Michael and Tim were invited this week by the Oklahoma chapter of the Gospel Coalition to teach a group of pastors a high-level overview of all Church History in less than 45 minutes. Following the main video are four questions asked by the pastors and church leaders during the Q&A period:
Q&A:
Each Friday we pull something from our members area and offer it to you for free. Our members area is a seminary-level training hub full of resources for you at the low cost of just $25/month. Learn the secret handshake and join the community here: Credo House Membership
17 replies to "All of Church History in Just 45 Minutes"
I’m not a member of Credo House but I am/was checking it out to see if it was something for me. I’ve been reading the blog for a few days and clicked on the link to view this video, but something got in the way.
Before I make my comment, I know you’ll think I’m being petty and acting without the “love of Christ”, but if I picked up on this, I assume other will also.
It concerns the lack of respect that Michael is giving to Jesus, the men in attendance, the viewers of this video and to himself when he is representing Christ and is dressed like a bum. To show up and talk about God’s church dressed in an untucked, ugly t-shirt, and blue jeans, to me and possible others, is very disrespectful.
I don’t know Michael, he’s probably a great Christian and lover of Christ, but he’s showing it in his appearance. In the jungles of SE Asia, where necessity dictates rugged clothing, then okay, a t-shirt and jeans is acceptable.
But in North America or Europe and in a nice looking building that is in the video, his dress is not good. I know God looks on the inside not the outside of a person; but I wonder what’s on the inside that makes the outside look so bad?
I’m not trying to offend Michael, but I refuse to listen to a sloppily dressed person (when I know that he can dress better for the circumstance) because if he has so little respect for his appearance, then his preparation of his material is going to sloppy also. It’s all about attitude, from beginning to end.
Do you have an attitude of reverence for God? Then it’ll show in everything you do when speaking for Him.
The ugly t-shirt Michael was wearing is actually our Credo House shirt. I think it was appropriate for the gathering and since he was representing our ministry.
Yes, he was speaking to a group of pastors but this was a very informal gathering where most of the pastors where dressed informally as well.
In the video the church seems really formal but it was actually at FrontlineChurch.tv This church is in downtown Oklahoma City and Michael’s dress is very appropriate for that church.
I’m not trying to defend all of Michael’s wardrobe choices but in this instance I can vouch for my ministry partner that his dress was respectful for the environment.
Ouch.
Frank,
I’m sorry that you feel this way, but I must confess to you that I am disappointed by your attitude. You seem like a knowledgeable man and I’m sure you must have attended university. Some of my best professors at the seminary I attended were dressed in a T-shirt and jeans, teaching the Word of God and Christ’s love. I refuse to believe reverence for Christ is depicted by one’s attire, as you yourself allude to. You are entitled to your opinion; I respect it, but am disappointed by it.
My tv signal detector died tonight. I was going to watch Hal Lindsey….part of my Friday night wind down ritual and focus on things of God night. So instead I just got this video from Credo House and watched their talk and questions. If people all over the country would watch just this one message and questions, we would be 500% better off than watching the new mega Bible-lite series. No wonder we are in such a mess. Christians, not to mention people, just don’t know how to think about truths. We are so distracted by our culture.
Thank you. Very helpful. Passing around.
To the “other” Chad:
How can you respect his opinion??? It’s garbage!!!!
Dear Michael, I was an upstanding Christian on the cusp of surrendering the rest of my life to service for the kingdom in a 3rd world slum …
and then, in one terrifyingly fateful moment, I hit “play” & bore witness to your staggeringly unprofessional apparel, which is not only an abomination in the sight of a wrathful God, it has also served as the turning point in my life & spiritual journey.
For you see, now I have become so disillusioned on account of your slovenly casual self-adornment that I have forsaken my calling, renounced everything I formerly believed, & joined NAMBLA.
Your demonic denim has ruined mine and probably countless other lives. May God have mercy on your un-tucked soul!
It is a shame that someone’s attire would distract anyone from this thoroughly informative 45-minute video. I have already shared the link with over 200 pastors and urged them all to watch it along with the follow-up questions. Both teachers provided excellent insight and any “informality” only added to the charm of the experience and contributed to the feeling of comfortableness. The whole point was to make a “daunting” subject most avoid, more approachable. Do I think that Michael preplanned his wardrobe even giving a second thought to making this seminar less formal? I doubt it. However, it certainly (perhaps subconsciously) contributes toward that end. We can all find offense somewhere if we look hard enough. For instance, just calling him “Michael” rather than Dr. Patton could be cause for offense for some. Yet the original poster gave no thought of that consideration. Perhaps Frank could turn on his screensaver and listen to the audio only and discover the excellence of the presentation. So rather than engaging a meaningful discussion on the material, i.e., what events should have been included in the high level overview, we’re all playing the roll of Joan Rivers at a Red Carpet entrance. However, we can learn something from Ms. Rivers as we ask the same question she often poses, “WHO are you wearing?”
I agree with Frank – we never let those ratty and unkempt sit up front. If we let them in we make them stand back in the corners. If you want up front where you deserve, it’s suit and tie or nothing!
getting back to the actual content, the quote “Evangelicalism rescues Christianity from Fundamentalism” (that’s a paraphrase, but accurate, I think) – now that is a statement worth discussion
Finally got through all the vids – great stuff. Really good.
“evangelicalism is the rescue of Christianity from fundamentalism”
That is true both theologically and historically, but good luck having that statement out there.
Clint: lol!
A little church history humor for ya. ” Papal bull just isn’t like it used to be”
Seriously, someone is commenting on Michael’s clothing? That is absolutely ridiculous!! This guy needs to get his head checked, man that makes me mad, I guess there is always one nut bar in the crowd, huh!
Job well done guys!!!
Hal Lindsey? Is that heretic still around? Oh brother!
Picking up on the atonement question. I find no evidence to suggest (in Scripture, and particularly the Fathers) that the penal substitutionary model was the “pinnacle” theory of the atonement. There is no hint of penal sub in the paschal (Easter) homily attributed to John Chrysostom. If we read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation we also do not find penal substitution articulated. Instead, in that important book, we find a far more ontological explanation for Christ’s saving work – “God became man so that man could become god”. This is opposed to the hyper forensic approach by the Reformed. At the end of the day, how exactly Christ saves us through his life, death and resurrection cannot be adequately summed up in theories. However, if we read Hebrews 2 “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” This passage was central for Athanasius in his book. Whatever the author was articulating here, it definitely has nothing to do with penal sub. And no where in scripture is penal sub set forth the way that the Reformed talk about it. We have to make assumptions (sometimes quite unrealistic ones) about what the various authors of those passages used to support penal sub meant by their phrasing. And all fit into the classical views of the atonement (i.e. ransom/Christus Victor)
“Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!”
Amen