lol

Even at its most strident resistance to the ungodliness of American culture, there is a sense in which Christians ought to be good societal participants, even as our citizenship is elsewhere

Inserting his readers into the narrative of Israel — they are dispersed exiles, pilgrims on their way home, threatened by a hostile power

a recent equivalent would be the co-opting of the term Jesus Freaks

interesting

the aims of Babylon/Rome are fundamentally opposed to the mission of the church, since Rome declares that Caesar is Lord and Christianity proclaims that Jesus is Lord

it's interesting to say that conversion is conversion into a new narrative in which my allegiance is to Jesus and anything that aims to subvert that allegiance is to be resisted — perhaps not always openly, but insistently

Ought we to see America as the Babylon of today? I know that there are lots of people on the cultural margins who do — ought we to agree with them in solidarity, or use the resources that we have and influence we have to further the kingdom?

Interesting to see the cultural negotiation as a middle ground between conformity and resistance

Again, I think that the evangelical church is in a different place than the church of 1Pet's day but

Putting aside evangelism, what kinds of alienation are created by a Christian's conversion that need to be explained/supported/reframed?

where do Christian and secular values converge in our culture, and how might those values be exploited in order to serve evangelistic purposes?

I'm not sure that we do a good job of this overall; or even to what extent non-immigrant churches have an obligation to do this? The NT churches are immigrant churches on the margins, and they embrace that

To what extent might this be applied to GA church today? To achieve an apologetic purpose by the conduct of our households

I'm not sure that there still would be one— given that the conduct of the household isn't as intensely scrutinized as it was back then

Maybe in LA or other secular areas, having really dominant complementarianism might be hard for witness

We ought to lean into the reality that we don't quite fit in in an environment in which is is easy to lapse into an easy cultural accomodation

that's powerful, and definitely different from the way I see a lot of Christians operate — there's a much stronger urge to grasp for power in the hopes of steering the ship in a more favorable direction

I like that phrasing — the idea that as the church, we know that we have the truths that lead to eternal life, and we're ready to give them to all who would come

The church has a very low tolerance for suffering, particularly suffering that seems to trend in a non-Christian direction

I think that's a prime reference point against which to frame my discussion of church in Acworth — it's a differentiated acceptance of those parts of culture which are amenable to Christian life, and a rejection of those parts which are not

Whether its the de facto position or not, it's the proper position I think

I have a hard time with this idea of becoming "socially-politically acceptable" — I feel like the purpose behind any cultural accomodation is for the purpose of evangelism rather than cultural acceptance of this heterodox subgroup

This isn't the way that I've been reading 1Pet; his focus hasn't been on "hurling threats" at the antagonistic world because his pastoral concern is on instructing the believers to be faithful and obedient in the face of suffering, and leave their vindication to Christ at his return

I dont think that the witness at Northwest is that we ought to expect suffering, except insofar as we're talking about the passion or something

I think for the most part, we're seeing people live with the expectation that Christianity makes their lives smoother

VC

It's striking that Volf really emphasizes the Christian-community-centric way of life rather than a Christian individualism

I think that VC under Shaw really moved in that direction — the centrality of the church in the lives of its people

I think that Jay would like to see that, but it's not really the case in a church-saturated culture; instead, churches are forced to compete with one another with flashier buildings, more robust programming, experience based stuff (like the free market of churches — meaning, you can expect little out of your people)

I think that GA culture is in favor of a quiet individualistic pietism that doesn't place demands on others

I think that CA culture is more accomodating to that, but still is dubious about Christian beliefs on sexuality, etc.

What does it look like to be truly a diverted insider in an environment with a lot of phony diverted insiders?

I think the social cost here comes from actually living differently — that then gives the lie to the profession of faith of others who are happy to compromise with the world

This strikes me of AD's experience; living with one foot in the church and one foot in the world — obedience looks like embracing the social cost that comes with being all in for Christ

It's weird to consider what it looks like to live as estranged for the sake of Christ in an environment where it seems like Christ is much beloved

go back into Evangelical Theology textbook and see what Bird has to say about these categories

the sect is able to expect stricter adherence to its instruction than the church is

I definitely think that the world of GA is the world of churches, in that, it is very hard to expect much out of anyone, since it is extremely easy for people to defect to other churches (or nonchurches)

it seems like each has its own elements that commend it; the church wants to be all embracing and draw the world to itself, the sect wants purity and builds high walls

What did you guys think of the ᾧ relative pronoun in v6? NASB renders it "in this you greatly rejoice", which would make its referent φρουρουμένους, ie "you rejoice in your being protected by the power of God".

I prefer that ᾧ refer to God, since the only independent clause in the sentence in vv3-5 is "Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ". On that reading, it would be "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [a bunch of explanatory support material], in whom you rejoice greatly" (or if you wanted to break it up into two sentences, "In Him you rejoice greatly")

Is there something I'm missing that prefers NASB's reading that you guys see?

I went back and forth for a while about whether to read ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος as "in the sanctification of the spirit" (reference; referring to the believer's spirit) or "by sanctification of the Spirit" (source; referring to the HS). Ultimately I opted for the latter, since the emphasis of the salutation is on God's sovereign action and choosing rather than on the action of the believer. It's not until v6 that the believers are "doing" anything, and even then, all they're doing in vv1-12 is rejoicing at God's action in saving them, keeping their inheritance, guarding them, etc.

I found it interesting that Peter places ἐκλεκτοῖς in apposition with παρεπιδήμοις, he identifies them as the "elect" prior to identifying them as "sojourners" in Pontus, Galatia, etc. (a reality which, if Jobes's reconstruction of 1Pet's audience as exiles from Rome is correct, would feel like a much clearer reality of their lived experience), before then going on to explain the circumstances of their being chosen. It's a super strong reframing of them as God's elect > Rome's foreigners (although they are both).