I see Jesus as the only perfect model. Paul and others were leaders in formation (Making of a leader, Clinton) and repented and slowed down into the Jesus model. If that’s true, it makes patterns nuanced echoes of Jesus wherein we need to be careful to qualify repetition as evidence of principle.
Agreed. Is there something that you would disagree with? Repetition of a pattern alone is not a principle.
"A pattern that passes all three is operating at the level of principle. A pattern that passes one or two is suggestive. A pattern that fails all three is descriptive history rather than prescriptive strategy."
Thanks for engaging Bud, appreciate you bro. I think my hesitation is less with the three tests themselves and more with where they locate the principle.
Part of that comes from seeing Jesus as the definitive model across all cultures and times. Paul, Peter, and the rest are authoritative witnesses, but they are also disciples being formed. Their understanding and practice seem to mature over time, which makes me cautious about treating recurring apostolic strategies as timeless principles.
For example, Paul’s collection for Jerusalem, tentmaking, travel patterns, and other repeated practices may pass the repetition, theological grounding, and adaptability tests, yet most of us would still see those as applications of deeper principles rather than principles themselves.
I definitely see the patterns. I’m just cautious about moving from recurring pattern to principle, especially when the pattern is derived from leaders who themselves point beyond themselves to Christ as the ultimate model.
One thing worth flagging: the series did start with Jesus. Article one was the four-node portfolio across the Gospels. The Paul article tested whether his strategy carried forward what was already established in Christ's ministry, not the other way around. Nothing was offered in the Paul piece as a new pattern. Every move was checked against what was already present in Jesus.
That said, I'll concede I could have been more explicit about the goal, which is moving from observation to deeper principle rather than canonizing apostolic practice. If that didn't come through clearly enough, that's on me.
On your examples: the Jerusalem collection, tentmaking, and Paul's specific travel patterns would not pass all three tests as binding principles. The collection has theological grounding, but its specific form does not transfer across cultures. Tentmaking fails the repetition test, since Paul himself also received support. Travel patterns fail all three. The tests are designed to filter those out. If they let that kind of thing through, they are being applied loosely.
Clarifying question, because I want to make sure I'm tracking with you: are you challenging the three tests categorically as a method, or my specific application of them to Jesus and Paul in these articles? Those feel like two different conversations.
Great work Bud. Give me a simple definition of 'node'. Is it "ministry location"? Or something deeper than that?
Access point for engagement
Not just geographic, because we should view digital space as an access point.
I see Jesus as the only perfect model. Paul and others were leaders in formation (Making of a leader, Clinton) and repented and slowed down into the Jesus model. If that’s true, it makes patterns nuanced echoes of Jesus wherein we need to be careful to qualify repetition as evidence of principle.
Agreed. Is there something that you would disagree with? Repetition of a pattern alone is not a principle.
"A pattern that passes all three is operating at the level of principle. A pattern that passes one or two is suggestive. A pattern that fails all three is descriptive history rather than prescriptive strategy."
Thanks for engaging Bud, appreciate you bro. I think my hesitation is less with the three tests themselves and more with where they locate the principle.
Part of that comes from seeing Jesus as the definitive model across all cultures and times. Paul, Peter, and the rest are authoritative witnesses, but they are also disciples being formed. Their understanding and practice seem to mature over time, which makes me cautious about treating recurring apostolic strategies as timeless principles.
For example, Paul’s collection for Jerusalem, tentmaking, travel patterns, and other repeated practices may pass the repetition, theological grounding, and adaptability tests, yet most of us would still see those as applications of deeper principles rather than principles themselves.
I definitely see the patterns. I’m just cautious about moving from recurring pattern to principle, especially when the pattern is derived from leaders who themselves point beyond themselves to Christ as the ultimate model.
Mark, appreciate the engagement.
One thing worth flagging: the series did start with Jesus. Article one was the four-node portfolio across the Gospels. The Paul article tested whether his strategy carried forward what was already established in Christ's ministry, not the other way around. Nothing was offered in the Paul piece as a new pattern. Every move was checked against what was already present in Jesus.
That said, I'll concede I could have been more explicit about the goal, which is moving from observation to deeper principle rather than canonizing apostolic practice. If that didn't come through clearly enough, that's on me.
On your examples: the Jerusalem collection, tentmaking, and Paul's specific travel patterns would not pass all three tests as binding principles. The collection has theological grounding, but its specific form does not transfer across cultures. Tentmaking fails the repetition test, since Paul himself also received support. Travel patterns fail all three. The tests are designed to filter those out. If they let that kind of thing through, they are being applied loosely.
Clarifying question, because I want to make sure I'm tracking with you: are you challenging the three tests categorically as a method, or my specific application of them to Jesus and Paul in these articles? Those feel like two different conversations.