Tag Archive for 'evangelicalism'

Incorporation ‘in Christ’ and Justification

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 17 February 2009
in Bible, Reviews and Theology
. 1 Comment

I am currently reading Tom Wright's latest book, 'Justification: God's plan and Paul's vision'.  I am about a fifth of the way through, and so far it is typical Wright: engaging, well-written and thought-provoking.

The back cover quotes someone as saying that he 'out-Reforms' the popular 'neo-Reformed' writers in America.  Wright's starting position is that we should not privilege tradition over Scripture – even the Reformed tradition.  He critiques contemporary evangelicalism for failing to be critical enough of its own tradition in the light of Scripture.

One of the areas he highlights as particularly lacking, is that of 'incorporation'.  This is one of Paul's main themes (just count how many times he uses the phrase 'in Christ', let alone the number of times he relies on the concept) yet it is one of the least developed in contemporary evangelical theology (argues Wright).

I would agree with him whole-heartedly.  He says that incorporation (among others) is one of the main themes, of which the evangelical definition of justification is a part.  His book is therefore making explicit his position, attempting to look at what Paul actually said, rather than what the Reformed tradition says he said.

This is a bold move, but if there is anyone who can pull it off, it's Tom Wright.  Methodologically, he's spot on.  It has been one of my constant frustrations that there is an implicit 'correct' and 'sound' interpretation and understanding of the New Testament, far beyond the basic and fundamental non-negotiables of the Christian faith (e.g. Jesus' resurrection) – especially when this 'correct' interpretation (in my view) ignores the Old Testament, or treats it simply as the backdrop, rather than as the way of understanding what Paul is really talking about.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of Wright's book – and will no doubt post a full review when I'm done.

Resurrection Life

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 25 March 2008
in Church and Theology
. 0 Comments

On Sunday I preached on the final day of the college mission to Larkhall, Bath.  The text of the sermon can be found here.

Rather than preach directly from a passage, I preached on the meaning of Jesus' bodily resurrection, both for life in the future, and life here and now.

Since working at A Rocha two years ago, I have become more and more aware of how important it is that a) Jesus was incarnated, b) he spent three years preaching and healing the sick, c) he was raised bodily from the dead.

All these things amount to a wholehearted affirmation of God's good creation.  Many evangelicals seem to be drifting to an almost gnostic position, hugely prioritising the 'spiritual' over the 'physical'.

We must remember that when God's kingdom comes, we will not be living in a vacuum, floating on clouds in the sky, but on this earth, transformed.  Heaven comes down to earth, not the other way round.

A further thing I have often wondered is if we should translate 'spiritual' in the New Testament as 'Spiritual', i.e., of the Holy Spirit.  I'm sure someone has thought this before!

Evangelical humility

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 7 March 2008
in Bible, Quotations and Theology
. 0 Comments

Evangelicals need to approach their theological formulae with more humility than in the past.  It is the scriptural word that is infallible, not our ever imperfect attempts to restate it in appropriate contemporary ways.

Ronald J. Sider, 'Evangelism, salvation and social justice: definitions and interrelationships,' International Review of Mission 64 (1975): 267.

Open and liberal evangelism?

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 9 January 2008
in Church
. 6 Comments

You may have seen that my college, Wycliffe Hall, has been in the press again.  Yesterday the college authorities settled with Elaine Storkey, admitting that she had been unfairly dismissed.  Astonishingly however, that is not the end of the matter.

Storkey is now suing James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool and chair of Wycliffe's trustees, for religious discrimination!  I was quite astonished when I read this:

The case has now been adjourned until June, at which point the three
members of an employment tribunal will have to decide whether Storkey's
liberal feminist brand of evangelical Anglicanism constitutes a
religion, as compared with other evangelicals running Wycliffe Hall.

...

Following the resolution of the unfair dismissal claim, Charles Crow, representing Storkey, turned to the remaining matter.

"Within
Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative
evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism," he said.

"Those
are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of
one of those strands, she [Storkey] has been discriminated against."

Theologian to sue bishop in Oxford college row

First, I think it's amusing that Storkey's own lawyer doesn't understand the difference between 'evangelism' and 'evangelicalism'.  Given that, what understanding can he really have about the theological debate?  (Either he got it wrong, or he was misquoted by the Grauniad..)

Second, what does she think she's doing?  Does she really want to separate 'open' and 'conservative' evangelicalism legally?  Such a result could surely have no effect but to divide further the evangelicals in this country.

Third, my friend Custard asks if there really is such a thing as 'open' or 'liberal' evanglicalism.  Certainly 'liberal evanglical' is 'oxymoronic', given that evangelical theology is by nature conservative, and in part a reaction against liberal theology.  The question of an 'open' evangelical is perhaps not quite the same.  To be sure, some mean 'liberal' by it, but others mean 'not quite as hard-line as some of the conversatives I know, and not quite as whacky as some of the charismatics I know'.  This discussion is probably for another blog post.

Finally, I am pleased that the chairman of the tribunal has shown some common sense:

Arranging a preliminary tribunal hearing for June 10 this year,
Robin Lewis, chairman of the tribunal, highlighted the difficulties
inherent in a theological dispute being thrashed out in a secular forum
and urged the two parties to reach an agreement.

"One part of the tribunal's regulations was not to resolve theological disputes within certain colleges at Oxford.

"It was to protect people from discrimination.

"I very much hope that the remaining hearing that has been timetabled won't be necessary. I hope that it can be resolved.

"What
I would ask the parties is how useful an adjudication might be by the
three of us, sitting in this building, on theological matters?"

Theologian to sue bishop in Oxford college row

Hopefully Storkey can be convinced to drop the case, which is a mis-use of the employment tribunal, potentially very damaging to the church in the UK, and ridiculously unbiblical.

Gift(s) of the Spirit

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 30 December 2007
in *Starred, Bible and Church
. 0 Comments

This topic has been mulling over in my mind for a long time.  Since the 'rediscovery' of charismatic gifts and the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal church, I suppose it has been a hot topic for the church generally.

I am currently reading Knowing God by J.I. Packer, a chapter a night – a fantastic book, which I will review when I'm done – and last night I read chapter 12, 'The Love of God'.  Packer makes some excellent points which happen to coincide with my own feelings on this subject, so I will quote him, and then comment.

In Romans 5.5 Paul says, 'God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.'  Packer says:

Paul is not talking of faint and fitful impressions, but of deep and overwhelming ones.

...

Paul assumes that all his readers, like himself, will be living in the enjoyment of a strong and abiding sense of God's love for them.

Third, notice that the instilling of this knowledge is described as part of the regular ministry of the Spirit to those who receive him – to all , that is, who are born again, who are true believers.  One could wish that this aspect of his ministry was prized more highly than it is at the present time.  With a perversity as pathetic as it is impoverishing, we have become preoccupied today with the extraordinary, sporadic, non-universal ministries of the Spirit to the neglect of the ordinary, general ones.  Thus, we show a great deal more interest in the gifts of healing and tongues – gifts of which, as Paul pointed out, not all Christians are meant to partake anyway (1 Cor. 12:28-30) – than in the Spirit's ordinary work of giving peace, joy, hope, and love, through the shedding abroad in our hearts of knowledge of the love of God.  Yet the latter is much more important than the former.

...

It will be tragic if the concern for revival that is stirring at the present time in many places gets diverted into the cul-de-sac of a new Corinthianism.  The best thing that Paul could desire for the Ephesians in connection with the Spirit was that he might continue towards them the Romans 5:5 ministry with ever-increasing power, leading them deeper and deeper into knowledge of the love of God in Christ.

...

Revival means the work of God restoring to a moribund church, in a manner out of the ordinary, those standards of Christian life and experience which the New Testament sets forth as being entirely ordinary; and a right-minded concern for revival will express itself, not in a hankering after tongues (ultimately it is of no importance whether we speak in tongues or not), but rather a longing that the Spirit may shed God's love abroad in our hearts with greater power.  For it is with this (to which deep exercise of soul about sin is often preliminary) that personal revival begins, and by this that revival in the church, once begun, is sustained.

J.I. Packer, Knowing God, 133-134

I wholeheartedly agree with Packer.  The Spirit's work is so much more than we might sometimes be led to believe – he gives so many gifts to each and every Christian, not least the fact that they are believers!  Of course the 'sporadic gifts' are important – I have no doubt that God heals people today – but focussing too much on them leads us to forget the more important, universal gifts.

I want to sit down one day and read a proper and full exposition of the work of the Spirit – I believe Calvin in particular does this well.

Everything we do as a Christian is a gift of the Spirit!  We live entirely by grace, which God gives us in the power of the Spirit.  In talking so much about 'the gifts', in constantly asking the question 'what is my gift?', 'what is my ministry', we forget that all we have is a gift, and that we are given all we have in order that we might serve God and each other, and steward creation aright.  If we get this sorted in our Christian lives, then we will have the right perspective on the 'sporadic gifts' as well – they are not for ourselves, but to enable our service of others, to build up the church.

Given all this, I would argue that it is not just 'conservative' Christians who 'quench the Spirit' (1 Thessalonians 5.19) by refusing to allow space for his work publicly – 'charismatic' Christians do the same by focussing too much on the particular gifts the Spirit gives, and too little on the primary, universal gifts that he gives.  Both are important in the life of the church – but the universal gifts are much more so; the balance needs to be restored.

I think that the greatest miracle is not a dramatic healing but someone who dies in Christ.

Barth on Liturgy and the Apostolic Succession

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 2 November 2007
in Bible, Quotations and Theology
. 0 Comments

I'm currently reading a lot of Barth. Expect more quotations to come!

It is a strange thing that when there are revisions of books of order and hymn-books in the Evangelical churches every possible authority is usually consulted as standard but not dogmatic science. The results usually correspond.

Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1, 81

Perhaps we could add modern worship songs to the list; one of my constant frustrations in churches is the use of songs with poor – sometimes misleading – theology.

Here is a typically long sentence by Barth, but he makes (I think) an excellent point. I heard it made similarly a couple of days ago: the apostolic succession means those who succeed the previous generation in faith and doctrine, not physically by the laying-on of hands. This is similar to Paul's argument in Romans 4 about the descendents of Abraham being by faith, not flesh.

The protest of Protestantism in this question of [Apostolic] succession is directed solely and simply against the fact that the Tu es Petrus, etc., is mechanically transferred over Peter's head to every succeeding bishop as a second, third and hundredth Peter, as if the succession and tradition of the Peter of Mt. 16 to whom flesh and blood had not revealed such things, could be related to any succession but a spiritual one, or as if, being spiritual, it could be tied to the secular circumstance of a list of bishops of this kind.

Barth, Church Dogmatics I.1, 103

Although 'the Rock' is Peter himself, he is only called 'the Rock' after he makes a confession about who Jesus is. So, Peter is properly 'the Rock' on which the church will be built only as one who rightly confesses who Jesus is. Those who truly succeed Peter in the church are therefore those who rightly confess who Jesus is.

Of course, such people do include many (hopefully most!) bishops. But it is important to stress that those bishops only have ecclesiastical authority derived from Peter if they too make the confession: 'Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.'

Judgement and the Old Testament

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 18 October 2007
in Bible
. 1 Comment

One of the problems that some Christians have with the idea of penal substitution is the idea of God's judgement (I know because I've been there myself). This concept of a vengeful, wrathful God seems alien to some. And, after all, in the New Testament although God's judgement is regularly threatened, it only rarely gets carried out.

However, I do wonder if the remedy is a bit more of the Old Testament. Many (most) evangelicals today are closet Marcionites – that is, they don't really use the Old Testament properly, if at all. But judgement is a major theme of the Old Testament, especially in the prophets. I have just been reading the tail-end of Jeremiah, where there are a series of judgement prophecies against the nations surrounding Israel, for idolatrous behaviour.

It is against this backdrop of God punishing nations for their sin that God sent Jesus. Judgement is a real and dangerous threat to us because we really sin – so unless his righteous judgement can be carried out, God is not a righteous judge. The glorious thing is that in Jesus God demonstrates both his judgement and his love at the same time, punishing sin and offering new life all at once.

My point here is: God's judgement is real and needs to be carried out, which the Old Testament makes abundantly clear.