore." And I understood. There wasn't anything to say. And we didn't. And that was me genuinely liking a lot of the group. But it's the dynamic and health of the group. And as much as I've come to wither at church, and as much as I want to want to be with Christians, I need my wife to form those connections more than myself.

Church Hunting: Ct Baptist Church

CtBC

This really wasn't so much part of our hunt as meeting friends. The church was old. The pastor must have been amazed that on one Sunday they doubled their attendance with visitors, until he understood where were all refugees from the same church and likely most wouldn't be staying.

The sermon was mediocre, well-meant but devoid of content. It feels like many pastors feel that they are paid to speak, whether or not they really have anything profound to say, so they are compelled to fill the time as best as their meager talent can do. Honest feeling. When we spoke after, I really liked him and we all genuinely felt welcomed and accepted there. To my discredit I kept telling myself to write the pastor, or at least an elder, and express appreciation. I never did.

Nice, very nice people. There was simply no life there. It's a holding place for those who call themselves Christ's. They're on life support, numbers dwindling, trying to maintain a building that is now far too big for them. I expect this is common.

Some of our party stayed, a young family. Another pastor from our group apparently has now preached there too. Good for them.

No matter what, the drive would have been an hour.

Church Hunting

Church hunting is one of the least pleasant experiences I can think of. A friend of ours, in fact a couple, who are part of a para-church ministry but not an institutional church, recommended that for this hunt we go to churches without expectation, just looking to make relationships from Christians who are there. Attempt to enjoy the experience. While I'm coming to appreciate the wisdom, it is hard to remove myself from the desire to be a part of something that looks life a constituted larger group.

But what I miss most is deep relationship. My increasing ideal is some very small group, just a handful of people, meet together, go through the Bible together and study, eat together. I don't really need much beyond actual fellowship from Christians. I don't care about programs, I'll happily sing with out-of-tune worshipers over the more polished performances, I don't need gimmicks. I think the fact that I don't need much or want much is surprising to many.

This round of church hunting (the first was when we left California, came to Maryland, and settled at Hope Bible Church, Columbia -- and after 8 years left) has proved very long and difficult, particularly because we left HBC with such discomfort and disillusionment, and because honestly I think I stayed at HBC for a small number of reasons and endured a lack of growth and true fellowship that basically left me feeling starved but unwilling to leave. Until problems in the church emerged that were impossible to ignore.

Granted, we shouldn't be in the business of critiquing churches. We are called to be part of the Church and who can raise a charge about God's elect? However, when choosing which subset of Christ's Church to associate with and serve alongside, we are necessarily put in a spot of discriminating. Or else, why not just stay at the first church we see? It seems much of the onus of critiquing a church leads you ultimately to the thinking that would conclude we should see no differences in churches so long as they are theologically correct. Pick the first girl you see, marry her, and stick with her no matter what happens. That's wrong. And no one really acts that way. We select carefully, hoping to minimize difficulty later and amplify our service and efforts for God's work.

It's something a friend, a new friend that I'm coming to trust, said to me when I spoke about the rough patch to him about HBC, that "you should want to go to church", not in that my current lack of desire was wrong, but that it indicated a deeper problem in the relationship with church. Meeting with people ought to be enough of a joy and help that you want to do it, not driven exclusively by obligation or guilt. I've kept that, and adjusted my standard, because I'd stayed years at Hope, principally for obligation. Which isn't much different from how I grew up, thinking that sitting weekly, miserably in a pew was some good sacrifice for God, where at a handful of points in my life, I have felt the presence of God in church, I have wanted to go, I have felt matured, grown, transformed by relationship with those people. I just forget that this should be a standard in finding a group: that God is prominently elevated, and Scripture left to speak for himself, and a community of believers mutually uplifting one-another.

We need to look for substance, and the disheartening thing is continually looking, rarely finding and slowly expecting to compromise believing that you pick the best of what's out there, rather than prioritize true Christian substance.


Outside of HBC, the following posts are what we found (omitting the names outright but leaving acronyms.)

Why was Abraham afraid?

Sodom's army, and those of her four smaller allies, lay destroyed in the Valley of Siddim. The settlements of the giants East (from North to South) of the Jordan valley were in ruins never to recover (Joshua encountered only the last of them, Og the King of Bashan, more than five hundred years later). The Amalekites southwest in the Negev would eventually recover to harass Israel, but for now they were decimated.

Salem had been spared.

Abraham, with an army of 318 trained men (no word on casualties) and local Amorite allies had just eliminated the (likely) much larger raiding force from the lands around later Babylon and Persia, which had taken at least a year to raise. No word on how many had fled (if any), including the four kings themselves, but it had been an unqualified victory.

Abraham recovered everyone that he and Sodom and the other cities had lost. Abraham had the blessing of the remaining city of size in the area (Salem). Sodom, the ruined large city of the region was in his debt.

Abraham was now the dominant military power in the region, such that he spoke for his Amorite friends in dividing the spoils recovered from Sodom, and the king of Sodom was trying to entice Abraham away from a presumed tenancy covenant with the king of Salem.

Abraham is afraid.

Sodom, Abraham and Lot

It’s somewhat easy to fixate on Lot’s wife’s faithlessness in looking back, and commonly in the depravity of Sodom, but Lot should be particularly familiar to our lives. The story runs pretty much like this:

=========================

Some background:

Abraham, Ur, Haran, Salem, are all Bronze Age events. Abraham’s family (from the line of Shem) is probably also the same as the nomadic Habiru (Hebrew/Eber) people mentioned in correspondence between Canaan and Egypt.

The Amorite people in Canaan (Abram is allies with Mamre the Amorite) appear to have originated in Sumeria (the same land as Ur, Babylon, Nimrod’s empire, etc.). Unlike farmers and craftsmen, nomads and their property are hard to count and they travel, making them harder to tax and conscript into armies. The Amorites were looked down on in Sumeria, possibly prompting their migration outward.

Abraham and the Amorites share a common nomadic heritage,