En Route

Headed to a Different Blogging Locale

2010-03-09T14:42:00.003-07:00

Regular readers and responders are, to say the least, few and far between at Theologia Viatorum, but I wanted to communicate that I'll be joining Kent Eilers and Kyle Strobel in blogging at Theology Forum. Kent and Kyle consistently deliver good content and blog in a thoughtful, charitable manner. If you're interested, you can follow TF at http://theologyforum.wordpress.com.

Blessings,

Steve

Sovereignty and Simplicity: Why the Two Belong Together

2010-02-27T12:35:00.006-07:00

Recently, when asked how God could be in the right in slaughtering women and children in certain OT narratives, John Piper responded, "It's right for God to slaughter women and children any time he pleases. God gives life and he takes life....So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing" (to read the text in full, see here). He goes on to underscore the pertinent implication of our sinful state, namely, that our sin is sufficient reason for God to deny us the gift of life.

Bracketing the unnerving effect of some of the language in this piece, I'm in agreement that God is blessedly sovereign over all of life and that he does not owe something to sinful humanity. However, Piper doesn't clarify how God's actions constitute enactments of justice, righteousness, goodness. Does God willing something render that something a righteous action (so nominalism). Or, does God submit himself to an external standard of righteousness and then act accordingly (so hard realism)? This is a well-known issue in both philosophy and theology often called the Euthyphro problem. Neither option seems to be satisfactory inasmuch as God is neither capricious (pace nominalism) nor subject to anything external to God (pace what I would call a hard version of realism about universals like justice and goodness). In my mind, the appropriate response is to maintain that God is subject to a standard of goodness and righteousness, but that this standard is his own nature. To confess God's simplicity is, negatively, to hold that he is not composed of parts. To unpack this, God is not really distinct from any of God's perfections but just is, when viewed under a particular aspect, his corresponding particular perfection (holiness, omniscience, love, goodness, etc.). So God's essence is his own righteousness and this righteousness, internal to God, is the standard according to which God must act and does act in the world.

What does this mean for Piper's statement? It means that, while God is free to act how he pleases, not least in relation to rebellious sinners, he is, contra nominalism's doctrine of God's absolute freedom, not free to contradict his own goodness and righteousness. The pastoral and apologetical import of God's sovereignty is more firmly established if God's sovereignty is wedded to God's simplicity and his commitment always to enact his own goodness in all his dealings with his creatures.

Any thoughts on this?

Metaphors, Carrots, Sticks, and the Divine Authorship of Scripture: A Few Thoughts on Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the New Testament

2010-02-20T14:35:00.007-07:00

I've enjoyed engaging recently with Richard Hays' book The Moral Vision of the New Testament, not least because he is convinced that, for the Christian, moral reasoning is an exegetical matter. As the best theology centers on unpacking and integrating the teachings of the canonical writ, so developing a Christian ethic centers on attending to and practicing biblical directives for the church. Another strength of the volume is Hays' affirmation of both the determinacy of the meaning of biblical texts and possibility of genuine knowledge of that meaning and also the culturally-conditioned nature of our exegesis and attempts at principlizing our way from the sacred page to the contemporary setting. This leads his work away from the mire of hermeneutical and ethical relativism, but not without a firm grasp of the primacy of the particularity of the text and the significant limitations of abstracting from the Sitz im Leben of the original readers in order to relate Scripture to the church's current milieu. In turn, he lays stress on the need, under the tutelage of the mind-independent meaning of the text, to exercise the imagination in order to discern ways in which the world of Scripture connects up metaphorically with the world in which we now dwell and must make decisions. This, he says, fosters proper contextualization in the task of Christian moral reasoning as we seek to deploy and enact the normative teaching of Scripture, once displayed in previous historical-cultural situations, in the church's present situation. In short, contextualization depends less on pristine principles and more on discovering analogies that enable us to relate the canonical to the contemporary.

One of the helpful points he makes in examining the Pauline ethical material is that "Paul generally prefers suasion to sanctions." That is, the apostle will endeavor first to hold out the incomparable riches of new life in Christ before using the dangers of rejecting Christ as motivation for repentance. He opts for "the carrot over the stick as a strategy of moral exhortation" (p. 40). Of course, as Hays adds, Paul isn't afraid to spell out the real prospect of divine judgment in hopes of prodding Christians to pursue a life of obedience. However, the point is still worth noting for our own interactions with other believers: amplify the joy of a faithful life before resorting to the threat of divine condemnation when aiming to persuade someone to continue along the path of Christian maturity.

In addition to these positive remarks, there are a few questions I would raise. Chiefly, I wonder how a certain subterranean perspective on God's relationship to Scripture affects some of Hays' exegetical and methodological judgments. For example, when he considers the difficult passage on women and teaching in 1 Timothy 2, Hays concludes that the author (not Paul, in Hays' mind) ventures a "lame exoneration of Adam" (p. 67). However, if we believe that in each biblical text we find both the divine and the human voices harmoniously addressing the church, and, if we believe that central to the exegetical task is determining the (unified) "normative stance" (Wolterstorff's phrase) of those two authorial agents, then it seems that both complementarians and egalitarians must do better than to concede a poorly devised bit of argumentation in the Bible. If God through the human author and without violating said author's personality and agency inscripturates the normative stance found in each section of the biblical literature, including a section that posits arguments, I would hesitate to dismiss even a seemingly odd thread of reasoning as "lame." The other options seem to be 1) downplaying God's involvement with certain texts or aspects of texts (which texts? which aspects?) and/or 2) broadly rejecting the claim that God is speaking to the church in the text. (Notice that this concern could be shared by those who do believe Paul wrote all of the Pauline epistles and by those who do not. The question is one of God's relationship to the Bible.)

Any thoughts?

Sacramental Political Theology: More on Moltmann

2010-02-10T16:30:00.009-07:00

Moltmann's The Crucified God begins with musings on the place of the church in society and, after he presents a provocative revision of the doctrine of God founded on the event of the cross, he concludes with some more developed thoughts on constructing a theology of Christian political engagement. To start, he mentions two options for construing the church's role in society: "the model of unburdening" and "the model of correspondence." The former, he says, argues that the church should be freed from politics and politics from religion. For Moltmann, this contains an element of truth in that there's nothing to be gained from establishing a church state or a state church. However, he thinks the model is undesirable for several reasons: it opens up the possibility of the liberation of faith enjoyed in the church simply awkwardly co-existing with oppression in the surrounding society; it also leaves room for spiritual liberation to serve as a substitute for "real political liberation in the world" (p. 319). In the end, the distinction between ecclesial life and politics is indispensable but "of little help in the individual case when the decision is made" (p. 319).

"The model of correspondence" assumes the ecclesial-political distinction but aims "to build a bridge from the realm of free faith and the liberated church into the realm of politics by means of correspondences, reflections, and images." So "liberations from the prisons of capitalism, racism, and technocracy must be understood as parables of the freedom of faith" (p. 320). The problem here, judges Moltmann, is that this construal can be cast in "too hierarchical terms," with the church "idealized so as to become the model of society" (p. 320). Ultimately, the "unburdening" and "correspondence" perspectives share certain deficiencies: both relegate social action to merely "the realm of the possible and arbitrary"; both envision liberation "in general terms first and only then look for 'concretions' of the abstract" (p. 321).

Enter Moltmann's doctrine of God with its eschatological "openness." The trinitarian event of the cross is taken up into the very being of God and from the separation and mutual surrender of the Father and Son the Spirit goes forth to bring new life to humanity (p. 244). With such an emphasis on God in history and, indeed, history in God, Moltmann confesses himself unhappy with only images of spiritual liberation showing up in society. He proposes to begin with the notion of "God in the world," "anticipations and promises in the process of (eschatological) realization, in which the ultimate announces itself in the penultimate" (p. 321). This, says Moltmann, implies "a perception of God's identifications in history" (p. 321). As God identified in the crucified Christ is really present in these "anticipations," "history is the sacrament of Christian ethics" (p. 321).

Moltmann is an interesting character and I have my disagreements with his doctrine of God and his theology of political engagement, but I find that he makes a good dialogue partner on at least these topics. Any thoughts on the above themes in theologizing about the relation of the kingdom and the church to contemporary society?

Mary, Martha, and Moltmann

2010-02-04T09:46:00.013-07:00

I often think one of the most pressing needs for the church today is to become better acquainted with the rhythm of redemptive history and, of course, the church's place in it. Because of an incomplete or even distorted perspective, a variety of theological, ecclesial, practical anomalies and aberrations crop up. Charlemagne styles himself a new King David, though the time of the people of God as a geo-political entity passed with our shift from old covenant to new covenant mode. A church leader welcomes the congregation to the church building as the "house of God" on a Sunday morning, though the concept of the temple of God is no longer applicable to a building with walls of literal stone but to the church, the people of God who are living stones (see, e.g., Jn. 4; 1 Cor. 6; and so on).

We have several different options for tracing the flow of redemptive history: the Reformed covenantal model, the dispensational model in its diverse forms, the model found in the biblical theology of George Ladd, the five-act model advanced by N. T. Wright, to name a few. Some are more defensible and more suggestive than others, but all should feel the need to clarify the relation between church and society. In reading Moltmann (mostly for the sake of understanding his doctrine of God), I stumbled across some of his material on maintaining both Christian identity and Christian relevance in and to society. He writes:

For Christian faith to bring about its own decay by withdrawal into the ghetto without self-criticism, is a parallel to its decay through uncritical assimilation. And the decline into pusillanimous faith and superstition is a parallel to the decline into unbelief. How close this parallel is, is shown by the way debates within Christianity become polarized in false alternatives....The tension between identity in faith and solidarity in action can no longer be tolerated by either side. Polarizations come into being,which break down this productive Christian tension....In many churches similar polarizations have come into being between those who see the essence of the church in the evangelization and the salvation of souls, and those who see it in social action for the salvation and liberation of real life. But in Christian terms evangelization and humanization are not alternatives (The Crucified God, pp. 21-22).

Put differently, Moltmann rejects "the fragmentation of the church into the true 'church of Jesus' and the evil, political 'church of Barabbas'; or the true 'church of Mary' which alone hears the word of the Lord, and the 'church of Martha' preoccupied with useless social activity" (ibid., pp. 20-21).

For a good many Christians the wedding of overtly Christian practices (e.g., preaching, baptism, interpersonal evangelism) and social action is something of a "no-brainer." And yet I've always wrestled with having such a broad vision of the church's role in society. I have gravitated toward a two-kingdoms approach to the issue and, with recent online contributions from Michael Horton (on the two-kingdoms theory, see here; on the notion of calling, see here) and the publication of David VanDrunen's Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (which I hope to read in the near future), there is momentum for articulating a Reformed rendition of the two-kingdoms take on things.

Moltmann is right that "Mary church" versus "Martha church" is too crude a distinction, but here are a few of the reasons why I have been on a pilgrimage toward the two-kingdoms view:

1) We live in an in-between stage of redemptive history. That is, we live between the time of the Mosaic era with its open amalgam of Israelite faith, society, and government and the consummative establishment of the kingdom of God whose aftermath will again blur the lines between the redeemed community and broader societal life and structure.

2) While I am emphatically no dispensationalist, there is something to be said for the futurist hermeneutic when it comes to reading John's Apocalypse. It's tough to read the book of Revelation and not come away with the sense that Satanically-inspired governmental arrangements can, do, and will systemically persecute Christians. I find it a hard pill to swallow that God would have the church as such invest itself in the ins and outs of government only for governments ultimately to turn around and persecute the church. (Note: I'm thinking of the church as such, not individual believers who may be called to serve in government roles for the limited benefit of society in the present. More on this under reason number five.)

3) The church is the custodian of the gospel of Christ and, in my mind, is meant to specialize in proclaiming and offering redemption in Christ, rather than, as the church, busying itself with political affairs of limited eternal significance. (Though it's unpopular to say, I still think that what is eternal is more important than what passes away with time. However, to clarify, salvation is not about merely future incorporeal entrance to heaven but the reclamation of human persons which begins now and reverberates for all eternity in the new creation. Hence the eternal significance of salvation through Christ). In short, the church need not usurp the role of government. But, to clarify once more, this does not mean that church leaders cannot decry, say, the practice of abortion or that individual Christians cannot be called to serve in the realm of social and political action, strategizing to improve society. Rather, it means that the church qua church is not a social activist group designed to concoct and implement social programs. For example, strictly speaking, it is not the mission of the church to teach ESL classes, but, should a church member, along with other Christians and even non-Christians, wish to lead a non-ecclesiastical organization specializing in ESL, this remains a noble and worthwhile endeavor of service to others. We could debate the implications of hosting said organization's ESL classes in a church building...

4) As Jesus appeals to certain OT texts to describe his mission, he highlights the themes of justice and social restoration, leading some to conclude that his concept of the kingdom of God includes the impetus for transforming societies in the church age. Yet he doesn't go forth to enter into extended dialogue with political leaders about developing systems for bringing justice to all. It seems to me that he creates a community of disciples that can internally exemplify just, compassionate treatment of others as well as offer participation in this community to others. That is, he doesn't attempt to make the kingdoms of this age the kingdom of God but rather instructs the people of the kingdom (understood as the saving reign of God [Ladd's "dynamic sense"]) to embody the values of the kingdom. In other words, I'm not sure that the church refraining from immersion in social activism will compromise the proper social implications of the inbreaking of the kingdom in the present time.

5) The two-kingdoms theory need not begin with an attachment to country which is then open to Christian commitment as an addendum. Rather, we may begin with Christ's reign over all creation and then specify how he rules differently over the spheres of the society and the church. That he does rule them differently and does expect different things of them becomes clear by considering that, for example, only the church is required to practice the Lord's Supper. (Of course, we would hope that all participate in the life of the church and so partake of the bread and the cup.) It seems viable to speak of a "cultural mandate" and a "redemptive mandate" without transforming the former into the latter. In addition, because of Christ's lordship over all, particular Christians may be called to serve in government positions without the nagging feeling of living a compartmentalized life. They can seek to hold society accountable to the tenets of natural law, with Romans 1 and 2 being a good starting place to get a handle on the idea that there are certain ethical imperatives accessible to all. The lordship of Christ, the reality of common grace, and the concept of calling can unify and invigorate believers' lives within the two-kingdoms theory without pressing them to act as if their line of work (government administration, city planning, nursing) in itself is somehow a conduit of salvation.

6) My final reason is more of a question: how does a non-two-kingdoms view stop short of encouraging the government to preach the gospel and so delegating the church's unique responsibility. That's not a scathing, sarcastic question (tone is difficult to convey by blog), but more of an invitation to discussion. Comrades at Denver Seminary (an evangelical institution not afraid to speak about social engagement) may disagree with what I've said here and I'd like to hear their voices. Also, doing this post in the midst of Haiti relief efforts could raise additional questions. Thoughts?

The Pastor as Leadership Expert? Confessions of a Cynic

2010-02-02T12:31:00.005-07:00

I've been reading through some of Eugene Peterson's thoughts on the nature and central tasks of pastoral ministry and, while I've never been a big fan of The Message, there's something very endearing about his ability to name (often in rather blunt tones) things that ail the church in America and things that can reorient us to the call of God. In Working the Angles he identifies and exegetes what he believes to be the three practices that enable pastoral ministry to retain its proper shape: prayer, the (contemplative) reading of Scripture, and spiritual direction. In conjunction with Peterson's concerns, it might be worth mentioning Richard Baxter's The Reformed Pastor as well. Baxter has impressed me with his insistence on the pastor visiting regularly with parishioners in order personally to know them and to give them spiritual guidance.

I can't help but notice that neither Peterson nor Baxter seems to have much time for learning the "laws of leadership" or for delving into elaborate schemes for "casting vision" or "getting the right people on the bus." And now I must come clean: over the past few years I've become something of a cynic about the prevalent model of the pastor as leadership expert. Even if one clarifies that this model acknowledges a qualitative difference between corporate or simply non-pastoral leadership and church ministry, I still can't manage to get excited about it. Here are a few of my reasons:

1) there's limited mileage to get out of an abstract notion of leadership; leaders always lead as something (a CEO, a coach, a minister of word and sacrament) and this implies limited cross-over in terms of principlizing one's way from the corporate world to the church

2) for my money, there are more critical things demanding attention: persistence in prayer, rigorous exegesis of and meditation on Scripture, pastorally-minded explorations in historical and systematic theology, development of spiritually rich, intelligently and compellingly worded sermons and teaching material, the practice of spiritual guidance

3) infatuation with sophisticated leadership theories seems to conjure up a sense of impending "success" that might undercut simple, dogged endurance in ministerial labors

To clarify, I suppose I'm not in opposition to thinking (or, better, theologizing) through certain leadership dynamics but to the way in which the acquisition and honing of leadership philosophies and strategies loom so large at the moment. However, are these just the cantankerous ruminations of a blogger who is blinded by his love of theology? Your thoughts?

On Knowing God and Studying Theology: Reflections of a Newcomer to Church Dogmatics (Part 2)

2010-01-24T18:02:00.006-07:00

Barth, the man regarded by many as the most significant theologian of the twentieth century, writes,

As compared with proclamation dogmatics involves a different mode and function but in no sense a higher stage of faith or the knowledge of faith. It was clearly one of the results of the struggle with ancient Gnosticism that the Church rejected an aristocracy of scientific theologians in its midst. But the idea is a natural one, and in practice it can always be a temptation. We must be very clear that the simplest proclamation of the Gospel can be proclamation of the truth in the most unlimited sense and can validly communicate the truth to the most unsophisticated hearer if God so will. Dogmatics is not the technique of certain people who are better placed spiritually (Church Dogmatics, I. 1. 3).

He goes on a little more, but I think he's made his point. Similar thoughts can be found in Bavinck when he says that those who have no formal theological education and those who do possess knowledge of God that may differ in degree but not in kind. Also, Stephen Holmes opens his book The Wondrous Cross with the claim that theology's job is to clarify what the people of God already know. Hopefully, at Denver Seminary and beyond we theology students (even if we're not Barth or Calvin or Augustine) go about our business with an awareness of this, refusing to locate ourselves in an artificial upper-tier of Christian intelligentsia and aiming to employ theological understanding in a pastoral way.

Evangelical Prolegomena: Reflections of a Newcomer to Church Dogmatics (Part 1)

2010-01-22T08:51:00.007-07:00

I must confess that until recently my only firsthand reading of Barth was of his little book Evangelical Theology. It's a book bursting with insights on the practice of theology and I've come to Church Dogmatics expecting more of the same. So far so good.

In section two in the first volume of Church Dogmatics, Barth contends for an Evangelical, unashamedly dogmatic approach to prolegomena: "In order to give an account of the way of knowledge pursued in dogmatics, we cannot take up a position which is somewhere apart from this way or above the work of dogmatics" (p. 41). Again: "We cannot pose the question of formal dogma without immediately entering at these central points (the doctrines of the Trinity and Christ as integral to a doctrine of the Word of God) upon material dogma. Indeed, what is thought to be formal dogma is itself highly material in fact. The only point is that here at the beginning of the whole work it is not to be estimated solely according to its material signficance, but specifically according to its formal significance as the foundation of dogmatic knowledge as such" (p. 43). Formal considerations are indeed formal but are properly governed by the material content of Christian belief.

This Barth is working out in contrast to his understanding of Roman Catholic prolegomena and modern Protestant prolegomena. The former, he says, is tangled up in the presumption of a pre-dogmatic "ecclesiastical reality," while the latter is ensnared by a "prior anthropological possibility." Whether by way of enclosing divine action within the confines of the church or by way of concocting an account of the human condition external to the substance of the gospel, these approaches begin in the wrong places when it comes to getting prolegomena off the ground. We are left, then, with "dogmatic prolegomena," the exercise of mapping out the path to dogmatic knowledge from the standpoint of dogma itself. (To clarify, in utilizing this line of thinking I would opt to spell out how it doesn't necessarily entail a vicious circularity. It is possible pre-critically to encounter God and acquire via Scripture knowledge of him and after this to discern the essentials of a strong theological method and from there launch out into more formal theological study.)

Any thoughts on developing dogmatic prolegomena?

Time and History: Tensions in Ladd

2010-01-18T11:14:00.003-07:00

I tend to cringe a bit when in a song for worship or in everyday conversation the Christian hope of the life to come is described as a flight from planet earth or a cessation of creaturely existence in time. On the latter, I resonate with Bavinck: "Time is the necessary form of the existence of the finite" (Reformed Dogmatics, 1:429). Yet, in the new creation, "Time is charged with the eternity of God" (Reformed Dogmatics, 4:729). To develop this a bit further, time just is the creaturely mode of existence and it seems odd to expect this feature of reality to come to a halt with the eschaton and the advent of the new creation. After all, eternality is an incommunicable divine perfection. However, we can expect that the intensification of the presence of God among us, beautifully laid out in Revelation 21, will somehow rework the "feel" of creaturely existence in time. Time continues for us creatures, albeit in an eschatologically revamped sort of way.

With this as a backdrop, I appreciated the comment from Ladd: "In biblical thought, eternity is unending time" (A Theology of the New Testament, 44). But later on he avers, "The Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment within history and consummation at the end of history" (ibid., 90). To give him the benefit of the doubt, Ladd may not mean that, strictly speaking, history as such reaches its conclusion with the consummation of redemptive history. However, I wonder if it might be better to say simply that the inbreaking of the kingdom has two great moments: an inaugural one in the mission of Christ and a consummative one in the future ("future" instead of "end of history"). I don't mean to pick on Ladd, but I think that, in the name of recovering in the church the earthy, presumably temporal contours of resurrection life, selecting different terminology does have some value. Thoughts?

Ladd Parses the Kingdom

2010-01-16T10:34:00.007-07:00

Given the pervasiveness of the concept of the kingdom of God in the teaching of Jesus and of the Synoptic Gospels, I think the church should still be capitalizing on George Ladd's work to get a handle on the meaning of the kingdom. It's a much thicker feature of the Lord's teaching than not a few churches let on.

In A Theology of the New Testament Ladd treats the kingdom as an integral part of the two-age dualism underlying Jesus teaching. By speaking of a "two-age dualism" he attempts to express only that the people of Israel expected a divine deliverance which would change all the facets of human existence under the rubric of eschatological blessing, distinguishing the present age from the age to come. Ladd champions an "inaugurated eschatology" in which the inbreaking of the kingdom is launched in the mission of Christ and awaits its future consummation. He unpacks the multiple layers of the concept of the kingdom along three lines: 1) "the kingdom" may indicate simply the rule of God; 2) "the kingdom" may indicate the eschatological act of God in which he brings judgment and salvation and thus manifests his kingly power; and 3) "the kingdom" may indicate the future realm in which we will enjoy the blessings of salvation (p. 68). Ladd adds that the kingdom can also be construed as the present realm of salvific blessing or even the present gift of eternal life (pp. 68-71).

For my money, this kind of exposition of such an important theme is pregnant with possibilities for shaping the church's and the Christian's self-understanding between the two advents of the Lord. Has anyone heard a really rich sketch of the kingdom in the local church? Any other thoughts on this?

When God Becomes Flat

2010-01-12T15:05:00.008-07:00

As I've tracked and engaged the writings of the late Stanley Grenz and his theological comrade John Franke, I've tended to use them as dialogue partners primarily with respect to issues of theological methodology and epistemology. However, it's been intriguing as of late to mull over their statements on the doctrine of God. In his Theology for the Community of God, Grenz makes this assertion:

In that God is love apart from the creation of the world, love characterizes God. Love is the eternal essence of the one God. But this means that it is not merely one attribute of God among many. Rather, love is the fundamental "attribute of God." "God is love" is the foundational ontological statement we can declare concerning the divine essence. God is foundationally the mutuality of the love relationship between Father and son, and this personal love is the Holy Spirit....Because throughout eternity and apart from the world the one God is love, the God who is love cannot but respond to the world in accordance to his own eternal essence, which is love. Thus, this essential characteristic of God likewise describes the way God interacts with his world. "Love," therefore, is not only the description of the eternal God in himself, it is likewise the fundamental characteristic of God in relationship with creation (p. 72).

Love as the "fundamental" divine attribute is picked up in Franke's new book Manifold Witness: "In seeking to know the character of God in response to the action of divine self-revelation, we must seek to understand the fundamental biblical assertion that 'God is love'" (p. 56, emphasis mine). I must add that I have been reasonably optimistic about the methodological progress Franke makes in this book. He seems less insistent on buying into hard linguistic constructivism and focuses more on the notion that the truth of the gospel demands to be set forth in multiple heuristic models (hence the book's title). However, I'm wondering what to do with the thought of combining the claims that love is the fundamental divine perfection and that theological reality should be rendered polyphonically.

It seems to me that Grenz and Franke flatten out the divine essence and so pass up the opportunity to stress one vital way in which the testimony of theology should be pluriform. Those of a more classically theistic bent can say, "Yes, love is God's essence. But his righteousness, immutability, aseity, faithfulness, and so on are equally his essence. Each of the divine perfections just is God's essence considered under some aspect." However, it seems to me that Grenz and Franke lose sight of an important piece of the Christian tradition and at the same time shoot down a potentially illuminating feature of doing theology in a multiple-models manner. In short, I would like to hear more on why not only, say, the atonement but also the multi-aspectival divine nature deserves a pluriform theological witness.

I also have questions about the biblical case for the centrality of the divine attribute of love. To be sure, the apostle John teaches us that God is love, but the same teaches also that God is spirit and God is light. Why not argue that God's spirituality is his fundamental perfection? Here Grenz and Franke would probably appeal to their doctrine of the Trinity, but that is an issue for another day. Any thoughts on this?

Who Said the Doctrine of the Trinity Is Irrelevant?

2009-12-06T20:00:00.002-07:00

"The transcendent independence of the Trinity, as Wholly Other, allows the act of creation to be a sheer act of the Trinity's loving goodness and freedom. Because they (the Father, Son, and Spirit) possess no self-fulfilling needs, they are motivated solely by their beneficent and altruistic love to bring others into existence and so bestow upon them their goodness" (Thomas Weinandy, Does God Suffer?, p. 143).

What Makes a Good Commentary?

2009-11-27T23:42:00.005-07:00

A few different bloggers (see, e.g., Michael Bird's post at Euangelizomai) have mentioned something about Tremper Longman's recent paper on the writing of commentaries. I didn't hear and haven't read the paper myself, but Bird's post outlines Longman's reasons for biblical scholars to continue the practice of producing commentaries even in the midst of a landscape seemingly saturated with them. All that to say, this prodded me to ask what qualities make a good commentary good. I doubt any of us could begin to answer this question in a purely theoretical manner, but, after engaging in exegetical study of different passages with the help of different commentaries, perhaps it's possible for us to extrapolate some rules of thumb. Here are a few of mine in no particular order:

1) sensitivity to the Bible as literature, as a library of literary works employing literary devices that demand explanation and appreciation

2) recognition of the continuity between the two testaments, OT commentaries unpacking the forward-looking dimension of the OT and NT commentaries honoring the OT backdrop for the NT

3) commitment to the authority of Scripture, even when it challenges modern sensibilities

4) treatment of the grammatico-logical connections between words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, and so on

5) specification and fair-minded consideration of interpretive options for difficult passages (both well-worn and newly proposed options)

6) respect for theological integration with a view to shaping the mind of the church

Any you would add?

Weinandy Waxes Eloquent

2009-11-19T21:17:00.003-07:00

Thomas Weinandy's Does God Suffer? has been, for me, a gem on the doctrine of God. Here are some of his reflections on the teaching of the OT:

"The Old Testament never conceives of God's transcendence in opposition to his immanence, as if that which makes God wholly other is different from that which allows him to be a personal God who lovingly acts in time and history. For the Bible, transcendence and immanence do not describe two divine modes of being or two sets of distinguishing qualities - one as God is apart from the created order and another as he is in relation to the created order. For God to be transcendent in the biblical understanding means that he is wholly other than the created order but not apart from the created order. That which makes him divine, and thus wholly other and so transcendent, is that which equally allows him to be active within the created order and so be immanent. There is no opposition between God's transcendent being and his immanent activity" (p. 56).

I may post something on Weinandy's take on impassibility itself, but any thoughts for now?

When to Partake: Or The Lord's Supper and the Gift of Objectivity

2009-11-04T22:57:00.003-07:00

Lately I've been reflecting on a phenomenon that's consistently been a part of the church settings in which I've been involved. At times, though I don't know if it's most of the time, the pastor leading the congregation in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, once the elements have been distributed, will give us the chance to partake "in our own time." In other words, the people are expected to have a time of individual (and silent) confession and prayer and, when each is ready, they eat the bread and drink the cup on their own with a worship song in the background.

My question is this: do we lose something when we do things this way? In light of Paul's discussion of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians, I wouldn't say that individual examination is out of place. Even so, I've begun to think that we do risk missing something here. Most of us journey through the week operating in a sort of self-contained spirituality. We have to engineer the content and structure for our devotional practices and we have to work at reminding ourselves of the gospel. Perhaps partaking simultaneously with others as the minister instructs us, guides us, reiterates the gospel 1) releases us from having always to contrive an individualized approach to God (this is church, after all!), 2) more readily catches us up in the grander narrative of the church in redemptive history, 3) mercifully reminds us that the gospel comes from without and doesn't depend upon our ability to develop in the moment a manageable way to connect ourselves with God. (Though I've lived and moved in churches of a Baptist orientation, this line of thinking reflects a desire somehow to appropriate the Reformed insistence on the sacraments as signs and seals of the covenant, divine confirmations from without meant to strengthen our faith.)

Any thoughts on this?

Augustine on The Renewal of Our Minds

2009-10-25T19:07:00.004-06:00

"Since, therefore, we must enjoy to the full that truth which lives unchangeably, and since, within it, God the Trinity, the author and creator of everything, takes thought for the things that he has created, our minds must be purified so that they are able to perceive that light and then hold fast to it. Let us consider this process of cleansing as a trek, or a voyage, to our homeland; though progress towards the one who is ever present is not made through space, but through integrity of purpose and character. This we would be unable to do, if wisdom itself has not deigned to adapt itself to our great weakness and offered us a pattern for living; and it has actually done so in human form because we too are human" (On Christian Teaching, 1.22-23).

I'm always encouraged to hear truly masterful theologians stress the importance of the renewal and sanctification of our minds. (For another look at the sanctification of human reason, see the opening chapter of John Webster's Holiness.)

A Tale of Two Takes on the Atonement as Penal Substitution

2009-10-17T18:04:00.005-06:00

Right now I'm doing some reading on the atonement and over the past two days I've considered Stephen Holmes' book The Wonderous Cross and Howard Marshall's Aspects of the Atonement. Both of these scholars have great insights to offer, though, of course, those who retain the legitimacy of the concept of penal substitution will have their intramural differences.

Holmes emphasizes that the Bible has quite a few "stories of salvation" to tell, that is, metaphors employed to unpack the saving significance of the cross. The story of penal substitution is ultimately biblically-based but is, in itself, inadequate and requires the support of complementary analogies (ransom, etc.). I'm still working through Marshall, but from what I can tell he regards penal substitution as the central metaphor used in Scripture to explain Jesus' crucifixion (see esp. pp. 51-52).

Obviously, as Holmes writes, we want first and foremost to enjoy the redemptive benefits of the cross. Yet, as he says, there is a place for probing the inner logic of Christ's death. The endeavor rightly to construe the atonement and to relate the atonement analogies to one another is, to me, a fascinating and pastorally significant discussion. How do the contours of our presentation of the gospel look if we emphasize the diversity of analogies and don't claim centrality for penal substitution (Holmes)? How do things look if we do claim centrality for penal substitution (Marshall)? What do you think?

Hermeneutical Humility: The Complement to 'Augustinian Inerrancy'

2009-10-17T01:51:00.002-06:00

Below I mentioned that Augustine was committed to the truthfulness of the Bible's teaching and, upon continuing on in his Confessions, I was impressed by his humility about biblical interpretation. He acknowledges that he's fallible in interpreting Scripture and even prays for patience in dealing with those critics who are more sure of themselves than he. Later, he asks that, if at some point his exegetical prowess is lacking, someone else would come along and shed light on the meaning of the biblical text in question.

I'm convicted by the piece about letting others step in when we find ourselves unequal to the task at hand. This is a valuable thought for thinkers, teachers, preachers, and Christian leaders of all stripes to meditate upon...

Ruled Reflection: Learning Restraint from a Little Book

2009-10-11T20:51:00.004-06:00

Seldom do I read 2 John, but I was struck by this word of instruction included in the apostle's plea for the church to resist Gnostic teaching:

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son" (2 Jn. 9).

We're meant to abide in Christ's teaching for his disciples and so the task of theology is not to forge new intellectual ground but to explicate and elaborate the gospel. If we stray from ruled reflection, metaphysical-conceptual reflection in service to the sacra doctrina of the Bible, and cast out into the high seas of speculation, we generate significant risks for ourselves and for those who listen to us speak of God. Hence Calvin, for example, warns multiple times against the danger of vain curiosity. Let us know and love the gospel and its prophetic and apostolic unpacking in Scripture such that it rules all our thoughts of God!

Augustinian Inerrancy...

2009-10-10T19:24:00.005-06:00

Endeavoring to uncover the meaning of Genesis 1, Augustine writes:

"I will have nothing to do with all those who think Moses could have said anything untrue." (Confessions, 12.23.32)

I'm not convinced that the Christian tradition is without the doctrine of the truthfulness of all Holy Scripture until Old Princeton comes on the scene. Thoughts?

Vying for Content

2009-10-09T12:35:00.002-06:00

"[W]hen it happens to me that the music moves me more than the subject of the song, I confess myself to commit a sin deserving punishment, and then I would prefer not to have heard the singer." (Augustine, Confessions, 10.33.50)

How might the worship of the local church be different if we aimed always to delight ourselves in the subject matter of our faith more than guitar riffs and goosebumps?

Social Concern, the Church, and the Two Kingdoms

2009-10-05T10:08:00.007-06:00

We live in a day of advocacy for Christian involvement in pursuing social justice, environmental preservation, and so on. I have to confess my concern that such advocacy may be often inadequately shaped by fine-tuned accounts of the nature of the kingdom, the church, and the eschaton. Here are some words of wisdom on the matter from Michael Horton:

Two Kingdoms Part 1

Two Kingdoms Part 2

Two Kingdoms Part 3

The Vogue: A Brief Exercise in Naming Things Hip (Some Justifiably So, Others...Not So Much)

2009-09-30T16:02:00.002-06:00

1) new creation over disembodied intermediate state

2) voting Democrat

3) high church for historical richness

4) low church against authority structures

5) pitting classical theism against divine love, relationality, and interactivity

6) perichoretic dancing

7) "missional"

8) Christus Victor over penal substitution

9) the pastor as leadership expert

10) green

Donald MacLeod on God's Aseity and Pastoral Care

2009-09-29T23:16:00.003-06:00

"This [the aseity of God], of course, is simply a Latinate and inelegant expression for "self-existence," and at first sight it seems to offer little by way of pastoral application. But it does remind us of the self-sufficiency and inexhaustibleness of God. The bush burns and burns and is not consumed. Age after age God keeps on being and keeps on giving and keeps on loving. Care does not exhaust him, nor do the passing years render him irrelevant. For all other existences, there is a law of entropy - but not for God."

("The Doctrine of God and Pastoral Care," in Engaging the Doctrine of God, ed. Bruce McCormack [Grand Rapids: Baker; Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2008], 253)

Theology continues to show itself eminently practical, though not practical in the sense of always meeting felt needs without requiring much thought as to how it shapes life. Perhaps we need a better understanding of "practical."

On Making Peace with Faith in Our Intellectual Work

2009-09-23T08:44:00.005-06:00

One more reason to befriend Bavinck:

"[T]here are objections and conundrums in every science. Those who do not want to start in faith will never arrive at knowledge. Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, is the first principle of philosophy, but it is riddled with mystery from start to finish. Those who do not want to embark on scientific investigation until they see the road by which we arrive at knowledge fully cleared will never start. Those who do not want to eat before they understand the entire process by which food arrives at their table will starve to death. And those who do not want to believe the Word of God before they see all problems resolved will die of spiritual starvation" (Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 442).

Good Collection of Essays

2009-09-20T01:11:00.003-06:00

I'd like to commend Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Perspectives a volume edited by Bruce McCormack and featuring quite a few significant voices in biblical and theological studies. The volume was published by Baker and Rutherford House in 2008. I'm still reading through it, but here's a taste of the contents:

"Christian Origins and the Question of God" by N. T. Wright

"The Wrath of God" by D. A. Carson

"John Calvin and the Hiddenness of God" by Paul Helm

"Jonathan Edwards's God: Trinity, Individuation, and Simplicity" by Oliver Crisp

"Life of and in Himself: Reflections on God's Aseity" by John Webster

"God and the Cross" by Henri Blocher

"The Compassion of God: Exodus 34:5-9 in the Light of Exodus 32-34" by Pierre Berthoud

"The Sovereignty of God" by Stephen Williams

"The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism" by Bruce McCormack

"The Doctrine of God and Pastoral Care" by Donald MacLeod

Some highlights:

-Carson weighs in on the personal nature of God's wrath, the impassibility of God, and the implications of the wrath of God for configuring the atonement

-Webster pursues a particular, positive account of God's aseity as plenitude of life of and in himself

-Blocher offers a critique of Moltmann and Jungel's "crucified God" theologies and seeks conceptual clarity on the topic

Any thoughts?

Translating the Word of God

2009-09-04T15:55:00.003-06:00

Francis Turretin handles not a few topics that other systematic theologies might leave out (including the legitimacy of the Septuagint and Vulgate versions of Scripture). I'm intrigued that he relates some thoughts on the nature of Bible translation:

"All versions are the streams; the original text is the fountain whence they flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, having only human authority. Nevertheless all authority must not be denied to versions. Here we must carefully distinguish a twofold divine authority: one of things, the other of words. The former relates to the substance of doctrine which constitutes the internal form of the Scriptures. The latter relates to the accident of writing, the external and accidental form. The source has both, being God-inspired (theopneustos) both as to words and things; but versions have only the first, being expressed in human and not in divine words." (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 125-26)

First, I think Turretin appropriately walks a fine line as to the question of scriptural authenticity. Speaking as someone involved in Greek tutoring, I get concerned both when I sense a student is being flippant about the study of the biblical languages and also when a person who doesn't have the chance to study them says sadly that they've heard about how wide and long and high and deep is the Greek text and how lame our English translations are. To the former I want to say with Turretin, "Study hard 'the fountain whence [the versions] flow!'" To the latter I want to say with Turretin, "[A]ll authority must not be denied to the versions!" (Or, better syntactically, "Not all authority must be denied to the versions!")

Second, what should we make of Bible translation strategies today? If it's impossible fully to capture the "accidental form" of Hebrew and Greek passages (we have no choice if we're going from one language to another), should formal equivalence geeks (including this blogger) lighten up a bit? What do you think?

Calvin Contra Caricatures of Classical Theism

2009-09-02T20:51:00.003-06:00

It is quite fashionable in some sectors to claim that the classical Christian description of God inherently renders him immobile and disconnected from the world. Calvin, critical of some aspects of Scholastic theology but operating broadly within the classical theism tradition, has this to say about the thought of an immobile, detached God:

"And truly God claims, and would have us grant him, omnipotence - not the empty, idle, and almost unconscious sort that the Sophists imagine, but a watchful, effective, active sort, engaged in ceaseless activity."

Institutes 1.16.3

McLaren, Christianity, and Islam: Brief Thoughts

2009-08-29T12:29:00.007-06:00

On his website Brian McLaren has been posting a fair bit of material on Christian-Muslim relations in the midst of the season of Ramadan. For me these are interesting posts because of McLaren's level of influence in a variety of circles and because of my relationships with several Muslims whom I care about as dear friends.

One post begins thus:

"To my Christian friends: would you agree with this statement?

'Christianity was not intended to create a chosen people, fostering exclusive claims for themselves, while looking down upon the rest of humanity as a sea of untouchables or regarding the animate and inanimate worlds around them as fields ready for wanton exploitation. Wherever Christians find themselves, they are called upon to be actively and positively engaged as vanguards of mercy, welfare, and well-being.'"

McLaren goes on to confess that, though he wishes he were the author of these words, he borrowed them from a Muslim thinker who was in fact speaking of Islam. (In other, words, the original quote has "Islam" where McLaren inserts "Christianity" and "Muslims" where he inserts "Christians.")

I find here something of a mixed bag. First, Christ and the apostles surely never intended to found a church that excluded certain ethnic groups (one need only read the end of Matthew's Gospel or the second half of Ephesians 2!). Second, we may be thankful for the reminder never to look down on others or view creation as merely a pool of resources designed for our selfish pleasure. Third, later in the post McLaren speaks of how easy it is to compare the best of Christians to the worst of Muslims in an act of self-righteousness. This comment is an important one to me as I've been impressed by the respectfulness and kindness that I've received from Muslim friends. I would imagine that any Christian who has befriended Muslim folks gets frustrated when they hear an off-colour quip about Muslims and terrorism (especially if the quip is uttered with a sort of smirk).

However, as mentioned above, the bag is indeed mixed. God in Christ has in fact established a chosen people (the church), but this chosen people is neither necessarily exclusivistic in an ugly sense nor necessarily smug because of its place in redemptive history. The church serves as custodian for a gospel that is both inclusivistic (all people groups can and should be welcomed into the church) and exclusivistic (Christ and his saving work will permit no rivals, religious pluralism not withstanding). Unfortunately, McLaren's enthusiasm for the quote above pairs the concept of "chosen people" with "exploitation" (as if the two were necessarily connected) and fails to distinguish between a proper exclusivity (the truth of the gospel speaks against contrary religious claims) and an improper exclusivity (a smug attitude toward other human beings).

In the end, it seems to me that McLaren offers some helpful reminders but tends to muddy the waters on some key issues. Honestly, when I ponder these two dynamics at work (the helpful reminders and the muddy waters), I am inclined to be more concerned about the latter than I am excited about the former because Christians can get such (undeniably important) reminders from other voices who will be less theologically confusing. Thoughts?

Michael Horton on N. T. Wright on Justification

2009-08-27T18:49:00.004-06:00

For folks interested in the debates about justification, two parts of Horton's critical analysis of Wright are available online here and here. Alongside these two soundings, Horton delivers some perceptive chapters on the topic in his book Covenant and Salvation.

Theoretico-Practical: Turretin's Take on Theology

2009-08-22T12:45:00.003-06:00

Richard Muller and others in recent years have worked to clean up the reputation of the Reformed scholastic theologians. Often these theologians (Francis Turretin among them) are pegged as rigid and rationalistic, but that assumption has been challenged with some conviction. I find these words from Turretin to be quite pastoral and downright exciting:

"[T]hat theology is more practical than speculative is evident from the ultimate end, which is practice. For although the mysteries are not regulative of operation, they are impulsive to operation. For there is none so theoretical and removed from practice that it does not incite to the love and worship of God. Nor is any theory saving which does not lead to practice (Jn. 13:17; 1 Cor. 13:2; Tit. 1:1; 1 Jn. 2:3, 4; Tit. 2:12)."

Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, p. 23

Thoughts?

Introducing Paul by Michael Bird: A Review

2009-08-18T20:16:00.004-06:00

Along with a few other books from Amazon, Michael Bird’s Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission, and His Message (IVP, 2008) arrived in our mailbox yesterday. Having no intention immediately to read the volume, I browsed through a few sections and was compelled to keep going. Bird first appeared on my NT radar when I made use of his The Saving Righteousness of God for a paper on justification and the new perspective on Paul. His fair-minded approach to the topic garnered my appreciation. If you want evidence of his irenic but honest posture, look no further than the fact that James Dunn’s recommendation on the cover of The Saving Righteousness of God praises the work even as Bird openly criticizes certain features of the new perspective. Bird has steadily produced useful material on the NT and Introducing Paul is no exception. Its eleven chapters aim at distilling the essentials of Paul’s life and theology in a brief and accessible book, mixing in a healthy dose of wit and pastoral incitation.

The first chapter maps out five images of Paul found in the NT and offers this incentive for studying him:

“If you are sick of spiritual ‘milk’ and crave ‘meat,’ if you want to have a faith that is simultaneously thoughtful and pastoral, if you want to know the big picture but don’t want to skimp on the details, then Paul is the author you need to read, for he is the one who most in the New Testament combines pastoral insights with profound theological reflection. A fresh encounter with Paul will leave your assumptions shaken to their foundations, your theological world turned upside down, your spirituality revitalized, your faith quickened, your love for God and Christ renewed, and your labour in the kingdom refocused. This is Paul for the people of God” (15).

Bird first covers Paul as persecutor of the church, anchoring Paul’s actions in his Pharisaic zeal “to protect Israel from apostasy and impurity” (16). Next comes Paul the missionary, who, Bird maintains, was not just the apostle to the Gentiles but also the apostle who suffered much in the hope of converting his fellow Jews. Out of the missionary impetus was birthed Paul the theologian. Bird argues that the main sources of Paul’s theology were the Jesus tradition, the OT read with a “Christocentric grid,” and the contextualization of the gospel to the situations of life. The shape of Paul’s theology was apocalyptic and redemptive-historical and its development a matter of circumstance and emphasis. Then comes the section treating Paul the pastor, which canvasses the whole of the Pauline corpus to showcase the apostle’s intense concern for the well-being of the early churches. Finally, we read of Paul the martyr, who “absorb[ed] the messianic woes of the tribulation (Col. 1:24)” (26) and may well have been beheaded in Rome some time in the mid- or late 60s. To drive home the provocation wrought by the apostle’s labors:

“Paul is not given the thirty-nine lashes by his fellow Jews because he asks them to ‘try’ Jesus in the same way one might try a kebab (2 Cor. 11:24). He is not executed for suggesting that Roman citizens may wish to invite Jesus into their hearts. No, Paul has the courage and conviction to proclaim that the one who is to come again, the Messiah, is Jesus, who has fulfilled Israel’s hope by being cursed on a cross and raised from the dead. Jesus is the deliverer Israel has hoped for and desperately needed (2 Cor. 1:20; Acts 13:32-34; Rom. 11:26)” (28-29).

Chapter two parses what took place on the road to Damascus. For Bird, Saul’s Pharisaic lifestyle had left him without the burden of a guilty conscience (see Phil. 3:6). In his radical commitment to Jewish piety, Saul persecuted the church likely because of the scandal of a crucified Messiah, the early Christians’ religious devotion to (seemingly) a mere man, and the Christians’ openness to Gentiles qua Gentiles. On the question of Saul’s “conversion,” Bird posits that the Saul-to-Paul transition was not merely a calling but a conversion to another Jewish sect, the messianic. This transformation sent out “theological shockwaves” renovating Paul’s Christology, soteriology, eschatology, nomology, and ecclesiology. Jesus was clearly the risen and exalted Son of God, salvation was to be found in him alone, the age to come had partially arrived with the resurrection and bestowal of the Spirit, the law as the distinguishing characteristic of God’s people was replaced by faith in the Messiah, and the church was free to admit Gentiles without enforcing a preliminary conversion to Judaism.

The third chapter seeks out the underlying narratival framework funding the Pauline teachings we find expressed in his epistles. Paul adhered to a robust Jewish monotheism, a belief in the one God who created the universe and willed to renew it despite the corruption of sin. In dialogue with Romans 5:12-21 Bird argues for the federal headship of Adam and our subsequent inheritance of original sin and original guilt. Yet we ourselves re-enact and ratify Adam’s decision when we choose to commit sinful acts. Bird then surveys Abraham’s significance in Pauline thought, describing Abraham’s paradigmatic experience of justification by faith and the Abrahamic covenant as the overarching one which guided the administration of the Mosaic and new covenants. Abraham’s physical descendants, the people of Israel, received the law but mistook its intent and, failing fully to obey it and to recognize God’s desire to include the Gentiles, stumbled over the goal of the law, Christ (Rom. 10:4). In Bird’s mind, Paul understood Jesus to be the pre-existent one (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11) sent by God into the world and whose obedience and faithfulness brought salvation to his followers. However, Bird asserts firmly that the apostle was well-aware of the historical Jesus and his teachings. Finally, in Paul’s underlying framework there is the ecclesial moment, “the people of God, called to be the new Israel and the renewed humanity (e.g., Col. 3:1-17)” (56).

Acknowledging that Paul’s epistles were written for us but not to us, Bird uses the fourth chapter to take readers on a whirlwind tour of all the writings of Paul in their original contexts. Each epistle is assigned a succinct heading and given a fast-paced treatment which attempts to provide a sense of the flow of the letter. Chapter five examines the nature of the gospel itself, defining it as “the story of Jesus the Messiah, his death and resurrection, and faith and repentance toward him” (74). Bird avers that a redemptive-historical, narratival account of the gospel may enable us to view it more holistically. He hopes to move beyond a gospel which envisions God as merely a “cosmic accountant,” ignores Jesus’ fulfillment of God’s plan through Israel to bless the Gentiles, omits the resurrection and the parousia, and skips over the coming of the kingdom. After clarifying his option for the narrative mode, Bird examines how 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, Romans 1:1-4, and 2 Timothy 2:8 bear on our understanding of Paul’s understanding of the gospel. He sees in the hyper of 1 Corinthians 15:3 an indication of substitutionary atonement and refutes the notion that the verb horizein in Romans 1:4 betrays an adoptionist Christology by judging that Jesus’ sonship has shifted toward simply a new eschatological function. In addition, the gospel, says Bird, includes the announcement of Jesus’ kingship but (contra N. T. Wright) must also sketch how the King has endeavored to save us by his death and resurrection for our acquittal. Finally, the chapter considers the gospel’s challenge to Roman power with a user-friendly diagram picturing Paul’s terminological parallels with the teaching of the OT and the imperial cult. Bird finishes:

“[M]any Christians cannot recognize a counterfeit gospel when they encounter it. As a result many tolerate short pithy one-liners in its place, like ‘God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,’ which is a poor substitute for the real gospel. Paul does not want Christians duped by a pseudo-gospel of ‘Jesus plus the latest Fad,’ nor does he want the gospel reduced to touchy-feely psychobabble. Paul’s estimation of the human condition is that we need a Saviour, not a therapist” (90).

The sixth (and probably my favorite) chapter handles Paul’s perspective on the cross and salvation. First, we read of Paul’s take on “righteousness.” The “righteousness of God” relates to both creation and covenant, often refers in the OT to salvation, should be taken as a subjective genitive construction, is manifested on the cross, and renders sinners rightly related to God, granting them a righteous status. Justification is forensic, covenantal, eschatological, and effective (in the sense that it results in freedom from the power of sin). Bird argues that on the textual level we see in Paul the believer’s union with Christ fostering a sharing in Christ’s righteousness, while on the systematic level the doctrine of imputation is a necessary inference enabling us to think coherently about various Pauline themes. In short, he reasons that imputation is a corollary of our identification with Christ. Turning to Paul’s notion of “sacrifice,” Bird outlines the apostle’s conceptual resources, including especially the Mosaic law, the Isaianic suffering servant, and martyrdom in intertestamental Judaism. He reasons that the condemnation of sin in Romans 8:3, the allusion to the Aqedah in Romans 8:32, the image of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), and the propitiatory character of Jesus’ death are appropriately condensed in the phrase “penal substitution.” Furthermore, this substitution is grounded in Christ being the representative of believers. Speaking of Christ representing us and bearing God’s wrath on the cross, Bird says, “The logic is that because they [believers] have gone through it once they can never go through it again” (103). The remainder of the chapter expounds more briefly the Pauline analogies of reconciliation, redemption (which, for Bird, occurs through substitution and for the purpose of beginning a godly life), adoption, renewal, and victory.

Chapter seven presents Paul’s eschatology and divides into four parts. First, Bird charts the apostle’s take on the overlap of the two ages. Second, he touches on the “final ordeal,” which the church experiences proleptically even in the present time. Based on Paul’s line of thinking in Romans 11, Bird also holds out the prospect for “a significant number of Jews to convert to Christ…but he [Paul] does not project the event all the way forward to the final tribulation, nor does he think it will be the trigger for the second or third coming of Christ (as in dispensational theology)” (119). Next comes the parousia, which gives rise to the resurrection, through which we inherit bodies both continuous and discontinuous with our present bodies. Here Bird also cautiously favors a historic premillennial interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:23-25. Finally, he affirms also an intermediate state during which the deceased Christians are clothed with some sort of “heavenly dwelling from God” (2 Cor. 5:1).

With Richard Bauckham’s favorite category of “identity” in hand, Bird proceeds in the eighth chapter to discuss the implications of Paul’s Christology for monotheism. Stressing that, for Paul, Jesus “participates in the identity of God,” Bird suggests the phrase “messianic monotheism” (125). In 1 Corinthians 8 the Shema has been reinterpreted in light of the lordship of Jesus. In Philippians 2:5-11 Paul testified that Jesus possesses the divine nature and prerogatives and used the phrase heauton ekenōsen to signal only Christ’s “self-giving attitude.” In Colossians 1:15 Christ as “firstborn” implies sovereignty over creation, not a rejection of Christ’s eternality. Over against the pervasive polytheism and pluralism of the day, Christ is the one in whom dwells the fullness of deity (Col. 2:9). Additionally, Bird argues that in Romans 9:5 Paul does indeed call Jesus “God.”

Shifting to Pauline ethics, chapter nine covers five streams of Paul’s theology of the Christian life. First, Paul emphasizes that ethics must emerge from being made new in Christ, a judgment which, for Bird, demonstrates that Christians are not left with two natures but just one according to which we must now live. Second, Paul operates with an indicative-imperative pattern for ethical behaviour. Third, Paul places the believer “not under law but under grace” (see Rom. 6:14). Bird maintains that the law reveals the severity of sin, temporarily administers God’s grace to Israel, and foreshadows Christ. Thus, reasons Bird, the law no longer functions to mark out God’s people, cannot provide a basis for justification, and does not definitively govern the people of God in the new era. Regarding the law and sin in Romans 7, Bird favors the pre-Christian interpretation of the vexed experience of the “I” struggling with sin. The law of Christ is described as the “full range” of the commands and exhortations of the messianic age, namely, Christ’s exemplary life and teaching and the epitomic law of love. Although rejecting the tripartite carving up of the law found in Reformed theology (ceremonial, civil, moral), Bird still believes the Mosaic code plays a role in guiding Christians in that it finds its summary in the love commandment which is the overarching directive for believers today. On the issue of sexuality, Bird maintains that Paul, despite knowing of long-term same-sex relationships, saw homosexual behavior as a distortion of God’s design for sexuality and, therefore, sinful. However, Bird adds that this doesn’t mean homosexual sin is any worse than heterosexual immorality (also a violation of God’s creative intention). Finally, the chapter closes with some thoughts on Paul’s view of women, acknowledging controversial texts and (to my eye) committing to neither a complementarian nor an egalitarian reading of Paul.

The gospel-centred spirituality of the apostle is the subject of the book’s penultimate chapter. Here Bird balances cruciformity (“to be shaped in accord with the cross of Christ” [162]) and anastasisity (“to be made alive by the power of Christ’s resurrection” ([166])(anastasis is the Greek word for resurrection). Finally, the epilogue and last chapter focuses on similarities between Paul’s world and ours, exhorting readers to learn from Paul and set forth “the exclusive claims of the all-inclusive Saviour” in a pluralistic time (171).

Having outlined Introducing Paul, a few reflections. This is a solid introduction to Paul and I would gladly recommend it to a layperson or someone with theological training who would like a refresher and an update on Pauline theology. Bird’s sturdy judgments on, for example, penal substitution and homosexuality cut against the grain of many current discussions but do so without the ring of close-mindedness or naïvete. Though they are somewhat veiled in this non-technical volume, Bird’s reflections on the new perspective on Paul are consistently centrist, upholding that Paul dealt with both Jewish nationalism and the wiles of merit theology. On a pedagogical note, his visual aids prove useful throughout the book.

At the risk of sounding like a cantankerous systematizer, in a couple of places I would have liked to see a bit more critical thinking on the role of narrative. I have no problem with the use of a narratival mode of discourse for theological reflection and I heartily affirm that life would be boring if we dealt always only in lists with bullet points. But I’m not sure that one’s deepest belief-commitments are always formed via “the telling of a story” and never via working with a set of propositions and considering potential logical inferences (38-39). Nor am I sure that a more “listed” account of the gospel is necessarily overly forensic or truncated, though it may be comparatively stale (see 74-78). Interestingly, after amping up the narratival form of the gospel, Bird unpacks the rendition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 by using numbered propositions (78-81)! Perhaps when carefully considering the Christian gospel, a more analytical mode of thought and discourse inevitably comes into play. Yet, lest I imply that Bird wholly disparages careful logical inference, he goes there with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (97-98). Moreover, these are small objections considered in light of the overarching faithfulness, clarity, accessibility, and pastoral tone of Introducing Paul. Hopefully it will be read by many who seek a richer understanding of Paul and the Lord he tirelessly served.

Human Weakness and Patterned Prayer

2009-08-14T13:31:00.004-06:00

"But, although it has already been stated above that, lifting up our hearts, we should ever aspire to God and pray without ceasing, since our weakness is such that it has to be supported by many aids, and our sluggishness such that it needs to be goaded, it is fitting each one of us should set apart certain hours for this exercise. Those hours should not pass without prayer, and during them all the devotion of the heart should be completely engaged in it. These are: when we arise in the morning, before we begin daily work, when we sit down to a meal, when by God's blessing we have eaten, when we are getting ready to retire."

Calvin, Institutes, III, xx, 50

The specifics of when to establish times of prayer are, of course, debatable, but I think Calvin was on to something when he wrote that human weakness conditions the need to have some pattern for prayer. Otherwise, thinking we are mature enough to "pray without ceasing" without any regimen, we might deceive ourselves and never pray!

Michael Bird on the Nature of Christian Scholarship

2009-08-14T09:48:00.002-06:00

Visit http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/08/christian-academic.html for some great thoughts from Bird on what it means for a Christian to serve in the world of academia.

(And while you're thinking of Bird, check out his centrist [and very beneficial] volume on the new perspective on Paul, The Saving Righteousness of God.)

"Joined with Such a Mercy": The Inseparability of Justification and Sanctification

2009-08-13T13:11:00.004-06:00

We evangelicals need a better handle on the relationship between justification by faith and the pilgrimage of spiritual growth which produces good works. If believers can't and don't merit salvation, whence the biblical command for good deeds?

Often I've heard that Christians should live obediently because they should feel gratitude for the saving work of God. Without wanting to neglect the place of gratitude in the Christian life, I've become convinced that this reasoning is inadequate. Far better, in my mind, to reason that the forgiveness of sins and the path of spiritual growth and good deeds are simply a package deal. In other words, the nature of salvation itself is such that when we sign up for it (i.e., convert to the Lord and his gospel) we're signing up not only for the forgiveness of sins but also for the power of the Holy Spirit to grow in obedience to God. An excerpt from Calvin:

"We confess that while through the intercession of Christ's righteousness God reconciles us to himself, and by free remission of sins accounts us righteous, his beneficence is at the same time joined with such a mercy that through his Holy Spirit he dwells in us and by his power the lusts of our flesh are each day more and more mortified; we are indeed sanctified, that is, consecrated to the Lord in true purity of life, with our hearts formed to obedience to the law."

(Institutes, III, xiv, 9)

What might this understanding of salvation, spiritual growth, and good deeds do to our sharing of the gospel? Perhaps make it a more holistic in the sense that we make sure a listener is aware of the fact that conversion is conversion to the whole package, not just to the forgiveness of sins? Thoughts?

Resurrection, Joy, and Contemplation

2009-08-12T13:04:00.003-06:00

"[L]et us always have in mind the eternal happiness, the goal of resurrection - a happiness of whose excellence the minutest part would scarce be told if all were said that the tongues of all men can say."

Calvin, Institutes, III, xxv, 10

Gerald Bray on Wright's Latest

2009-08-04T21:10:00.003-06:00

Theologian Gerald Bray makes some jarring criticisms of Wright's Justification. See http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_2_Editorial.pdf and do post any thoughts if you've read the book.

Providence, Permission, and Pastoral Care

2009-07-30T16:25:00.005-06:00

John Calvin's thoughts on divine providence are not to be overlooked, regardless of one's evaluation of them. I continue to seek to gauge how the concept of divine permission fits into his scheme (as well as my own). Calvin judges that God decrees all things and within his decree allows certain things to happen but always with a view to working through them for his own good purposes. Yet often he gives the appearance of arguing that God always prods all agents to act in all the ways in which they act.

Here are two quotes from Calvin's section entitled "No Mere 'Permission!'" (Institutes, I, xviii, 1):

"[T]hat men can accomplish nothing except by God's secret command, that they cannot by deliberating accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by his secret direction, is proved by innumerable and clear testimonies (of Scripture)."

"[F]rom these (teachings of Scripture) it is more than evident that they babble and talk absurdly who, in place of God's providence, substitute bare permission - as if God sat in a watchtower awaiting chance events, and his judgments thus depended on human will."

It's quite a task to weigh these statements' implications for our view of God and the spiritual life, but let us mark well that Calvin himself parses them in his Institutes, commenting that without such a view of providence life would be simply unbearable. In short, he was a man whose theology was intensely practical and pastoral.

Calvin on the Bounds of Curiosity

2009-07-28T14:13:00.003-06:00

It's interesting that in some circles Reformed theology has a reputation for aiming to pin down every detail of God's being, plans, and interaction with the world. John Calvin, the fountainhead of that tradition, incessantly reminds his readers that the Holy Spirit placed in Scripture all that we need for spiritual maturity. Beyond this, he says, we're meant to rein in our curiosity and steer clear of speculation. Here's a word to the theologian from Calvin's section on angelic beings:

"The theologian's task is not to divert the ears with chatter, but to strengthen consciences by teaching things true, sure, and profitable."

Calvin, Institutes, I, xiv, 4

Study Solo and Only Afterward Consult Commentaries?

2009-07-25T19:29:00.006-06:00

"I have sometimes been encouraged by others, both as a preacher and as a Christian who reads Scripture for myself, only to turn to Bible commentaries as a very last resort, when, after much wrestling and searching for myself, I still could not make out the sense of a passage - or perhaps just to check that what I thought was its meaning was not entirely off-beam. There is certainly merit in not simply turning to learned books to find 'the answers,' as a lazy short-cut to avoid wrestling with Scripture for myself. Yet increasingly, when reading Scripture, I find myself wanting to turn to a good Bible commentary sooner rather than later. My reason is this: a good commentary will give me an insight into the consensus view on the meaning of each passage held by generations of believers who have come before me. Working within that framework seems to be a sensible, humble and faithful place to start." -Timothy Ward in Words of Life

I've already blogged about Ward's new book, Words of Life, but this is a statement with which I really resonate. For exegetical papers and sermon preparation many of us have been instructed along precisely the lines Ward describes. But why not embrace a more mentored approach to the study of Scripture? Why not allow the masters (both deceased exegetes and theologians and contemporary commentators) to prepare us and launch us out into the high seas of biblical exegesis with some reliable reference points?

It might be objected that such a methodology undermines the supreme authority of Scripture. But could it be that we are just gearing up more wisely to study the Holy Writ? Could it be that, if a quicker consultation of commentaries enriches our perspective on a passage, we end up better-positioned to turn around and by the light of the text evaluate those very same commentaries?

In addition, Ward goes on to say that the sermon is a critical means by which the congregation is exposed to the church's historical consensus on biblical texts. He believes that preachers should open themselves up to the process above in order to accomplish the task of conveying the church's heritage to today's saints.

Thoughts?

Between Extremes

2009-07-23T17:05:00.004-06:00

Sometimes setting up one's own perspective as the mediating or "holistic" one can be a rather cheap way to win an argument. Two examples. (1) If the options are framed as hardcore fatalism, Calvinism, and the utter loss of divine sovereignty, Calvinism might prematurely appear best (this is not to say that it couldn't appear that way after further thought!). However, Calvinism and Arminianism both are probably somewhere in the middle with hardcore fatalism and open theism on the edges. Let the curious scrupulously explore Holy Scripture and the Christian tradition to weigh Calvinism and Arminianism. (2) If the options are framed as chauvinism, complementarianism, and over-the-top feminism, complementarianism might prematurely appear best (as with Calvinism, this isn't meant to imply that it couldn't appear that way after further thought). However, complementarianism and egalitarianism both are probably somewhere in the middle with chauvinism and over-the-top feminism on the edges.

Having said all of this, as I'm reading through Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, I pick up that he regularly situates his work between two extremes in such a way that it pushes him to take extra care in his theological formulations. In other words, in his case, a between-extremes approach proves beneficial. On the matter of the authority of Scripture and the relationship between word and Spirit, Bavinck masterfully avoids Rome's desire to ground the authority of Scripture in the authentication of the church and also Radical Reformers' desire to bypass the constraints of the word and view the Spirit's speaking apart from Scripture as the supreme authority for Christian belief and praxis. On the doctrine of God, Bavinck continually presses on between the blunders of deism and pantheism, maintaining God's immanence and independence and transcendence. On the matter of ecclesial power, he again walks the line between Rome and the Radicals and ends up arguing that both in their own way ascribe the state's power to the church!

Thoughts on doing "between-extremes theology" for refinement rather than caricature?

Interviews at "Exiled Preacher"

2009-07-22T10:13:00.003-06:00

If you've never linked from the blog list below to "Exiled Preacher," let me say that it's worth it for the informative, encouraging interviews alone. Thinkers and ministers who have graced the blog include Kevin Vanhoozer and Timothy Ward, to name but two. Guy Davies has just posted another interview, so check it out at http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/.

Must-Read Book about The Book

2009-07-20T16:46:00.006-06:00

For thoughtful Christians, especially those called upon to preach, teach, and theologize with some facility, Timothy Ward's Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (IVP) is a must-read book. I try not to tout just any book in this way, but Ward's latest on Scripture is a gem. It endeavors to outline God's relationship to the Bible in a biblical, lucid manner and it opens up exciting windows into the nature of Scripture and the ministry of the word of God.

The book unfolds in four major sections. First, Ward embarks on an exegetical quest to uncover what Scripture says about its own relationship to God. Second, he treats the relationship of Scripture to God in systematic-theological mode, mapping out how each person of the Trinity involves himself with the Holy Writ. Third, Ward carefully sketches the traditional attributes of Scripture: necessity, sufficiency, clarity, and authority. Fourth, and finally, he connects the doctrine to the life of the church, not least to the pulpit.

Here are two highlights:

1) Ward proposes that God invests himself in his word, which is therefore a mode of his presence (what he calls God's "semantic presence"). Does this proposal forge a theological path through the Barthian-Carl Henrian fissure by retaining an emphasis on both revelation as God's own presence toward human beings and the Bible as a locus of revelation? See esp. pp. 66-67, 73.

2) Ward judiciously re-presents the doctrine of inerrancy, locating it under the scriptural attribute of authority. He cannot but call it a "natural implication" of verbal inspiration, but he places it within the context of more central themes, not least because it can pertain to just the Bible's propositions, which constitute just one facet of divine covenantal communication in and through Scripture. In addition, he agrees with John Woodbridge and others who deny that the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was first cooked up at Old Princeton. On the contrary, says Ward, it has been present materially throughout church history, though the terminology was popularized in the 19th century.

There is a taste. Comments welcome!

Bavinck on Athanasius and the Importance of Trinitarianism

2009-07-18T14:47:00.004-06:00

"Athanasius understood better than any of his contemporaries that Christianity stands or falls with the confession of the deity of Christ and the Trinity. He devoted his entire life and all his energies to the defense of this truth. He was not fighting for a philosophical problem, but for the Christian religion itself, for the revelation of God, the teaching of the apostles, the faith of the church. The Trinity is the heart and center of Christianity, differentiating it in principle from Judaism, which denies the distinctions within the divine being, and from paganism, which rejects the oneness of God."

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, p. 285

Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting Program Online

2009-07-18T11:36:00.004-06:00

If you're interested in attending this year's meeting, visit http://etsjets.org . There you'll find access to the schedule.

Meditation, Prayer, and the Impetus for Theological Reflection

2009-07-17T11:14:00.004-06:00

"A necessary foundation to prayer is meditating and thinking on the great truths which God has revealed. We should be familiar with the mysteries of Jesus Christ and the truths of his gospel. Our souls should be colored by them and penetrated by them as wool is by dye. These truths should become so familiar to us that we acquire the habit of forming no judgment except in their light, that they may be our only guide in what we do, as the rays of the sun are our only light in what we see."

Francois Fenelon in Talking with God

John Webster on Holy Scripture

2009-07-16T15:00:00.004-06:00

In his 'The Dogmatic Location of the Canon' (published in his Word and Church) and Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, John Webster unfolds some weighty thoughts on the doctrine of Scripture. Here are only a few of them:

1) The doctrines of God, revelation, and even salvation should inform our understanding of Holy Scripture. In other words, we need to affirm an overtly dogmatic (not merely historical or sociological) location for the Bible.

2) Even situating bibliology within ecclesiology won't get the job done for several reasons. (1) What God, not the church, is doing with the text is the central issue. (2) In ecclesiologically-driven descriptions of Scripture the church is often viewed from too sociological, too immanent an angle.

3) By speaking in Scripture God acts upon the church, making the process of canonization one of submission and recognition, not one of innovation.

4) 'Interpretation' might be a term too loaded down with psychological and philosophical freight to do justice to the activity of Christian reading of Scripture. Webster uses the term 'reading' to insist that, rather than generating meaning by interpreting the Bible, Christians are confronted by the meaning of the text and experience a conversion to its teaching.

Useful and provocative stuff!

N. T. Wright Writes on the Ordination of Those in Favor of Homosexuality

2009-07-15T01:32:00.005-06:00

Visit http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6710640.ece.

Renewing the Evangelical Mission Conference

2009-07-13T08:42:00.003-06:00

This conference that Gordon-Conwell is hosting in the fall (Oct 13-15) looks to be a promising one. Here's the lineup of speakers:

J. I. Packer
Michael Horton
Kevin Vanhoozer
Lauren Winner
Os Guinness
Miroslav Volf
Bruce McCormack
Cornelius Plantinga
Tite Tienou

Visit http://gordonconwell.edu/news/renewing_evangelical_mission_conference.

Bavinck on the Attributes of God Pt. 2: Calling All Molinists!

2009-07-11T18:22:00.003-06:00

The intensity of the debates about open theism may have died down, but questions about God's knowledge (especially his knowledge of the world) seem perennial.

Bavinck offers at least two grounds for confessing divine foreknowledge, but he also calls into question the very notion of it as a really distinct category of divine knowledge. First, he believes that all time is present to God, making it straightforward that God would know all things about the future. Second, Bavinck robustly articulates the doctrine of divine aseity (God has life in and of himself, independently of any created entities) and infers from this that, as one aspect of God, God's knowledge doesn't depend upon any happenings in the created order. God has knowledge of these before they come to pass. Yet, as mentioned, Bavinck makes us think twice about the very notion of divine foreknowledge. As with aseity, his confession of divine simplicity (essentially, God is not composed of parts) leads to an inference about God's knowledge, namely, that it is not composed of parts. In other words, we're not permitted to carve up God's knowledge as if it were composed of knowledge of the past, knowledge of the present, and knowledge of the future. Rather, God's singular knowledge includes these as aspects.

Important thoughts, I think, but the title of the post promised something about Molinism, a. k. a. middle knowledge, a perspective on divine foreknowledge traced to Roman Catholic thinker Luis de Molina and advocated today by the likes of William Lane Craig of Talbot. In order to uphold God's sovereignty over the details of his creation and his allowance for libertarian freewill, Molinists assert that God conceived of all possible events, persons, etc. and, knowing just how in all cases one thing would lead to another, chose to create such that he set in motion the course of history so that the best possible world results given the liabilities of libertarian freewill for human beings. (Please check me on this if it is a caricature.)

At the ETS conference last year Craig said middle knowledge is a versatile and useful doctrine, full of potential for answering difficult questions or objections to the Christian faith. In light of this, and in light of the fact that some of my most enjoyable theological conversations have been with a Molinist friend who might respond to this post (!), here goes Bavinck's critique of Molinism in a nutshell:

"God does not derive his knowledge of the free actions of human beings from his own being, his own decrees, but from the will of his creatures. God, accordingly, becomes dependent on the world, derives knowledge from the world that he did not have and could not obtain from himself, and hence, in his knowledge, ceases to be one, simple, and independent - that is, God."

(Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, p. 201)

Is this one a softball for Molinists/middle knowledgers? What do you make of it?

P. S. If you are a Molinist and regard this as a softball, don't let it drive you away from Bavinck on the whole; his Dogmatics is magisterial.

Shout Out to Calvin at 500

2009-07-10T20:06:00.003-06:00

The arrival of John Calvin's 500th birthday is getting quite a lot of press, but I too will dive into the fray and make a comment. Here it is: read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion! Unfortunately, many Christians associate Calvin with just a particular take on the matters of providence, predestination, and election. To be sure, he has important things to say on these, but don't miss out on his treatment of the knowledge of God, God, the human person, Jesus Christ, the church, the role of the pastor, and the life of faith. His work is compelling and pastorally sensitive. Beyond this, have fun with his incredibly long titles for sections and subsections!

Reading for the Justification Debates

2009-07-08T09:37:00.011-06:00

I've blogged a few times on the debates about the "new perspective on Paul," debates which have some bearing on our understanding of salvation in Christ. Strictly speaking, I'm inclined to think of the doctrine of the Trinity as the doctrine by which the church stands or falls, but Luther was right to devote considerable attention to the doctrine of justification. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are some key resources:

Alister McGrath's Iustitia Dei. A standard work on the history of the doctrine.

James Dunn's The New Perspective on Paul. A compilation of essays written by the author as well as a new introductory essay.

N. T. Wright's What St. Paul Really Said. A good introduction to the author's reframing of Pauline soteriology.

Wright's Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Further work building on the previous volume.

Wright's Justification: God's Plan, Paul's Vision. A current analysis of the debates and an updating of Wright's exposition of Paul's doctrine of justification.

Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul. A thorough account of historic and recent perspectives on Paul along with the author's own response to the new perspectivists.

Simon Gathercole's Where Is Boasting? An analysis of Second Temple Judaism's understanding of justification, divine judgment, good works, and so on, combined with an exposition of Romans 1-5 centered around the theme of "boasting" as it relates to justification and the new perspective.

Michael Bird's The Saving Righteousness of God. An balanced evaluation of the debates. Packed with insightful commentary.

Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier (eds.) Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates. Various essays on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, historical perspectives, and so on.

Bruce McCormack (ed.) Justification in Perpsective. Various essays on historical perspectives, dogmatic challenges, and the new perspective.

D. A. Carson, Peter O'Brien, Mark Seifrid (eds.) Justification and Variegated Nomism, 2 vols. For the more ambitious, a large and crucial collection of essays unpacking the soteriologies of Second Temple Judaism and the apostle Paul. Designed to respond to the new perspective's rendition of Paul's doctrine of justification.

If I may lay my cards on the table, Westerholm, Gathercole, and Bird have been most persuasive for me when it comes to critically assessing the new perspective, acknowledging its insights, and addressing its problematic features.

Theological Commitment, Eclecticism, and the Soft Ecumenism of Denver Seminary

2009-07-06T20:30:00.003-06:00

A recent blog post by R. Scott Clark of Westminster (see http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/gentle-rebuke-brother-john/) has prodded me to reflect on the ethos of Denver Seminary as a theological school that welcomes students of various traditions and denominations, urges students to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, promotes a measure of tolerance within the bounds of the NAE statement of faith, and encourages respectful discussion (probably more than "debate") among faculty and students of differing ecclesiastical viewpoints.

Clark's post ("A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John") expresses concern about John Piper's affirmation of Doug Wilson, who is set to speak at the Desiring God conference this year. Wilson's name has been affiliated with Federal Vision theology, which, Clark relates, has been repudiated by Reformed leadership on the whole. Because Piper believes Wilson doesn't preach "another gospel" (see Gal. 1:6), Clark's post considers the question of what, in Paul's theology, constitutes another gospel. In short, he concludes that both Federal Vision theology and the new perspective on Paul have earned the label heteron euangelion. In the course of these musings, Clark avers that it is unwise to allow Piper to speak on behalf of the Reformed tradition (particularly with respect to the theology of Wilson) because, despite being at the heart of the publicity of the "new Calvinism," Piper is a Baptist and thus can't genuinely bear the moniker "Reformed." In addition, in some of the responses to the post, the interaction is critical of the cut-and-paste spirit of some evangelical theology (I don't recall specific examples, but, say, holding a Reformed view of the perseverance of saints while holding a Wesleyan view of sanctification).

The gears have been turning in my mind and I find myself feeling a bit torn. I appreciate the insistence on reaching ecclesial-theological conclusions within denominational leadership structures. I'm also in agreement that at certain points N. T. Wright's work on justification is muddy and (dare I be so blunt?!) incorrect. I think we need people who will straightforwardly address any shortcomings in his work, but I wouldn't say that he advocates a heterdox gospel.

More interesting to me are the questions all of this highlights concerning the theological posture of evangelicalism in general and my own theological school, Denver Seminary, in particular. What does it mean to be committed to a church tradition and one of its denominations? Does a school like Denver Seminary render someone non-committal and deprived of the breadth of a thick ecclesial-theological framework? What issues must we confront if we do imbibe some of the cut-and-paste or minimalist mentality of contemporary evangelicalism? (Cf. esp. Richard Lints' The Fabric of Theology wherein he calls out the evangelical tendency toward a theological minimalism that cares for just those doctrines deemed necessary for experiencing salvation.)

I wrestle with this concretely as someone influenced by the Reformed tradition but, for exegetical reasons, tied to post-conversion baptism. What Reformed theologians have written on the knowledge of God, theology proper, the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and a host of other issues has elicited my allegiance. Yet I'm not a paedobaptist and I prefer historic premillennialism to amillennialism. Should I consider myself Reformed or do these two items disqualify me? Should I consider myself a Baptist because of my beliefs about one or two dogmatic loci?

And what of the (occasional or epidemic, depending on whom you ask!) eclecticism and minimalism of evangelical theology? How can we balance the truth in eclecticism (all doctrine is subject to the scrutiny of Scripture and sometimes this requires adjustments to theological systems and fresh incorporation of insights from other traditions) and the importance of broad, integrative, systematic accounts of sacra doctrina within the fold of a given tradition? As far as theological minimalism goes, one Denver Seminary grad told me that when he and his friends were preparing to write and defend their doctrinal papers for MDiv oral exams some felt that they almost didn't know how to take a position on certain issues. I've heard others confess that they didn't really care to choose between, say, a Calvinistic conception of salvation and an Arminian conception of salvation. Many, however, have escaped the snares of theological apathy and been enriched in various ways by the push clearly to differentiate between essentials and non-essentials.

After a barrage of questions and little substantive reflection, a few brief thoughts:

1) Theological commitment is necessary even if (or partially because?) it often threatens our desire to appear nuanced to the point of intellectual elusiveness. Simplicistic attitudes and naive dogmatism should be confronted during the process of theological growth, but, after times of fine-tuning and/or jettisoning some old beliefs, we plant ourselves in the soil of particular exegetical conclusions and doctrinal frameworks. The significance of the truth of the gospel and the needs of people will allow for nothing less.

2) In the midst of wrestling with my sense of ecclesial identity, I've come to believe that it's a good thing to land in a particular church tradition and to be willing to live and move in one of its denominations. No church tradition is perfect, no denomination is perfect, and no local church is perfect. But we do well to situate ourselves in the richness of that strand of Christianity with which we most resonate and then move forward in our participation in the local church. For those of us (not least seminary students [me in particular!] in a strange time of life struggling to put down roots at a church) who need a reminder: the activity of the Father, Son, and Spirit in and through the local church, not the parachurch, remains the hope of the world.

3) Not only is a minimalist approach to theology impractical, it's also a hindrance to the formation of Christian minds and lives. On the impracticality, take the example of one friend in an Anglican church leading a small group whose members were conflicted about the use of tongues during prayer times. While differences on the charismata shouldn't preclude all Christian fellowship, not to know what he believed would have been painfully pastorally impractical for my friend. On the hindrance to forming Christian minds and lives, I take a cue from Matthew Levering (see his Scripture and Metaphysics) who says that theological contemplation is instrumental in the removal of idolatry and the generation of spiritual service.

4) I think we need to remind ourselves to think in concentric circles. There are some circles, or spheres, of the Christian life and Christian leadership in which (I think) we should adopt a soft ecumenism. (By "soft ecumenism" I mean a cooperative attitude inclusive of those committed to historic Christian orthodoxy, which, of course, has its various expressions.) In other spheres (e.g., whom do you want preaching at your church and influencing the people on a hotly debated doctrinal topic?) we do well to exercise more caution.

Time is fleeting, so I stop here! What do you think?

Herman Bavinck on the Attributes of God Pt. I

2009-07-05T16:32:00.004-06:00

Bavinck's presentation of the doctrine of God is, in a word, masterful. In his section on the trustworthiness of God he discusses what we mean when we call God "the Truth." According to Bavinck's organisation, biblical teaching on this subject is threefold.

First, there is a metaphysical dimension to the truthfulness of God. That is, he is all that belongs to the divine nature, which is itself characterized according to God's own idea of divinity. Other "gods" do not conform to true divinity (which, again, is determined by God's own idea of divinity) and thus are deceptive, mere pretenders.

Second, there is what Bavinck calls an ethical dimension to the truthfulness of God. He is truthful in that his self-revelation corresponds to his being. His communication to us, while always accomodated to the finitude of the human mind, always accurately reflects his nature and actions. He speaks the truth about himself and always fulfills his promises.

Third, there is what Bavinck calls the logical (or epistemological) dimension of the truthfulness of God. That is, the content of God's thoughts corresponds to the way things are. In other words, his knowledge is just that: knowledge. "God's knowledge is dynamic, absolute, fully correspondent truth. It is not acquired by research and reflection but is inherent in the divine being (essential) and precedes the existence of things."

I'm thankful to God for his people's thick descriptions of him!

I wonder what it would look like to relate this three-pronged account of truthfulness to humanity. Are we, like Christ, living out all that belongs to true humanity as determined by God? Does our speech disclose only the truth about who we are and what we will do? Do we seek after authentic knowledge of God and his world?

An Englishman in the Pulpit on July 5th!

2009-07-05T12:25:00.002-06:00

For those of us who are keen to clarify that the Christian faith and the U. S. are not correlative, I think it was a nice touch to have our English pastor of global outreach preaching this morning.

Who Sparked Your Interest in Things Theological?

2009-07-04T10:38:00.004-06:00

Hopefully for each one of us our pastors were instrumental in convincing us of the importance of theological reflection. That said, I'd like to hear which scholars and authors really got the ball rolling for folks and why their work proved so influential.

Millard Erickson's Christian Theology was a major catalyst for my desire to seek out further theological study. Christian Theology has been a standard text in the world of evangelical theological education and I came to appreciate it for several reasons. First, I noticed that he works hard to exemplify level-headed treatment of difficult issues. In one of his more recent works (What Does God Know and When Does He Know it?) he analysed the open theism debate in (I think) an admirably even-handed manner even as he remained committed to a traditional perspective on divine foreknowledge. Second, as a result of his patient approach to perplexing and heated questions, Erickson's Christian Theology made me feel like I wasn't just naively buying into given theological positions. Third, to be frank, I remember liking his work because I agreed with most of his conclusions!

Who sparked your interest in things theological and why?

Denver Seminary Welcomes Its 7th President

2009-07-03T22:01:00.002-06:00

I've yet to meet Dr. Mark Young, but from what I've heard it sounds like he will be a solid leader for the school. See http://www.denverseminary.edu/news/welcome-to-dr-mark-young/.

Another post with some thoughts on Denver Seminary is on the way.

On Keeping Up with the Bells and the Driscolls

2009-06-24T10:47:00.014-06:00

Some time ago I read an interview with Rob Bell in Relevant magazine and, when asked about his thoughts on his critics, he replied essentially that he doesn't have much time to fret about them and, moreover, believes that they waste their time fretting about him and his ministry.

I think there's an important point here: we can get quite caught up in analysing the thinking and the decision-making of others so that we forget that we are ourselves responsible before God to act, to do something in service to the gospel of Christ. That thought can be a good kick in the rear for those who tend toward just esoteric intellectual pursuits!

However, Bell's comments didn't come to grips with a pressing issue for Christian pastors today: the restless machine of Christian media and its influence upon the congregation. Pastors always have been, always will be, and always should be concerned for the formation of Christian minds. And, since publishers, radio stations, conferences, and blogs incessantly churn out thoughts on the Christian faith and life, pastors are obliged critically to appraise works like Bell's Velvet Elvis or Sex God in order to shepherd the people into the truth and wisdom of God in an information-saturated, or at least opinion-saturated, milieu.

I wonder what life in the church would be like if pastoral leaders were more blunt toward their congregations about their (hopefully theologically rigorous) estimations of, say, the Left Behind series or a new song on Christian radio or Bell's usage of rabbinic materials or Mark Driscoll's view of gender roles in the home and the church. My sense is that we need open and critical discussion on such things that does not distract from active service but does instruct the average Christian so that he or she can navigate shrewdly that mixed bag of popular Christian resources on offer today.

More on Revelation

2009-06-24T09:19:00.004-06:00

Michael Gorman (NT scholar known for, among other things, his explication of cruciformity in the life and theology of Paul) has been blogging regularly on theological interpretation of Scripture and is now discussing the nature and prospects of a "missional hermeneutic." A recent post considers the place of the book of Revelation in such a hermeneutic. See http://www.michaeljgorman.net/.

Divine Protection in the Book of Revelation

2009-06-18T20:38:00.004-06:00

Convinced as I am that the church does not exit planet earth during that time of trial described (highly symbolically of course!) in the book of Revelation, I've been mercifully convicted and encouraged by the book's three interludes (7:1-17; 10:1-11:13; 12-14) that sketch the situation of the church in the midst of the time of trial. It is a mistake to argue that, because God's wrath is poured it out in judgment during this time, the church must take its leave. These interludes compellingly speak of God's sovereign care and protection over his people in the midst of the trial. In short, we don't face God's abandonment but rather receive his protection even if (and when) we face hostility from the unbelieving world.

In chapter 7 John writes that God "seals" us on our foreheads as a sign of divine ownership and protection. (Hence we are obliged to put off worrying about whether or not we Christians could somehow inadvertantly receive the "mark of the beast" on the forehead in chapter 13.) In chapter 11 we find the church (as the temple of God) measured off by God as another sign of his protection, though the rest of the chapter describes the real danger in proclaiming the gospel to a fallen world. In chapter 14 we envision the redeemed saints with the names of the Lamb and God the Father written on their foreheads and singing before the throne of God.

I confess that I've never really encountered deep suffering, much less deep suffering on account of being a Christian. But I hope that these passages will help equip all of us to remain faithful if that time should come.

Critical Doctrines for Pastoral Ministry

2009-06-16T13:07:00.005-06:00

If done prayerfully, all theological reflection has bearing on our lives and ministerial labors. However, there are, in my mind, some doctrines to which pastors must pay special attention. Here are a few suggestions for now. Anything you would tweak or add to the list?

1) The Doctrine of Sanctification. Without a good understanding of how people grow in holiness, teaching, preaching, implementing spiritual disciplines, and so on will lack clarity and direction.

2) The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Can Christians turn away from Christ and forfeit their salvific blessings? Do true Christians actually do this? Pastors need to be able to exegete what is happening with parishioners who are moving away from God and to give wisdom to their people who have loved ones and friends doing the same. See the post below for my thoughts on this doctrinal issue.

3) The Doctrine of Justification. The church needs to hear the doctrine of justification by faith expounded for the sake of their spiritual rest and humility before God and others. Furthermore, Christians need to hear a thick explanation of the relationship between faith and works. Without this, they can wallow in the muck of legalism or libertinism. (We must offer more than the common comments about how we should feel a gratitude toward God that produces good works.)

4) The Doctrine of God. There are many facets of the doctrine of God that are absolutely crucial for ministry, but I'll mention here only the question of classical theism and revisionist proposals on offer today. Does God change? Does God suffer? How do we balance divine transcendence and immanence? If these questions seem disconnected from pastoral ministry, consider whether or not you would tell someone who is suffering that God is suffering right along with them. Believe it or not, your response betrays your position in a vast debate in modern theology. (Suffice it to say, I resonate with those who are hesitant to discard classical theism. See esp. Thomas Weinandy's Does God Suffer?)

5) The Doctrine of Last Things. Will we ever be rid of books about how every detail of current Middle Eastern political happenings can be found in biblical prophecy? Will our preachers take a stand against silly eschatological speculation? Will we give exhortation in faithfulness through trials and hold out the great hope of the new heavens and the new earth over against the all too common eschatology that forgets that, while we go to heaven for a time (intermediate state), heaven ultimately comes to earth?

There Really Is Nothing New under the Sun

2009-06-13T15:36:00.003-06:00

As I read through volume one of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (a magisterial four-volume work only recently fully translated into English) I am reminded again of that comment in Ecclesiastes. In dealing with the epistemologies of Locke, Hume, Kant, and others, Bavinck ends up giving arguments that in many ways could have been written to respond to the controversies over postmodernism in the contemporary theological landscape. He does a remarkable job of holding together a mosaic of important epistemological commitments that are instructive for Christian thinkers today.

After reading some recent authors, one might get the impression that only with the advent of postmodernism were we made aware of the noetic effects of the fall or human inability wholly to discard bias as we study God. Bavinck's work prods us to sit at the feet of the Christian tradition to recover wisdom for addressing the theological problems of our day.

Theology and Christian Practice

2009-06-10T19:37:00.009-06:00

I've finally had a chance to engage Ellen Charry's oft-referenced book By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine. The main thrust of the work is that Christian doctrine is designed to shape followers of Christ into wise and virtuous human beings.

In the opening chapter I was pleasantly surprised to read a defence of theological realism and the referential capacity of theological language as necessary grounds for the potency of doctrine to change lives. I appreciate the spirit of the book: let's not forget about the importance of truthfulness, but, having established that, let's get on to discussing how God wants theological truth to transform men and women in the likeness of Christ.

Another interesting piece of Charry's argument is her distinction between first order and second order doctrines. In her taxonomy, first order doctrines are the primary tenets of the faith and have direct practical payoff. Second order doctrines are meant to unpack and support first order doctrines and thus are indirectly practical. It seems to me that this would invite comparison with T. F. Torrance's distinction between "existence statements" (those which directly describe reality) and "coherence statements" (those which clarify the connections among theological existence statements).

Back to the big picture. Do evangelical churches put Christian doctrine to work for the renewal of minds and the formation of godliness? My sense is that some evangelical churches do try to walk the fine line of taking doctrine seriously while still heeding the call to lively Christian service. However, I do think that there are plenty of congregations infected by an anti-intellectual undercurrent. Perhaps their pastors didn't take seminary seriously, perhaps no one there has ever talked theology with any kind of interest or zeal.

Two questions, especially for anyone in the pastorate or preparing for it:

1) What is your take on the state of engagement with Christian doctrine in churches these days?

2) How can churches promote theologically wise (not necessarily "scholarly," for not all are called to scholarship) Christian practice aside from preaching with theological rigor?

Theology and Rationality

2009-05-31T15:09:00.006-06:00

In his recent article "What Is Systematic Theology?" in the International Journal of Systematic Theology, A. N. Williams helps us come to grips with what it means for theology to be rational. One of his several emphases in the article is that God, himself rational, bestows upon humanity our rationality. Williams argues that because God is rational and because he purposes that his creatures come to know him, theology is a rational discipline even though we must acknowledge the limitations set in place by human finitude and fallenness. He goes on to say that with God as the source of their rationality all disciplines can operate rationally and seek out the rationality embedded in reality. However, lest this appear to rob theology of its uniqueness, Williams notes that theology, as the field of inquiry concerned with the Source of all rationality, remains unique and positioned to speak to other disciplines as an older sibling speaks to a younger. This simile is an intriguing illustration of how to coordinate theology and other areas of discourse without compromising the glory of the study of God.

I'm reminded again of Alister McGrath's Nature, volume 1 of his Scientific Theology. There McGrath judges that divine rationality, the rationality of the created order, and the rationality of human beings resonate together and thus launch the possibility of human knowledge. One of the beauties of this line of thinking is that it opens up space to affirm a qualified "universal rationality" that instead of aiming to undercut Christian belief is bound up with it!

Matthew Levering's Scripture and Metaphysics

2009-05-29T18:21:00.003-06:00

Presently I'm reading through Scripture and Metaphysics by Matthew Levering, a thought-provoking book bringing St. Thomas Aquinas' utilization of metaphyics into dialogue with contemporary scepticism toward the place of metaphysical reflection in theology. Levering focuses on Aquinas' understanding of theology as the pursuit of contemplative wisdom. Contemplation, say Aquinas and Levering, leads into the transformation of the human person and his or her active life of serving God. Perhaps if theology were viewed more often in this light, it wouldn't seem impractical to so many Christians!

Here is something that caught my attention as a fledgling theologian:

"Indeed, it is only if our contemplative exercises are sustained by continual prayer and sacramental grace that the practices of contemplative wisdom may avoid the poison of pride, manifested in the careerism and ecclesial infidelity of the 'academic theologian.'"

There's nothing like a spiritual kick in the seat of the pants from someone who is no slouch when it comes to rigorous academic work! I'm deeply grateful for spiritual encouragement and exhortation from Christian scholars.

Church and Ethnicity

2009-05-27T22:06:00.004-06:00

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups (Jews and Gentiles) into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it," writes St. Paul (Eph. 2:13-16).

If one of the thrusts of the gospel is to bring together ethnic groups in one body, what might be some of the implications for how we structure and even name our churches? Is it appropriate to have an English-speaking, predominantly caucasian congregation meeting upstairs in the sanctuary on Sundays while a Chinese-speaking congregation meets downstairs in the very same building? Is it appropriate for the two congregations to have different names? Is it appropriate for a church to name itself, e. g., "Korean Presbyterian Church." What might all of this mean for the messianic Judaism movement? Is it okay for a church body to self-identify as Jewish? How can church leaders honor the reconciling power of the gospel by facilitating ecclesial unity?

Thoughts?

Justification and N. T. Wright Pt. 2: Thoughts on Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

2009-05-27T17:08:00.008-06:00

I'm not sure that I plan on making the doctrine of justification a long-term focal point for theological study, but for now I'm glad to be interacting with the current debates. Having just finished Wright's new book, Justification, I'm impressed by certain of its features and find myself wanting more clarification and adjustments with respect to others.

A Few Positive Features:

1) Wright aims to move beyond the old/new perspective divide and incorporate insights of both camps; this he does with Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians.

2) He notes that some of the new perspectivists, in their eagerness to underscore Jew-Gentile dynamics in Paul's writings, have run the risk of downplaying viable Reformation commitments (p. 196).

3) He remains to the last a big picture thinker, constantly reminding readers of the scope of God's plans.

A Few Hang-Ups:

1) Wright certainly respects the Christian tradition, but sometimes one still gets the sense that, to him, those who disagree with his views do so only because their commitment to tradition renders them resistant to a fresh reading of Scripture. I don't believe he intends for this to be an easy way to win an argument, but it may sound that way to those who uphold a more traditional perspective on Paul for traditional and, more importantly, exegetical reasons.

2) While Wright's work rightly keeps in view the big picture of redemptive history, Justification can give the impression that his is the only exegetical tack committed to this.

3) Wright spends plenty of time upholding the covenantal contours of "righteousness" languge, but I'm still convinced by Deut. 6:25 (and Simon Gathercole) that when we receive a righteous status from God it is a matter of being counted as one who has done what God requires of people (not least in the covenant treaty), not merely one who just is a member of his people.

4) This last "hang-up" actually has to do with a blurb on the back cover recommending the book. Scot McKnight unfortunately calls some of the "old" perspective adherents "religious zealots." In my view, that is uncharitable and, at the risk of sounding uncharitable myself, a cheapshot. I'm not interested in following along with everything John Piper or others have to say, but the fact remains that the comment is out of place.

Any thoughts?

Justification and N. T. Wright Pt. 1

2009-05-16T12:06:00.003-06:00

With the release of N. T. Wright's new book Justification: God's Plan, Paul's Vision, the topic of justification and the new perspective is capturing attention and making a plethora blog appearances. Having just completed a paper on the subject, I'm interested and excited to see it being explored carefully from a variety of angles.

I'd like to post some ruminations, beginning with a few comments on my appreciation of Wright's scholarship. First, his Christian Origins and the Question of God project is very ambitious and helpful in several ways. It's intriguing to me that in the first volume (The New Testament and the People of God) he spends a good amount of time and energy outlining his epistemological commitments that will undergird the content of the project. His account of critical epistemic realism vis-a-vis biblical studies is definitely worth reading. Second, his book The Last Word (the title in its American printing) is a useful piece of work on the nature and function of the Bible's authority. He contends that when we speak of the Bible's authority we are in fact speaking of the authority of God himself and then he rolls out some thought-provoking ideas centering around that thesis. Third, his commitment to Christian orthodoxy and serving the church (he serves as a bishop in the Anglican church) is very encouraging. Among other things, he has vigorously defended the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Now, as for the debates about justification in Pauline theology, I think there's a bit of a mixed bag. For this post, I'll focus on what I perceive to be one strength and one weakness. On the one hand, Wright and others have rightly prodded us to recognize the Jew-Gentile interactions and tensions that pervaded Paul's ministry and epistles. In Antioch and Galatia certain Jewish Christians were acting in such a way that Gentile Christians were pushed to behave like Jews. In the Roman context certain Jewish Christians held the presumption that their obedience to God was quite superior to that of Gentiles. Paul's teaching on human sin and justification by faith is meant to level the playing field. In the latter section of Ephesians 2 Paul carefully articulates how the action of God in Christ unites Jew and Gentile. In Philippians 3 we read about some Jews (Judaizers, I think) whose delight in Jewish distinctives posed a potential threat to the Gentile Christians in Philippi (I take the Greek verb blepete to mean "look out for" rather than just "consider").

On the other hand, the emphasis on Jew-Gentile relations can be used to downplay that Paul resists Jewish nationalism as a kind of merit theology. In other words, we need to make sure we do some integrative work. In Galatians, for example, Paul is pressed to deal with the imposition of Jewish emblems (e. g., dietary laws) on Gentile Christians but ends up rejecting this imposition precisely because it amounts to an attempt to merit acceptance with God.

In the next post, I'll talk about the underscoring of the covenant motif. But, for now, any thoughts?

Christology and the Correspondence Theory of Truth

2009-05-14T00:33:00.004-06:00

In my mind it is quite difficult to determine where we would turn if we were to abandon completely the correspondence theory of truth. Other theories (the coherence theory, the pragmatic theory, and others) seem to fail us and so I am happy to affirm, with William Alston, David Clark, Kevin Vanhoozer, and others, a minimalist correspondence theory of truth wherein we do not demand a precise account of the nature of that correspondence relation between truth-bearers (especially propositions) and the states of affairs to which they pertain.

However, the Gospel of John presses us to add some nuance to our understanding of truth. In John 14:6 Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life." So our understanding of how truth is borne out must include more than just propositions (briefly, a proposition is the descriptive content of an assertion). It must include the very person of Jesus Christ!

In other words, we need an unashamedly Christian understanding of truth as correspondence. We need to uphold both the propositional and the personal contours of truth, keeping in mind that propositions may be deeply personal and that knowledge of persons involves knowledge of propositions pertaining to those persons. This is an important commitment not least because of how easy it is to find some who focus on the propositional at the expense of the personal and the other way around.

Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: Six Theses

2009-05-11T23:03:00.007-06:00

This semester I've been working on a paper dealing with justification and the new perspective on Paul under the supervision of Dr. Craig Blomberg. It's been a taxing but rewarding endeavor and, though I'm nearly finished with the paper, I sense that I've only scratched the surface. In order to guide my exploration of the topic, I developed six theses for the traditional perspective and then six theses for the new perspective that I believe sum up the emphases of both camps. (That I arrived at six theses instead of that holy number seven probably calls attention to the incompleteness of the paper.)

The Traditional Perspective

1) The Pauline teaching on justification by faith was designed to combat Jewish (or, more precisely, Jewish Christian) legalism threatening the health of early Christian churches.

2) By “works of the law,” Paul means deeds done in response to the composite of God’s moral requirements, which are embedded in the OT law and known in at least a rudimentary way by Gentiles.

3) It follows from human depravity that human beings cannot perform the works of the law and so cannot be justified by them.

4) We are justified by the grace of God in Christ, which must be received simply through faith.

5) To be justified is to be declared righteous in the sight of God, who acts as judge in the divine courtroom.

6) This act of justification is what enables one to join in the people of God.

The New Perspective

1) Paul’s teaching on justification by faith is not designed to combat Jewish legalism penetrating Christian communities. In short, the problem is not works-righteousness but lingering covenantal nomism and nationalism.

2) By “works of the law” Paul means conformity to certain commandments especially conducive to marking off the Jewish people as God’s elect.

3) While recognizing the impossibility of human beings earning salvation, the new perspectivists stress that the problem of the “works of the law” lies not in their championing human achievement. Rather, the problem lies in imposing these Jewish boundary markers on Gentile Christians, a problem borne of the Judaizers’ failure to keep in step with the flow of redemptive history.

4) As more traditional interpreters argue, human beings are justified by the grace of God in Christ, which must be received simply through faith.

5) To be justified is to be declared righteous, but this is primarily a matter of being declared a member of the covenant.

6) The event of justification is not what enables one to join the people of God; it is a declaration of which persons truly are part of the covenant people.

Any reactions to the developments represented here?

Theology and the Spiritual Life

2009-05-01T18:38:00.006-06:00

Here are some connections I've found between theology and the spiritual life:

1) Theology creates space for genuine wonder.

2) It engenders humility before the incomprehensibility of God.

3) It keeps me from becoming discouraged in church. (Having some understanding of what God is up to among his people offers hope when church appears, from my limited point of view, to be uneventful.)

4) It helps us read and respond to the concrete situations of life, including inner personal dynamics related to human sinfulness and God's work in sanctifying us.

5) It gives us the ability to move naturally within the framework of the gospel so that we can have intelligent, compelling conversations with those outside the faith.

On Not Having to Rescue God

2009-04-22T18:57:00.007-06:00

"The best evangelical theological work emerges from delight in the Christian gospel, for the gospel announces a reality which is in itself luminous, persuasive, and infinitely satisfying. That reality is Jesus Christ as he gives himself to be an object of creaturely knowledge, love, and praise. To think evangelically about this one is to think in his presence, under the instruction of Word and Spirit, and in the fellowship of the saints. And it is to do so with cheerful confidence that his own witness to himself is unimaginably more potent than any theological attempts to run to his defense."

John Webster
from "Jesus Christ," in The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology

I owe a great debt to thinkers like my own NT professor Dr. Craig Blomberg who have rigorously defended the intellectual credibility of Christian faith. I might not have made it through high school as a Christian without their hard work. Yet at the same time I am refreshed by Webster's words. There is a sense of rest in knowing that the Triune God does not need my theological work to present himself to men and women in need of his gospel as the gracious Lord of the universe. Perhaps I should address positions with which I disagree with a greater sense of confidence in the (ultimately) uncontradictable character of the truth of God.

Any thoughts?

Good Blog and Justification in Current Discussions

2009-04-22T18:49:00.003-06:00

My friend Clint Wilson (see his blog Summa Philosophiae on my blog roll) has been talking quite a bit about Michael Bird's (NT scholar based in Scotland) blog called Euangelion and I've finally wised up and checked it out. Bird is posting quality stuff on a regular basis and I recommend paying him a visit.

I've been working on a paper on justification and the new perspective on Paul and Bird's book (The Saving Righteousness of God) has been quite helpful to me. He addresses James Dunn and N. T. Wright in a charitable manner without leaving behind the important features of the more traditional take on justification. I hope to post more on justification and the new perspective in the near future!

The Joy and Holiness of Theology

2009-04-10T19:23:00.003-06:00

“Evangelical theology is concerned with Immanuel, God with us! Having this God for its object, it can be nothing else but the most thankful and happy science.”

Karl Barth
from Evangelical Theology

“No less than any other Christian practice, Christian theology is governed by the commanding, revelatory summons of God’s presence. It takes place within the sphere marked out by that presence; and, if it withdraws from that presence or falls into an attitude of anything less than fear of the holy God, then it has simply stumbled into absurdity….As holy reason at work, Christian theology can never escape the sober realization that we talk in the terrifying presence of the God from whom we cannot flee (Ps. 139.7)….When we begin to talk theologically about the holiness of God, we soon enough discover that the tables have been reversed; it is no longer we who summon God before our minds to make him a matter for clever discourse, but the opposite: the holy God shows himself and summons us before him to give an account of our thinking.”

John Webster
from Holiness

A Very Confusing Book

2009-03-29T14:32:00.005-06:00

I'd like to do a post on the book of Revelation, particularly on some of the hermeneutical guidelines that can help us avoid the interpretive pits into which we as contemporary readers easily slip. I thought it might be interesting to see what different people (if there are any of you out there!) have experienced in the way of troublesome and even dangerous readings of Revelation. I hope this won't encourage ridicule of different teachers (even if their last name is LaHaye!) but will serve as a bit of a runway for more positive reflection.

So what interpretive decisions have crossed your path and left you feeling exegetically exasperated?

I'll go first, first confessing my own sins and then mentioning a second interpretation not of my own making. First, picking up on Joel 2:31, several New Testament texts (for example, Acts 2:20; Rev. 6:12) mention something about the moon becoming like blood. For some reason I used to speculate that this might entail humanity colonizing the moon in the future and having a great war there, thus staining it with blood! The key word here is "speculated" (in the worst sense of the word). Lord, have mercy.

Yet that interpretive blunder at least didn't have all the negative ramifications of the popular one that I'll mention next. Many Christians have been led to believe that the "mark of the beast" (Rev. 13:16-18) consists of some technological device (a super duper microchip, etc.). "They" (whoever that may be) will be able to "track" those who receive the mark. Put gently, this is not a strong reading of the text....but more on why later. For now, what other things come to mind?

The Perseverance of the Saints

2009-03-16T21:59:00.003-06:00

After a few posts of a programmatic nature, we dive into a specific material issue in theology. Why not a sticky one that hits home for many of us?!

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is a crystallization of the belief that genuine Christians cannot (or at least do not) turn away from the faith and so forever cut themselves off from Christ. This is a major issue with which many believers are wrestling and it’s not difficult to discover why that’s the case. So many of us have seen a friend or loved one who seemed to be following Christ meander away from the narrow path of discipleship. Inevitably, we ask, “What’s happened to them? Were they a genuine Christian and are they now genuinely an object of God’s wrath? Were they never truly ‘in’ and thus have only shown their true colors?” Pastors need an extra measure of clarity here. What would you say to the concerned parishioner who is worried about a friend or family member’s faith? What would you say to the person who himself or herself seems to be flirting with apostasy? How would you respond when someone turns away after you’ve invested time and energy and prayer in their spiritual health?

We find different answers in different pockets of Protestant Christianity. The Reformed and Presbyterian traditions have argued that genuine Christians cannot (or at least do not) apostatize. Upon examining the life of a person who seemingly has rejected Christ, they are likely to say either that he or she never was a true believer or that they have not truly turned away and ultimately will come around. This is, briefly, the Calvinistic perspective on things. Wesleyans and Methodists have argued that genuine Christians can and tragically sometimes do turn away from the Lord and thus fail in the end to inherit salvation. So they are ready to say that someone who has apparently apostatized may well have been a genuine Christian and now is not. This is, briefly, the Arminian perspective on things. Biblical texts have been used to support both positions. Romans 8:28-39, for example, has been said to point toward the Calvinistic view. The warning passages of Hebrews have been used to support the Arminian position.

Before we go any further, it’s important to note two pastorally significant features common to both views (at least in their theologically robust forms). First, only if we persevere in faith for all our days will we in the end inherit salvation (see Mt 10:16ff.; 1 Cor. 9:24ff.; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 4:6-8; Heb. 6:1-8; 10:19-39; for the Greek geeks out there, see Jas. 2:5 where the kingdom is promised to those who continually love God [present participle w/ imperfective aspect]). This is to confront some of the ways in which “eternal security” and “once saved, always saved” can be misconstrued. Rightly understood, the phrase “eternal security” indicates the belief that God makes sure we press on in faith, not that we can make a profession of faith only to abandon it and still somehow receive salvation. Thus I think it’s preferable to speak in terms of the “perseverance of the saints.” The validity of this belief is what we’re exploring in this post. Note also that the requirement of perseverance is different from saying we must perform x number of good deeds to be accepted by God. Perseverance is simply a matter of ongoingly fearing and trusting the Lord, which of course will produce all sorts of good deeds over the long haul. Second, if a believer were truly to reject the faith and become alienated from Christ, he or she would forego the hope of salvation. In other words, we’re not talking about missing out on a few extra perks in the life to come (a 40” vertical with the resurrection body instead of a 48”); we’re talking about missing out on salvation itself and the enjoyment of God’s presence in the new creation. With the stakes so high, we need to help one another persevere to the very end! Hence the exhortation of Hebrews 10:24-25: “Let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”

Now for a proposal. My own view is that genuine Christians can turn away but don’t turn away. I appreciate how Millard Erickson unpacks this way of looking at the topic, especially when he offers the helpful illustration that I’ll adapt here. If a couple has a child whom they want to keep from wandering into the danger of the street, they could either simply build a fence around the yard that would make it physically impossible for the child to leave or they could so train up the child that she learns not to leave the safety of the yard. Erickson believes that the latter option depicts how God works with his sons and daughters in the life of faith. Rather than simply removing the danger of apostasy, God effectually instructs and equips us so that we continually choose not to reject him. Strictly speaking, we can turn away, but God sees to it that we don’t.

What would this mean for our interpretation of pertinent biblical texts? I think it helps us take seriously the teaching of Jesus in John 6 and 10. In particular, at one point in John 6, Jesus says that it’s his responsibility not to lose those whom the Father gives to him (Jn. 6:39). This seems to indicate (as D. A. Carson argues in his commentary on the Gospel of John) that, if someone turns away from the faith, Jesus has not fulfilled the will of the Father. If we believe Jesus always does the will of the Father (see Jn. 8:29), and if this is the correct interpretation of John 6:39, then genuine Christians do not apostatize.

Erickson’s view also helps us take seriously the warning passages of Hebrews. The threat of apostasy is a true danger and such stern warnings are actually part of God’s program for prodding us to remain in the faith. Yet we still have one issue to deal with: biblical texts that apparently name Christians who have turned away (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:19-20; the “some” of Heb. 10:25). My view is that we don’t have enough insight into their spiritual condition to say with certainty that they were genuine Christians. This could be viewed as a sore spot for the position advocated here, but I think it’s at least a viable explanation. And it should be noted that we are seeking the position that best explains what we find in Scripture (even if some questions may remain). I think this position has fewer problems than one that denies the perseverance of the saints and has to grapple with, say, John 6:39.

How does all of this look when related to our questions about friends who are straying? The perspective outlined here leads us to say that a person who seems to have turned away either never genuinely embraced the gospel or did so but is in a fleeting phase of rebellion and will come around. Either way, we do well to pray for them and encourage them to press on. Here I think the Calvinistic view is actually more hopeful than the Arminian, for the Arminian may need to say that the person was a genuine Christian and now has so hardened their heart that they cannot turn back to God (Heb. 6:4-6).

What do you make of it?

Listening Theology as Via Media (cont.)

2009-03-13T16:35:00.002-06:00

The last post unpacked how a listening theology avoids the blunders of modernism. But for thoughtful Christians postmodernism also has its problems. How might a listening theology address these?

The term postmodernism is used in several ways, but here I mean a cluster of philosophical emphases held together by a tendency toward conceptual relativism and linguistic constructivism. Conceptual relativists argue that, because we use our communally-devised conceptual resources to investigate reality, we are encased in them and do not have access to the world in itself but only the world as our concepts allow us to see it. Our knowledge is merely relative to our conceptualizations of things. This commitment may be wedded to linguistic constructivism, the belief that our linguistic constructs actually construct the world around us. This is to move away from metaphysical realism, belief in mind-independent reality. These emphases, though not adopted uncritically by them, have found a place in the works of Stanley Grenz and John Franke. Grenz and Franke have several beneficial things to say about the task of theology (e.g., it must be done in and for the body of Christ, it is not enshrined in any one systematic presentation and so must be ongoing), but I have concern about their openness to conceptual relativism and linguistic constructivism (even if they would prefer not to speak in those terms when describing their approach to theology).

A listening theology differs in a couple of ways. First, it affirms that we can in fact listen to reality and the canonical exposition of it without our use of concepts automatically distorting it as it comes before our minds. We can 1) have some pre-conceptual experience and knowledge (the epistemological distinction between belief de re and belief de dicto is helpful here) and/or 2) in virtue of the God-givenness of our noetic equipment faithfully conceptualize things as we experience them. With respect to (2), we of course have great intellectual limitations as finite creatures who have plunged into sin, but our Creator desires for us to obtain genuine knowledge of the way things are. In sum, we listen and reply to reality and what God has to say about it; we don’t necessarily do conceptual violence to it every time we seek to understand it.

Second, a listening theology rejects the idea that our conceptual-linguistic construals construct reality. (The exception would be the case of performative speech, speech by which we do bring into being certain states of affairs. A classic example is the case of a minister pronouncing a couple to be husband and wife. This state of affairs does not obtain before the minister says so.) A listening theology gives more weight to the fact that there is already an objective world created by God, a world which he describes in the canon of Scripture. We listen to God speaking and, in turn, do not presume that our theological statements in themselves actually create things. Rather, if they are faithful to God’s self-communication, they help us see who God is and what he is up to and help us properly to engage reality and join in the drama of redemption. This is less a matter of creating reality and more a matter of finding our place in it as creatures of the living God. Having said this, we should always remember that, while our use of language does not create the world around us, Christian leaders still have the joyful responsibility to describe and illumine the contours of reality such that the church is prodded to go out and serve others with the result that the world does look different for the glory of God.

Listening Theology as Via Media

2009-03-11T17:05:00.002-06:00

Karl Barth was relentless in insisting that theology consists in listening and replying to the Word of God. I think we do well to ponder the power of a listening sort of theology to forge a path through some of the problematic features of modernism and postmodernism. In this post, let us explore a listening theology vis-à-vis the former.

Many Enlightenment-driven thinkers have overemphasized the prowess and place of human rationality and this often goes in one or both of the following directions. First, only those truths accessible to all cognizant human beings (the so-called truths of reason) are deemed worthwhile. This amounts to a rejection of the “scandal of particularity” inherent in the Christian claim that God speaks and acts decisively in specific situations, most importantly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Second, if the particulars of God’s special self-presentation are in fact given consideration, they are subjected to judgment by the canons of secular reason, in which may be included, a priori, commitments such as belief in the sheer impossibility of something like the incarnation.

Now a word of affirmation followed by a word of criticism. As David Clark argues (see his To Know and Love God) there are such things as “worldview-transcending rational principles” which we find sweepingly assumed and embedded in the epistemic endeavors of human beings. These would include rudimentary laws of logic such as the law of (non)contradiction. Colin Gunton remarks (see his essay “Historical and Systematic Theology” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine) that the importance of rationality in this sense is quite mundane and uncontroversial. But problems come when we 1) think too highly of our rational powers and/or 2) incessantly pile up, a priori, guidelines to which all doxastic candidates must conform in order to be acceptable. Regarding (1), John Webster reminds us (see his book Holiness) that human rationality is itself caught up in the history of sin and redemption, meaning that we must avoid exalting it and make sure we intentionally consecrate the use of it to the God who sanctifies his people and is the object of our theological reflection. Regarding (2), Alister McGrath’s Scientific Theology project helps us by stressing the value of viewing theology as a primarily a posteriori discipline. I am inclined to cast my lot with McGrath and suggest that, rather than stringently limiting out of the gate what can and cannot be the case, we focus more on listening to reality. In particular, we do well to be open to the possibility of God speaking and acting on the stage of world history. And, in fact, such is the case! The triune God has come on the scene and communicated with humankind, necessitating that we do theology as listeners, a posture very different from that of those who are convinced that they are able to discern from the start the impossibility of a God who reveals himself to men and women in pursuit of their redemption.

Getting Started

2009-03-08T21:01:00.005-06:00

The Reformed scholastic theologians mapped out the discipline of theology in terms of theologia archetypa and theologia ectypa. The former pertains to theological knowledge only God can possess, the latter to a creaturely theological knowledge that we human knowers can gain as we attend to God’s self-revelation. Theologia ectypa is further unpacked by distinguishing between two subspecies: theologia viatorum (theology of travelers, of saints on the way) and theologia beatorum (theology of glorified saints). So theologia viatorum denotes the kind of theology that we do in the midst of our present limitations, but it is no less exciting for that! To borrow terminology from Kevin Vanhoozer (see his Drama of Doctrine), Christian doctrine is much needed for us to know how to participate fittingly in the drama of redemption. It serves to guide the church in putting on “local productions of the kingdom of God.” In light of the high importance of Christian theology, I look forward to doing a bit of theological blogging and (hopefully) conveying something of the life-giving character of thinking theologically.

Thanks to Bobby for creating a design and setting things up!