Reflections in Theology - Derek Ouellette

Mindless Scientist

2009-10-23T15:11:00.003-04:00

I recently read a quote by Stephen Barr in Jon Levenson's book "Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel". The quote addresses the inadequacy of a purely materialistic approach to science and the human body, particularily the human mind, and - frankly - it is somewhat jargon filled and slightly daunting to read, yet the last sentence in this brief paragraph nicely ties everything together, and I thought it was humourous and poignant enough to quote here.

The concept "neuron" itself, in fact, is on this account nothing other than a certian pattern of neurons firing in the brain. Is there not something here to makes us vaguely uneasy? Is not the snake of scientific theory eating its own tail - or rather its own head? Traditionally, we explained the physical world, including the brain, using concepts. Now we are to explain the concepts themselves as being mere physical events in brains. In fact, this whole theory according to which the mind and all conceptual understanding are nothing but electro-chemical discharges of nerve cells is itself, by its own account, nothing but a discharge of nerve cells. This makes it, as far as I can see, no more significant or interesting than a toothache. We should listen to great scientific minds because they are great scientific minds. However, when they begin to tell us that they really have no minds at all, we are entitled to ignore them. [p.13 - italics original, bold mine.]

In case you missed it, what's at stake here is the whole concept of "concepts" in the first place. "concepts" don't really exist because our brains are nothing more then inanimate matter. Yet the phrase "great scientific minds" is a "concept" that means that so-and-so is brilliant. But when the so-called "great scientific minds" tell us that concepts such as have a "great mind" don't really exist, well then what that amounts to is these "great scientific minds" telling us that they really have no minds at all.

Derek

Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology

2009-10-03T12:46:00.008-04:00

The following article was taken from http://www.revivaltheology.net/1_cal_arm/pilgrim.html and was originally published as an essay in the Grace of God and the WIll of Man (ed. Pinnock). This is a memoir of how Clark Pinnock journied from historic Calvinism to free-will theism.

From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology
by Clark H. Pinnock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A theological shift is underway among evangelicals as well as other Christians away from determinism as regards the rule and salvation of God and in the direction of an orientation more favorable to a dynamic personal relationship between God, the world, and God's human creatures. The trend began, I believe, because of a fresh and faithful reading of the Bible in dialogue with modern culture, which places emphasis on autonomy, temporality, and historical change. In this chapter I want to tell the story of my pilgrimage and struggle to understand these matters and thus perhaps to give voice to what I suspect is the experience of many others. The account may also serve as a case study about systematic thinking in theology, how it changes and works itself out in a person's life.

WHY A PILGRIMAGE?
The great majority of theologians change their minds quite often. We often refer to their early work and their later work, and sometimes also to the middle stages of their thought. Karl Barth, undoubtedly the greatest theologian of our century, illustrates this very well, and he was not ashamed of changing his mind. It is better to change one's mind than to continue on a wrong path. Of course there are some who do not follow this rule: they refuse to change. Theologians like Bultmann and Van Til, for example, seem to have thought they possessed all the "right" answers from graduate school on and never saw any reason to change them afterward, though many of their readers saw reason to change. But such theologians are the abnormal ones, and it is rather hard for ordinary mortals to identify with them. The reason for this is that in theology we are dealing with great mysteries and intellectually complex problems that can be excruciatingly difficult to sort out and to understand. So almost anyone who seriously tries to resolve them will experience struggles in doing so and changes in his or her understanding. Not only are individual topics like predestination and election remarkably challenging in themselves, but also the interconnections between such themes and other topics in the total grammar of the Christian faith are tricky to establish and maintain in a balanced way.

So I do not apologize for admitting to being on a pilgrimage in theology, as if it were in itself some kind of weakness of intelligence or character. Feeling our way toward the truth is the nature of theological work even with the help of Scripture, tradition, and the community. We are fallible and historically situated creatures, and our best thinking falls far short of the ideal of what our subject matter requires. A pilgrimage, therefore, far from being unusual or slightly dishonorable, is what we would expect theologians who are properly aware of their limitations to experience.
This is particularly true when it comes to our present set of topics: how God relates to his human creatures in history and in redemption. Here the human mind is stretched to its limits and beyond when it dares to inquire how divine sovereignty and human freedom relate to each other. One is almost certain to change one's mind several times over a lifetime on mysteries as deep as these. In speaking of Augustine and Arminius in the title of this chapter, I am using the names of two famous theologians to symbolize two profound ways of structuring the answer--Augustine placing the emphasis on the sovereignty of God and Arminius putting it on significant human freedom. My pilgrimage can be described as a journey from Augustine to Arminius. But I could as easily have spoken of Calvin and Wesley, or Luther and Erasmus. Let us be aware too as I relate the story that it is not a one-way street. Many others, such as R. C. Sproul, will be able to write about their odyssey in the opposite direction. Well-meaning, thoughtful Christians can and do differ in their judgments on these important matters. Therefore, we need to listen to one another, hold back the recriminations, and see what we can learn from one another.

THE CALVINISTIC HEGEMONY IN EVANGELICALISM
Brought up as I was in a liberal church and converted in my teens chiefly through the witness of my grandmother, I was introduced in a natural way during the 1950s to the institutions of what is inexactly called "evangelicalism" in North America, a quasi-denominational world furnished with its own publishers, magazines, conference centers, famous evangelists, youth organizations, and the like. Although there is a great and growing diversity theologically and otherwise in this coalition, the dominating theology is Reformed or Calvinian. Critics have not exaggerated much when they have wanted to call it "neo-Calvinism.

Certainly most of the authors I was introduced to in those early days as theologically "sound" were staunchly Calvinistic: John Murray, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Cornelius Van Til, Carl Henry, James Parker, Paul Jewett. Theirs were the books that were sold in the Inter-Varsity bookroom I frequented. They were the ones I was told to listen to; sound theology was what they would teach me. A simple fact, which I did not think much about at the time, was that Calvinian theology enjoyed an elitist position of dominance within postwar evangelicalism on both sides of the Atlantic. This was due in part to the fact that it was and is also a scholarly and historic system of evangelical theology. Therefore, it is no surprise that I began my theological life as a Calvinist who regarded alternate evangelical interpretations as suspect and at least mildly heretical. I accepted the view I was given that Calvinism was just scriptural evangelicalism in its purest expression, and I did not question it for a long time.

A HOLE IN THE DIKE
I held onto this view until about 1970, when one of the links in the chain of the tight Calvinian logic broke. It had to do with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, likely the weakest link in Calvinian logic, scripturally speaking. I was teaching at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School at the time and attending to the doctrine particularly in the book of Hebrews. If in fact believers enjoy the kind of absolute security Calvinism had taught me they do, I found I could not make very good sense of the vigorous exhortations to persevere (e.g., 3:12) or the awesome warnings not to fall away from Christ (e.g., 10:26), which the book addresses to Christians. It began to dawn on me that my security in God was linked to my faith-union with Christ and that God is teaching us here the extreme importance of maintaining and not forsaking this relationship. The exhortations and the warnings could only signify that continuing in the grace of God was something that depended at least in part on the human partner. And once I saw that, the logic of Calvinism was broken in principle, and it was only a matter of time before the larger implications of its breaking would dawn on me. The thread was pulled, and the garment must begin to unravel, as indeed it did.

What had dawned on me was what I had known experientially all along in my walk with the Lord, that there is a profound mutuality in our dealings with God. What happens between us is not simply the product of a set of divine decrees that, written on an everlasting and unchangeable scroll, determine all that takes place in the world. I began to doubt the existence of an all-determining fatalistic blueprint for history and to think of God's having made us significantly free creatures able to accept or reject his purposes for us (Luke 7:30). Even the good news of the grace of God will not benefit us, as Hebrews says, unless "mixed with faith in the hearers." (Heb. 4:2) For the first time I realized theologically that the dimension of reciprocity and conditionality had to be brought into the picture of God's relations with us in creation and redemption and that, once it is brought in, the theological landscape would have to change significantly. The determinist model cannot survive once a person starts down this road, as scripturally I came to see I must.

As a Calvinist of course I had professed to believe in a kind of human freedom, a compatibilist kind that claims that our actions can be both free and determined at the same time. Sometimes I would try to explain it, other times I would give up and call it an antinomy, but deep down I knew there was something amiss. I was faintly aware that an action forever predetermined to be what it will be, however necessitated, whether by external factors or internal motives, did not deserve to be called a "free" action. Now, given my new discovery, I was able to move away from that construction and see the biblical view of human freedom in a different way. God made us "responsible" beings able to respond freely to his word and call. Of the essence of this creature that bears God's own image, marking it off from all the others in this world, is this wonderful capacity to relate or decline to relate to God, to love or not to love him. It was now open to me to regard people not as the product of a timeless decree but as God's covenant partners and real players in the flow and the tapestry of history. I hardly need to add that my reaction to this discovery was one of considerable relief.

THE WIDENING IMPLICATIONS
Driven by Scripture itself as I reflected on it, and not out of rationalist motives as some might unkindly suggest, I found myself having to push ahead and do more rethinking in several other areas of doctrine adjacent to this one in the years that followed during the 1970s. Just as one cannot change the pitch of a single string on the violin without adjusting the others, so one cannot introduce a major new insight into a coherent system like Calvinian theology without having to reconsider many other issues. Let me explain five of the doctrinal moves that logic required and I believed Scripture permitted me to make during this period.

1. The first and the best discovery I made was that there was no "horrible decree" at all. Calvin had used this expression in connection with his belief that God in his sovereign good pleasure had predestined some people to be eternally lost for no fault of theirs (Institutes, 3.23). Calvin was compelled to say that because, if one thinks that God determines all that happens in the world (his Augustinian premise) and not all are to be saved in the end (as he believed the Bible taught), there was no way around it. Calvin's logic was impeccable as usual: God wills whatever happens, so if there are to be lost people, God must have willed it. It was as logically necessary as it was morally intolerable.

Of course I had always known how morally loathsome the doctrine of double predestination is and how contradictory it is to the universal biblical texts, but I had not known previously how to avoid it. But now with the insight of reciprocity in hand, which had just surfaced for me in rethinking the doctrine of perseverance, it became possible for me to accept the scriptural teaching of the universal salvific will of God and not feel duty-bound to deny it as before. I was now in a position to rejoice in the truth that God's will is for all to be saved (I Tim. 2:4), and that God's grace has appeared for the salvation of all people (Titus 2:11).

The dark shadow was lifting; the logic of Calvinism could no longer blind me to these lines of biblical teaching. All mankind has been included in the saving plan of God and in the redemption of Jesus Christ. By the obedience of the Son, there is acquittal and life for all people (Rom. 5:18). Thus the invitation can go out to all sinners, sincerely urging them to repent and believe the good news that offers salvation to everyone without hedging. The banquet of salvation has been set for all people. God has provided plenteous redemption in the work of Christ, sufficient for the salvation of the entire race of sinners. All that remains for any individual to benefit from what was accomplished for him is to respond to the good news and enter into the new relationship with God that has been opened up for all persons.

2. I was then driven back to the Scriptures to reconsider what divine election might mean, if in fact God desires all to be saved and cannot be thought of any longer as selecting some to be saved and placing the others under wrath and reprobation, as in high Calvinism. How shall I understand those texts that I had always assumed said and meant exactly that?

One possibility that presented itself was to think of election as being based on the foreknowledge of God (Rom. 8:29); I Peter 1:2). This was the standard Arminian position--one favored by early Greek fathers--and it would deviate least from the Calvinian idea of the selection of a certain number of specific individuals from before the creation of the world to be saved. It would simply introduce, on the basis of divine omniscience, the element of conditionality into the idea of divine election and thus appear to rescue it from arbitrariness. Although at this time I had not yet come to reconsider the nature of the divine omniscience presupposed in this account, even then I found myself attracted to a second possibility--that election is a corporate category and not oriented to the choice of individuals for salvation. I knew that everyone admitted this to be the case in the Old Testament where the election of Israel is one of a people to be God's servant in a special way. Was it possible that the New Testament texts too could be interpreted along these same lines? Upon reflection I decided that they could indeed be read corporately, election then speaking of a class of people rather than specific individuals. God has chosen a people for his Son, and we are joined and belong to the elect body by faith in Christ (Eph. 1:3-24).

Viewed in this way, election, far from arbitrarily excluding anybody, encompasses them all potentially. As a corporate symbol, election is no longer a dark mystery, but a joyous cause of praise and thanksgiving. Not only so but this model has the distinct advantage of construing election as a divine decision and not the pale notion of God's ratifying our choices as in the standard Arminian interpretation. If election is understood as a corporate category, then it would be God's unconditional decision and be potentially universal as regards all individuals. All are invited to become part of the elect people by personal faith. In addition the idea of corporate election would have had the further advantage of not requiring absolute divine omniscience, which became an issue for me later on.

3. Predestination proved to be less of a problem, surprisingly enough. Familiarity with the dynamic character of God's dealing with human beings according to the biblical narrative had prepared me to see predestination in terms of God's setting goals for people rather than forcing them to enact the preprogrammed decrees. God predestines us to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29). That is his plan for us, whether or not we choose to go down that path. God's plan for the world and for ourselves does not suppress but rather sustains and includes the spontaneity of significant human decisions. We are co-workers with God, participating with him in what shall be hereafter. The future is not stored up on heavenly video tape, but is the realm of possibilities, many of which have yet to be decided and actualized. Peter gives us a nice illustration of this when he explains the delay of Christ's return as being due to God's desire to see more sinners saved--God actually postponing the near return of Christ for their sakes (2 Peter 3:9).

Previously I had to swallow hard and accept the Calvinian antinomy that required me to believe both that God determines all things and that creaturely freedom is real. I made a valiant effort to believe this seeming contradiction on the strength of biblical infallibility, being assured that the Bible actually taught it. So I was relieved to discover that the Bible does not actually teach such an incoherence, and this particular paradox was a result of Calvinian logic, not scriptural dictates. Having created human beings with relative autonomy alongside himself, God voluntarily limits his power to enable them to exist and to share in the divine creativity. God invites humans to share in deciding what the future will be. God does not take it all onto his own shoulders. Does this compromise God's power? No, surely not, for to create such a world in fact requires a divine power of a kind higher than merely coercive.

When predestination is viewed in this light, there is immense relief also in the area of theodicy. The logic of consistent Calvinism makes God the author of evil and casts serious doubt on his goodness. One is compelled to think of God's planning such horrors as Auschwitz, even though none but the most rigorous Calvinians can bring themselves to admit it. But if predestination is thought of as an all-inclusive set of goals and not an all-determining plan, then the difficulty for theodicy is greatly eased. Later, I was to conclude that rethinking the divine omniscience would ease it still more.

Obviously what is happening here is a paradigm shift in my biblical hermeneutics. I am in the process of learning to read the Bible from a new point of view, one that I believe is more truly evangelical and less rationalistic. Looking at it from the vantage point of God's universal salvific will and of significant human freedom, I find that many new verses leap up from the page, while many old familiar ones take on new meaning. In the past I would slip into my reading of the Bible dark assumptions about the nature of God's decrees and intentions. What a relief to be done with them!

4. The depth of human sinfulness was another matter that demanded my attention. Calvinists, like Augustine himself, if the reader will excuse the anachronism, wanting to leave no room at all to permit any recognition of human freedom in the salvation event, so defined human depravity as total that it would be impossible to imagine any sinner calling upon God to save him. Thus they prevented anyone from thinking about salvation in the Arminian way. Leaving aside the fact that Augustinians themselves often and suspiciously qualify their notion of "total" depravity very considerably and invent the notion of common grace to tone it down, I knew I had to consider how to understand the free will of the sinner in relation to God.

Again, I had a choice of paths to follow. I knew that Wesley had opted for a doctrine of universal prevenient grace by which God enabled the spiritually dead sinner to respond to him in faith. The Fourth Gospel speaks of a universal drawing action of God (John 12:32). This move allowed him to retain his belief in total depravity and still avoid the Calvinistic consequences in terms of particularist election and limited grace. But I also knew that the Bible has no developed doctrine of universal prevenient grace, however convenient it would be for us if it did. Hence, I was drawn instead to question total depravity itself as a possible ambush designed to cut off non-Augustinians at the pass. Was there any evidence that Jesus, for example, regarded people as totally depraved? Does the Bible generally not leave us with the impression that one can progress in sin as in holiness, and that how total one's depravity is varies from person to person and is not a constant? Surely "total" depravity biblically would be the point beyond which it is not possible to go in realizing the full possibilities of sinfulness and not the actual condition of all sinners at the present time. In any case, what became decisive for me was the simple fact that Scripture appeals to people as those who are able and responsible to answer to God (however we explain it) and not as those incapable of doing so, as Calvinian logic would suggest. The gospel addresses them as free and responsible agents, and I must suppose it does so because that is what they are.

5. I also found I had to think about the atoning work of Christ. The easy part was accepting the obvious fact that contrary to Calvinian logic Jesus died for the sins of the whole world according to the New Testament. Exegesis stands strongly against the system on this point. I had no difficulty with the verses that asserted Christ's death on behalf of the whole race because they fitted so obviously into the doctrine of God's universal salvific will, which I had already come to accept. Even Calvin himself, if not all of his followers, was prepared to concede the universal extent of the atonement and view it as sufficient for the sins of the whole world.

The difficulty arose at the point of the theory that would explain this universal atonement for me. Assuming, as any evangelical would, that the Cross involved some kind of substitution in which Christ bore the guilt of human sin, where then does the human response fit into that? One might easily suppose that all those who were substituted for in the death of Christ would necessarily be saved and have the guilt of their sins automatically removed without any action of theirs entering into it. So if Christ really took away the guilt of the sins of the race, is the whole race then not now justified by virtue of that fact? Has not Christ actually achieved their salvation for them? And would this not lead inexorably either to universal salvation or to the doctrine of limited or particular atonement (neither of which are biblically supported)? What kind of substitution, if unlimited in scope, does not entail absolute universalism in salvation?
Obviously it required me to reduce the precision in which I understood the substitution to take place. Christ's death on behalf of the race evidently did not automatically secure for anyone an actual reconciled relationship with God, but made it possible for people to enter into such a relationship by faith. Gospel invitations in the New Testament alone make this clear. It caused me to look again first at the theory of Anselm and later of Hugo Grotius, both of whom encourage us to view the atonement as an act of judicial demonstration rather than a strict or quantitative substitution as such. Paul's word in Romans 3:25-26 then became more important for me where the apostle himself declares that the cross was a demonstration of the righteousness of God, proving God's holiness even in the merciful justification of sinners.

Later on I became impressed with Barth's version of substitution in terms of a great exchange in which the last Adam proved victorious over sin and Satan by standing in place of the whole human race, bearing the wrath of God against all our sin, and achieving the reconciliation of mankind objectively. My main hesitation lay in the need to place greater stress on the human appropriation of this saving act, because Barth leans too far in the objective direction and needs to be better balanced. Faith, after all, is the condition for the concrete realization of this salvation in anyone able to respond.

FREE-WILL THEISM
More recently the course of my theological pilgrimage has taken me onto the territory of Christian theism itself. Although I had already come to a fresh understanding of the goodness and power of God, I realized in the early 1980s that there were still more implications to be drawn in the area of the divine attributes. It is understandable that they would dawn on me last rather than first because God who is the mystery of human life is also theology's greatest and most demanding subject. But I could not finally escape rethinking the doctrine of God, however difficult.

The basic problem I had to cope with here is the fact that the classical model of Christian theism, shaped so decisively by Augustine under the influence of Greek philosophy, located the biblical picture of a dynamic personal God in the context of a way of thinking about God that placed high value on the Deity's being timeless, changeless, passionless, unmoved, and unmovable. The resulting synthesis more than subtly altered the biblical picture of God and tended to suppress some important aspects of it. In particular it resisted hearing the Bible's witness to a God who genuinely interacts with the world, responds passionately to what happens in it, and even changes his own plans to fit changing historical circumstances. Augustine's idea that God knows and determines all things in advance and never has to adjust his planning is one that stands in obvious tension with the Bible and yet is deeply fixed in historic Christian thinking. It is due to the accommodation made in classical theism to the Hellenistic culture.

Although the Bible itself presents a very dynamic picture of God and the world, the Greek world in which Christianity moved in the early centuries had a very negative view of historical change and the passage of time and therefore preferred to conceptualize the Deity in terms of pure actuality, changelessness, timelessness, and the like--ideas that negate the value of history and historical change. Curiously, in this respect at least, modern culture, which values history so much, is closer to the biblical view than classical theism.

I soon realized something would have to be done about the received doctrine of God. I knew I would have to deal with the fact that God has made creatures with relative autonomy alongside himself and that I would have to consider what that implies for the nature and attributes of God.
1. First of all I knew we had to clarify what we meant by the divine immutability. I saw that we have been far too influenced by Plato's idea that a perfect being would not change because, being perfect, it would not need to change--any change would be for the worse. The effect of this piece of Greek natural theology on Christian thinking had been to picture God as virtually incapable of responsiveness. Creatures can relate to God, all right, but God cannot really relate to them. Christian piety has always assumed a reciprocity between God and ourselves of course, but the official theology had tended to undercut the assumption by declaring God to be unconditioned in every aspect of his being.

The way forward, I found, was to speak of specific ways in which the God of the Bible is unchangeable, for example, in his being as God and in his character as personal agent--and also of ways in which God is able to change, as in his personal relationships with us and with the creation. It is not a question of God's changing in the sense of becoming better or worse, but of his pursuing covenant relationship and partnership with his people out of love for them flexibly and creatively. Immutable in his self-existence, the God of the Bible is relational and changeable in his interaction with his creatures. The Word "became" flesh--praise God for his changing unchangeability!

2. Although thinking of God as timeless has some apparently positive advantages, I came to believe that it also posed a threat to the basic biblical category of God's personal agency. How could a timeless being deliberate, remember, or anticipate? How could it plan an action and undertake it? How could it even respond to something that had happened? What kind of a person would a timeless being be? I had known of these philosophical objections to a timeless deity for some time but had not previously given much thought to possible biblical objections. What I came to realize at this stage was how strongly the Bible itself speaks of God as operating from within time and history. He is always presented in the Bible as One who can look back to the past, relate to the present as present, and make plans for what is yet to happen. The alleged timelessness of God does not make a lot of sense to this way of portraying the deity. Of course I do not think God is threatened by time. He is the everlasting God, and his years have no end. But the Bible presents him as operating from within time. God is able to be inside time, and not only outside of it. If he were not able to be within time, he would not be able to be with us on our journey or freely relate to what goes on or make plans and carry them out or experience the joy of victory or the anguish of defeat, as Scripture says God does. Everything would be completely fixed and settled, and novelty would be mere appearance and unreal.

3. Finally I had to rethink the divine omniscience and reluctantly ask whether we ought to think of it as an exhaustive foreknowledge of everything that will ever happen, as even most Arminians do. I found I could not shake off the intuition that such a total omniscience would necessarily mean that everything we will ever choose in the future will have been already spelled out in the divine knowledge register, and consequently the belief that we have truly significant choices to make would seem to be mistaken. I knew the Calvinist argument that exhaustive foreknowledge was tantamount to predestination because it implies the fixity of all things from "eternity past," and I could not shake off its logical force. I feared that, if we view God as timeless and omniscient, we will land back in the camp of theological determinism where these notions naturally belong. It makes no sense to espouse conditionality and then threaten it by other assumptions that we make.

Therefore, I had to ask myself if it was biblically possible to hold that God knows everything that can be known, but that free choices would not be something that can be known even by God because they are not yet settled in reality. Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential--yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom. Can this conjecture be scriptural?

When I went to the Scriptures with this question in mind, I found more support than I had expected. Evidently the logic of Calvinism had worked effectively to silence some of the biblical data even for me. I began to notice how the prophets in the Old Testament would present God as considering the future as something he did not already know fully. God is presented as saying, "Perhaps they will understand," or "Perhaps they will repent," making it sound as if God is not altogether sure about the future and what he may have to do when it reveals itself (Jer. 3:7; Ezek. 12:3). I also detected a strong conditional element in God's speech; for example, "If you change your ways, I will let you dwell in this place, but if not..." (Jer. 7:5-7). These are future possibilities that are seen to hang upon the people's amendment of their ways, and what God will do (and therefore knows) depends on these outcomes. God too faces possibilities in the future, and not only certainties. God too moves into a future not wholly known because not yet fixed. At times God even asks himself questions like "What shall I do with you?" (Hosea 6:4).

Most Bible readers simply pass over this evidence and do not take it seriously. They assume the traditional notion of exhaustive omniscience supported more by the old logic than by the biblical text. Of course the Bible praises God for his detailed knowledge of what will happen and what he himself will do. But it does not teach limitless foreknowledge, because the future will include as-yet-undecided human choices and as-yet-unselected divine responses to them. The God of the Bible displays an openness to the future that the traditional view of omniscience simply cannot accommodate.

Thus it has become increasingly clear to me that we need a "free will" theism, a doctrine of God that treads the middle path between classical theism, which exaggerates God's transcendence of the world, and process theism, which presses for radical immanence.

THE LARGER MOVEMENT
Relating my pilgrimage would not be of much importance if it did not represent the experience of other evangelicals also, but I think it does. It is my strong impression, confirmed to me even by those not pleased by it, that Augustinian thinking is losing its hold on present-day Christians. All the evangelists seem to herald the universal salvific will of God without hedging. The believing masses appear to take for granted a belief in human free will. It is hard to find a Calvinist theologian willing to defend Reformed theology, including the views of both Calvin and Luther, in all its rigorous particulars now that Gordon Clark is no longer with us and John Gerstner is retired. Few have the stomach to tolerate Calvinian theology in its logical purity. The laity seem to gravitate happily to Arminians like C. S. Lewis for their intellectual understanding. So I do not think I stand alone. The drift away from theological determinism is definitely on.

At the same time, however, the Calvinists continue to be major players in the evangelical coalition, even though their dominance has lessened. They pretty well control the teaching of theology in the large evangelical seminaries; they own and operate the largest book-publishing houses; and in large part they manage the inerrancy movement. This means they are strong where it counts--in the area of intellectual leadership and property. Thus one comes to expect evangelical systematic theology to be Reformed as it usually is. The key theological articles in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984) are Calvinian, for example. Although there are many Arminian thinkers in apologetics, missiology, and the practice of ministry, there are only a few evangelical theologians ready to go to bat for non-Augustinian opinions. The Reformed impulse continues to carry great weight in the leadership of the evangelical denominations, though less than it did in the 50s.

Therefore, it was in part a sense of frustration that prompted me initially to edit Grace Unlimited in 1975 and the present volume now. I wanted to do something, however modest, to give a louder voice to the silent majority of Arminian evangelicals, to help them understand the theological route they are traveling, and to encourage others to speak up theologically.

WHY IS IT HAPPENING?
Every generation reads the Bible in dialogue with its own vision and cultural presuppositions and has to come to terms with the world view of its day. Augustine did this when he sought to interpret the biblical symbols in terms of the Hellenistic culture and became the first predestinarian in Christian theology. The church fathers before him had denied fatalism, but Augustine out of his experience and intellect devised the system I have been struggling with. Today, like Augustine, we are reading the Bible afresh but in the twentieth-century context and finding new insights we had not noticed before. Just as Augustine came to terms with ancient Greek thinking, so we are making peace with the culture of modernity. Influenced by modern culture, we are experiencing reality as something dynamic and historical and are consequently seeing things in the Bible we never saw before. The time is past when we can be naive realists in hermeneutics; who we are influences what we see. It is no different now than it was before in this respect. And the rich diversity of biblical doctrine means that changes in orientation are always going to be possible, enabling us to communicate in fresh tones to our contemporary hearers.

I do not think we should feel we have lost something of absolute value when we find ourselves at variance with some of the old so-called orthodox interpretations. There is no need to ruminate darkly about the cause of Arminian thinking being satanic malice or the natural darkness of the human mind. Rather, it is a day of great opportunity for the gospel to be heard in exciting new ways and to become effective as never before. Of course there will be some nostalgia when we leave behind the logically and beautifully tight system of determinist theology. But that will be more than matched and made up for by a sense of liberation from its darker side, which (to be honest) makes hell as much the divine purpose as heaven and the fall into sin as much God's work as salvation is. It is in fact an opportunity to be faithful to the Bible in new ways and to state the truth of the Christian message creatively for the modern generation.

One thing I am asking people to give up is the myth that evangelicals often hold--that there is such a thing as an orthodox systematic theology, equated with what Calvin, for example, taught and which is said to be in full agreement with the Bible. As if theology itself were an immutable system of concepts not relative at all to the historical context in which they are conceived and framed! Granted, the idea holds great appeal for us, not because it is our experience, but because it delivers such a delicious sense of security and gives us such a great platform from which to assail those dreadful liberals who are such historicists. By this means we can try to insulate ourselves from the dizziness one feels when too many concepts are being questioned and called in for review and revision. I guess it is time for evangelicals to grow up and recognize that evangelical theology is not an uncontested body of timeless truth. There are various accounts of it. Augustine got some things right, but not everything. How many evangelicals follow him on the matter of the infallible church or the miraculous sacraments? Like it or not, we are embarked on a pilgrimage in theology and cannot determine exactly where will it lead and how it will end.
I have no remedy for those who wish to walk by sight because they find the way of faith too unnerving, or for those who wish to freeze theological development at some arbitrary point in past history. I have no comfort for those who, afraid of missing eternal truth, choose to identify it with some previous theological work and try to impose it unchanged on the present generation or desire to speak out of the past and not to come into contact with the modern situation. I have no answer for those who are frightened to think God may have more light to break forth from his holy Word.

But there is true comfort in the gospel and in the promise of our Lord to preserve his church through time and give to her the Spirit of truth to guide her in the midst of her struggles. Jesus assured us that the Paraclete would be with us forever and would be guiding us into all the truth. God's people will persist in the truth in spite of all our errors. If an Augustine had the courage to deal with the culture of his day and come up with some dazzling new insights, then we can do the same in our own setting. Just repeating what he said isn't good enough anymore. We have better news to tell than his rendition of the Christian message.

Witness of Jesus, Paul and John

2009-10-01T18:47:00.004-04:00

I'm going to be honest with you as I have endeavered to be all along; I mostly blog for me, not for you. What I mean is that, with all the books I read and the passion I have to learn and seek after truth I was in desperate need for an outlet, and so began to blog. My hope of couse has always been that others will read my musings - however unorthodox and emotionally charged they may seem at times - and be encouraged to reflect in their own theology. That being said, this post (and others like it) will no doubt bore most people as I am simply blogging my way through a text book on theology called The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John by Larry Heyler. In doing so as a personal exercise I hope to retain some of what I read and maybe share some fascinating and/or interesting tid-bits of information by way of gleaning Heyler's book. I can no means mention every fascination I would like, so what I do bring up is simply those random "cuts" (or quotes) that interest me.

Introductory Remarks

Over the past two years or so I have been on an adventure of exploring theology without a "tour guide" as such. I have, for example, discovered Christus Victor or Open Theism or Covenantal Theology by reading authors who have written on the subject, by reading others who have written against them and – through rigorous biblical searching – have formulated certain positions of my own. For example, I am not quite ready to accept Open Theism hook line and sinker, yet I feel the force of its arguments and have not been persuaded in the least by those who have pulled out all the stops to write against it. I have fully excepted Christus Victor as the overarching scheme of the atonement, but I have not set it about as a dichotomy over against Penal Substitution as some have (Boyd); the issue isn’t either or/but both/and; with emphasis on Christus Victor. And I have fully embraced Covenantal Theology against my own dispensational heritage.

Today I do have a guide. His name is Larry Helyer. He was written a book which is designed essentially to be an Introductory Text Book on Biblical Theology for undergrad or seminary students. You could say that in exploration of theology I have jumped the gun and have had to do a lot of reverse engineering to understand terms and such. I have finished part one of Helyer’s text and find myself well aware of much of what he says and teaches, I am also leaning much and I have decided to post certain things from his book which call for special attention.

Why the BIG Picture:

In chapter one, what is biblical theology, Helyer makes a few comments which drive home well much of what I have tried to argue in my own head in recent months: the importance of not detaching individual “systems” from the overarching scheme of the Bible. He says,

Cut 1: “A merely ad hoc reading of Scripture – searching Scripture with a particular issue in mind while failing to grasp the overarching themes and ideas – obscures the essential message of the Bible. To put it another way, one loses the forest in all the trees.” [p.21]

I have tried to argue this very point in my recent discussion with Calvinism; that it is my view Calvinism is supremely guilty of this very thing – though I understand Calvinist’ like MacArthur would disagree. Yet for him, the only way for a Calvinist to read the Bible is as a Dispensationalist! I know more than a few Calvinist’ who would love to take MacArthur to task. Helyer goes on:

Cut 2: “I also deem inadequate the venerable dogmatic approach. This approach dominated during the medieval era and is characterized by the search for proof text (dicta probantia). That is, the Bible is ransacked for texts that can reasonably (and sometimes not so reasonably) support teaching (dogma) already held to be biblical by the church [or a particular group in the church]… In our own era so much more has been learned about the world in which the Scriptures were originally written that was unavailable to the church fathers and scholars of previous times. This new information throws welcome light on both familiar and obscure passages. These insights are available through the grammatical-historical method.” [p.32]

In this cut there are two elements we need to understand: 1) proof-texting is not an adequate approach to good biblical theology and 2) because we know more now and have greater resources then our predecessors we can understand better than previous generations “both familiar and obscure passages”. This means we should not venerate any previous generation or tradition and be open for our traditions to be changed in light of further biblical study utilizing the resources we have today. As he again says; cut 3: “I must have the courage of my convictions when it comes to interpreting the details of the Bible’s theology, even if that means going against my received theological tradition” [p.38, italics added]. On that note, Helyer is also wise to put forth this advice: “A completely novel interpretation or doctrine calls for caution” [p.24] – agreed.

Here’s a cut that I appreciate very much and wish all church leaders would take to heart; cut 4: “A special burden of mine is that pastors will incorporate biblical theology into their preaching and pastoral duties.” – I feel Helyer’s heart on this one. And on that note, what is biblical theology?

Cut 5: “Traditionally, theology has been divided into four major areas: exegetical theology, historical theology, practical theology and systematic theology… The culmination of exegetical theology is biblical theology.” [p.22-23]

I found this discussion to be very helpful as over the years I have been confused as to the difference between these types of theology. 1) Biblical theology summarizes the teaching of the Bible, 2) Historical theology looks at the development of doctrines and creeds throughout the history of the church, 3) Practical theology seeks to apply the truths of Christianity to everyday life, mission and maintenance of the Church, and 4) Systematic theology “has the enormous task of articulating the truths of Christianity both for the church and over against the competing worldviews and non-Christian theologies of the contemporary world. Therefore, it is both didactic (intended to teach and instruct) and apologetic (giving defense and proof)”. [p.24]

The difference between Systematic theology and biblical theology is thus: Biblical theology serves as a bridge between both systematic theology and practical theology. Good preaching should reflect the fruit of biblical theology. Helyer quotes Krister Stendahl to the effect of: “our only concern [in biblical theology] is to find out what these words meant when uttered or written by the prophet, the priest, the evangelist, or the apostle, and regardless of their meaning in later stages of religious history, our own included” [p.26]. This articulation of biblical theology lies close to my own developing theology over the past several months and is even evident in the debates between N.T. Wright who argues correctly that we must understand the use of the word when it was first used (in agreement with Krister Stendahl, Larry Helyer and D.A. Carson) verses John Piper who (perhaps in hindsight, embarrassingly so) said what really matters is not what a word meant when it was written, but the word itself (essentially tossing out good biblical theology).

The Problem of the Unity of the Bible

The second chapter of Helyer’s text focuses on the church’s historic struggle on how best to articulate the unity between the Two Testaments. There are only a few cuts that are interesting enough to draw attention to (given the space).

Under the heading “The Allegorical Method” which arose quickly within early gentile Christianity and has survived in some form to this very day, Larry Helyer takes a step back to build a context not recalled enough within Christian dialogue. The context of the Hellenistic world. I must insist that the reader keep in mind that no theology or system – not even the scriptures themselves – grew up in a bubble.

During the age of Classical Greece the philosophers philosophized by way of reasoning that there must be one deity, and that this god must be distant and impassible among other attributes. Soon this belief in one supreme impassible being became accepted among the elite of Hellenistic society but not among the common populous who continued to embrace a pantheon of gods who’s attributes are decidedly antithetical to the “god” of Plato. So how did the philosophers reconcile the two opposing belief systems so that they both may be accepted by all?

Cut 5: “Basically, the canon of Homer was read employing a two-level hermeneutic. On the surface of the text lay the literal meaning. At this level, which surely was the intention of the original writer(s), we move in the world of Greek mythology… On the other hand, so the argument went, a deeper level of meaning existed just below the surface of the text. The literal meaning contained a sort of code that, when translated, yielded a meaning in consonance with the thought of the Greek philosophers. One might cynically characterize such an approach as “having your cake and eating it too””. [p.52]

Helyer comments further down the page regarding the famous Jew, Philo, living at the same time of Jesus and Paul; “Phil drank deeply from the wells of Greek philosophy and sought to reconcile it with his revered tradition of Judaism rooted in the Hebrew Bible”. In other words, the philosophers believed in what the ancient authors wrote about the gods, but they also believed that below those words was a secret meaning about the “true” nature of god, a nature that can only be known by way of philosophy. Many Jews in the Hellenistic world embraced the philosophy of the neo-Platonism and (frankly) a great deal of the early church Father’s were neo-Platonist’s! They accepted the philosophy of the god of the Philosophers but, much in the way Paul did on Mars Hill, they proclaimed this god to be the God of the Christian and Jewish scriptures.

As good as this sounds the early Father soon ran into the same dilemma of the Classical Philosophers: how do we reconcile our philosophical idea of a distant and impassible God with what the ancient Hebrews actually wrote about Him? Their answer was much the same: while believing in what the ancient Hebrew writers wrote, beneath those words lie the secret meaning about the “true” nature of God. And it is exactly here – where my own theology has been bursting with excitement – that Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann writes, “Much classical Christian theology (of a scholastic bent or of a popular understanding of classical theology), “God” can be understood in quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition in a more scholastic category is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought and affirms… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [An Unsettling God, p.1]. And in the call to throw off the restraints of nearly 2000 years of philosophical ideas imbedded deep within the Christian psyche Brueggemann writes, “such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all”. (I know I have run amuck on a tangent here, but only because this recognition is crucially important to understanding the scriptures! For anyone interested in learning more about how neo-Platonic thought has shaped Christianity I suggest as a primer, Why You Think the Way You Do by Glenn S. Sunshine.)

Dispensationalism at its most curious!

The historic beginnings of Dispensationalism is most certainly with John Nelson Darby in the nineteenth century. Yet despite this most obvious fact dispensationalist often try and claim historic roots by mudding the waters between Dispensation Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism. But in Helyer’s book I have been informed of a most ambitious attempt by a dispensationalist – and mentor to Charles Ryrie – to claim the roots of this system to be none other than God himself back in the six days of creation! Who can argue with that? I add this because I think it is a funny trivia of knowledge! He writes:

Cut 6: “Arnold Ehlert and Charles Ryrie both argue that one finds dispensational elements long before the Brethren and Darby. Ryrie claims that pre-millennialism was the faith of the apostolic and postapostolic church, since he virtually equates premillennialism with Dispensationalism. Ehlert attempts an even more ambitious enterprise. He traces the roots of Dispensationalism back to Jewish Cabalists who inferred from the creation narrative of Genesis 1 that human history would last six thousand years because the letter aleph is found six times in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 and aleph = 1,000 in the Hebrew language. Coupled with this is Psalm 90:4: “For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like the watch in the night.” Since the Sabbath follows the six creative days, the Sabbath in similar fashion represents a millennial era of rest and peace…. He cites D.T. Taylor, who sets out evidence that such a theory of earth history goes back to the Chaldeans, Zoroastrians, Tuscans, Egyptians, and Etruscans”. [Ever see Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson? Good movie.]

So if the Zoroastrians, the Tuscans and the Etruscans were dispensationals like Tim Lahey, Hal Lindsay, and Mark Hitchcock, well then it certainly must be true. ;-p

And now you know.

Derek

Time To Unlearn A Few Things

2009-09-19T21:57:00.004-04:00

I suggest that if we put the question of Calvinism and Arminianism aside for a time and study God as he has revealed himself in the scriptures we will not discover Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover as Calvinism has always espoused; in fact we may not even discover God as the Arminian understands him. It may be, after seeking to discover the God of the scriptures on their own terms, that we may discover the God of Open Theism quite by accident! Not of Calvin’s Unmoved Mover, but of Pinnock’s Most Moved Mover. We will, in all probability, discover as John Sanders said, a God Who Risks. This – I believe – is the truth we all must wrestle with whether or not we embrace Open Theism.

Walter Brueggemann, one of the foremost Old Testament scholars, seems quite disinterested in questions of determinism and foreknowledge – except when specific texts’ call attention to such speculation – and in the debates between Calvinism and Arminianism (and Open Theism). But in his studies of the God of the Old Testament, the “Hebrew testimony” and portrayal of YWHW, he writes: “the defining category for faith in the Old Testament is dialogue, whereby all parties – including God – are changed in a dialogic exchange that is potentially transformative for all parties… including God.” And again, “The Old Testament is an invitation to reimagine our life and our faith as an on-going dialogic transaction in which all parties are variously summoned to risk and change.” He goes on:

“When we are freed of static categories of interpretation that are widely utilized among us, we are able to see that the articulation of God in the Old Testament partakes exactly of the quality of complexity, dynamism, and fluidity that belong to the post-modern world… such an open and thick articulation of faith may be threatening to some and may require unlearning by us all”. An Unsettling God; 2009, p.xii; italics added.

What a powerful statement from a man who is not interested in sustaining “static categories of interpretation” such as Calvinism or Arminianism; neither, it is prudent to add, is he interested in Open Theism. When Brueggemann approaches the scriptures he does not ask, is the God of Calvin here or the God of Arminius or the God of Pinnock? When Brueggemann approaches the Old Testament he asks the question to the ancient Hebrews, “Who do you say that He is?” Sometimes we see the categories of Calvin and sometimes we see the categories of Arminius, this is partly what makes God “unsettling”, because YWHW cannot be made to easily fit into our “static categories of interpretation” – He is too big, and we are too fallible. Yet it is a fearful road Brueggemann offers, it is a road of discomfort; because in asking the Hebrews and not the Greeks “Who is YWHW?” he finds himself immediately at odds with classical Christian theology. “In… much classical Christian theology, ‘God’ can be understood in terms of quite settled categories that are, for the most part, inimical to the biblical tradition. The casting of the classical tradition… is primarily informed by the Unmoved Mover of Hellenistic thought… a Being completely apart from and unaffected by the reality of the world” [p.1]

We have come to a point – or perhaps we have always been there – where the God revealed by the Hebrew testimony is rather embarrassing to our sensibilities. The Hebrews speak of a God affected by the passing of time; a God emotionally invested in his creation and sometimes those emotions are even mixed. They speak of a God whose mind is not settled and what’s worse, they don’t seem to mind this God at all! This God repents, He laughs, He tests, He changes His mind and what’s more, He allows his creation to move Him to action and at other times, they have the power to stay His wrathful hand. “It is common to be embarrassed about the anthropomorphic aspects of this God, so embarrassed as to want to explain away such a characterization or at least to transpose it into a form that better serves a generic notion of God…. All such embarrassments, however, fail to do justice to the scriptural tradition.” [p.2]

Again, Walter Brueggemann has called us out on the carpet; all of us! Classical Christianity cannot escape the ugly reality that we have since near the beginning been embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of God and so silenced it. It does not jive well with our sensibilities, our Hellenistic sensibilities. But who is the guilty one; are they or are we? It is not they who are being unfaithful to the scriptures; indeed they wrote them! And instead of being embarrassed of the Hebrew testimony of YWHW we ought to be embarrassed of our selves. It will no longer do, in my mind, to dismiss the challenge of the Old Testament as embarrassing “anthropomorphic” ramblings of ancient people. Christianity needs – to some extent – to put Classical Christian Theology on trial and the judge ought not to be Aristotle, but Abraham. Classical Christian Theology is in need of purification, and its filter ought to be the scriptures.

In Christ,
Derek

Unsettling Theology

2009-09-18T17:51:00.004-04:00

The idea first came in to my mind to write a blog series called, "Why I Am.." when I saw a similar list of "Why I Am's..." on the cover of a popular author's book. This approach to blogging has proved to be unfruitful and unproductive. While labels are unavoidable and not always a bad thing, to write a series like this suggests that a) I am settled in my theology, b) that I am dogmatic in my positions, and it immediately sets up barriers between myself and others who - quite naturally - have differing views. None of this was my intention and in hindsight I would have never begun this series. I am not dogmatic toward "labels" or "traditions" as some, and so I abandon this series on "Why I Am..." with a few prepositions of "I believe" with the hopes of undoing some of what has resulted from that series.

I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and have allowed that fact to change me; if that makes me a "Christian" then so be it. I shy not away from that label.

I believe that our ultimate authority on all matters pertaining to the faith is God and that he has revealed Himself and his will in and through Jesus Christ and through the writings of his Apostles and Prophets by the Holy Spirit; if that makes me "Protestant Reformed Evangelical" then so be it.

I believe that my commitment to God's authority exercised through the scriptures to be over and above all traditions necessitates - in my opinion - remaining in an attitude of "Reformed and Always Reforming"; if this places me under the label of "Post-Conservative", then so be it.

I believe in the biblical doctrines of Election, Predestination and Foreordination to be understood in the Hebrew context of Covenant and Incorporation and - as it is revealed in the New Testament - to be Christocentric; I believe Romans 9-11 is to be understood properly only with the context of Romans 1-8 in which the Righteousness of God - his faithfulness to his covenant with Israel - is on trial, and that predestination in that context is in keeping with the Hebrew idea of Covenantal Election; if that makes me "Arminian", then so be it.

I believe that the Hebrew idea of "Time" is linear and unending, that the idea of "timelessness" is a neo-Platonic pollution into historic Christianity and that "eternity" should be understood and defined as, "time-unending" not "timelessness"; furthermore I believe that God is passionate, near, able to be influenced by his children to either be moved to action or else to stay his wrathful hand as the scriptures attest; that the ideas of God being an "Unmoved Mover", Impassionate, Distant and Immutable are all neo-Platonic ideas that have polluted classical Christian theology and are inimical to the testimony of scripture; if all of this presents me with "Open Theistic" tendencies, then so be it.

I believe that Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, that in this return both righeous and wicked will experience a resurrection and that afterwards God will destroy (but not destroy) the earth and re-create it amalgamating Heaven and Earth where the righteous will reign with him forever in time unending eternity; if this makes me "Amillennial", then so be it.

I believe that in the fall three evils were created; 1) the devil is now the ruler of the air during this present evil age and his Kingdom is dominant in this world presently; 2) mankind have been separated from God by sin and an exilic curse and 3) as a result of this the world is prone to destruction and death is the result of all things cursed! Yet I believe that God set into motion a plan to defeat all three (not just sin) of these enemies. In the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we have the defeat of the Devil, Sin and Death; this is the biblical doctrine of Christus Victor! That Christ did not just die to "cover our sins", rather he also defeated the powers and effects of Sin and those elements that keep us separated from God. It isn't just "you are forgiven" (Penal Substitution), it is also, "now go and sin no more"; if this places my over-arching view of the Atonement under the umbrella of "Christus Victor", then so be it.

And finally, I believe that "a mere ad hoc reading of the scripture - searching Scripture with a particular issue in mind while failing to grasp the overarching themes and ideas - obscures the essential message of the Bible" and results in a misunderstanding of those particular issues. It is with this "overarching theme" in mind that the above beliefs have been formed, and it is because of this overarching theme that I have rejected the dichotomies of those beliefs. This overarching theme is called "Creation and Covenant"; and if this makes me a "Covenantal Theologian" today then so be it.

Everything that I have just covered presents in a nutshell where I presently am in my theological pilgrimage with or without labels; labels do not define me they only serve to help in giving definations and "shorthand" to my ever fluid and unsettled and ever grow understanding of God and his Word. May I - and may you - forever grow and remain unsettled in our theology as we follow the lead of an Unsettling God. And with that, let me make a suggestion by way of a book I recently read. If what follows sounds detached from what I have written so far or somewhat redundant it is because I originally planned on presenting it as an introduction to a post on Open Theism; I have mildly edited it. I should note that the blog on Open Theism was one of the few blogs I was actually looking forward to writing; alas it will have to wait for some future unknown date ;-)

The next post is called, "Time to Unlearn A Few Things"

Derek

Why I Am Amillennial: Part 2 (The one to read)

2009-09-10T00:33:00.004-04:00

“Jesus is coming back! On this issue Evangelicals are united.” You can find this quote on the back of the late Stanley Grenz’s book, The Millennial Maze: Sorting out Evangelical Options. It is my opinion that differing historic “End Times” systems should be an issue of no-division. The early Church seemed completely comfortable with allowing each other to hold differing views of eschatology, specifically Amillennialism (hereafter: “Amill”) and Premillennialism (hereafter: “Premill”) – Postmillennialism (hereafter: “Postmill”) came about at a later time.

Search as you will in all of the historic creeds of Christendom and you will not find (at least not before Augustine) a single creed to narrow down Christian belief to a particular End Times system. You will not find – for example – in the Apostles Creed a statement to the effect of, “We believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ on the earth” or any variation thereof. For this reason I don’t believe we should allow our differing views – amill-premill-postmill – to divide our churches; we should not – in my opinion – have these views as a part of our denominational statements of faith. Each Christian should be allowed freedom to wrestle through these issues without having to conform to one view over the other at the compulsion of a denomination. Preach what we know for sure – Christ is Coming Back! – and leave the ambiguous details to God.

A History of the End of the World

Well actually this is a misnomer. I do not believe the world is going to end per se, neither has the Church throughout it’s’ history, and neither – I might add – does the scriptures. If by “end” we mean in the sense that the world “ended” once before by being destroyed or cleansed by water in the Flood and then recreated (Genesis 6-9) then I would agree, the earth will be destroyed and purified as in the days of Noah, only this time by fire and then it will be recreated (2 Peter 3). But if by “end” we mean that the space-time continuum will cease along with all physical matter and that we will spend eternity floating about in heaven, well that is not biblical. As Ben Witherington said, “It is never adequate theology to say ‘this world is not my home, I’m just passing through’ as if heaven were all that really mattered” (Imminent Domain p.53), because when heaven and earth become one (Revelation 21-22) then we shall forever be with the Lord… on this little round ball we call “earth”. But I’m getting off course; allow me to give a brief overview of the history of eschatology in the Church.

Amill is essentially (though sometimes debatably) the earliest and longest held view of End Times in the history of the Church. All of the Apostolic Fathers (first generation removed from the Apostles) were Amill save one – Papias. That is, Clement of Rome (after Paul), Polycarp (John’s disciple. Yup, that John), Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Didache were all Amill. Papias, whose writings we no longer have, was decidedly Premill – taking Revelation 20 literally (Premill here – and throughout this post – is to be understood as Historic Premillennialism, which is vastly different from the Dispensational Premillennialism which was invented around the year 1830). During the period of the Apostolic Fathers and Augustine individuals in the Church variously held one view or the other without contention. It was not until Augustine – who was decidedly Amill and wrote against Premill – that the Premill position was (in my opinion wrongly) declared heresy. For the next thousand years the Church universally held – more or less – to Amillennialism (as the Catholic Church remains today, though they probably wouldn’t call it that).

The Reformers where predominately Amill; though it was during this period that Postmill begins to enter the picture. Postmillennialism began to build major steam during the Enlightenment (naturally) and became the predominate view of End Times until their hopes seemed shattered with the onset of WWI. All of a sudden people began to see the world as getting worse (Amill and Premill) and not better (Postmill). Premill began to make a comeback – sort of, but not really. Actually, just before WWI broke out C.I. Scofield published his wildly popular Dispensational Premillennial Study Bible which would (unfortunately) become the number one selling bible in North America. With the sales of this bible, of Hal Lindsays Late Great Planet Earth, two World Wars, several block buster movies, bestselling novels, video games, TV evangelists’ shows, and the re-establishment of a nation called Israel among other factors; all of these worked together to fester a Dispensational “Premillennial” understanding of End Times in the twentieth century. Yet in the past twenty five years there have been some more popular attempts by writers of all Historic End Times perspectives to try and curve the Dispensational monopoly of our Americanized Evangelical cultural understanding of End Times. One just has to site books like End Times Fiction (by Postmill, Gary Demar), End Times Delusions (by Steve Wohlberg), A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An alternative for “Left Behind” Escahtology (edited by Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung) and A Case for Amillennialism (by Kim Riddlebarger).

But who’s going to read these books? What exciting story to they have to offer? We are saturated in entertaining action packed thriller style End Times scenarios which excite our senses. It has not (and will not) be easy to dethrone Left Behind eschatology, not even with the scriptures in hand. But that is not to say it will be impossible, in fact if any of the historic systems are making a comeback today, I believe it is some variation of Amillennialism. We began this Church Age with this view, perhaps the Church Age will end with this view as well.

Why I Am Amillennial

What are our options? Postmillennialism has many similarities with Amillennialism, the big one being a symbolic interpretation of Revelation 20. Both these positions understand the 1000 years of Revelation 20 to represent symbolically the age of the Church in which Christ is seated on his throne at the right hand of the Father, while the Devil is bound in some way. What distinguishes the Postmill from the Amill is the nature of the millennium. For Postmill, the millennium is the Age in which the Gospel will spread successfully until the entire world – all nations – is converted. Four out of every five people worldwide will be committed Christians by the Return of Christ.

Postmill prides itself on having a “positive” approach to eschatology. They refer to themselves as the only tradition that can rightfully be called an “Eschatology of Hope”; that “hope” being that the Gospel will be effective worldwide, that the Great Commission will in fact succeed. I have two primary difficulties with this position: a) all traditions, even Postmill’s, acknowledge the fact that before the Return of Christ there will be a “Great Falling Away”. So no matter how “positive” Postmill’s believe their position to be, they must deal with this very negative reality. And b) history itself has (so far) attested against this interpretation. This is not to say the Postmill is wrong by default of not yet succeeding, it only adds doubt to this positions future. It could be that sometime in the future there will be a Holy Ghost fired up revival that engulfs the world thus proving the Postmill position to be right. Yet after reading several books by Postmills, I have not yet been convinced.

I could also add that Postmills have no right to claim a monopoly on the phase “Eschatology of Hope”. The Christians’ “hope” is not found in the success of the Gospel worldwide (though of course all Christians ‘hope’ for this among many other ‘hopes’ he have); in the context of eschatology, that is, in the context of the Return of Christ and the consummation of all things, the Christian Hope is found, not in a converted world, but in “the glorious appearing” of our Lord Jesus Christ according to Titus 2:13. This, according to Paul, is where all Christians should place their eschatology of Hope, and indeed we all do.

Like Amillennialism, Premillennialism recognizes that things are not going to get better, but that things will grow worse and worse culminating with the Return of Christ. The big difference between Amill and Premill, again is not that there is no millennium, but rather what is the nature of the millennium? As stated, Amill believe that the millennium is a symbolic period ranging from Christ’ first coming to his second; Premill on the other hand, while interpreting the bulk of Revelation much the same as Amill’s, read Revelation 20 literally. After Christ returns there will be a literal 1000 years in which Christ will rule on the earth with Satan bound. At the end of the 1000 year period the devil will be released, a rebellion will ensue and be crushed by Christ who then destroys the world and culminates all things.

I have several problems with this interpretation: a) the book of Revelation is the most symbolic book in the entire Bible. Why, out of every symbol in Revelation, is chapter 20 alone taken literally? This to me seems to be an inconsistent interpretative method; furthermore, b) if it is true – and it surely is – that Revelation more than any other book in the bible is dependent upon “the analogy of faith” (let scripture interpret scripture), then we have a problem with any interpretation of Revelation 20 that takes this passage literally: no other place in the scriptures is a literal millennial reign of Christ mentioned! There is also the problem of the Resurrection; c) other clear portions of the scriptures teach that we await one single resurrection of both the righteous to everlasting life, and the unrighteous to everlasting damnation, yet this passage in Revelation 20 seems to represent two (or more) resurrections; how is this reconciled with other portions of scripture (1 Cor. 15 et cetera)? The Amill’s answer is that there are in fact two resurrections, the first being Jesus’ own, and those who are “in Him” are also seated in heavenly places and “reigning” with him throughout this Church Age (as Paul says). We have also been given the Holy Spirit (who raised Christ from the dead) as a guarantee that we too will rise. This is the second resurrection.

So what does Amillennialism teach? I’ll allow another to define Amillennialism for me:

“When the trumpet sounds, things will take place simultaneously. Our Lord will begin his descent to the earth, the brightness of this event will put down Satan, and all the graves will be opened…. All the saints together will go out to meet the Lord and to escort him to the earth…. The unsaved… will be forced to bow the knee and acknowledge that this is of a certainty the Christ…. They will see the suffering Servant of the cross reigning now as Judge of the quick and the dead, and they will seek a place of hiding but will find none.” William E. Cox, (quoted in Grenz’s book p.152)

Of the three positions crudely surveyed here I find the Amill position to have incorporated the best of both. Furthermore, because this subject is so difficult to interpret I find the simplicity of the Amill position attractive, as Grenz says, “of the major eschatological chronologies, theirs [Amillennialists] is the simplest” [p.152]. To be sure this is not a simpleton understanding of things, but it is an honest one. I said earlier that I believe Christians should preach what we know – that Christ is Coming Back! – and leave the ambiguous details to God. But when you do this you may discover that you have become an Amillennialist by quite the accident. And when you factor in the archaic roots of this position it is difficult to not give the Amillennial tradition at least the consideration and respect it deserves even if, at the end of the day, it is to be rejected. But in the meantime, I find the Amillennial understanding of God’s word to be as consistent with them as Covenant Theology itself.

And that is why I am Amillennial today.

Derek

P.S. I welcome your questions.

Why I Am Amillennial: Part 1

2009-09-07T23:27:00.004-04:00

The last post and the current one are inseparably connected, this is because Dispensationalism was rooted in a particular End Times theory that, in effect, created in itself a novel way to read the bible as a whole. I tried to explain – no matter how unsuccessfully – why I rejected the Dispensational approach to the scriptures and this has resulted in a necessary shift of “End Times” views. In fact, my rejection of Dispensationalism was not simply because the scriptures as a whole failed to make any coherent sense – though that is half the reason; I reject this view also because its’ approach to End Times itself was quite unsatisfactory. Even if Dispensationalism did make some attempt to answer the Big Questions of the last post, it is certainly crushed to powder – in my mind – under the weight of the innumerable “small questions” and interpretative acrobatics which is used to try and answer them. In effect, Dispensational End Times – for me – died the death of a thousand unanswered questions and questionable interpretations.

The first Christian movie I saw after becoming a Christian was a film put out in the ‘70’s called A Thief in the Night, a precursor to the modern Left Behind films. (I find it laughable today that in the film an elderly couple who received the “mark of the beast” was walking around with barcodes tattooed on their foreheads – but I’ll get to that ridiculous notion and its’ contemporary counterparts in a moment.) The movie essentially put the fear of hell in me. I determined in my eleven year old head that I was going to begin digging a giant pit in my backyard, cement the walls and ceiling, cover it with mud and begin stocking up on can goods! I was prepared for the “Great Tribulation”. But then I discovered in Church (thanks to a graphic bed sheet strung up across the platform) that I hadn’t understood the movie correctly. If we are Christians we won’t go through the Great Tribulation because we will all disappear to heaven before it starts. The people in the film who went through the Tribulation were people who knew better and became a Christian after the Rapture… people like my cousin who is now a practicing Homosexual with his “lover”, he used to be a Christian, and so he assured my mom that after he sees her “disappear”, he’ll know that the rapture has occurred and that it will be time to repent (according to Calvinist’ like Charles Stanley, my cousin won’t even need to repent: go ahead Troy, be ‘gay’, and not just in the ‘happy’ sense, because you know, ‘once saved always saved’ - but that's another post).

My mind travelled back and forth over the years between whether Christians will have to go through the Tribulation or not (pre- or post-tribulation). Ultimately I accepted the Pre-Tribulation theory albeit uncomfortably so. For that reason I want to (tongue-in-cheek) define this particular belief system by quoting Jason Boyett in his hysterical book, Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse:

Because the Tribulation will be no fun at all, what with all the destruction and pain, believers catch major air before it all goes down. Which sounds great, but Jesus doesn’t really seem to have gotten the memo about this plan when he details the end of the world in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). Because he makes it pretty clear in this passage that the Rapture follows the Tribulation. Uh-oh. So pretribs ignore Jesus here and suggest that he’ll actually return twice. Once before the Tribulation, to “secretly” take us all to heaven via the Rapture. Then he jets back to his Father’s house to hang out for, oh, seven years or so. When things cool back down at the end of the Tribulation, he returns to earth again—this time in a highly visible, physical sense—to usher in his millennial reign. Nice. (p.115)

I realize that this is a crude articulation of Left Behind theology, but it essentially hit the big points that distinguish it from the other views – the secret Rapture and the Great Tribulation. There is also a mid-tribulation theory, and a theory that suggests that there will be many raptures throughout and a post-tribulation theory. All of these theories have one thing in common: A Seven Year Tribulation! But… what if I told you that biblically speaking, this concept does not exist in the bible! We have so taken it for granted that it is high time we return to the subject: where does the bible speak of a “Seven Year Great Tribulation”. Saying, ‘well there it is in Revelation’ or ‘there it is in Daniel’ is not good enough. Simply put: neither Daniel nor Revelation teach a Seven Year Tribulation. And as far as a “Great Tribulation” goes, the phrase is only used in Matthew – once – and even their there are two factors to consider: 1. the context is clear, explicit and specific: the generation of the disciples, “that generation” will be the ones to go through this tough period, not some future unknown generation! And 2. why is it that no one ever takes into consideration the great conditionality of “IF”? The passage doesn’t even give us a guarantee! It says that IF a specific event happens in winter, and IF someone is pregnant or nursing during this specific event, THEN it will be a Great Tribulation and presumably only for the pregnant or nursig mother or those who endure the winter (unless seven years are to pass without any summer, spring or fall)!

I do not want to get tangled up in explaining all the nonsensical things which Left Behind asserts. I want to move on quickly into why I am Amillennial. But here are a few food for thoughts I want to leave you with before I continue this post in the next blog: Revelation more than any other book in the Bible is dependent upon the rest of the scriptures for interpretation.

Left Behindists always assert that there will be a physical mark of the beast on the right hand, without which no one can buy groceries. In the seventies the mark of the beast was envisioned as a bar code, in the nineties it was envisioned as a computer chip, and in the new millennium it is often seen as a retinol scan (but most often still the computer chip). But the text is clear; the mark will be on the right hand AND THE FOREHEAD. Who on earth would get a tattoo of a bar code or a computer chip on their forehead. Can you imagine grocery shopping and having to run you forehead along the scanner – absurd. In the book of Joshua the Israelites were commanded to bind God’s word to their right and their forehead, indicating that they were to think (head) and do (right hand) what God’s Word said. By Jesus’ day the religious leaders took this spiritual command and made it so literal that they put little pieces of scripture in phylacteries (boxes) and tied them to their heads. Dispensationalists have the same interpretive mind set, resulting in the same error of missing the point of the scriptures!

Could the mark of the beast be indicating those who think (head) and do (right hand) what the beast wants? Wouldn’t this indicate that those who do the things of the Lamb have also a “mark” from God, marking them out as belonging to God? Hadn’t Jesus told the Pharisees that if they were Abraham’s children they would do (right hand) as Abraham did, but in fact they were doing as their father the devil (marked out by their actions). Didn’t God give Cain a “mark” which protected him from others in the world? But it is always God’s children – Abel – who are not accepted and thus persecuted (to buy or sell symbolizes acceptance in a society). As Jesus said, the world loves their own but they hate those who belong to God.

The Left Behind literal interpretational technical has another more serious consequence I just want to momentarily mention: if in the 70’s the mark of the beast was ‘bar codes’, if in the 90’s it was computer chips, and if in the new millennium it is retinol scanners; that is, if interpretation of biblical text is dependent upon forever changing current events then on what grounds does the bible retain any meaning? God’s eternal Word is drained of its substance.

Another ‘obvious’ issue I had as a young Christian – and it always blew my mind that nobody addressed this most obvious ‘hiccup’ of a literal and sequential interpretation of Revelation – involves the “last trumpet”. I was taught to read Revelation in chronological order. Paul teaches that the Resurrection and the “rapture” both occur “at the last trumpet” (1 Cor. 15). The phrase “last trumpet” presupposes that there a series of trumpets, because how else could there be a “last” one unless there were some before it. In Revelation there just happens to be such a sequence of trumpets, but the “last trumpet” occurs not in chapter 17, 18 or 19, but rather back in chapter 11. And with this “last trumpet” the scriptures proclaim: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ and he will reign forever and ever.” And yes that is back in chapter 11.

These represent just two of the countless hiccup’s which I, a late teen early twenty something, easily observed without having to be taught otherwise. If Left Behind theology didn’t tell such a great story it probably wouldn’t be around today accept as a fringe system where it belongs, and as it is it has no respect in the academic halls of credible biblical institutes.

It was out of necessity that I had to deal, albeit shallowly, with a dispensational approach to End Times. Most folk (i.e. the common folk who only read fiction, watch movies and read current event prophecy books) and who listen to pastors – who themselves simply know no better thanks to their traditio – speak as though Left Behind theology is simply the end times theology of the bible and of Christian history. A pastor once sat down with a friend of mine after overhearing that he thought my friend was teaching a mid-trib rapture theory. The pastor tried to correct my friend by tell him that their denomination is pre-trib, not mid-trib. My friend – well versed in the denomination's statement of faith – informed the pastor that their denomination only says that they must be Pre-Millennial, it says nothing about pre-mid-or-post- tribulation. The conversation ended abruptly, evidently because the pastor had no idea what my friend was talking about.

So then, with the Left Behindism behind us, what options remain for the Evangelical Christian?

To be continued…
Derek

Why I Am Covenantal

2009-09-01T13:09:00.003-04:00

I am Covenantal by quite the accident. My journey from Dispensational to Covenantal theology is a testimony to the positive effects of Post-Conservativism at its’ finest! Becoming a covenantal theologian has proved to be the greatest, most fruitful, and insightful change from one doctrinal (traditional) position to another which I have ever experienced.

I say that I became a covenantal theologian by accident because I did not seek out to become covenantal, I did not read books by covenantists, I didn’t even know covenantal theology existed; all I did – being the post-conservative that I am – is ask question and read my bible. I understand that things are not quite that simple, nonetheless this is how it all began; and the results have had a positive domino effect!

I was raised in dispensational theology. To me (and I suspect to most dispensationalists in the pews) dispensationalism was simply what the bible taught and what all Christians everywhere and always believed. Dispensationalism is, at risk of oversimplification, “Left Behind” theology. I’ll use these terms interchangeably because like myself, many people probably have never heard the word “dispensationalism”, so if I say Left Behind theology it’ll keep everyone on the same playing field. When I say Left Behind theology I mean books by guys like Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsay, Mark Hichock, David Jeremiah, Grant Jeffrey, John Walvoord, and Joel Rosenburg just to name a few. In other words, Dispensational Theology, Left Behind Theology, is rooted in a particular understanding of “End Times”.

Here is the key which this post hangs: in order for Left Behind guys to come up with this understanding of the End Times they had to invent a new way to read the bible. This new way they invented around the year 1830 is called Dispensationalism. The key which dispensationalist hinges on is the persistent and stubborn insistence to maintain a clear and sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. There are TWO peoples of God and Two plans of God. This interpretive lens gets even sharper: When the Messiah first came he attempted to establish the Kingdom of Heaven by sitting on the Jewish throne as David’s heir as the Jews expected. The Messiah was going to destroy the enemies of Israel and establish peace on earth. However, Israel rejected the Messiah as their King and instead crucified him. As a result, God postponed his plans with Israel and turned his attention to the Gentiles, i.e. the Church. But this “dispensation” called the “church age” (an inconvenient side effect of Israel’s rejection of the Messiah) will end with God taking his church out of the way by means of a Secret rapture and will then turn his attention back to Israel.

In other words, redemptive history for the dispensationalist looks something like this: God elected Abraham and his descendents to be his special people. He gave them the law which included the sacrificial system to atone for sins. The children of Israel rebelled and ended up in Exile, but God delivered them from exile, sent them the Messiah to be their King (… Church age… oops) to defeat the nations of the world and to rule on David’s through forever. This is the part of Left Behind theology that has avoided the popular eye. The church which in parenthesis (…) is the dispensational understanding of the New Testament, Christ’s work on the cross, the Resurrection, and you and I; all of this is the great “oops” of God’s redemptive history.

So I read and I reread and I wrestled and I studied and I asked questions and then I read again and again and again and finally in frustration I asked the question: where the heck is all of this stuff! Where is the great divide between Jews and Gentiles? Paul said God is no respecter of persons and that there is neither Jew nor Gentile for all are one in Christ! I am compelled to ask the question: what if the Jews had not rejected Christ as their King? The cross – God’s answer to the problem of the fall – would have never occurred, neither would the resurrection and humanity would be lost in their trespasses and sins without hope, how could the cross be the “oops” if it was the plan all along? How were the Jews “saved” by the law with its sacrificial system if the scriptures are very explicit that animal sacrifices could never take away sins? How were the Old Testament saints saved? Why would God arbitrarily choose Israel for salvation leaving the rest for damnation? What relevance does the Old Testament have to the Church today aside of moral teachings and the such?

These were huge questions for me. This entire approach to the scriptures leaves them wholly disfigured. Nothing makes any sense. This invention of the dispensationalists to make up this new way to interpret the bible (which was not new to me at all) in an effort to support a particular End Times theory leaves the bible on the cutting room floor, loose leaves all over the place. Everything is arbitrary, inconsistent, and full of discontinuity.

I began to blame myself. I suspect that a part of the reason why I am writing this blog is because there are those out there (probably lots of you) who are in a similar situation, and also blaming themselves. If the bible doesn’t make any sense it is because we are too stupid to grasp it. We must hang on to a hand full of “key” passages as a hope that we are on the right track; these hand full of passages having been given us by the “professionals”, i.e. the great grandparents passed them down the line until you one day heard them in Sunday School. We love to read the Rosenberg’s, the Laheys, the Lindsay’s, and we know they can’t be wrong because just look at current events. Just look at how this event or that event matches up with this or that verse in the bible. How could they be wrong? So if the rest of the bible doesn’t make sense, if we are too stupid to grasp it then that’s okay. Just leave it to the professionals, hang on to your handful of favorite passages and shut up and sit down.

But have you ever considered that you are not as stupid as this doctrinal approach to the bible makes you feel! Give yourself some credit, give the Holy Spirit some credit, and the give the bible some credit for heaven’s sake! To be sure there are very many difficult things in the bible, and for these we rely on the professionals to help us return to the Bible times. But there is also a "natural reading" of the bible which testifies against the Dispensational approach. That is why whenever someone comes in to buy their first bible I always recommend that they first get a plain text bible without study notes, and I encourage them to read it through from front to back first before they allow someone to stick ideas in their head. What I am convinced will happen is that later when someone tries to fill their head with a dispensational worldview bells and whistles will go off because the dispensational approach goes against (not with) the flow of the scripture and redemptive history.

As I read the bible, my "Left Behind" theology seemed to make God arbitrary. Yet I refused to believe that God is arbitrary so the pad answers to my questions never satisfied and I knew there had to be another way – the post-conservative that I am. While taking a Pentateuch class in Bible College I made the mistake of mentioning the “Old Testament Saints” and referred to them as the “ekklesia” – i.e. the Old Testament church. I got chastised by my teacher, was sternly told that they were “under the law” and at the top of the page on our final exam was written in big bold type: You are in no way to relate Israel to the Church or use words like “Grace” (or something like this). Later that year a fellow student approached me in a different class and she asked me a question that I had spent many a year’s asking; she asked, “Derek, how were the Old Testament people saved?” (This was before class started and only we and the teacher were in the room), I tried to whisper so as not to cause contention with the teacher, “Well, this school teaches that they were saved through the law and sacrificial system. I believe that they were saved by grace through faith”. Despite my silence, the teacher, Mrs. Holmes, over heard. She came and said in a sweet old tone: “By law? Balderdash! No one gonna tell me there was no grace in the Old Testament!” I wanted to grab this saint, give her a bear hug and swinger her through the air in delight; it was the most encouraging thing I heard all year. When she passed away that summer, to my still pain, the school lost one of its most keen and fair minded teachers.

I was primed and ready to understand the bible differently, but how? Was there another way? As a matter of fact there was and all that would be required was for someone to point the way. There is where O Palmer Roberstson's book, Christ of the Covenants comes in, and later (and more enlightening) was N.T. Wrights book, “Climax of the Covenant”!

When God called Abraham he did so with the intention of redeeming all peoples – indeed all of creation. God’s call to Abraham was to set into motion a plan that would undo the effects of the fall. God’s covenant with Abraham was both unconditional (Gen. 15: God placed his own life on the line) and conditional (Gen. 17). The situation was not that all ethnic Israelites would be saved no matter what; rather only those circumcised (which we later discover was supposed to be an outward expression of a circumcised heart as Exodus tells us) were a part of God’s covenant with Abraham, and this included “strangers and aliens”, i.e. those who are not descended from Abraham physically could still partake. “Israel” was more of a concept, a changed name, than a physical entity. The nation was to embody the concept, it is not a mistake that Israel means “Prince with God”; if you remember, Adam was created as a co-regent with God, a ruler of this world under God. Israel’s call was to embody Adam’s original call: those who were circumcised in the heart were a part of God’s covenant with Abraham and therefore the answer to the problem of the fall. It was no mistake then that God gave Israel a “promised land" which was a land bridge between the three major continents of the world at that time: Egypt, Asia, and Mesopotamia. Israel was to be a light to the world and the “concept of Israel” was to spread to all nations. Of course this did not happen because of one crucial set back: Israel was still “in Adam”, that is, they could not be the answer to the problem because they themselves were still a part of the problem. They were wholly disobedient to God and as a result found themselves in Exile; this mirrored Adam’s disobedience to God and his own Exile from the Garden of Eden, an Exile which humanity has forever since been in. Israel’s Exile only proved that they were a part of the problem.

But what about Genesis 15 and God’s unconditional promise to Abraham in which God staked his own life on the line? He would need a “true Israelite”, a representative of Israel someone who would succeed in perfect obedience to the point even of death, the death of a cross (Phil. 2). And through this perfect Israelite, obviously Christ, a new creation would be born – an undoing of the effects of the fall. This was the first Resurrection; Christ’s own resurrection. Now if we are “in Christ” (that is, in Israel) by the faith of Abraham than we are in the Covenant of God and a part of the family of God. And this is why Paul could write that we the church are the “Israel of God” (Gal. 5).

The scriptures for the first time make the greatest of sense. God is not longer arbitrary, he is a purpose driven God. The scriptures are no longer disjointed, they are holistic. And that is why I am a Covenantal Theologian today.

Derek

(P.S. I have developed different aspects of this blog elsewhere: click here)

Was Saint Augustine Post-Conservative?

2009-08-27T17:30:00.003-04:00

There is a well known phrase which is often attributed to Saint Augustine, it says: In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.
Whether or not the great saint was post-conservative in all matters and whether or not he even was the one who first said this, the bottom line is that this quote captures the heart of post-conservativism!

In The Essentials!

In the essentials of the faith (that is, when the very gospel is at stake, when the fundamentals of the Apostles Creed is considered when reviewing the ‘basics’ list of Hebrews 6:1-3 – the very essence of what makes Christianity what it is; i.e. the essentials) let us have absolute unity! If someone declares Jesus not to be God we need to stand up and call a spade what it is. If someone denies that Christ came in the flesh let us stand up as one! These are examples of the unity of the faith in all matters pertaining to the essentials.

In The Non-Essentials!

What are the non-essentials of Christianity? Is God presently in the future yes or no? That is a non-essential question. Which is closer to the truth Calvinism or Arminianism? That is a non-essential question. Post- Pre- or Amillennialism? That is a non-essential question. Dispensational or Covenantal? That is a non-essential question. Contemporary or Hymnal worship in churches? That is a non-essential question. Is the Kingdom of God present or is it future? That is a non-essential question. Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation or symbolic? That is a non-essential question. Tongues as evidence of Spirit Baptism or not? That is a non-essential question. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I realize that these areas are considered essential by those who hold to them but the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the fundaments of the faith do not hang on the outcome of any one of these questions. That is not to say that these questions are not important ones, they are! It is to say though that because they are important Christians should be allowed to debate them, wrestle with them, work them through, attempt to find common ground and if necessary, agree to disagree. This is the heart of Post-Conservativism.

In All Things Charity!

And this is where the rubber meets the road. There is where seasoned, tempered and mature spirituality shines! Are we to condemn people and their theological musings because they don’t jive with our traditions (whether they be Dispensational or Covenantal)? Are we to call people heretics and declare that they have stepped ‘out of bounds’ because the idea seems novel to us (Free will theists or omni-determinists)?

When the essentials are not at stake (and I cannot see which of the essentials are at stake, for example, in Open Theism – though I am not an Open Theist), how we respond to a brother or sister in the Lord whose theological musings are different from our traditions will often be the mark of our spiritual maturity.

The post-conservative pleads with his brothers and sisters in Christ with this prayer: In the essentials unity; in the non-essentials liberty; and in all things charity.

Derek

I have written this blog as a compliment to the last, to clarify certain points. Some people are fearful that a post-conservative approach to Christianity and to the scriptures places the very gospel at stake; that it may very well disappear. To react with fear is to miss the mark altogether! Post-conservativism is rooted in the Reformers principle of Sola Scriptura and is wholly committed to the fundaments of the faith. The gospel is not at stake with a post-conservative worldview and neither is the Tradition of the Fundamentals. Only our tradition are and if this scares us then that fear is a check.

Why I Am Post-Conservative

2009-08-25T16:19:00.003-04:00

When I first began to write this post I fully expected it to be no more than two short paragraphs long and even considered simply adding it as an addendum to my last blog, Why I Am Evangelical. However, as I reflected on what I would say, it soon became obvious how important this worldview – that of being ‘post-conservative’ – is to me. Important enough to set forth a pleaded articulation of what it is that makes one ‘post-conservative’. It became my goal – and my hope – that the reader will get a “sense” of what I am talking about, because being post-conservative is difficult to define and perhaps to many it may sound like little more than exercise in semantics. I hope to show this not to be the case.

Let me begin with what my wife refers to as a “lovely metaphor”.

Have you ever been constipated? It is a horrible and painful ordeal. It is the sensation and awareness that something’s gotta give, you just have to get something out but for reasons you can’t explain there seems to be something else in the way. You become overwhelmed with frustration, you grab your stomach and buckle over in pain and you pray for relief so that what needs to come out can finally flow freely as nature intended. This, brothers and sisters, is analogous to my experience as a ‘theological conservative’. I was more or less raised up with the worldview that says, ‘don’t question this so far’ or ‘don’t think too much about that’ because if you do you are sure to wind up as a ‘liberal’. When that happens we’ll have no choice but to call you a heretic.

Don’t believe me? Consider this experience. I was a first year bible college student with many questions on my mind, and not many answers. A class discussion on original sin taught that the sin of Adam was a physical genetic disease that was physically passed down from one generation to another. However, since Jesus was perfect and born of a woman we must conclude that the “sin gene” was transmitted through the male chromosomes. Since Jesus had no earthly father we can conclude – so the theory goes – that this is true. Well I was no brilliant mind, but on all accounts this talk sounded pretty silly (as it still does). Not knowing any better I raised my hand and offered an alternative: the bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin. Could this passage not suggest that Jesus, who was perfect from birth to death, had a sin nature yet overcame it perfectly by not sinning? Wouldn’t this add substance to Jesus’ being tempted as we are?

No sooner did I present my theory – I winged it off the top of my head and was not presenting what I “believed”, but was trying to understand this situation better, certainly better then the hogwash presented by the teacher – when murmurs of heresy began to circulate throughout the class. Later that evening I called a respected pastor who took the time to guide me and explain to me some things. While my class was quick to judge me a heretic, my friend recognized that I was an inquisitive Christian who needed direction. There is a difference.

It was not outright said: ‘Don’t think’, but it was more or less implied: ‘Don’t think outside of your tradition, don’t question what we’ve always believed’. But here is a problem I developed by way of observation: Catholics: people who are born and raised in this tradition or first get converted to it remain there and believe it to always teach the truth. Baptists: people who are born and raised in this tradition or first get converted to it remain there and believe it to always teach the truth. Pentecostals: people who are born and raised in this tradition or first get converted to it remain there and believe it to always teach the truth. Lutherans: people who … Anglicans: people who… et cetera. In other words, people tend to believe that their tradition is the right one by default of being their tradition. Even many who are in search for “Truth” often fail to consider the possibility that maybe they don’t have it.

Yet I had the fortunate misfortune in my youth of coming across a quote by the ancient Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, who said: “if our faith is such that it is destroyed by force of argument, then let it be destroyed, for it would have been proven that we do not possess the truth”. I thought ‘this is a man who is more committed to finding ‘truth’ then firmly (stubbornly) establishing his ‘tradition’’. Then – foolish me – I took Clements’ statement a step further and applied it to all areas of the faith, and this is where my “theological constipation” – and my anguish – came in.

Q: Is “tongues” truly the evidence that someone has had the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as my tradition taught)? Then what about the majority of Christians through the ages – many of who claimed this experience – where tongues were absence (John Wesley)?
Q: Why is it that no matter how I read the bible, a seven year tribulation theory makes no sense at all and can be found nowhere (as my tradition taught it), at least not by way of a most natural reading of Daniel 9:24-27?
Q: If salvation is by grace through faith alone, if sacrifices could not take away sin, if God’s plan all along was to redeem creation through the sacrifice of Christ, then why do we (as my tradition taught) say that salvation in the old testament was by the law? How were the Old Testament saints saved?

These are just a few of the questions that I began to have, but the backlash was more then I was prepared to handle. ‘Heretic’; ‘crazy’; ‘get out of our church’; ‘to question “such-and-such” is heresy’, et cetera. In other words, ‘these are our traditions, you don’t like it? Leave!’ So I became constipated. I had these questions brewing within me but I was fearful of the backlash from the Christian conservative community (theological conservative is not necessarily “right wing conservatives”; you may be a “liberal left winger” and still be stubbornly conservative when it comes to your liberal beliefs).

It is crucial to note that my questions were not polemical; that is, it wasn’t as though I read a book against the seven year tribulation theory and so challenged it, or that I read books by Reformed scholars and then challenged tongues evidence of Pentecostals. I was simply a bible reader with real questions. I read the bible and certain things which I was being taught (I knew nothing else) did not make sense, “here are my questions. Help me”. It was a situation of “I want to believe, help my unbelief”. But instead I was sent to the proverbial guillotine. So I spent several years with my lips tightly sealed for fear of the consequences of honest reflection in search of truth.

So what is the answer to constipation? How about a good large Bran muffin or better yet, a good dose of ex-lax! Roger Olson’s book (quoted in the previous blog) called, How to be Evangelical without being Conservative, was my ex-lax. “Conservative” throughout his book is not to be understood as a political Conservative (which I am); his issue is with theological conservativism. He says, “When I claim that it is possible to be more evangelical by being less conservative, I mean by ‘conservative’ that habit of the heart that reacts against anything nontraditional and tends toward an idolatry of some perceived past ‘golden age’” [p.25]. He says that it is his impression that “conservative theologians tend to place tradition on the same plane of authority as Scripture without admitting it” [p.145]. He clarifies himself by saying: “My concern is that too many conservative evangelical theologians, pastors, teachers, and laypeople inadvertently elevate some tradition as the authoritative interpretive lens through which Scripture is read and understood. But that is, in effect, to place tradition on the same plane as Scripture” [p.146]. However, in all of this he is also quick to admit (as am I) that tradition itself is not bad and should not be dismissed ad hoc. He says, “We all think along with some tradition as we read and interpret the Bible… [but it is important to recognize] that everything in Christian tradition is open to question in light of Scripture” [p.145].

And this is where ‘Post-Conservative’ comes into play. He understands post-conservative evangelicals as Christians who are on a theological pilgrimage (and suggests that N.T. Wright – renown biblical scholar by all accounts – is post-conservative. As I side note, in Wrights newest book, it seems he read another of Olson’s books and embraces that term [Justification, p.26]). “Out of the Reformation came a principle for all Protestants always to follow: reformata et simper reformanda – reformed and always reforming. In other words, Christians are always to remain open to changes in doctrine and practice insofar as they are required by Scripture” [p.150].

I am post-conservative because I believe all of our traditions must be open to question and even change in light of further biblical reflection. I am post-conservative because I firmly believe that Christians need to remain in an attitude of “Reformed and Always Reforming”. I am post-conservative because I am truly Evangelical, placing ‘scripture supremely’ over and above all traditions. I do not reject or discard traditions ad hoc; I respect tradition, but with such an array of “Christian Traditions” in the world today I believe it would be both naive and arrogant to suppose that my tradition – on merit of being mine and on merit of being the lens by which I interpret the scriptures – is the correct one. And all others – by merit of not being mine – are by default wrong. As a post-conservative I agree with renowned scholar N.T. Wright: “The problem is not that people disagree with me. That is what one expects and wants. Let’s have the discussion! The point of course is to learn with and from one another” [Justification, p.20].

And that is why I am post-conservative today. Will you join me on this theological and biblical pilgrimage?

Derek

Why I Am Evangelical

2009-08-23T16:33:00.004-04:00

Before I answer the question of why I am Evangelical, it is important to define terms: what is an Evangelical? There are essentially two answers to this question:

1. An Evangelical is anyone who is sincerely and passionately committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is inspirited in the Bible. (This is the broad definition)

2. Theologian Roger Olson says, “Evangelicals are mostly Protestant Christians who display four characteristics: biblicism (belief in the supreme authority of scripture for faith and life), conversionism (belief that authentic Christianity always includes a radical conversion to Jesus Christ by personal repentance and faith that begins a lifelong personal relationship with him), crucicentrism (piety, devotional life, and worship centered around the cross of Jesus Christ) and activism (concern for the involvement in social transformation through evangelism and social action). [Olson, 2008; p.240]

Both definitions are kosher for me. Obviously the first is broader and may include all Christian’s except perhaps liberals since it is still based on a divinely inspired bible (and I don’t know enough about the mysterious “Greek Orthodox Church” to have an educated opinion). The second definition would – by default – exclude Catholics since by definition it holds the Bible as the “supreme” authority whilst Catholics at the council of Trent, and more recently during the Second Vatican Council, maintain that the Bible and Tradition are equal parts.

Therefore I probably find myself more in line with the second definition since I too believe that tradition – even the Great Tradition of the Church – must be kept in check by something outside itself, and this is where Sola Scriptura comes in. But I want to be clear (again) in saying that I acknowledge the first definition and wholly embrace Catholics who may be Evangelical, they are my brothers and sisters in the Lord. (Ironically, in saying this I alienate from myself both stubborn Catholics and stubborn Protestants who sometimes each think the other is going to hell.)

So what’s the point of embracing the label “Evangelical”? Essentially this label serves to maintain a distinction between "us" and “nominal Christians”. Nominal Christians are those who don’t take their “faith” seriously and fail to allow it to change their lives. It also maintains a distinction between “us” and “liberal Christians” who – frankly – don’t take the scriptures seriously enough (i.e. the Resurrection didn’t really happen, etc). However, many people – it seems – are hiding from the label “Evangelical” because with it comes – sometimes – a certain amount of baggage. That baggage is called “fundamentalism” and may also be called – as least when considering theology – “conservativism”. But this will be the subject of the next blog in this series.

I am Evangelical because I affirm strongly that the Bible is the Supreme authority for faith and life, not because it has authority all its own, but because it was inspired by the Spirit of God. Therefore the phrase “Sola Scriptura” (by scripture alone) should be discarded – while its principle should remain intact – in favor of “by scripture supremely” which itself is shorthand for actually saying: “the authority of the triune God as it is exercised through the scriptures” – N.T. Wright.

I have tried to keep this note “lighter” and less controversial, only time will tell if I succeeded.

Derek

Why I Am Protestant

2009-08-21T12:37:00.004-04:00

There are three major “wings” of orthodox Christianity: Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox (I use capital “O” when speaking of this branch of Christendom, and small “o” when speaking in general of “right belief”) and Protestant. When someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or in the Orthodox Church they are Catholic or Orthodox respectively. But the term “Protestant” seems to be a catch-all phrase for everybody else – all other orthodox Christians (obviously excluding cults such as JW’s and Mormons which are not “orthodox”).

In spite of this, I don’t like the term or what it implies.

Working in a Protestant book store I received a call one day by an angst customer. He was seeking books in our store that have been written against the “Homo-filled Catholic Church” (as he called it). I could not think of any books on our shelves that targeted against the Catholic Church; this fact enraged the caller. He began to accuse me of conspiring with the Harlot of Revelation. When I told him I did not share his view that the Harlot of Revelation was the Roman Catholic Church this infuriated him even further; he demanded to know if our store was Protestant which it is. He then wanted to know if I was Protestant, which I am. He then asked why I was not “protesting” against the Catholic Church. He had me there.

Protestantism received its’ name by way of the Reformers “protest” against Medieval Catholicism, and the term stuck. Yet both movements have grown and matured over the years (consider a type of ecumenical common ground that was reached and signed between Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in 1999) and I for one am not wholly interested in fighting doctrine with the Catholic Church, especially since I have so many to fight with within Protestantism itself (do we baptism infants or don’t we [Lutheran or Baptist], are the spiritual gifts for today or are they not [Reformers or Charismatic’s], do we have “compatibalistic” free will or “libertarian” free will [Calvinists or Arminian]… I could go on). The point is that while I obviously cannot be Catholic (I reject wholesale certain doctrines revolving around Mary and the Pope among others), my Evangelical convictions [which cannot be found in the Catholic Church) gives me options and permits me to work out my own salvation by way of study and independent thinking which I feel is restricted within Catholicism.

Even still, I do not accept wholesale some “big” doctrinal positions that define Protestantism. These doctrines include Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, while I hold to both, I feel Protestantism needs to better articulate and nuance what they mean. And I am not alone. Many Evangelical Protestant scholars are – by way of returning to the scriptures – also calling for a more faithful way to understand these two doctrines.

Take Sola Scriptura as our first example. It means “by scripture alone” as a matter of authority in all areas pertaining to the faith. However, many who leave the definition at that have tossed out every tool given us by God to correctly understand the scriptures. Tools such as “historical context”, “literary context”, “literary genre”, “reasoning” and others. The bible has become a banquet of piece-meal for scavengers and vultures. When many think of “scripture alone” this concept rules out all other tools of interpretation because that would mean we are not using scripture “alone”, but with other tools. A good example of this is in the recent debate between two Reformed teachers, John Piper and N.T. Wright. Wright argues that we need to understand what a particular word meant in its’ original context, how was it used and what connotations did it carry. In response John Piper says that it is not how a word was used or what it meant in its original context that matters, what really matters is the word itself. This is a HUGE error as a result to a wholesale commitment to Sola Scriptura because the scriptures no longer mean what they were intended to mean, they now mean whatever we want them to mean depending on how we now use certain words today.

I suggest (along with other evangelical scholars) that instead of Sola Scriptura we adopt the phrase “Scripture as our Final or Ultimate authority on matters pertaining to the faith” (I don’t know how to say this in Latin).

Now consider Sola Fide. This Latin phrase means “by Faith Alone”, but in what sense are we to understand faith “alone”? Like Sola Scriptura, how far do we take the term “alone”? Many Reformers (especially of the deterministic wing – i.e. Calvinism/Lutheranism) have taken this term too far. I was listening to a Christian radio program just yesterday that well illustrates this extreme Reformed commitment to Sola Fide. A young man called in requesting clarification of terms; he said he was very confused. What was the problem? He said he always hears preachers and evangelists claim that one must “repent” in order to be saved and he heard a popular Christian band tell the audience that Jesus is not just our Savior, he is also our Lord. So where is the confusion? To this young man’s Reformed sensibilities, salvation is "by Faith Alone", repentance is simply not required because that would constitute a “work”; as a matter of fact if you “repented” to become a “Christian” you probably are not a Christian at all, because one becomes a Christian by Faith Alone and not by the “work” of repentance.

And the umbrage this man took with what the Christian band claimed (that Christ is also our Lord) is that Christ is not our Lord – according to him – he is only our Savior! Why? Because if Christ is our Lord as much as our Savior then that means we must be obedient, and obedience constitutes “works”. We are not saved by our LORD Jesus Christ, for that would mean we are saved by works of obedience to Jesus Christ as our Lord, this cannot be true because we are saved by Faith Alone. The absurdity of this position is astronomical, and how it can be maintained in light of the New Testament is beyond me. I changed stations when the host (a Reformed specialists or scholar?) began to affirm all that the caller said and to criticize everyone who thinks otherwise.

This (narrow) interpretation is probably a result to the previous commitment of Sola Scriptura as I illustrated above. It is a wholesale commitment to a traditional doctrine (Sola Fide) at the expense of understanding the scriptures in their own context. I believe Sola Fide should be understood this way: We are saved by Faith Alone and not by the Works of the Law that maintain a distinction between Jews and Gentiles and that give Jews privilege by way of ethnicity, rituals or nationality, to God. In other words, we are not brought into the family of God by circumcision; we are brought into the family of Abraham by faith and Abraham’s faith was seen by his obedience to God. This is why James explicitly says that we are justified by “works” and not by “faith alone” in agreement with both Paul and Jesus. Paul says by our faith we fulfill the law and Jesus says that the “works” which God requires is that we “believe”.

So while I strongly affirm Faith Alone, I believe Protestants need to better articulate this doctrine in light of the scriptures. A faithful commitment to the scriptures reveals that we are justified by Faith Alone and not by “Works of the Law”. But Faith itself is a verb; so it is not as though nothing is accomplished on our part in order that we be saved. The crowd shouted “what must we do to be saved”, Peters answer: “Repent”. A soldier once asked, “what must I do to be saved”, Paul’s answer: “believe and you shall be save”. Some Jews once asked the Son of God, “What are the works that God requires”, Jesus’ answer: “The works of God is this: that you believe in the One whom he sent”. (For a full treatment of this subject by me see my blog "Responding to a Catholic Friend".)

Protestants and Catholics alike owe a great deal to the Reformers, to Luther and Calvin, Zwingli and Huss, and especially their forerunners, Tyndale and Wycliffe among others. If not for the Protestant Reformers we – all of us except the Orthodox – may still be listening to the bible read in church each week in some irrelevant archaic Latin jargon. While I admire the Reforms to some extent – and I certainly owe a lot to their work – I do not have any type of a priori commitment to them. In other words, they are not “canon” for me, and neither, I might add, is their teaching. Quite the contrary, by returning to the scriptures as my ultimate authority on all matters of the faith I believe I am keeping with the heart of the Reformation (Reformed and Always Reforming), and in that, I recognize I am Protestant. My a priori commitment then is to the Word of God and not to any man, movement or era.

In my unwavering commitment to the scriptures the label I prefer over “Protestant” is “Evangelical”. Yet Evangelicalism was birthed in the camp of the Protestant spirit. And that is why I am a Protestant today.

Derek

Let me be crystal clear about something, I am neither anti-Catholic or am I anti-Protestant, I am just a guy trying to find his way. In point of fact I have a great deal of respect for the current Pope and for the great headways which the Catholic Church has made since the Second Vatican Council. They have redefined their understanding of the Priesthood and of the concept of the Church and I only look forward to the day when they bring their doctrines of Mary closer in line with the scriptures... but one step at a time is all anyone can hope for.

Furthermore, Protestants could learn a thing or two from Catholics. I was quite disappointed several months ago when I attended a public March for Life, and discovered that there were very few Protestants while almost everyone marching to save a babies murder were Catholic. How do I know? I was getting "Hail Mary" in surround sound.

Why I Am Still a Christian

2009-08-19T22:47:00.004-04:00

The very title of this blog presupposes a sad situation. It may shock many who know me that I have – on more than one occasion – considered abandoning this thing called Christianity and joining the ranks of the atheist.

I can relate with those who either refuse to become Christian or those who leave the Christian faith on the grounds of hypocrisy, and I believe that the standard Christian response is inadequate to address the emotive thinking of such a one. To say for example “if you ever find a perfect church, don’t join it because it won’t be perfect anymore”, while being true, this cliché response fails on so many levels to address the real issue: I think for most people the issue is not that there are imperfect people in a church that ought to be perfect; the real issue is that the church ought to be held to a higher standard then secular society, a standard that is, which reflects a Christ-likeness. When the church – it seems – is as bad if not worse than the secular society then this is what the critic means by saying we are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Now let me get personal: It took a good five years from conversion before my rose colored utopian styled classes came off and I began to see “the Church”, the people in it, and its’ leadership for what it really was - human. When this happened it rocked my world and shook my foundation. Since then I have seen friends more or less sent to the guillotine for reading the bible and asking questions. I myself experienced my own inquisition by way of a preemptive strike by a young arrogant pastor who perhaps feared my influence or else (and more likely) feared the fact that I would dare use my brain without his permission. I have seen Jelly Fish with more backbone and godly conviction then board members. I have seen entire “spiritual churches” filled with young “Christian” guys knocking up all the young “Christian” girls, while nerdy kids in youth group get ignored by the “cool” youth pastor, and I have seen the adults who preached a “loft Christian-ise” who were more interested in maintaining the status quo and keeping traditions “as usual” then in living with sincere Christian conviction. Gossip, backbiting, judging, criticizing, two-facing and the such, all the while “playing Church” at their finest.

That was when I looked at the outside, at the Christian community around me. But I am a reflective guy, it did not take long before I could no longer avoid the ugly truth in side of me: that I was just as bad, just as susceptible to being corrupted by the alcohol of power and authority as any pastor is, just as tempted to sleep with any pretty girl as any young guy is, just as quick to judge from my lofty throne as any elder is. Hadn’t I read somewhere in the Old Testament that the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?

So yes, I have considered leaving this Christian religion in the past. After all, where is this Christianity which the bible speaks of? But the secularization of the church (and of my own soul) is but only one poignant reason among many. There are other issues. For example, I have struggled in the past with science and the creation account of Genesis. I believe that it is impossible for the earth to be only 6,000 years old (following James Usher’s date of creation: 4004 BC, October 23rd – my brother’s birthday). Yet macro evolution is an absurdity (the Darwinian concept of macro-evolution is hogwash gift wrapped in the guise of science). I have now solved this nagging problem (if you are interested in why there is a problem for me and what my solution is, just email me), but in the past it was a real struggle. Furthermore, what about the issue of “theodicy”? Theodicy addresses the question: If God exists, if God is all powerful and if God is all good then why is there evil in the world? If God is good he is obligated to stop evil; if he does not it either means that God is not “all good” or else he is not “all powerful” – that is, he is either not strong enough to prevent evil or he just doesn’t care (or worse, he is the cause). If none of these answers are adequate then perhaps the only answer remaining is that God doesn’t exist at all. There is no easy way to answer this question; brilliant holy men have addressed it for centuries (the best answer – I believe – is found in the doctrine of Atonement called Christus Victor which is a forthcoming blog). And if these issues are not enough, the worst of all is the biblical teaching of Hell. I have known friends and relatives who have died over the years, and for most of them, unless some type of thief on the cross experienced occurred which (let’s face it) is possible but no likely to have happened all the time, at least some of them went down stairs instead of up. This reality probably more than any other makes me wish God didn’t exist because I would rather my loved ones die and go into oblivion then for them to be burning right now in the horrible down under. As a faithful bible believing Christian I must accept the reality of Hell (and Hades), but I hate it!

What more can I say? Many have left the faith for less and yet, despite all of this I remain a committed Christian, why? It is because when I lie awake at night and ask myself if God really exists (where did my childhood faith go?) and when I ask myself if I cannot still find purpose in life by caring for others without the prerequisite of believing in God (C.S. Lewis would swiftly and decisively take me to task here), there is one reality that I cannot escape: the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is not simply an intellectual response (though it is partly that); when the Resurrection creeps into my forethoughts it does so from the deep recesses of my soul. What about the Resurrection; if God doesn’t exist then how did Jesus rise from the dead? The Apostle is surely right when he says: “If Christ has not risen from the dead then our faith is in vain”. And if the Resurrection of Christ is true then surely so is the gift of the Spirit, for He was given as a result of the Resurrected Christ to us as a down payment (a seal, a guarantee) that we too will raise from the dead. If we have the Spirit then it must also be true that it is by the power of this Spirit we may live Christ-like; that is, the evidence of the Holy Spirit (Paul uses the term “fruit”) is that we are being transformed into the character of Christ. From this reality I am overjoyed whenever I meet humble and godly pastors, teenagers, and everyone else who I must take up as examples of Christ to imitate! They’re out there and they are not hard to find. My church is filled with them… and so are many other churches I’ve attended over the years. When you live from the perspective of the Resurrection you see things differently.

Furthermore, if the Resurrection is a reality then nothing “pop science faith” can throw at us can change this fact and everything that flows from it. If Christ rose from the dead, then God exists. It’s as simple as that. And if Christ rose from the dead, then we have both the answer to evil and the answer to Hell.

If the Cross of Christ saved me, it is the Resurrection of Christ that sustains me.

Why am I still a Christian? Because of the reality of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Derek

Why I Became a Christian

2009-08-18T12:34:00.003-04:00

As a result of a learning disability I attended a Catholic elementary school which specialized in helping children with special needs – up to about grade five. It was a common occurrence to pass nuns and priests in the hallways and I attended a mass like service with the other students every Friday. I remember looking forward to the day when I would have my “first communion” like the older kids in grades six through eight, but I was transferred to a “regular” school from grade 5 – evidently I no longer needed such special needs; and my first communion (as such) never came.

Even though my family was essentially non-religious, these years instilled in me a fundamental belief in God and a sure awareness of Jesus (hanging on a giant cross). For me, belief in God was something like belief in oxygen. I couldn’t see it, but I knew it was there and to suggest it wasn’t was absurd!

From this it was only a small step to commit my life to God and to Jesus Christ. This happened when I was eleven. I was watching the Jesus film by Billy Graham and Campus Crusades (based on Luke’s Gospel) and for the first time I came to know the purpose for Jesus’ hanging on the cross: he died for my sins so that I could go to heaven, all I had to do was ask him to come into my life (thus becoming a Christian) and I would go to heaven when I died.

Sometime over the next two years I was baptized by immersion at a large Pentecostal church (despite the fact that I had been Christened as a baby) and about a year after that I had a supernatural experience that can only be summarized as a Spirit Baptism in a smaller Pentecostal church (though for the next decade I would be confused as to what this experience was because the Pentecostal’ teach that Spirit Baptism is accompanied by an evidence of supernatural “tongues” speaking, I had no such “shun-di”). I have never been the same since that experience.

Why did I become a Christian? Because belief in God (faith) was not a matter of closing my eyes tightly and wishing upon a star that God existed. It was not a matter of “I believe; help my unbelief”. Belief in God was as natural as believing in my own existence. But why did I become a Christian? Two words: “Jesus” and “Cross”. If belief in God and Jesus came so natural, all that I needed was to understand why he was hanging on a large cross behind the priest, why he died so painfully if he could have escaped at will… he died on the cross so that I could live!

I became a Christian because of Jesus and the Cross!

Derek

Why I Am...

2009-08-17T15:21:00.003-04:00

Greetings,

The past three to five years have been formative for me in understanding and developing my theology without the restraints of a person or an organization telling me how to think and what to believe. So I have decided to take time to write a series of blogs titled “Why I am…” as a means of reflecting and summarizing where I am at on this journey. Obviously – as is evident from all of my blogs – I am of the opinion that orthodoxy (right belief) is just as important as orthopraxy (right living), if not more so. What we believe dictates what we do! That is a matter of fact, a reality of “worldviews”. And I have taken this journey of trying to understand the scriptures “rightly” by submitting myself to the teachings of great and holy scholarly men from various backgrounds and differing viewpoints – even at the expense of being criticized (ironically) for having a so-called “critical spirit”.

I think these blogs will be relatively “light” and easy to read. My goal is not to enter a defense of the positions I have taken but simply to summarize why I have taken them.

“Why I am…” will cover the following:

Why I became a Christian * Why I am still a Christian * Why I am Protestant * Why I am Evangelical * Why I am Post-conservative * Why I am Arminian * Why I am “Open Theistic” in practice * Why I am amillennial * Why I am “Christus Victor” * Why I am Covenantal

My sustained hope is that others will read these blogs and be exhorted to take up a call to “reflective Christianity”. This comes at the high price of being criticized (hurtfully so) sometimes by those closes to you. But if it is true that orthodoxy dictates orthopraxy then it is very important and hugely practical for the Christian life that we work these things out.

Derek

Evolution: An Article of Faith

2009-08-13T22:10:00.003-04:00

Pro. Glenn Sunshine, in his recent book Why You Think The Way You Do, speaks of the introduction of Darwinian (Naturalistic) Evolution and in so doing he writes on the inability of the Darwinian Evolutionary theory to lay claims to "fact". As a matter of fact I felt he wrote so well on the subject that the rest of this blog will be a direct quote. If you like what you read I highly recommend you pick up a copy for yourself.

_________________________________

Interestingly enough, [Darwin's] theory does not fit the defination of science. For a theory to be scientific, is must be able to be validated through the scientific method:

A theory is proposed and predications are made from it.
These predications are then tested through scientific experimentation.

If the experiment fails the theory must be discarded or modified.
If the theory succeeds, it does not prove the theory true, but it does make it more probable that the theory is correct.

Darwinism is not subject to scientific method anymore then anything else in history. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it.

Darwin knew, of course, that he had no access to the past, but he reasoned that if his theory were true, then natural selection would still be operating today, and thus it should be possible to make specific predictions and test them. For example, Darwin thought that evolution occurred relatively quickly, as his experience with the beaks of finches growing longer during dry years suggested. He tried to breed pigeons into a new species to demonstrate this, but he found that while there was a great deal of variability in pigeons, the variability stopped well short of creating a new species. In other words, his experiment failed. You can take a goldfish and give it eyes that protrude, change its color to black, and divide its tail, but you cannot turn a goldfish into a goldfinch.

Darwin further predicted that innumerable transitional fossils would be discovered, probably within decades, and noted that if a sudden emergence of new species were to occur, his theory would be falsified [note from Derek: if a theory is "falsifiable" in science it is a good thing. In order for a theory to be true it must at least have the possiblility of being false. Otherwise it is just simply a "belief"]. What the fossil record shows is that species are remarkably stable, and the innumerable transitions that Darwin predicted have not been found. Further, during the Cambrian period (usually dated to about 530 million years ago), most major groups of complex animals emerged suddenly, not by gradual evolution, in an event known as the Cambrian explosion." According to Darwin himself, this simultaneous emergence of species without gradual ascent from earlier organisms should have disproved his theory.

Yet instead of falsifying Darwin, the basic concept of evolution has been retained, with alternative explanations suggested for the absence of transitional species. One popular theory, known as punctuated equilibrium, suggests that species tend to remain stable until, for some as yet unexplained reason, a series of rapid mutations takes place that produces new species. This happened so rapidly in terms of geological time that fossils, which are relatively rare things, were not produced in any of thes periods of transition. Unfortunately, as Darwin himself said, this rapid evolution cannot be accounted for via natural selection. Rapid emergence of species falsifies his theory. It also sounds like special pleading, a "Darwin of the gaps" explanation, to say that fossilization of the transitional forms predicted by Darwin never had the opportunity to take place in the emergence of any species on the planet, past or present. Nor is it much better to say the fossils are there but haven't yet been found. This is a statement of faith, not fact.

But, of course, none of this matters because Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable. Certainly, naturalists think they have good reasons to accept natural selection, but people always believe this about their articles of faith. Ultimately, the evidence for Darwinism is circular:

Naturalists assume Darinian evolution
They use it as the framework for interpreting any evidence they find
They proclaim that the evidence proves the theory

But as people employ this method, it is literally impossible to recognize evidence that would contradict Darwin because every explanation of the data begins by assuming that evolution is true and proceeds from there. In other words, Darwinism interprets the evidence rather than the evidence testing Darwinism. As a result, no matter how many failed predictions come from Darwinism, it can never be proven false. Simply put, naturalistic evolution is an article of faith.

________________________________

Note: Darwinan evolution is NOT scientific theory. It is NOT fact.

I have read so much in recent years - even by Christian authors - who claim and even emphasis that Darwinian evolution is a FACT. IT IS NOT!

I am tired of the rhetoric of the religous (Darwinian) evolutionist. Not because they promote their religion (all religions have that right in my opinion); but because they claim theirs is not faith, but fact; and in making this brassy and clearly untrue statement they claim a "high ground" over other so-called religions. They look down their high noses on "religous people" as though we are a bunch of simpletons, yet they are one of us, simpletons of the religion of Darwin. Religion has not been removed from the schools, rather the religion of Christianity has been replaced by the faith and religion of Darwin.

Just a thought.

Derek

(Quotes taken from pages 167-68)

A People of Grace (On Video)

2009-08-11T10:18:00.004-04:00

I folks. If anyone is interested my sermon can be viewed on the Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene website.

Just follow the link and click on the Video icon at the bottom. It will be available to watch up until next Sunday (August 16th).

Enjoy.

Click here to go to the sight.

A People of Grace: A Sermon

2009-07-31T09:53:00.006-04:00

Hi folks,

I just want to inform you'll that I have been invited back to speak at the Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene in Windsor again. It is both an honour and a little nerve racking (as I have been racking my brain for a subject to speak on for weeks now).

In light of the past eight months: the tragic passing of my father followed by internal strife of my family and divisions in among christians which I have - since - become keely aware of along with an awareness of how often it seems we christians hold "godly" or "christian" expectation over the ungodly non-christians around us. All of this came to a head two weeks ago when it was discovered that my mom had enlarged lymph nodes which may have been cancerous. Fortunately the results turned out to be negative.

Upon reflecting back to the night before the results were in my mom now says: "Derek I had myself dead. I thought 'this was the last summer I would get to enjoy my garden, the grass, all the little things in life'." She tells me that that night she saw the world through renewed eyes, the same as when she first became a Christian and everything was just a little big greener. The little things the people love to turn into BIG things: 'so and so looked at me funny', 'that person said --- i'm not talk to them any more'. 'so and so better changer her ways or I'm writing her out of my life'. Such musings are petty, and the reality of the fact becomes clear and falls into focus when something big actually happens, like say cancer.

The point of all this is that we Christians, while acknowledging that we have been forgiven of our sins, been extended grace by God and have been reconciled to him through Christ.... have we forgot that we ALSO have been given the ministry of forgiveness towards others... that we are called to be a people of grace (that is, to extend grace to others as we have received it), and (not finally) we have been given the ministry of reconcilation!

I hope and pray all goes well, and extend a warm invitation to all who can make it.

Pray for me is my request to you, in all things, but particularly in regard to this sermon.

Derek.

THE THIEF AND THE GULLIBLE CHRISTIAN!

2009-07-25T15:51:00.004-04:00

First of all, if it was my money and my business I would not feel so bad. Jesus says when I am striked on one cheek to turn the other cheek also, and if someone asks for my cloak to give him my tunic also. But how should I react if my friend is the one who is striked or stolen from? What if my negligence caused my friends abuse?

A woman called the store with this story: she spoke to my manager the other day and was told it would be okay to return two bibles she purchased here even though she did not have a receipt. The situation - she claimed - was that the two bibles were purchased for her father and mother in-laws, but her father in-law passed away from cancer and with this news the mother in-law had a heart attack and died. The bibles were like new.

When she came to the store I was working alone on the Saturday afternoon with many customers in the store and a small lineup. I tried to check the history of the bibles but was feeling pressured because of all the customers, besides the price labels on the bibles were ours so they definately came from this store recently. I decided - being a Christian business and all - to take the women at her word and refunded the two bibles: $175.00 was given her in cash.

During this transation I asked if she would like to receive our coupons in the mail. She said yes, gave me her name, phone number and address but claimed she could not remember her postal code - no problem, I hear this often.

I printed up a copy of the receipt and asked her to sign it and put her phone number on it - standard return protocol. She joyfully complied then left. When I handed her the cash my stomach churned with discuss, I knew something wasn't right.

After I had helped the other customers in the store I decided to follow up on the bibles return. I discovered that according to the computer system we now had 3 of the one bible and two of the other when infact we should have had only 2 of the one and 1 of the other.

According to the Computer
First Bible:
Should have = 2 (2 received in March, none sold)
Computer reads = 3 (1 added in today)

Second Bible:
Should have = 1 (1 received in March, none sold)
Computer reads = 2 (1 added in today)

I then went and physically checked the shelves and discovered that physically we only had 1 of the first and none of the second

Actual Count
First Bible:
Should have = 2
On shelf = 1

Second Bible:
Should have = 1
On Shelf = 0

Let me bottom line this for you: We received two bibles back in March neither of them sold. We had just done a storewide inventory count three weeks ago and both bibles were counted as being in the store. That means that some time in the past three weeks two $80 Bibles were stolen off our shelves and then returned for a cash refund of $175.00. The women was a very pleasant middle aged person - such deceipt is revolting.

As soon as I found this out I tried to call her on the number she gave on the receipt; it didn't exist (big surprise). I then compared the number she wrote down with the one she gave me on our mail list, evidently she was thrown off when I asked her to write her number down and in trying to remember what she gave me she got the number wrong: 905-2477 cf. 905-2744. I tried to call the second number with fingers crossed, still didn't exist. I then looked up her last name in the phone book... the name virtually didn't exist, neither did the address

What kind of sick person does it take to steal two bibles, tell a horrible lie about the supposed deaths of your in-laws then con the Christian store into stealing $175.00 during highten store hours! What bothers me even more is that this money was ultimately stolen from my boss during our most financially difficult season of the year, and that this crime was committed under my gullible nose

Sigh~ I really should read No More Christian Nice Guy. Again, turn the other cheek, no problem. What really gets under my skin is that my "Christian Nice Guy" hope for the best and look for the best in all people philosophy resulted in my boss being taken advantage of and his money being stolen

Please pray for this depraved women, God needs to get a hold of her. Pray for me too.
Derek

Further Reflections on Oscar Cullmann: Are All Christians Healed?

2009-06-16T13:20:00.002-04:00

Reading further into Christ and Time (now completed, see previous blog), there are a few more points which Cullmann pulls out which are worthy of comment which relates specifically to my own observation in the previous blog; how can the already/not yet principle influence our understanding of miracles and healings.

Miracles: Partially and Provisionally – We still all die

As the already/not yet principle explained in the previous blog, we are presently living in the tension of what has already happened verse what will still happen (we are justified, we will be justified / we are saved, we will be saved / the Kingdom of God was inaugurated with Christ' first coming, the Kingdom of God will not see its' full realization/actualization until Christ' second coming etc). Cullmann says:

"There actually occur eschatological miracles, speaking with tongues and healings of the sick, miracles in which the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit even now, although only partially and provisionally, repels the power of death even in the physical sphere." (Cullmann, p.155)

An example, which relates to the present discussion of the already/not yet principle, is the resurrection. The resurrection already occurred in Christ, but its' realization/actualization will not be seen of the believer until the eschaton (the end of the present evil age), when we too will all experience the resurrection for ourselves. What is important to realize here is that Christ was not just resurrected for Christ's sake, but rather his resurrection is the 'proof in the putting' (if you will) that we too will experience a resurrection. That is why Paul describes Christ's resurrection as 'first fruits' in a chapter that outlines our hope for our resurrection (1 Cor. 15). It has 'already' happened for the true Israelite (Christ) but it has 'not yet' been fully realized by the 'Israel of God' (Gal. 6). How then can we who are caught in the tension of this already/not yet era be sure that we too will experience the resurrection? That answer is that the same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead dwells in us as a guarantee that we too will be raised (Rom. 8).

The point of the entire previous paragraph is just to say that death itself is a sickness! If people never got sick or had a heart attack or countless other physical ailments, they would never die. Yet the reality that all die until the resurrection testifies to the fact that Christians do not walk in perfect health (they all get sick or something at least once… when they die). And so considering what would be the greatest miracle/healing that one could perform – that of raising the dead – this same person must still die. Thus this great miracle/healing is only 'partially and provisionally'; that is, it only happens sometimes, to some people, for some reason (which may be beyond us) and when all is said and done, the said individual will still died.

And so we should understand that miracles and healings are only partially and provisionally, that they only repel death and sickness as a way of foreshadowing the reality of the Kingdom of God (which is here now, but not yet!), therefore people still die and get sick, yet many (not all) are healed and others (by no means 'much') are even raised from the dead… only to die again. This should prevent some from dogmatically sitting in the judgment seat of God declaring that 'so and so' a Christian must be in sin or must not have faith or any other condemnation, just because some misfortune has overtaken them. In such situations Christians need to support one another, not add to the burden of those who are already hurting.

Remember always that God is the God that heals thee

Derek

Christ and Time: The Already/Not Yet Principle

2009-06-09T22:21:00.002-04:00

In 1946 a controversial scholar named Oscar Cullmann wrote a fascinating book titled Christ and Time (translated from German to English in 1949). Cullmann develops many ideas throughout, some of which have received wide acceptance, others have received wide rejection and I have for some time now tried to get my hands on a copy (out of print… grrrr). When I brought up the book to a friend of mine he said, "I think I own that book. I can't be sure but it sounds familiar". Sure enough, after digging through his shelves, he discovered that he owned a copy which he unwittingly picked up from a used bookstore for $4.72 because he thought the title looked interesting, but he never got around to reading it.

So John loaned me that musty old book and in this blog I want to highlight some of Cullmann's insights which hold certain relevance to my own developing theology.

Timeless Eternity or Endless Time?

"Primitive Christianity knows nothing of a timeless God. The 'eternal' God is he who was in the beginning, is now, and will be in all the future, 'who is, who was, and who will be' (Rev 1:4)." P.63

I think this may be Cullmann's most resisted idea, that contrary to the traditional understanding of the nature of God as One who is timeless (that 'Christ entered time' etc), and that eternity is timelessness, Cullmann argues that the scriptures – both in Jewish and Christian thought – do not teach this notion. He argues – as today many more are arguing – that the notion of timelessness (timeless God and timeless eternity) is a result of the Hellenism of Christianity (Oh how Plato influenced Clement and Origen!). At any rate, this philosophical idea is pervasive in Christianity both in the academic corridors and on a popular level (in Rob Bells recent video Everything is Spiritual, he states matter of fact-like that Time is like a brick which God looks down on. That God is everywhere on the brick simultaneously while from our perspective we are only at one point on the timeline). This also has to do with the Greek idea that God is terribly transcendent (if he is timeless he must not be able to work in time because that would make him affected by time, therefore he must be distant), yet the scriptures obviously relate that God is not far but rather he is close, and so while Christianity has accepted the Platonic idea of God's transcendence it has none the less chopped it up to a mystery of how God could enter into time. Such confusion can easily be avoided by accepting the biblical (not Platonic) concept of time: not that eternity is timeless, but rather that eternity is time unending!

Principle of Representation

I found Cullmann's idea of the 'principle of representation' very interesting in light of my recent study of the Covenants and Pauline Justification (Old/New Perspectives).

It goes something like this: Adam as mankind represents all of creation so that when he sins all that he represents falls into corruption. Israel was called to undo the problem of creation, the problem of mankind and thus to represent all of mankind, yet Israel itself proved to be very much a part of the problem. A remnant within Israel was then called forth to represent all of Israel and finally One Man (the true Israelite) was called to represent that remnant who represented Israel who represented mankind who represented creation.

"This principle is still that of election and representation, but no longer in the sense of a reduction. Rather all further developments unfold so that from the center reached in the resurrection of Christ the way no longer leads from the many to the One, but on the contrary from the One, in progressive advance, to the many" (p.117, italics original).

Now from Christ to those who are "in Christ" – his body the Church. This leads to the redeemed humanity in the Kingdom of God and to the redeemed creation of the new heaven and the new earth. The time line of redemption history looks something like this:

Creation -> Mankind -> Israel -> Remnant -> Christ <- Church <- Kingdom of God <- New Creation

ß Christ à Church -> Kingdom of God -> New Creation -> Consummation of all things; God is "all in all"

The principle of election and representation is very cool. "Thus the entire redemptive history unfolds in two movements: the one proceeds from the many to the One; this is the Old Covenant. The other proceeds from the One to the many; this is the New Covenant" (p.117).

Already/Not Yet Principle

The Already/Not Yet principle is perhaps Cullmann's longest lasting and most widely accepted legacy, though it seems unfortunately to have not worked its way into the pulpit and pews to any great extent! Here's the idea in a nut shell: The Jewish eschatological hope (Messianic hope) was that at the end of the "age" (not the "end of time" or the "end of the world" – Judaism had no such thought process) the Jewish Messiah would come to vindicate Israel by defeating Israel's enemies and establish God's Kingdom on the earth in which the Jews would be his people and he would be their God. But what the Jews thought God would do at the end of the present evil age, Jesus did in the middle of this present era through his life, death and resurrection. And what the Jews expected the Messiah to accomplish in the physical, he did in the spiritual – defeat Satan, Sin, and Death. What results from this is the paradox, the reality, that what was expected to happen at the end of the era began at the cross and in the resurrection but will receive its full realization at the consummation of all things.

So are we justified now by faith or will we be justified in the future by works? Are we sanctified in the present or are we sanctified at the consummation? Did Christ establish the Kingdom of God in his first coming or will he establish it at his second? To these and other questions of dichotomy the already/not yet principle destroys at a stroke. The issue is not 'either/or' but rather 'both/and', or should I say 'already/not yet'!

We are justified in the present by faith in anticipation of the final declaration that we are justified by works in the future. We are sanctified (and being sanctified) in the present in anticipation to our final sanctification in the future. Christ inaugurated his Kingdom in his first coming but its full realization and actualization is yet to come. In short, we are already justified and not yet justified, already sanctified but not yet sanctified, already living in the Kingdom but not yet living in its full actualization.

What a very cool principle. I love it!

Friendly Challenge to the Reader: It would be interesting to tease this principle out as it relates to the subject of healing and miracles, and see if we may develop a biblically based and well balanced understanding of miracles and healings. Some people suggest that healings were specifically for the first century Church only, while others think that all Christians should be walking in perfect health and prosperity all the time during this present evil age. I think both positions stand as polar opposites of half-truths, and the wrong halves at that! But perhaps if we understood that the Kingdom of God is here already, but not yet fully realized, perhaps this will explain why so many are healed and so many more are not, why so many miracles occur, and so many more do not – perhaps each time a miracle or healing occurs what we are seeing is the breaking through of the Kingdom of Heaven into this present evil age. Perhaps, on the other hand, why such miracles and healings are not consistent is because the Kingdom of God has not yet fully been actualized and because we are living in the present evil age until the return of our Messiah to consummate all things.

I am interested in any thoughts you may have regarding what I just said. Is there merit to this line of thinking? Have you developed this further than I and if so what did you discover? Do you stand strongly opposed to my suggestion and if so why?

As always your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Be blessed in Christ

Derek

Giving God’s Way

2009-06-06T16:44:00.003-04:00

[Part 3: 1, 2]

I Believe Christians have a rich mandate to give, and in the context of this blog, I am referring to that practical currency we call money. But before we get to 'money' we need to first take a short detour by taking a closer look at a giving God – he is not so small and cruel as to make everything an arbitrary test case (do you have faith or don't you?)! Does he not know the motives and intents of the heart? Does God not care more about people then about laws? Is God not more concerned about his children then money?

I delivered a sermon not long ago tracing the Grand Biblical Motif of what it means to be divine image bearers – that we humans were created to reflect the imagine and likeness of God (i.e. his glory which is his character [cf. Gen. 1:26; Rom. 1:23; 2 Cor. 3:18; Ex. 33:19]). So how can we, if we truly are image bearers of God, not give when giving is the very thing that God does?: In creation [Gen. 1:1] and at creation [Gen. 1:26ff]; in covenant with blessings [Gen. 1:28] (and in cursings if the rebel so chooses [Deut. 27:15ff]); and of course the greatest divine gift of all, in his Son – the sacrifice of Christ.

But it must be remembered that our God is not an arbitrary God as so many make him out to be. God does not give non-sensicially as though God gives just for the sake of giving; but when he gives he gives with a purpose, when he gives he always does so in the context of the 'so-that' clause! "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" [Jn. 3:16, emphasis added].

Giving God's Way in the Old Testament

We also need to be reminded that God is in the business of taking care of people and (this is very important for those 'hyper-faith' 'hyper spiritualists' out there) God's primary chosen conduit to accomplish this aim is through his people! The very national law of tithing (Israel's social tax if you will) was put in place so that through the people of God those with needs would be met; but notice also that God's people took care of each other so that – in theory anyways – every need among God's people was met also! Take note: Levites (with no inheritance); orphans; aliens and widows (i.e. the helpless) [Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13]; and observe how this played out in God's overall plan. Israel was to be a light to the dark world, a beacon of hope to the hopeless, that there is a God who is seeking to redeem creation and this was a call for the nations to enter into God's covenant [Rom. 2:19; Gen. 12:3; Ex. 9:14-16 etc]. When the Israelites were faithful in their tithe (let us not forget the national and geographical context) it was clearly a sign that they were in the covenant of God and so God would bless them [Mal. 3:1, 8-10] because they were taking care of the helpless which is where God's heart lies [cf. vs. 5]. And when the Israelites did things right in being the extension of God's arm to a world in need, "Then all the nations will call you blessed" [Mal. 3:12], that is, it was a testimony to the world that God is Almighty God, Israel was his people and (evangelistically speaking) it was an invitation to join the people of God! This is the biblical purpose of God in tithing.

But there is another all too relevant point to be made here: there is no evidence in the Old Testament that those who were the beneficiary of the tithes also had to give. That is, there is no command in the Old Testament that the orphans, widows or aliens had to tithe – this only makes sense in that they were the recipients of the tithe because they could not afford to take care of themselves, let alone tithe to help others! So, I wonder, when so many today are told to 'tithe' regardless of one's financial state, how it is that we think we are being biblical (let alone Christian!) in teaching this way? God's purpose was to help those in need, not to further burden them!

Take note: Much that is often taught today regarding tithing is the exact opposite of what the scriptures actually teach on the subject! This should pain us.

Giving God's Way in the New Testament

It seems that the early church followed in the steps which Jesus himself instructed his disciples quite closely; "give to everyone one who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back" [Luke30], and John the Baptist instructed that "the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same" [Luke 3:`11]. John the beloved says, in keeping with this tradition, "if anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? (This is in keeping with what I said above, how can we be image bearers of God if we are not givers?) And James, the brother of Jesus (one of Mary's biological sons) and also – it is prudent to add – the leader of the first church in Jerusalem follows the same tradition: "Suppose your brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" [James 2:16-17]. In reading all of this one begins to acquire a sense of what is the real issue here. It is not "prove your faith by tithing even if you can't…" but, "people who give to those in need are showing that they are a people who belong to the faith because they are fulfilling the heart of God by caring for those in need". This is the very purpose of giving, as John said, if one sees someone in need but has no pity, "how can Gods love" be in him?

It's not surprising then that the early church, following closely the teachings of the Apostles, were "selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need" [Acts. 2:45] and as a result, "there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need" [Acts 4:34-35]. Again, there is not a hint of the Old Testament law of tithing being practiced among God's New Covenant people, neither is there any suggestion that those who gave had to give or for that matter that those who could not afford to give gave! For that would defeat the purpose of giving. As in the Old Testament, God's purpose is to help those in need, not to burden them further.

Aside from all of this there arose from time to time special needs and occasions for the church to rise up and shine God's light to a hurting world by practical means. A contemporary example would be the Tsunami of 2004 or Hurricane Katrina when Christians from all over the world rose up to address those great needs. And in first century Palestine, it was not a Tsunami or Hurricane; rather it was a severe Famine. To the famine mentioned in Acts 11 the scriptures read, "The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea. This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul" [vs. 29-30]. Paul writes to the Corinthians regarding collecting an offering to help relieve the Jews of the famine: "Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatians churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made… After I go through Macedonia, I will come to you—for I will be going through Macedonia" [1 Cor. 16:1-2, 5]. Paul, writing to the Romans, says "I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem" [Romans 15:25-26].

What can we say about all of this? For starters we must remember that Paul is not teaching here a doctrine of giving or tithing. His letters to the Corinthian and Roman churches were real historical letters addressing a real historical need of a real historical natural disaster, and both comments about collections were made in his farewell addresses. Furthermore, the famine in Palestine was severe and Paul was charged with a mission to collect an offering from the churches throughout the empire to help those in need. This is significant because when Paul mentions to the Corinthians "you should set aside a sum of money" each week, we need to take this as good advice, not doctrine. Paul is not commanding every Christian in the world to eternally give a set amount ever week – least of all a tithe! – rather he is encouraging the Corinthians and the Galatians to set aside money every week until he comes so that we he arrives in their cities to collect their offering they will not have to take up a large last minute offering. In short, Paul is encouraging these Christians to get on a budget so that they can afford to help the Jews in need in Palestine without putting themselves in a place of need.

Another point to be made is that each gave according to their ability! This is not "give ten percent each week because the bible says so" (which is does not), rather this is, "each should give according to his ability (i.e. only if he can) and only if he wants to"; of course, if a Christian can, he should want to!

Conclusion:

There is so much more to say (i.e. joyful giver, pay those who teach etc. etc.), but this is a blog, not a book and I believe my point has been made. Gods' purpose in creating a people who give is to help those in need, not to burden those in need by imposing a law of tithe on them. But more than that, as illustrated in the first blog in this series, a giving community is also an evangelistic community: when the world looks in and sees that the needs of all Gods' children are met they may say something like, "I want some of that" and so they may get saved and join the community of faith. Furthermore, the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12ff), if he will take care of us because we are his children and if we will not have need for God will fulfill that need, it is through his Church – his body, his arms extended – that this is accomplished. God's promise to meet all of our needs is a very practical promise and indeed a commission to the Church to fulfill the heart of God by helping one another and those who need assistance.

So when we see a in our community a single mom of two small children struggling make ends meet, the body of Christ should help relieve her of some of the financial burden she faces as opposed to burdening her further by imposing an unbiblical law demanding that she give ten percent of her income every week.

I cannot stress this point enough: tithing damages the body of Christ, hinders the Spirit, fails to understand and live out the responsibility of the Church as Christ' body, places misleading expectations on God, destroys the faith, hinders evangelism, closes the door on the world, has no defense in the scriptures and no place in the Church.

However: Giving as it is lived out in the New Testament facilitates a thriving and healthy body of Christ, allows the Spirit to work through the acts of generous believers, exemplifies the Church as Christ' body and brings reality to the blessings which God promises to those of the faith, it proves the faith and facilitates more faith lived out in actions, promotes evangelism, extends a warm invitation to the world, is seen everywhere in the scriptures which highlight God's heart for people in need and has every place in the Church!

Give abundantly if you can. If you cannot give and indeed if you cannot afford to pay your bills and feed your children, worry not. Our God who feeds the sparrows will take care of your needs as well, and he will do it through his body (the church community you belong to). "But" you may say, "my church tells me that if I 'tithe' God will meet my needs; but they have never help me to pay a single bill which I could not pay because food comes first". To this I simply exhort, find then a community of God who are actually being the body of Christ; Christ would meet your needs, not burden you with more laws.

Amen

Derek

P.S. If I have offended someone by writing these three blogs I am not sorry. Perhaps people will say, "But we need tithing to pay for the church building", and to this I ask, where is your faith? As a community our people must always come before our buildings and if it is necessary to charge a weekly fee for a meeting centre then so be it, but don't label this fee 'tithing' and then claim that it is 'biblical' or 'God ordained' when it is not!

P.P.S. For those historical buffs, you may find it interesting to discover that tithing was not commonly practiced in the Church until about the seventh century AD! As a matter of fact, Christians did not tithe at all from the birth of the Church in Acts 2 (around 30 AD) until around 400 AD – that's almost four hundred years before tithing began in the Church – if it is so biblical then why did neither the Apostles nor the Apostolic Fathers (nor even the generation after them) ever teach or practice it.

Just an afterthought.

TITHING: A BIBLICAL CRITIQUE

2009-05-20T19:16:00.005-04:00

[Part 2: 1, 3]

Introduction: a False Premise or Two

'Tithe' simply means 'ten' or 'a tenth'. The popular idea of 'church tithing' runs something like this: In the bible God commands the Israelites (the Jewish people) to tithe to the storehouse of God (Jerusalem, the Temple). If we ignore the context of the bible and avoid questions like 'what was the intention of the authors and of God?' and if we treat the scriptures as a series of 'universal preposition', then we may conclude that God commands Christians to tithe to the local church.

With this as our first premise we may then conclude that every reference in the New Testament to 'giving' must be understood in the context of 'tithing'. The logical equation goes like this:

Premise 1: Since tithing is a universal principle enforced in the O.T.

Conclusion 1; Premise 2: and since the N.T. when it refers to giving it means 'tithe'

Conclusion 2: Therefore God commands Christians to tithe

Notice: if either one (or both) of the premises are false, the conclusion must be false also. It can easily be demonstrated that both premises are false and that context is crucial to understanding the scriptures. If we ignore the context of the scriptures while formulating doctrine there will no end to spurious interpretations, the scriptures will then be made to say anything anyone wants' them to say and we will not know what it is they intended to say in the first place. We shall forever be misled by poor interpretative methods.

Let us then first examine what the scriptures do say regarding 'tithe'.

Israel: Old Testament Tithe of 23.3 % annually

It may come as a shock to most people to discover that in the Old Testament God instituted three (not one) distinct tithes for the Jewish people! Two annual tithes and a third tithe which was collected every three years, amounting to an annual giving of 23.3 percent. What this bit of information means is that, even in the Old Testament, there is no biblical warrant to teach an annual (or weekly!) ten percent giving (strictly speaking). The three tithes are as follows:

There was a tithe of the produce of the land to support the Levites who had no inheritance in Canaan. [Lev. 27:30-33; Num. 18:21-31]
Another and altogether separate tithe of the produce of the land was to sponsor religious festivals in Jerusalem. If the produce was too burdensome for a family to carry to Jerusalem, they were allowed to convert it into money. [Deut. 14:22-27 – festival tithe]
Finally, a tithe of the produce of the land was collected every third year for the local Levites, orphans, strangers, and widows. [Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13]

As George Barna and Frank Viola point out: "A clear parallel can be seen between Israel's tithing system and the modern taxation system present in America. Israel was obligated to support their national workers (priests), their holidays (festivals), and their poor (strangers, widows, and orphans) with their annual tithes. Most modern taxation systems serve similar purposes" (Pagan Christianity, p.173).

It is interesting to note that when the scriptures are addressing each individual 'tithe' they refer to it in the singular, but when the scriptures are not speaking specifically of 'this' tithe or 'that' tithe, then the word tithe is found in the plural, 'tithes'. A good example is Deuteronomy 14 were two different totally distinct tithes are mentioned one after the other: "Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe…" (verse 22-23a), "At the end of every three years bring all the tithes of that years produce and store it in your towns" (verse 28). The first tithe mentioned here is collected every year, but the second tithe is collected every three years, this means that on the third year at least two separated 'tithes' are collected. Notice however, later in Deuteronomy when the third tithe is centered out specifically, the plural moves back to singular: "When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe…" (16:12).

I point this out only because later when the scriptures address all the tithes which God commanded the Israelites to give, they simply use the plural 'tithes' or they will say the 'whole tithe' as a way of referring to all three; Mal. 3:8c, 10a is a good example: "In tithes and offerings… bring the whole tithe into the storehouse".

Conclusion: (1) The institution of tithing in Israel essentially functioned as their national tax, which only makes sense since they were in fact a nation. Gods' people are no longer a national ethnic entity which may explain why the New Testament does not teach that Christians are to tithe to the church as Jews were to tithe to Israel! (2) The tithe in Israel was 23.3 percent annually! This is a biggie. If we truly want to be 'biblical' in promoting tithing then we must teach it as it is, not 10 but a whopping 23.3 percent per year!

What about Abraham and Melchizedek?

Someone may say that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek before the Law (Gen. 14:17-20 – the first and only pre-Moses example of a tithe) therefore showing that tithing is an established principle. But there are a few things we may wish to keep in mind before we too hastily raise this single account up as a standard to model:

First, God did not command Abraham to tithe. It was a personal decision and nowhere in the text is it suggested that everyone after Abraham should follow his example.
Also, Abraham tithed out of the spoils of battle and not out of his own wealth; a similar example would be to tithe after winning the lottery.
And finally, once and only once in all one hundred and seventy five years on this earth is it ever said of Abraham that he tithed.

So if we are going to hold Abraham up as our standard for tithing then (1) we only have to tithe if we win the lottery or come across a large sum of money; (2) even if we win the lottery, we only have to give if we want to, (3) and finally we only have to give once in our entire lives!

What about Malachi?

How many sermons have been delivered and applied to the Church on Malachi 3:8-10 which I will here quote at length: 'Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In tithes and offerings. You are under a curse – the whole nation of you – because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,' says the Lord Almighty, 'and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.'"

Yet I have never heard this passage preached (as it should be) in the context of the immediate proceeding verses (5-7). "I will come near to you for judgment… against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice… return to me and I will return to you… But you ask, 'How are we to return?'" then the text begins, "will a man rob God? Yet you rob me…"

This entire passage is so dense with Covenantal Theology that I must strive to reserve myself (3:1)! The point to be noticed here is that in verse 5 we have reached the heart of God for everything which follows; that the widows and orphans and aliens are being oppressed! God is a God of justice who cares for the helpless as the whole of scripture makes abundantly clear! He is coming in judgment to the Israelites because they are breaking the Covenantal Law (vs. 6) of God established by Moses (Deuteronomy in particular). The law in question here has to do with the national tax (tithe) which had the explicit purpose of taking care of the helpless and needy (vs. 5). Because Israel was continuing to break the law of God, they were (nationally) falling under the curse of the law (vs. 9: "You are under a curse – the whole nation – for robbing me" – remembering of course Deuteronomy 28:15ff)

Yet if they are obedient to the laws of God – particularly the law of tithing here – God will bless them so much that they will not be able to contain it (vs. 10) and what's more important, the nations will call Israel blessed because theirs "will be a delightful land" (vs. 12). The overtones here to Deuteronomy 28:1-14 are too great to ignore. Just as God pronounced warnings of curses over the Israelites for failing to keep Gods laws in Deuteronomy 28:15ff, so also he has promised to bless Israel with prosperity in their land – as a testament to the God of Israel it is important to note – if they obey the law of the Covenant. So this entire passage is grounded in the Mosaic Covenant and should not be considered a 'universal preposition'!

Jesus and the Tithe

It should be noted that Jesus, in addressing Pharisaic legalism, comments on tithing, but only as an afterthought and only on two occasions.

In Luke 18:12 Jesus very clearly portrays tithing in a negative and legalistic fashion. It is the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, where the Pharisee thanks God that he is not like the tax collector and boasts that he fasts twice a week and gives a tenth of all he gets. The moral of the story? The tax collector, not the tithe paying Pharisee, went home justified before God.
In Matt. 23:23 (cf. Luke 11:42) Jesus again confronts Pharisaic legalism, this time not in a parable but in a 'woe'. He says, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former." What is important to observe here is that Jesus is not instructing the disciples on tithing. This passage is dealing specifically with the leaders of Israel who were tithing (half heartedly in a 'since I have to' sense) while neglecting the more important aspects of the law – love. This passage by the way would make for an interesting comparative study with Malachi, specifically 1:8, 13-14; 3:5-7.

Conclusion: Jesus does not once teach or promote tithing to his disciples. Only when addressing specifically the leaders of Israel does he – almost as an afterthought – tell them they should not neglect it – of course Christ had not died yet and the Old Covenant was very much alive during his earthly ministry.

It is curious to note that it seems Jesus and his disciples did not tithe during Christ' three years in the ministry. When Peter was asked by collectors whether Jesus paid the temple tax, Peter lies; "Yes, he does". Jesus is aware of the encounter – what with being God and all – and defends his right not to have to pay the temple tax, but then he tells Peter (so that they do not offend) to go fishing, and the first fish he catches will have enough coins in its mouth to pay for both of their tithes! This of course indicates that neither one were tithing (Matt. 17:24-27), and it seems to have been a onetime occurrence.

Tithing: From Acts – Revelation

This section is going to be short and sweet: Acts – no mention of tithing (see that was easy); the Pauline corpus from Romans to Philemon – again, no mention of tithe; James, Peter, Jude and the final books of John (the epistles and Revelation) – you guessed it, no mention again of tithing or any variation of it. Only in Hebrews chapter 7 is tithing used and even here, tithing is not the point. The point of the text is to show that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, that he was the greatest priest of them all. By doing this, the author of Hebrews is very cleverly setting up Melchizedek to show that Christ is in fact even greater than Melchizedek and thus Christ is truly greater than all other priests! In short, Hebrews 7 no way promotes tithing, tithing is not event the subject, the greatness of Melchizedek, and how Christ is even greater then he, is the subject.

Final Conclusion:

Having now quickly surveyed the entire body of scripture pertaining to this subject how is it possible to teach that Christians must tithe – according to the bible – ten percent of their weekly income to their local church? How is it possible to separate tithe from 'giving', 'love offering' and the such? Where is the scriptural evidence? Where is the biblical support for such an idea, chapter and verse please?

It does not exist!

Having illustrated how the doctrine of tithing is harmful to the body of Christ in the previous blog, and having now shown how tithing is not supported by the scriptures (not by a long shot, not in the least!), I will now attempt to outline a biblical approach to giving within the body of Christ. I believe very strongly and passionately in giving! My wife and I give every single week, we work it out in our budget and we support our church, the ministries that go on in it and of course I am thrilled to support the salary of my pastor.

Stay tuned…

Derek

A word on Pagan Christianity: While I wholly endorse Frank Viola's book, Pagan Christianity, I do not agree with all of his conclusions. None the less, I wish that everyone would read Pagan Christianity if for no other reason than to understand where and how our traditions came about. It is this bloggers opinion that Viola goes too far in search of some type of 'ideal' church which I think never existed, and aims for Christians to 'return' to this ideal 'church' which – I believe – frankly is unattainable. For this reason I do not support his Reimagining Church to the same extent that I support Pagan Christianity, which, again, I think everyone should read!

On Tithing Part 1

2009-05-18T09:47:00.008-04:00

[Part 1: 2, 3]

A young woman came up to me at work the other day and asked me if we are supposed to tithe. I told her that we should give to support our church and our leaders if we can, but that feeding our children and making sure our bills get paid comes first. To this she responded with another question, ‘but doesn’t the bible say that we have to tithe?’ This second question is asked with a presupposition that expects an answer in the affirmative, in court this would be called a leading question, asked in such a way as to expect no other answer then a ‘yes’. But the answer is – strictly speaking – no, the bible does not tell us that we have to tithe; there is no such command in the scriptures. From Acts to Revelation, in all of the Pastoral Epistles and the other epistles that instruct on operating a church there is not a single mention of this doctrine for Christians!

Not long ago I read a book by John Stott called the Living Church: Reflections of a lifelong pastor. In this book an entire chapter is devoted to giving within the church and to the church and it is filled with exegesis of all relevant New Testament passages – yet not once in the entire book is the word tithe or any variation of it used. Yet today it is difficult to image many churches teaching on church giving without appealing to an Old Testament law on tithing and telling the people that God requires it or they won’t be blessed.

Someone asked me a while back if I would write a blog on this subject and so here it is. On the one hand I want to be sensitive to the fact that tithing is a common practice in many churches, but I also need to be firm – the doctrine of tithing is destructive, unbiblical and against the design of Gods Church. This will be a series of three blogs, the first (present) blog will attempt to support the bold claim I just made. The second will be to examine all the relevant biblical texts that are used to support tithing and will show decisively how the scriptures, when read in context, do not support this terrible idea. I will conclude with a wholesome, biblical and godly practice of giving.

Why does it matter?

There are four pastoral reasons why it matters whether or not we teach a doctrine of tithing to our people: 1. it destroys the faith of the Christian; 2. it hinders a right attitude of giving; 3. it becomes a barrier to the unbeliever; 4. it prevents the Church from being what God designed it to be.

1. It destroys the faith of the Christian

How many times have I heard messages delivered from pulpits teaching that God will financially bless those who faithfully tithe? And so many people give (or try to give) ten percent of their income. Sometimes they are not able to pay their bills, collection agencies are after them. Some people can’t afford to feed their children or keep their phone lines activated. Some can’t afford to get their car on the road (which they need for work) and still, week after week they struggle to give a tenth of their income to the church.

Why isn’t God blessing them with more money or a better job or miraculous food etc? Oh yah sure, someone is going to go up to the platform and describe a miracle that happened to them, but others – and way more in the majority – are living in condemnation and guilt, feeling unacceptable before God, unjustified and weighed down by the sin of either not being able to give ten percent, or else by giving and still – for reasons God only knows – cannot afford to pay their monthly bills! Does this look like the picture of the church that God intended – does this testify of a God whose eyes are on the sparrow? As Mark Hall poetically but it, “if we are the body, why aren’t his arms reaching”? But more on this anon.

The scriptures teach that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus [Rom. 8:1] and that we find approval in the eyes of our heavenly father who smiles down on us because of our faith in his Son Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the Law [Rom 3:28]! Yet when we teach tithing we both place our brothers and sisters (especially those who are already hurting – God help us) in condemnation [Luke 6:37, cf. verse 38] and in shorthand we are essential telling them that their approval rating before God, their level of being justified if you will – is not found by faith in Jesus alone but by works of the Law; the work of tithing! This gospel is not the Gospel! This is not even just another gospel; it is actually ‘anti’ the true Gospel!

2. It hinders a right attitude of Giving

Little is necessary to say on this. We find ourselves – by which I mean the ‘we’ (whoever they are) who teach the law of tithing – in quite the predicament. How do we tell people that they must give ten percent of their income, threaten them that if they do not give ten percent that they will not be blessed, and then have them do it for ‘spiritual’ not legal reasons? In the New Testament Paul can say on the one hand, give with a willing and cheerful heart, but then on the other he can say, give freely [2 Cor. 9:7]. Tithing may say (depending on who’s preaching it) you must give with a cheerful heart, but it cannot liberate you to give freely, on the contrary it demands that you give ten percent of your income ‘or else’.

No wonder people have such a hard time giving, free them up and they will give cheerfully. Demand that they give a certain amount, and they will resist. These two worlds cannot coexist (dichotomy).

3. It becomes a barrier to the unbeliever.

Scenario 1: Imagine you are an un-churched person living in today’s southern Ontario economy – the previous automotive capital of Canada – with all of its auto factories and dealerships folding up operations and moving elsewhere leaving countless without jobs. Now you (and almost everyone you know) are faced with the daunting task of taking care of your family without the financial means to do so. You then meet a previous co-worker on the street who is in the same boat as you are yet as you dialogue with one another you discover that your new friend is not nearly as depressed as you are over the situation and so you ask what’s up. He explains that God is taking care of his financial needs until he gets on his feet. You first scoff, ‘yah I’ve heard that before. What does God do, drop dollar bills from heaven?’ But then he warmly rebuttals, ‘it’s true, the body of Christ, the community of faith, are helping me pay my bills and some of them have even given me short term work to help me out’ he explains, ‘a guy in the bible named James teaches that he will show everyone his faith my what he does and another guy named Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ where we help and support each other by the will of God… and friend’ he says to you, ‘we would love to help you as well’. Tears stream down your cheeks and you are emotionally overwhelmed by the workings of a Christ you don’t even know it yet.

Scenario 2: Now let us consider another more familiar scenario. You are un-churched and a Christian friend invites you to church. The economy stinks yet still a leader of the church steps up and declares that it is time to take up the tithe. He gives a mini-sermon on how God requires that we give ten percent of our income to the church, no matter what situations we are facing. To neglect this is to be disobedient to God, to show a lack of faith and as a result, God will not ‘bless’ you or your family. Or consider this true scenario I recently heard: there was a woman who was ‘seeking to find religion’. After several weeks of attending church – note she was not a believer, but only a seeker – a church leader approached her and warned sternly that if she was to continue to attend the church she must tithe – she ceased attending church altogether (story slightly modified).

Is it even necessary to ask which of the two scenarios above best shines the light of Christ via his body to a lost and dark world?

4. It prevents the Church from being what it is designed to be

This fourth point is simply a corollary to the previous three: The Church of God is a community of faith based missional believers called to be the embodiment of Gods people functioning Gods way to this dark and hopeless world. Instead we have removed the faith from this community and substituted it for law. Then we claim this in the name of that very ‘faith’ which we removed, claiming we must give by ‘faith’ ‘believing’ that God will ‘bless us’, even though James – inspired by the Holy Spirit – has a completely different philosophy: it is you who must prove your faith by helping those who are in need [James 2:18]! When we fail to do this and then demand from those we are supposed to be helping that they must give anyways, we are both destroying their faith while simultaneously proving that we ourselves are faithless! We have consequentially nullified ‘faith’ and God’s divine institution – the Church – and have ceased to continue in the lead of Christ to be Kingdom people!

We have essentially – like Israel before us – become a part of the problem instead of a part of the solution to man’s plot!

Conclusion

You may stand opposed to these four reasons just given, you may find a positive spin somehow in each one and then you may conclude – as though putting the final nail in the coffin – that we must be obedient to God even if we don’t like it, and God – or so you argue – demands that we tithe!

Well it is to this assumption that I will now turn my attention: Does the bible teach that we must give ten percent of our income to the church, or is there a better more biblically faithful way to give within the body of Christ?

Until then, give all you can, give cheerfully and give communally, because when the community of God functions in this way, then when we have need, that which we have given to help others will then be given back to us a good measure, pressed down, shaken together and rolled over [Luke 6:38]!

Hallelujah and amen!

Derek

Done with Dunn

2009-05-15T15:38:00.004-04:00

What is the NP: Trying Again…

This whole series on the New Perspective on Paul has come about as a result of my near feeble attempt to nail down what it is and what it teaches. But I got an epiphany the other day and realized that maybe I have been going about this particular subject all wrong.

I have been treating the “NP” as though it were a doctrine of some sort, asking questions like, “what does it teach?” and “why are so many reformers up in arms against it?” These are still valid questions but only if I treat the subject differently. The NP should not be handled the same as say Open Theism – the doctrinal, theological, scriptural and philosophical debate over how much of the future God knows – or eschatology – the debate over which theory of the ‘last’ best fits the biblical corpus. The New Perspective on Paul cannot be handled as such because it is not really a solid concrete doctrinal proposal like the two examples above. Rather the NP is an abstract philosophical approach to Paul in particular and maybe to the New Testament in general.

Context, Context, Context…

The best word to sum up this subject may be ‘context’. As we saw in our blogs on Sanders, he – in Paul and Palestinian Judaism – broke the mold of Pauline study and his general principles have stood the test of time. Paul is not to be understood as a Greek Jew combating Jewish legalism by rejecting both the Law and Israel. On the contrary, Paul is very much a Jew of his day who had a real encounter with the Jewish Messiah who is also the Messiah to the world. If God is One, then he must be the God to the gentiles as much as the Jews; Judaism was not a legalistic religion but rather a grace based religion, but salvation, according to Paul (says Sanders and Dunn) is not found in national ethnic election with boundaries markers such as circumcision, food laws and holy festivals (summed up by Paul as “nomos” or “torah”); salvation instead is found in faith in the Messiah, Jesus. If this is true, says Sanders, then the centre of Paul’s theology is not “how are people saved” (i.e. justification by faith), but rather, “what does it mean to be ‘in Christ’”.

To sum up: the New Perspective sees Paul within a Jewish context whereas the Old Perspective sees Paul within a Hellenistic context. Was Paul a Greek Jew rejecting the Law or a Messianic Jew redefining the place of the Law in light of the Messiah? The Old Perspective opts for the first; the New opts for the second.

Why does this matter?

The issues of contention arise when we approach Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans in which Paul declares that Justification is by faith and not by works of the law. While the old perspective understood Paul here to be speaking in terms of “good works” and universal principles of salvation, the New Perspective seeks to understand the text in its’ context, something so basic a principle of hermeneutics but for whatever reason has been resisted by so many in the traditional camp.

An example of this is in Galatians where the context is clearly and indisputably the issue of ‘what is required of Gentiles to be Christian?’ Do they need to first become Jews by keeping the Torah, the Jewish laws that separated Gods people from everybody else, particularly circumcision, food laws and holy days? Paul is adamant, by no means! Justification is by faith in Jesus the Messiah, not by works of the law (i.e. nomos = torah). In other words, Paul is not addressing ‘good works’ in this text! And it is this undeniable truth of the text that has steamed up so many Reformers.

The irony in this is that those who are push for the New Perspective, particularly James Dunn and N.T. Wright, do not believe they are denying the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone, and they go so far as to state outright this fact:

“At the same time I see no reason to dispute – indeed, I wish strongly to affirm on my own account – what the more traditional emphasis highlights and underscores… that justification by faith is at the core of Paul’s gospel and theology [Sanders would dispute this], what is at stake is to secure a properly rounded and integrated grasp of Paul’s teaching” – Dunn, p.369

“Some still use [Paul] to legitimate an old-style ‘preaching of the gospel’ in which the basic problem is human sin and pride and the basic answer is the cross of Christ. Others, without wishing to deny this as part of the Pauline message, are struggling to do justice to the wider categories and the larger questions that seem to be a non-negotiable part of Paul’s whole teaching. This, indeed, is the category into which I would put myself.” – Wright, p.22, italics added.

So what’s clear is that those who adhere to the so called New Perspective, their agenda is to understand and grasp as much from the text of the scriptures as they can – and this is done by good an proper biblical hermeneutics! That while Justification by faith alone is true, Paul has something more – or something else perhaps – in mind. That Gentiles can come to Christ without having to go through the law (i.e. Torah), in particular circumcision, food laws and holy days.

Let me conclude then by suggesting that the ridiculous phrase “New Perspective on Paul” should be discarded altogether, for it is wholly inaccurate and useless. A better phrase, which is no new phrase at all, would be ‘good and proper hermeneutics’ since that is the aim and success of those who adhere to it. The irony then is that so many Reformers resist interpreting Paul in his context when claiming as a fundamental to their entire belief system solo scriptura! If they wish to dispute this or that part of Dunn and Wrights interpretation, that is agreeable and indeed for critical purposes, encouraged. But to disregard the system of Dunn and Wright is to disregard wholly accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics!

In light of this epiphany I have decided that it would be counter-productive (not to mention daunting to everybody) to examine Dunn’s book to the same extent I did Sanders. Through Dunn’s study I began to grasp more of Paul and his letters then before, yet still I find much to disagree with on this or that point. However, having now a greater understanding of the New Perspective – come on folks another term already! – I have once again and finally return to Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said?, and am joyfully gleaning!

Until next time, be wholly His

Derek

Star Trek and Dad

2009-05-09T23:00:00.001-04:00

Warning: the following blog may contain some spoilers of the new Star Trek film. I suggest you see the film before reading further, but please, after you do return to this blog and allow me to share my heart with you. If you like spoilers, then by all means, read on!

------------------------------------------------------

I just got home from watching Star Trek in the theaters, and let me tell you, even with the high expectation and excitement I built up before going to see it…. It will not and did not disappoint! It was amazing through and through, I even want to see it again and look forward to buying it on DVD. My only critique is that there simply wasn’t enough, I wanted more; I want a sequel to the prequel!

I know my blogs are designed to be theological in nature, and I’m sure someone will offer some profound philosophical and theological insight as they did to Lord of the Rings and Narnia, but not me and not today. I do however want to share I small unexpected emotional insurgence I experienced during the climax of the film.

The scene was reaching a climatic peak; Spock set his small one man vessel on a collision course with enemy ship, a monster of a ship destroying entire fleets and even planets! Kirk was aboard the enemy vessel alone and terribly outnumbered attempting to rescue the previous captain. The enemy ship had launched an armada of missals to destroy Spock’s little pod… in short, all hope seemed lost.

Just then – and the scene was so incredible it brings a smile to my face even now – the Enterprise dropped out of warp and opened fire on the enemy ship with effects and fire power no other Star Trek movie ever produced.

At that moment, while I watched the orgasmic scene unfold, everything became surreal as I could almost hear my father’s voice as if he had been the one to see it and he was tell me about it fully excited and overjoyed: “Derek, you’re gonna love It! I mean, the Enterprise came out of nowhere guns blazing! It was awesome! I mean, it was like, ‘beam me up Scottie’, it was so cool son. You’re gonna love it.”

Right then and there, while watching Star Trek in the theaters, tears filled my eyes (and again as I type this). It has been a little over three months since my dad passed away and it catches up to me when I least expect it, when I’m surrounded by a hundred and fifty strangers watching a movie with my wife on my shoulder and here I am tearing up at a Star Trek film no less. My dad would have loved that movie, and I would have loved to see it with him.

We need to cherish the people in our lives, make the extra effort and spend the extra time, because when they are gone, all we have left are memories and tears.

What I wouldn’t give to hang out with my dad one more day.

I love you dad, and painfully miss you.

Derek

The Ultimate Evidence

2009-05-04T17:11:00.003-04:00

“It is of great significance that the great outpouring of God’s Spirit in this twentieth century was granted to, of the many Christian bodies available, a people whose primary concern was the ethical issues of life – the Holiness movement! That fact should speak volumes to us.” – Newman, p.71

Overdue Adjustments

Larry Newman has a section in his book which well reflects one of my complaints in the first blog of this series; namely that Pentecostalism needs to readjust ‘ethics’ in its paradigm. If tongues is the evidence that one has been Spirit-Baptized then what about one who speaks in tongues but lives an unethical life? If tongues is the evidence, then one who speaks in tongues has the Spirit regardless of one’s lifestyle. “This adjustment is sorely needed in our day” says Newman [p.85], “When Pentecostals are sometimes noted not so much for their charismatic expressions as for their lack of character, something is surely amiss”. (For examples of this read “this” blog.)

Newman adds, “Chapters 10 through 14 [of 1 Cor.] contains Paul’s argument that the charismatic is meaningless without the ethical dimension of the Christian life. Positioned in the middle of these chapters is Paul’s great ode to love. That is not accidental! It is intentional!” [p.86]

Another adjustment Newman calls attention to is the need to add emphasis to the “charisma of discernment” and adds, “We are rather naive in this day relative to manifestations of the Spirit. We have a tendency to accept any and all such expressions as being of the Spirit, with little concern that they might be the product of the flesh, or possibly, of demons” [p.88]; “I am afraid that in our eagerness to see people experience Spirit-Baptism we may prematurely declare someone to be Spirit-filled without a full accounting of the evidence. Again, the ethical dimension of the Christian life must be held to be primary in these considerations” [ibid].

Paul – Tongues are not the evidence!

Newman echoes one of the question I have been asking for nearly a decade now: “It seems logical that if Scripture intended to convey to the Church that glossolalia is to be understood as the primary evidence of Spirit-baptism, literature as important to Christian theology as the Pauline corpus would convey a didactic strain that would confirm such a notion” [p.91]. He points out that though Paul confirms the gift of tongues, he does not elevate it to the place of primary evidence! F.F. Bosworth shares similar sentiments, “Think of it, and then think again, all the New Testament epistles, and not a single mention of this doctrine” [p.126]. (The question of the necessary assumption of distinguishing between “tongues-evidence” and the “gift of tongues” will not be taken up here because it is an unfounded and unfortunate corollary which crumbles under the demise of the doctrine of tongues-evidence, making distinguishing assumption no longer necessary.)

Newman does a great job at examining the Pauline (and elsewhere in the N.T.) key text as they relate to this subject; but for brevity sake I want to focus on what I perceive to be the “left hook” of his Pauline study which deserves serious consideration. Perhaps, contrary to popular opinion, Paul does in fact have something very relevant to add to the “tongues as evidence” paradigm.

What does Paul mean when he says, “Tongues, then, are a sign not for the believer but for unbelievers”? I have heard many theories over the years, but the most prominent one has been that when someone comes into the church and hears you speaking in tongues they will say you are “mad” and as a result they will blaspheme the Holy Spirit, therefore, tongues is a “sign of Judgment”. There have been other theories, but this one I have heard the most. Newman’s exegete however is perhaps the best I have heard to date, taking into consideration the full context of 1 Cor. 12-14 and also the historical context of the church.

You will recall in the previous blog that there was a popular Greco/Roman cult which practiced speaking in tongues and that this cult was very active in first century Corinth. The glossolalia was practiced not just by the priestess of the cult, but also, during festival times, a power seized the average adherents and they too would speak in tongues. What is highly relevant is that such tongues speech was a sign for the adherents of this cult that a god had entered into them and had taken them over so that they were considered to be “out of their minds”. This is not to be understood the way we in our culture flippantly do, as in nuts or crazy, rather they were out of their minds because another mind had taken over – ecstasy (with the assistance of drugs no doubt). Now let us survey the text in question:

1. Paul situates the Corinthians firmly in the midst of this context when he says “Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols” (1 Cor. 12:1-2). So Paul is making an explicit connection between the pagan cult of which the Corinthians had come out of and the gifts of the Spirit, in particular, the gift of tongues which Paul devotes an entire chapter to (14)!

2. Next Paul moves on to show how every gift is on equal footing! Whether tongues or prophecy, or teaching or healing or interpretation etc, they are all given by one and the same Spirit (chpt. 12). It is interesting to parallel the love chapter of 1st Corinthians with the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5 – love is the keynote by which you have the Spirit; and if you speak in tongues but have not love you are nothing but a blabbering gong. I find it interesting that Paul begins the ode to love by negatively contrasting “tongues” with “love” to show that love is the “most excellent way”!

3. Lingering on the ode to love chapter just a little bit longer, as we progress through these three chapters of Paul’s letter towards his main point, I am struck by these words: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” [13:11] – Paul almost sounds condescending. How does this verse relate to the most excellent way as it is contrasted to the Spiritual gifts – especially tongues? Paul immediately narrows the discussion as he moves quickly to the issues at hand – tongues and prophecy. It is here where Paul explicitly applies what he said earlier [13:11] directly to the Corinthians just in case there was any doubt: “Brothers, stop thinking like children!” [14:20]; he makes this statement after affirming tongues as a legitimate gift, but then proclaims that he would rather speak “five intelligible” words that could be understood then “ten thousand words in a tongue” [14:18-19]. So the Corinthians were being childish both in their teaching and in their practice regarding tongues and Paul is crying out, mature in your theology, there is a more excellent way!

4. And so, you Corinthian who is still caught up in your carnal ways, you who came out of a tongues speaking pagan cult religion, let me remind you – Paul is in essence saying – that tongues is a sign for the unbeliever; a sign to the pagans that a god has come in to them and that they are out of their mind because another mind has taken over – but tongues are not a sign to the Christian that a god is in them; let me show you a more excellent way!

5. Prophecy, however, when it says that it is for the believer and not for the unbeliever, it means that it is not used as a “sign” among unbelievers – the pagan practitioners. However, it is a sign to the Christian, because when someone delivers a message from God “the secrets of his heart will be laid bare… So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming ‘God is really among you’” – as will the pagans [14:25]. However, even though prophecy is not considered a sign of the presence of the god’s in the cultic Greco/Roman religions, nonetheless, when an unbeliever hears prophecy among Christians – i.e. the preaching of the Word in the power of the Spirit – “he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner” [14:24].

Conclusions:

It seems that while the scriptures do not teach anywhere that the evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues, the Corinthian church had taught and practiced this very notion or something similar to it, and Paul deemed it necessary to correct them exclaiming, “Brothers, stop being childish in your orthodoxy and orthopraxy!” and “come out of your Pagan roots and influences”. Tongues may be a sign to the unbeliever that a god is among them, but Jesus made it clear, they shall know you are His by your love! And so if I speak with the tongues of angels and of men and have not love I am nothing, for the fruit of the Spirit is love (Gal.5).

This is not to say that the modern Pentecostal movement must “come out of their Pagan roots”. The root of modern Pentecostalism was holiness, and so the context of Corinthians and modern Pentecostalism are not the same. However, modern Pentecostalism is a ‘young’ movement, and many of it’s’ keynote doctrines – especially the one at hand – was developed out of a need of defending this experience to the church at large (i.e. tongues-evidence doctrine was birthed for apologetics sake!). But today – praise God! – the Pentecostal movement is the fastest growing branch of Christianity in the world and no longer needs to defend its existence. This point is critical, for as the premise of Newman’s books suggest, it’s time for modern Pentecostalism to mature in its’ theology! As Paul said to the Corinthians, “Brothers, stop thinking like children!”

Ultimate Evidence: A Most Excellent Way

It should be clear by now what the ultimate evidence that someone has been Spirit-Baptized is! As Newman said earlier, it is imperative that we find an evidence construct that can neither be faked by the flesh nor imitated by the demonic. An evidence is some kind of ‘proof’ that something happened, in this case, that a person is Spirit-Baptized; and if the evidence can be faked or mimicked then it makes for a poor construct, for how can we be sure that it is of the Spirit and not the flesh or demonic? Hopefully by discernment, but then again, discernment is not always utilized (in my observation, “rarely” would be a better term), thus we have run into our same problem; Logic, history and scripture all suggest that this doctrine must be false!

As already suggested, Paul and Jesus affirm the reality that a Spirit-filled, overflowing, empowered person is a life of love which works itself out in obedience. If we have charisma but not the active fruit of the Spirit in our lives, we surely do not have the Spirit and thus do not belong to the Spirit (Rom. 8:9 – gk. Lit.; you are controlled by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is in you, “if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” – i.e. the “Spirit” of Christ).

So then, in conclusion, Newman offers an alternative evidential paradigm – love. For neither the flesh nor the demonic are able to sustain for any length of time, an imitation of the Fruits of the Spirit. Life has a way of drawing out whether one is empowered by the fruit of the Spirit, or that of the flesh. But darkness cannot stand light and no demon can stand love without soon afterwards showing his scales, that he is a snake.

An Open Letter to Ministers and Saints in the Pentecostal Movement – a Final Thought

F.F. Bosworth, author of Christ the Healer, as stated in a previous blog, left the assemblies of God over the tongues-evidence issue. Later on he wrote a letter addressed to all the “ministers and saints of the Pentecostal movement” which has never had more relevance then today. I cannot fully treat the letter here and implore you to pick up a copy of Newman’s book which contains the letter in its appendix.

I will only cite two quotes from Bosworth, please read the second carefully I plead, for in it he sums up my own experience perfectly, and if we claim the Christ of love and the God of unity of one people and recognize the reality that we, as one belonging to Christ, are called to be ministers of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19), then we are obligated to acknowledge the effects of this teaching, that it may destroy the faith of a dear saint, a child of God. This I do not want on my conscience, and those with a shepherds heart should be doubly concerned!

He says:

“I am certain that those who receive the most powerful Baptisms for service do not receive the manifestation of speaking in tongues. And I am just as certain many who seemingly speak in tongues, are not nor ever have been Baptized in the Spirit. Although I have in the past very tenaciously contended for it, as many of the brethren still do, I am certain that it is entirely wrong and unscriptural to teach that the miraculous speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost was not the gift of tongues God set in the Church, and which is so often mentioned in the first letter to the Corinthians. Not only is there not a solitary passage of Scripture on which to base this doctrine, but on the other hand the Scriptures flatly deny it.” [p.123 italics added]

Now pay close attention:

“After God has most powerfully Baptized the seeker, and, with perfect faith Divinely inwrought, he is rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory, with every ounce of his flesh quivering under the power of the indwelling Spirit, some one will tell him that he has not yet received the Holy Ghost because he did not speak in tongues. This destroys his faith, which Paul says is both “the evidence” and “the substance,” Heb. 11:1, and sends him home discouraged, to continue his seeking, as some have for several years”. [p.29, italics added].

Perhaps in the next blog I will share my testimony of when I received the fullness of the Spirit – it was an event that transformed my life and set me for three weeks praying unceasingly with joy unspeakable while hovering on cloud nine. I have never been the same. Yet, it is most unfortunate that I spent several more years (as long as a decade!) seeking for the fullness of the Spirit which I was told I did not have because I did not speak in tongues. I will not linger here, to see how this has affected me, read the first blog in this series.

Be blessed in the fullness of the presence of the Spirit of God, allowing him to tranform you from one state of Glory to another!

Thank you for reading,

Derek

Blockheads and Icons - An Invitation

2009-04-24T17:16:00.003-04:00

Hello blogging buddies!

I just want to let you all know that I am tentatively penciled in to deliver a sermon at the Devonwood Community Church of the Nazarene on Sunday May 17th at 11:00 a.m.; and I want to send this warm invitation to all who are willing and able to come and visit us that day.

I titled the sermon Blockheads and Icons. My thesis is that we humans were created to bear the image and likeness of God (i.e. the concrete reflection of the character and glory of God) in and to his creation. As a consequence of the fall we find ourselves in the paradox of still carrying the purpose of divine image bearers, without the ability to fulfill that purpose, we have essentially become ‘cracked icons’. As a result we have become idol worshippers (blockheads) and have taken on their character traits, a sure sign by our lifestyles that we are not god-fearers. But God, through the first fruits of Christ - the new creation - has made us into a new creation so that we are transformed once again into the likeness of God, and are changing from one state of glory to another; and if this is not evident by the fruit of our lives (i.e. the Spirit in us), then we are not bearing God’s image and need to search our lives for whatever idol it is we are worshipping instead – to destroy it.

The references I will be using to assist in formulating my thoughts are We Become What We Worship by G.K. Beale; In The Beginning by Henri Blocher; and A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight.

Pray for me in the weeks and days leading up to the sermon; pray especially that I would never forget to seek that God would stir up and execute this gift in my life, that I would not rely on the so-called ‘talents’ of the flesh in delivering this (or any) sermon; ‘cause when I do, I fall flat on my face.

I hope to see you there!

Derek

Rethinking The Tongues-Evidence Paradigm

2009-04-21T19:30:00.005-04:00

“This writer was baptized with the Holy Spirit at the age of thirteen and spoke in tongues, and I still speak in tongues” - Larry Newman, p.3

I have come across many books over the years written on the topic of Spirit-Baptism, they typically fit in one of three categories. First there are the “Traditionalist” who insist that the spiritual gifts (including ‘tongues’) faded from history shortly after the first century; second are the Pentecostal’s who are (uncritically) heaven-bent on writing that the initial or primary evidence that one has received Spirit-Baptism is that the said individual will speak in tongues. And the third group are those who have ‘exited’ from Pentecostalism bitter and hurt from the uncritical claims and subsequent results this doctrine has had on them, and they have become hell-bent on informing the world of the ‘evils’ of Pentecostalism in books such as "17 Reasons Why I Left the Tongues Movement”(o/p).

Seldom, however, have I come across a book written by a Pentecostal, one who was “baptized with the Holy Spirit” and “spoke in tongues” and continues to “speak in tongues”, yet who has risen to the challenge of critically examining one of the movements most sacred doctrines in light of academically acceptable scriptural hermeneutics. Furthermore, Newman, while at times defending Pentecostalism, has in godly love and humble self-examination admitted the weaknesses within Pentecostalism and its’ doctrines and history, and attempts to map out for the Pentecostal reader a better way, one that aligns itself more faithfully to the scriptures, brings unity to the Body of Christ, and calls for the distinctiveness of Pentecostalism to contribute to - not harbor against - the Church at large.

Newman says, “There are some who think that the issue of tongues-as-evidence ought to be left alone. Then there are some who recognize that the examination and reformation of this doctrine may well be the most important theological endeavor in the history of the Pentecostal movement” [p.xiii].

“Tongues” - Not exclusive to Christianity!

If the visible expression of speaking in tongues is the evidence that someone has been filled with the Spirit of God (Spirit-Baptism), then the only logical way for this to be so is if “tongues” were exclusively a Christian experience. As “fearless” erroneously concluded in the previous blog, if someone speaks in tongues, they must be a Christian. Newman shows how this seems to be a general assumption made by Pentecostals and he quotes many writers to that affect, all claiming that the tongues phenomenon did not exist any where by any means throughout history prior to Pentecost in Acts chapter two. This assumption is historically unfounded and incorrect. As a matter of fact, the “tongues” phenomenon existed for centuries prior to Pentecost within certain Greco/Roman “mystery” religions. “The experience of the emerging church on the day of Pentecost was not the introduction of speaking in tongues into the realm of human history” [p.3, italics original].

“The Delphic Oracle, associated with the religion of Apollo, was well known for its emphasis on glossolalic phenomena and was active for more then one thousand years” [p.4]. Closely related to this cult is the cult of Dionysus, younger brother of Apollo who was considered to be the mystic, ecstatic god. Historians tell us that “it was not just the priestess who spoke in tongues in this cult but that it appeared to be a common event during the festivals of Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries” [p.5]. Newman goes on to quote Marcus Bach, “When the exuberance of the worshipers reached rapturous heights, the incredible, sometimes musical utterances, began. They were like sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. The speakers became the center of attraction. Initiates listened enthralled and often they, too, became overpowered and burst into a babble of sounds… devotees not only spoke in tongues but were also baptized in the river” [p.5]. When someone in this cult began to utter glossolalia it was believed that this was a sign that the ‘gods’ had inhabited the person. It will become very relevant when we discuss Paul (below) that the Corinthians would have been all too familiar with this tongues-speaking cult, and understanding the cultural and historical background of 1 Corinthians 12-14 goes along way to properly understanding and applying Paul’s message of tongues and prophecy.

Newman further gives examples of individuals at the start of our recent Pentecostal movement who spoke, not from the Holy Spirit, but in tongues of another persuasion - demonic. The wife of one of the patriarchs of the modern Pentecostal movement, Sarah Parham, recorded an experience; “One day, when in prayer, a power seized my lower jaw, which began to tremble, then shake with increased violence [and after her husband Charles began to pray for her] The power, over which I had not control, left me and I realized it was not of God”. Ironically, Charles Parham was instrumental in developing the tongues-as-evidence doctrine [p.7].

Newman also adds that “the flesh can mimic Holy Spirit produced glossolalia, and the demonic can imitate this phenomenon” [p.7]; and concludes his first chapter with this critical observation; “The belief that speaking in tongues is the primary evidence that one has been filled with the Holy Spirit is at best tenuous. We must seek an evidential construct or constructs that can be neither mimicked by the flesh nor imitated by the demonic” [p.9, italics original].

Newman goes on to show how the gifts of the Spirit (including tongues) continued on throughout the patristic period up to around 400 A.D. and that the modern movement had a precursor to it in the revival meetings of Edward Irving around 1830; yet the doctrine of tongues-as-evidence never before was taught either by the early church or by England’s Pentecostal precursor. Furthermore, he shows that in the beginning of the modern Pentecostal movement the tongues-as-evidence doctrine was highly debatable - contra the idea that it was unanimously accepted - and, for example, it was not accepted in the Assemblies of God until 1916 [p.74].

F.F. Bosworth was a well known Pentecostal who joined the Assemblies of God in 1906. He is most known for his healing ministry and most famous for his book, Christ the Healer - he affirmed and strongly believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet he was perhaps a leading voice against the tongues-as-evidence doctrine in the ensuing debate. After the General Council wholly accepted the said doctrine Bosworth submitted his resignation and joined the Christian and Missionary Alliance - one groups loss is another groups gain [p.74-75]

Turning to Hermeneutics

Larry Newman has analyzed the Pentecostal attempt of creating a distinct hermeneutic, one that ignores or fails to take into account those hermeneutical principals that have been tried and proved, in favor of one that is more sympathetic to the doctrine of tongues-evidence. The result has been a lack of respect for the great tradition of the Christian Church - a sort of looking down the nose at all who have gone before - and a great deal of scriptural misunderstanding. He says, “If the call for a hermeneutic that is particularly Pentecostal means that we set aside interpretive principles that have stood the test of time throughout the history of the church, we must rigorously resist such a notion” [p.55].

Larry shows how often Pentecostals have run amuck with their experiences, and often scour the scriptures for ‘evidence’ that such and such is biblical; and that this approach often leads deeper into false doctrines. What often happens is that an experience that someone has may be considered “extra revelation” by the Spirit - but, I warn, such notions uninhibited opens the door to encounters which are not from God. All things must be measured by God’s Word, since the Holy Spirit will not contradict Himself.

He also shows how “some Pentecostals deem it unnecessary to receive formal (or informal I would add) training in order to properly interpret the word of God. The Holy Spirit will reveal to the seeker what a particular passage means. After all, the Spirit inspired the word to start with, why should he not reveal what it means now?” [p.60]. Newman goes a long way to defend some of the essence of that quote, the carnal mind cannot understand the things of God, “we need the transcendent illumination of the Holy Spirit” [p.63], but are we prepared to be so bold as to judge all the powerful men of God throughout the centuries as being unable to interpret the word of God, since, in the Pentecostal judgment, the vast majority of them did not have the “illumination of the Holy Spirit” (assuming tongues-evidence)? But examining inwardly Newman adds, “there is something lacking, for the most part, in Pentecostal hermeneutical labors… sound hermeneutics requires exegesis, something at which we Pentecostals have certainly been remiss. The failure to properly exegete a passage of Scripture has often lead to misinterpretation of the passage” [p.63]. “We have already witnessed the devastation wreaked upon our movement by people claiming to have received extra-revelation from the Spirit that was absolutely contrary to a proper understanding of the word and ways of God; in particular, the Jesus Only movement and the Latter Rain movement, both of which rose out of the Pentecostal movement, due to too much subjectivity in the hermeneutical task” [p.64].

One particular hermeneutical fallacy consistent in Pentecostalism is it’s treatment of the book of Acts, in particular, by ignoring its genre and also by stretching certain aspects of what it says. Acts is not and should not be treated as didactic! The book of Acts is a historical and narrative literature, not didactic, and should be approached on different grounds then, say, the Pauline epistles which are deliberately didactic! Larry Newman asks a most compelling question (one I’ve asked for years), if glossoliala is the evidence that someone has received the fullness of the Holy Spirit, then why, in all of the doctrinal letters in the New Testament, is this one teaching eerily absent? Why, if it is not addressed by Peter, John, the author of Hebrews, or indeed Paul, is it so adamantly insisted upon in modern day Pentecostalism?

Furthermore, when Acts is taken into account, remembering that its genre is historical/narrative and not didactic, we must remember that Luke was very specific in selecting what parts of the narrative to document, and what not to. Of the five instances where it is said that someone receives Spirit-Baptism, only four of them mention tongues, and two of those four instances tongues is accompanied with another gift, and of the two remaining, the first holds certain uniqueness due to the fact that it was the birth of the church in Jerusalem, the second holds a distinct uniqueness due to the fact that it was the first time the Spirit was poured out on to the Gentiles. Taken all of these examples into account it should be evident that Luke is not giving us a “pattern” or “paradigm” to follow of tongues-evidence; Acts gives no consistent standard.

It is interesting to note that when the Spirit is poured out on the Gentiles in Cornelius’ home, it happened without them seeking, it happened without Peter or anyone else praying for them to receive it, and when it suddenly happened (surprisingly interrupting Peter’s sermon) Peter exclaimed what was happening was the same thing that happened “as on us at the beginning?” If Luke is being careful and accurate in what he wrote, then this indicates that all those thousands who were saved between chapters two and ten of Acts did not necessarily receive tongues-evidence! “He could just as easily have said, ‘As He has been baptizing all from the beginning.’ If it was well known that all these spoke in tongues when they were Baptized in the Spirit, why should he point back only to the time when they spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost?” [Bosworth, p.127-8].

To confirm the uniqueness of this event in Cornelius’ house, the very pattern established regarding salvation is slightly altered by the sovereignty of God in order that Peter and those with him would understand that the gospel includes the Gentiles. When the multitudes cry out on the day of Pentecost, “what shall we do?”, Peter answers in this order, 1. Repent; 2. be baptized (water); and 3. you will (after that) receive the gift of the Holy Spirit [Acts 2:37-38]. At Cornelius’ house the order was altered, they were pierced in the heart by Peters sermon, God filled them with the Spirit (in the same manner he did to Peter on Pentecost) and only after that occurred, “the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles… Then Peter said, ‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water?’” [Acts 10:44-47].

Newman shows many further instances were Pentecostalism’s hermeneutical approach is wrong, getting specific at times and on one particular occasion he addresses a “questionable interpretation” of Acts 2:39 by Thomas Holdcroft concluding his analysis that such an interpretation simply will not stand up under proper hermeneutical procedure. The promise Luke makes reference to in Acts 2:39 is the person of the Holy Spirit, not some manifestation of the Spirit” he adds, “We must not confuse the charisms of the Spirit with the person of the Spirit. The church down through the centuries has had the Spirit at work within her, even in the most somber days of the Dark Ages. The Holy Spirit did not leap over the centuries from the upper room in Jerusalem to Camp Creek, North Carolina, or a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, leaving everything in between in a vacuum. God did not start something different with Agnew Ozman” [p.78].

I only mention this one particular instance in Newman’s book because years ago during my first year at the International Bible College I read Holdcrofts book Holy Spirit, and grew in frustration over the sheer volume of “questionable” interpretations Holdcroft was making. But what astonished me further is that so many swallowed Holdcrofts hermeneutical fallacies, uncritically, hook, line and sinker.

To Be Continued:

As I draft this blog in a Word document I see that I am already on the fifth page and there is still much to say. For example, in the next blog we will take a look at the Apostle Paul and what he has to add to the subject of tongues-evidence. It may astonish the reader to discover that while Paul does not teach a tongues-evidence paradigm in his doctrinal epistles, he may (in fact, it seems he does) specifically teach the opposite. It will astonish the reader further that Paul explicitly denies the Pentecostal holy grail of tongues-evidence and then he specifically and explicitly offers an alternative evidence paradigm!

We will then examine that alternative paradigm and offer Pentecostals a way forward that does not detract from true biblical Pentecostal experience, but rather places the movement firmly on a solid hermeneutical bedrock that will contribute to the church at large and give the Pentecostal movement greater credibility.

I will conclude with referencing a relevant letter written by F.F. Bosworth titled, Do All Speak with Tongues?: An Open Letter to Ministers and Saints of the Pentecostal Movement.

Until then,

Continue to allow the fruit of the fullness of the Spirit of God to shape you into the ever increasing glory of Christ, imago Dei!

Derek

Evidence of Tongues - A Testimony

2009-04-16T17:21:00.005-04:00

Introduction:

Between my relatively long-term study on the New Perspective on Paul, of which I am currently reading Dunn’s rendition of it, I have several other (and ever increasingly so) interests that have been creeping up and of which I have been taking hold of. As is well known from those who have followed my blogs, I recently responded to a Catholic friend on the issue of “Faith Alone” - of which, it is important to note, I have been contemplating a better way of articulating this doctrine (i.e. in what sense do we mean “works”? The way this question is answered will affect how the word “alone” is employed, etc). I have been reading - on occasion and slow going - Cullman’s nearly impossible to obtain book titled Christ and Time which revolutionized and forcefully introduced the concept of the “Now and Not Yet” principle to biblical theology. Furthermore, I have recently picked up and am reading a very interesting book titled: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Contributors and their positions are as follows: John Hick (Pluralistic Christian - if there is such a thing); Clark Pinnock (Inclusivism - of interest is the amount of influence the Second Vatican Council has on Pinnock’s view), Alister McGrath (Salvation in Christ) and Gievett and Phillips (Salvation in Christ Alone). I am almost one third done and find this an educational read (as counterpoints always is).

But there is one more book that has taken priority over all else due to the nature of the subject and its personal relevance to my past in particular, the book I speak of is Larry Vern Newman’s the Ultimate Evidence: Rethinking the Evidence Issues for Spirit-Baptism (2009) .

Personal Testimony

I spent my formative Christian years as a member of a small Pentecostal church which belonged to a large Pentecostal denomination called the Church of God out of Cleveland Tennessee. Speaking for this particular denomination (but also apparently for that which is common among most large Pentecostal organizations such as the Assemblies of God) there is a fundamental belief or doctrine which teaches that the evidence (initial evidence my teachers would say) that an individual was baptized in the Holy Spirit is that the said individual will begin to speak in an unknown tongue (glossolalia).

I have heard many things come out of this doctrine over the years from Pastors, evangelists, Sunday school teachers, bible college professors and others which I have struggled immensely with in light of the scriptures and also of practical experience. For example; one particular preacher boldly declared that the way to determine “if someone is a Christian or not is by whether or not they speak in tongues”. His conclusions where deductive in following their logic, he’s not excluding those who do not speak in tongues he was simply affirming (what he perceived to be) the reality that if someone spoke in tongues they must be a Christian. My initial reaction to this brassy proclamation was to recall the words of Christ, they shall know we are His by our love [John 13:35], not by our glossolalia; Paul further declares that one who speaks in tongues but has not love is nothing more than a loud gong! [1 Cor 13:1.] Furthermore, since that experience I have met at least one person who no one would deny her Christianity, but when she began to speak in tongues it later manifested itself as demonic. That (once) popular preacher whom they called “fearless” is no doubt wrong.

Another example: Taking a Holy Spirit class in Bible College, my professor declared that by the end of the term everyone would be speaking in tongues (a sure sign of Spirit-Baptism). At the time I wondered how anyone could place such commands and restrictions on the Holy Spirit. As it turned out she was (nearly) right. I say nearly because from the experiences which I am aware of only two (so far as my memory serves me) did not receive “the Spirit” by evidence of “speaking in tongues” and I was one of them. Near the end of the course the second last person was being prayed over to receive it and I was more or less asked not to place my hands on him with the rest of the students because I did not speak in tongues - I silently walked out of the class and was ordered to apologize or lose credit for doing so. In other words, a sub class (a boundary marker James Dunn would say) was imposed upon the student body; those who speak in tongues were considered more powerful in the Spirit and in the Christian walk and those who did not were considered less. This is a very dangerous road to travel down.

Furthermore, it is interesting to point out that it was in that setting - one of those very students - who received a tongue in chapel in Bible College, and who’s tongue later manifested as demonic! I wonder in retrospect if there isn’t such a strong psychological pressure placed on these students, that their desire to speak in tongues and thus to be considered equal to other superior Christians, is so powerful that it actually opens them up to receive demonic influences as opposed to the influence of the Holy Spirit, or an impulse of the flesh.

Another example: I watched a young man receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as is assumed by the evidence of tongue speaking) but who continued doing, selling, and buying drugs. It was his reputation. Another person accused me of some “hidden sin” because when a group of men prayed over me to receive the Spirit (aka. Speaking in tongues) for nearly three hours nothing happened - later on that same young man was caught in an internet pornographic addiction! A teacher once declared that any person (even one who is addicted to some sin) who speaks in tongues has more power of the Holy Spirit in a single finger then Billy Graham (who, as far as I know, does not speak in tongues). I began to wonder (based on this philosophy) why I, who was doing my dandiest to live a godly life, was being denied the Holy Spirit (assuming the evidence of tongues), while drug addicts, porn addicts and other overt sinners were granted the Holy Spirit (again, assuming the evidence of tongues)?

A certain question needs to be considered here: I mentioned in the introduction that I am also reading a book on salvation in a pluralistic world. John Hick’s professes to be a Christian, but he denies the deity of Christ, the Atonement, the Incarnation, and refers to God the Father as “the Reality” - in short, Hick’s believes that God can be found in every religion manifested in different ways. One of the factors that have led Hicks to this conclusion (he was at one time a conservative evangelical) and polemic against Christian exclusivity is based on a lack of morality among Christians who claim to have the Spirit! In Hicks words, “Should not the fruit of the Spirit, which according to Paul is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control” (Gal. 5:22-23), be more evident in Christian than in non-Christian lives? Yet it does not seem to me that in fact Christians are on average noticeably morally superior to ...” [he lists several other religions, p.41]. Whether or not Hicks argument is relevant to his own discussion (Pinnock and McGrath believe it is not), his question holds certain relevance here: Why would God grant the Holy Spirit baptism to one who was, is, and continues to be unchanged in their sinful addictions, but denies the other Christian in who’s life the Spirit is very much evident according to the standard of Paul in Gal. 5?

Final Example: I will not persist any longer in the problems which flow out of this doctrine (though I could turn to the scriptures to show - quite decisively I believe - how this doctrine is imposed on the text - eisegesis - rather than flows from it - exegesis) I do want to add one more personal and life altering effect this belief within the Church of God denomination had on me:

I have received a call to the ministry; by that I mean that aside from events and circumstances and ‘coincidences’ and the such that borderline miraculous, I have - ever since my teen years - received different calls from different people at different places and different times. In obedience to this call I travelled across the country for bible college, spent time interning at a church on the opposite side of the country, ministered alongside a pastor friend in another city, have preached in various cities from Alberta to Nova Scotia, from North Dakota to Michigan and many places in between. Yet in all of this I have never been ordained and remain a lay reflective Christian who’s insights are not taken seriously (despite my studies) due to the fact (and this is quite a fact) that I have - practically speaking - "nothing" behind my name (as far as creditentials go - even in the Christian world, this is necessary). I attribute this phenomenon to the choice I made to stick with the only denomination I ever knew - and thus my tardiness and hesitance to leave due to a sense of having to ‘start afresh’ as it were. What was the problem? Simply this, an ordained minister must speak in tongues since it is assumed that one who speaks in tongues is baptised in the Spirit, and they do not want their leaders to not have the Spirit (understandably so - note: there are exceptions to the rule!). It has been said and judged of me that if I were truly called into the ministry of ordination that God would equip me to do so by empowering me with the Holy Spirit as is evidenced by Speaking in Tongues; however, it is this very notion that is being called into question. The onus is not on God to further ‘prove’ my call with the gift of tongues, the onus is on the Church to align its teachings to what God has already said in his Word, and not place restrictions on the Spirit of God that prevent those who are called from entering into the ministry! So though I believe the entire premise is erroneous, nonetheless this is the predicament I found myself in.

One might ask, Derek what were you thinking spending all those years waiting, hoping, working and serving? The answer for many years was this: I was hoping that enough Pastors and Leaders in the Church of God denomination would one day vote at their national assembly to revisit and rethink this doctrine and its implications; indeed I had even wondered if I would somehow be a contributing catalyst to help the denomination progress in this way. And this brings us to Larry Vern Newman’s book The Ultimate Evidence: Rethinking the Evidence Issues for Spirit-Baptism; and in particular, to its forward which was written by Bruce Arnald Tucker, Ph.D. of the Church of God in Cleveland Tennessee; the very denomination of my roots and the rumblings of my hopes realized!

Qualification

I have wanted to write on this subject for some time now - and indeed I even tried once or twice before - but I feared that the negative experiences I have had along these lines would color my writings with emotional rhetoric and bitterness. So I decided many times to withdraw from the subject, examine my heart - my motives and intent - and to wait until I sought forgiveness from God for the callousness which built up within me, and also, to forgive those who I feel have allowed this doctrine, which I believe is unbiblical and (evidently) harmful, to be used against me - albeit, unintentionally.

Thanking the Lord for this grace and extending mercy and forgiveness, I now believe that I can safely address this subject and even (as is evident above) share my own testimony of the effects this teaching can have on a believer, and do this out of a clear conscience.

I am very thankful for my experiences within the Pentecostal movement, for my growth and the emphasis of the Holy Spirit that was built in me. Because of these experiences and this emphasis being ingrained in me the Person and work of the Holy Spirit often (though often subtly) influences and can be felt within my theology. This observation is more critical then is usually credited for; often among mainline theologians, the person of the Holy Spirit is seldom (if ever) seriously addressed and given due credit. Yet - and I think, in part anyways, thanks to my Pentecostal background - the Spirit is no less recognized in my theology then God the Father or Jesus the Messiah (as a case in point: I have been contemplating coining the phrase “Covenantal Pneumism” in place of “Covenantal Nomism” as a means to more accurately articulate the Covenant relationship of the New Testament believer in relation to Faith and the Law [Romans 3:31, cf. Gal. 5], giving the Spirit prominence in a theology of the New Covenant! - See a forthcoming blog.)

Furthermore, as a final note, I have many dear friends in the Church of God - brothers and sisters in the Lord - who I love and cherish and strenuously wish to avoid offending. Many of them I went to college with, many I grew up with and one in particular - the most influential pastor in my life - who graciously accepted the position of standing next to me as my Best Man on my wedding day.

This is a theological blog, a long overdue and much needed re-examination of a doctrine which I believe - and can further illustrate with more examples if one would like - is harmful and anti-productive to the body of Christ - thus making it unbiblical in more ways than one! When Larry Newman employs the word “rethinking” he is revealing his cards, that he is a post-conservative Christian. When he says “The church faces grave danger exactly at that point where theological constructs are considered to be absolutes. In other words, our theology must always be open to adjustment or reformation when it is exposed to and judged by a fuller and more competent understanding of the Word of God” [p.xiv]; I think we should listen.

In the words of Bruce Tucker Ph.D. of the Church of God, Cleveland TN; “Let us then, welcome this work, examine it thoroughly and thoughtfully, and then respond to it in a manner that honors our witness to Jesus Christ” [p.ix] - amen.

Derek

Next Blog... to be continued...

Justification - N.T. Wright

2009-04-13T13:24:00.002-04:00

In contrasting conservative Christians with liberal ones, I have been heavily influenced by Roger Olson’s book, How to be Evangelical without Being Conservative and also his weightier book, Reformed and Always Reforming. In the first book in particular Olson argues for what he refers to as a Post-Conservative Christian, which is a reflective Christian who seeks to maintain an attitude of continual reform by continually returning to the scriptures and challenging our traditions from time to time. It is in this camp – the Post-Conservative camp – that I have found my belonging.

This has been no secret to my readers, but what is interesting in relation to the current blog is that I have at times spoken boldly and presumed to speak for other theologians – particularly those I enjoy reading (Olson, McKnight, Boyd, Wright, Pinnock and others) – to suggest that they too are post-conservative and that they – if having read Olson’s book above – would readily admit it. As it turns out, I am right of at least one – though crucial – theologian; N.T. Wright.

Next month Wright is coming out with a new book on the so-called New Perspective on Paul titled simply Justification (in large part it is a response to Piper’s book, Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright). At InterVarsity Press I was able to read a preview of the preface and first chapters and discovered a couple of interesting facts.

1. Regarding my introduction above, Wright says: “These issues in turn need to be mapped onto broader questions within parts of the Western church, as is done (for instance) by Roger Olson in a recent book, where he distinguishes “conservatives” (people like Don Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) from “post-conservatives” (people like me). It’s always intriguing to discover that you belong to a group you didn’t know existed” [p.26] – yes it is.

2. Regarding the so-called New Perspective on Paul; up to now it is commonly cited that James D.G. Dunn is the one who coined the phrase ‘New Perspective’ in his 1983 essay (recently covered); following suite – having no evidence to the contrary – I have also cited Dunn with having coined the phrase; alas we have the truth and Wright is the culprit! “There are times” says he “when I wish that the phrase had never been invented; indeed, perhaps for Freudian reasons, I had quite forgotten that I had invented it myself… until J.D.G. Dunn, who is normally credited with it, graciously pointed out that I had used it in my 1978 Tyndale Lecture, in which, as I well remember, he was sitting in the front row” [p.28].

So that settles it; Wright – like myself – is a post-conservative Christian; and secondly on another subject, he is the culprit for having invented the phrase ‘New Perspective on Paul’ (though Dunn – beyond question – is guilty of popularizing it and Wright himself may have borrowed it from Krister Stendahl).

Just some interesting facts I gleaned from Wrights forthcoming book, Justification.

Derek.

Dunn - New Perspective on Paul - 1982-83

2009-04-11T17:09:00.004-04:00

New Perspective on Paul
(1982-83)

Five years after Sanders published his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, James D. G. Dunn lectured and then published an essay which he titled “The New Perspective on Paul” (now published with a series of other essays in a single volume under the same title). He begins by introducing the reader to Sanders work (which we have already covered); “There is, in my judgment, only one work written during the past decade or two which deserves that accolade [of “breaking the mould” of Pauline studies]. I refer to the volume titled Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders of McMaster University in Canada” [p.100 italics original]. It is encouraging to observe that Dunn has drawn many of the same conclusions of Sanders work as I have (or rather, the other way around): “Sanders basic claim is not so much that Paul has been misunderstood as that the picture of Judaism drawn from Paul’s writing is historically false” [p.102]. This is why I referred to Sanders work as the New Perspective on Judaism as opposed to the New Perspective on Paul.

I also concluded that, given Sanders conclusions, I could not see how Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law was affected – Sanders certainly gave no reason to suggest that it was and almost seems to show that Paul arbitrarily broke from Judaism on many points and remained on others (he explicitly rejects the thesis of Davis and Stendahl that Paul’s theology was revolutionized by his encounter with the Jewish Messiah – a factor I think is crucial [Sanders, p,514; cf. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, p.7ff.]. Here again I find my observation supported by Dunn’s: “the most surprising feature of Sanders writing, however, is that he himself has failed to take the opportunity his own ‘mouldbreaking’ work offered”. He continues, “instead of trying to explore how far Paul’s theology could be explicated in relation to Judaism’s ‘covenantal nomism’, he remained more impressed by the difference between Paul’s pattern of religious thought and that of first-century Judaism” [p.103]. And so it is in this context that Dunn sees a tremendous opportunity: “I am not convinced that we have yet been given the proper reading of Paul from the new perspective of first-century Palestinian Judaism opened up so helpfully by Sanders himself” [p.105]; and thus, with the study of a single verse – Galatians 2:16 – is the spark on dry wood which will ignite what has come to be known as the controversy of Justification over the New Perspective on Paul.

Galatians 2:16

Galatians 2:15-16 reads: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified”.

Law as Boundary and the end of Covenantal Nomism

Dunn points out (and builds his argument around) the fact that Paul’s reference to “the law” here is not to be understood as 'good works' per se, but specifically to those laws which distinguished Jews from Gentiles, namely, meals, rituals and festivals (i.e. Torah). Also, as a preliminary observation, Dunn points out that the reference to ‘Gentile sinners’, is a reference to a Jewish prejudice and an awareness among the Jews that they are the special elect covenant people of God. Placing these two elements together (clear in their context Dunn would probably suggest) and what we have is Sander’s covenantal nomism. A people who are elected as covenant people of God, but who also have the law which, in obedience to it, they considered themselves righteous. This is probably why Paul stereotypically referred to Gentiles here as ‘sinners’, in the Jewish mind, since Gentiles did not have the law, they could not possibly be righteous.

I am going to make an observation – after carefully reading this section of Dunn – of something he takes for granted which the reader may not – I certainly did not at first – pick up on. That is, for Dunn (maybe) and perhaps Sanders as well, when the phrase covenantal nomism is employed – especially as the particular element of righteousness is considered – it is within the context of ‘faith’. I allow this conclusion to help me understand Dunn; after studying the use of righteousness (tsedaqah) in the Old Testament, Stendahl says: “Therefore when one spoke of the manifestation of God’s righteousness, God’s tsedaqah, it was a word of salvation. As in the Song of Deborah in earliest times, it meant, salvation, rescue, victory, triumph. Here we have the chief reasons for Paul’s emphasis on the terms, justification and righteousness. This emphasis presupposes a faith in which the church knows itself as belonging to God, knows it’s enemies to be God’s enemies” [Stendahl, p.34].

With this presupposition in mind, Dunn goes on to say that “Paul therefore prefaces his first mention of ‘being justified’ with a deliberate appeal to the standard Jewish belief, shared by his fellow Jewish Christians, that the Jews as a race are God’s covenant people” [p107]. Dunn observes this by noting that Paul says in essence ‘we Jews (who are not Gentile sinners, because we have the law) know…’ – so Paul seems to be appealing to something Jews (as opposed to Gentiles) know. What do they know? According to Dunn, they know that 1. justification can refer to an initial act, a repeated act and a final vindication and 2. that justification is obtained by faith (see what is presupposed by Dunn above – previous paragraph); to confirm my understanding of Dunn’s presupposition, he adds, “This is to say, integral to the idea of the covenant itself, and of God’s continued action to maintain it, is the profound recognition of God’s initiative and grace in first establishing and then maintaining the covenant” [p.109]. So according to Dunn, Paul is beginning his polemic on common ground with typical Jewish believe, what Sanders calls covenantal nomism.

What Paul is attacking in this passage is specifically covenantal works (centered out three times in this single passage is the phrase “by works of the law”). Not works in general, but works as they are specifically related to the covenant (here we can see where a Reformer like Piper may begin to get steamed). Reading from the context Dunn points out that the specific covenant related works which Paul has in mind are circumcision, food laws and also the celebration of holy days. He (Dunn) spends a great deal of time showing how by the first century these laws came to be of crucial importance to Jewish identity. So much so that to fail to circumcise your child or to eat with Gentiles or to not celebrate a Jewish holy day was akin to walking away from the covenant, and to declare yourself no longer a person belonging to the elect of God [p.108 ff.]. In other words, circumcision, food laws, and holy festivals functioned as boundary markers by which Jews maintained their distinctiveness from pagan Gentile sinners. So when Paul – while appealing to the Jewish concept of justification by faith – sets faith as being antithetical to works, he is essentially – I am interpreting Dunn here and may be wrong – ripping apart their precious covenantal nomism straight down the middle.

This is a crucial point to keep in mind – I think – if we are to understand Dunn’s idea of the new perspective, so I will repeat it succinctly: the laws which Paul is arguing against is a law which specifically relates to the covenant as markers or boundaries; circumcision, food laws and holy days. In other words – according to Dunn – Paul’s original polemic against works of the law is not against good works per se, but rather, against those laws which maintained a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. “The phrase ‘works of the law’ in Gal. 2:16 is, in fact, a fairly restricted one: it refers precisely to these same identity markers described above, covenant works” [p.111]. (I should have noted when introducing this subject, that the new perspective views Paul’s primary concern when discussing justification by faith not as a polemic of salvation, but rather one which addresses the question of how Jews and Gentiles relate to one another in Christ.)

Dunn adds to this that by “works of the law” both Paul and his Jewish interlocutors understand to mean badges or membership to the covenant, not works which earn God’s favor. Remember that in Palestinian Judaism that favor was given as a free gift of electing grace. “In other words” Dunn says, “Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls ‘covenantal nomism’. And what Paul denies is that God’s justification depends on ‘covenantal nomism’, that God’s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant” [p.111]. It is at this point (but not only this point) that I find contention with Dunn thus far. Covenantal nomism is not given to those who are members (“those who wear the badge”), it is given to those who are not members so that they may become members, and the badge (the works of the law) is only worn to reflect that fact, not the other way around. Unless Dunn can change my mind and convince me otherwise, it is unlikely that I will subscribe to his flavor of the new perspective, since it seems that everything else he has to say depends on this concept.

Jesus Messiah

So – according to Dunn – Paul has thus far appealed to the common Jewish concept of righteousness by faith, but then he sets it in opposition to works of the law – thus tearing covenantal nomism asunder – he now establishes that faith in something else, namely the Messiah. This is a distinguishing factor that separates Paul and Peter with the rest of their Jewish kindred.

This is a key issue to be considered – a compelling question I’ve never heard asked – “Is it in fact this faith in Jesus (as) Messiah which marks them off from their fellow Jews, or is it their belief in justification by faith, as has so often been assumed?” He continues, “What is the point at issue here? If not ‘justification by faith’ as God’s initiative in declaring in favor of men, if not ‘works of the law’ as merit-earning good works, then what? What precisely is involved in Paul’s contrast between being justified by works of the law and being justified by faith in Jesus Messiah?” [p.112] The answer is that these two (justification by works or by faith in Jesus Messiah) are antithetical.

He breaks verse 16 down as such: a) “man is not justified from works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ”; the word “except” makes faith in Jesus Messiah a qualification to justification by works, not it’s opposite. But then Paul turns the argument on its head by continuing on to say that “we might be justified from faith in Christ, and not from works of the law”… following this line of exposition, Dunn draws his conclusion that “faith in Jesus as Christ becomes the primary identity marker which renders the others superfluous”.

In other words, Paul takes the generally accepted understanding of covenantal works as a marker by which one is in the covenant, to saying that faith in Jesus as the Messiah is now the primary identity (or covenant) marker, thus the other marker – works – is rendered useless. In all of this I see and hear what Dunn is trying to say, I just don’t follow his logic very well. I don’t see why Paul would go through all of this – from pretending to agree with covenantal nomism, to altering it slightly by saying one may be justified by works as long as one has faith in the Messiah, to rejecting works all together by claim that Messianic faith is the new supreme badge. This logic escapes me, perhaps at this stage I am just failing to grasp what Dunn is trying to say so I press on in hopes that this will be made more clear.

Conclusions:

1. Dunn’s new perspective emphasizes that Paul’s polemic against “works of the law’ is not against good works per se, or against the law in general, but rather, it is against works of the covenant specifically as they function as boundary markers which keep Gentiles out.

2. Faith in the messiah is a key to understanding the new movement.

3. Paul – according to Dunn (and Sanders also we observed) – is protesting covenantal nomism as such. Again, I disagree. I think Paul may be redefining covenantal nomism in light of the Messiah by altering the function of ‘righteousness’ and ‘faith’. But I do not think that he is dismantling it all together.

Dunn has much more to say and we'll try to hash through it over the next several weeks; however, the next blog (to compensate for this one) will be a much shorter and interesting reading (I think anyways). I got a sneak peak at Wrights future book on Justification (responding to Piper!) which will be published next month and learned some interesting pieces of information.

Until then, be blessed

Derek

Responding to a Catholic Friend

2009-04-07T20:09:00.005-04:00

(Continued from previous blog)

Is the doctrine of Faith Alone biblical? According to my Catholic friend (and cousin) it is not. His reasoning is such: the word "alone" is not used in Paul in conjunction with the word "faith". Luther added the word "alone", which makes him guilty of violating solo scriptura. The word ‘faith’ as it is used in the text in question is used as a verb (action/work) and not a noun.

The second question we must ask is why Catholics are so adamant against the concept of "faith alone". A cursory search on line will reveal the pattern: 1. they prove that "alone" was inserted by Luther (thereby assuming it is an unbiblical concept) and 2. Followed by a string of verses which explicitly teach justification by works (e.g. Romans 2:13). (This fallacy is a result of failing to understand the dual spectrum of the use of Justification in the scriptures as it relates to faith and works, the present reality of our state with God and the future judgment which all - righteous and unrighteous alike - will face.)

In Response to Jim (click here to read his comment in full):

1. Error: You said "Bible Christian… not biblical":

You seem to enjoy paralleling the phrase "Bible Christians" with the phrase "un-biblical". "Hey Bible Christian, Solo scriptura is un-biblical" or "Hey Bible Christian, Solo Fide is un-biblical". Why? Because the words "solo scriptura" or "solo fide" are not in the bible… yet you - by way of hopeful proof-texting - claim scant scriptural support for the doctrines revolving around the Papacy. That’s irony. It seems you assume that for a "bible Christian" in order for something to be biblical the very words must be in the bible, this is patronizing to the educated Protestant Christian. News flash: all orthodox Christians adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, though the word is not scriptural. I can still claim it to be a biblical doctrine because the bible teaches it. A biblical Christian is one who adheres to the authority of God as it is exercised through His Word by means of right and proper hermeneutics (more on this below).

2. Error: You said "this concept [of Solo Fide] is not biblical":

Had you simply said, "Solo Fide is not found in Paul" I would have nothing to say, but you are not here attacking the use of the word, you are attacking a "concept"… this is where you are in error. If a man were to ask, "Are we justified by faith or by works of the law", I would answer "by faith, not by works of the law" or I could say, "By faith alone". The concept is there, the message is the same; it is two different ways of saying the same thing. Either you misuse the bible or you patronize me as though I were some type of fundamentalist. I am not interested in this or that word for the sake of this or that word; I want to know "what is being communicated", "What is the message", "what is the point". And in Paul, what is being communicated is that righteousness is obtained by faith, not by works of Torah… or put another way, by faith alone. This is the principle, and whether or not "alone" is in the text the concept is very much biblical.

3. Truth and Error: You argue that faith is a verb and not a noun:

I can imagine the scenario going something like this: You inform your Protestant buddy that one is not justified by faith alone apart from works since faith itself is a work (i.e. verb). Your protestant friend committed to faith alone digs his heels in and says "no! It’s by faith alone, not by works". You answer, "faith is a verb" he says "faith alone not by works", you smugly and calmly repeat yourself, "it’s a fact, faith is a verb not a ‘thing’" and your friend’s blood pressure begins to boil as it commits himself to Luther’s "Faith Alone" despite apparent logic and truth. Then you part ways feeling as though you accomplished something. Truth is, the case is not either/or, but rather both/and. Faith is a verb, yet one is still justified by faith apart from works of the Torah. And so your entire argument is based on a poor understanding of how the word "works" is employed in Paul’s argument for Faith (which will be covered below).

When Jesus was asked by some Jews "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus did not respond with "keep the big Ten" or "be circumcised" or "be good enough" or "sacrifice regularly" or "make sure you are baptized in the Catholic Church" (that last one is a freebie). No he appeals to faith, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28-29). So when you argue that faith is a verb, we shout out "AMEN!" - But it’s the only verb required!

Faith and Soteriology: Putting it together

A thorough study of Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith (pisteos) it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe (pisteusai) that He is (estin) and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.") has led me to this conclusion and definition of faith: Faith is believing that God is who He said He is, and that God does what He said He does. Working backward, one must have this faith to please God [Heb. 11:6, cf. Rom 8:8], and working backwards further, when one pleases God because one has this faith, one walks with God [Heb. 11:5-7; cf. Gen 5:24, 6:9, Gal 5:25, Rom. 3:31; 1 John 2:6]. And in conjunction with Paul, when one has this faith one is declared righteous [Rom 3:38, cf. Rom 4ff]. So (connecting the hermeneutical dots), one must be righteous [Rom 3:20] in order that one please God and walk with God, yet all have sinned [Rom 3:23], all fall short of God’s glory [Ibid] , there is no one good no not one [Rom 3:10-12, cf. Gal 3:22]. If no one is righteous [Gal 3:11] because all are sinners then how can any please God - it cannot be by works since we are by nature enemies of God [Jam 4:4, Rom 1:28-32, 8:7-8], the answer: by faith [Rom 3:28], which is believing that God is who he said he is (Creator Covenant Maker God Almighty revealed in Jesus Christ [cf. Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Gen 14:18-22; John 1:14; 14:7-9]) and that God does what he said he does (reconciled the world to Himself by His death and resurrection [John 3:16; Col 3:15-20]), and by this faith we are declared righteous [Rom 4:3. 5] and given the Spirit [Gal 3:15, 5:16-25] that we might be what we have been declared to be [Rom 3:31; John 14:23-26] and as a result we are made into an ever increasing glory which is by faith [2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Exodus 33:18-19], and not by anything we can do, not by our works of trying hard enough or being good enough because we are sinners by nature and aliens and enemies with God - or worded another way, by faith alone!

Justified by Works?

Many have pointed to Jesus and James and even Paul himself to justify a rejection of Faith Alone in favor of Works. Coming off the heels of Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism, he shows that in Paul the "dik" word group (justify, be made righteous, etc) had no one place in Paul’s writing, and of its various uses, there are two that interest us here: Justification may be used to describe a present state of reality [Rom 3:22, 24] and it may be used to describe a future act of judgment [Rom 2:13]. The principle to follow is this: present justification is a declaration by God that a man is righteous, even though he is a sinner, by faith [Rom 4:5] and therefore is saved by God’s graciousness and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9]. However, future judgment is based on works [Matt 25:31-46; cf. Rev 12-15]! Romans 2:13 uses the future tense "will" when connecting justification with works, "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous", and unless we are to think so little of Paul as to place a contradiction in his hands within a span of a single chapter, there clearly are two - a present and a future - concepts of justification. We are presently saved (justified) by grace, but whether or not we remain to the end - future justification - well that is another story all together.

What about James?

But what about James one might ask? Does James contradict everything else we’ve discussed so far? By no means! Rather, the theology of James fits nicely in everything we have discussed. James asks the question: can a faith without deeds save a man [2:14]? He answers his own question: Faith without deeds is dead [vs. 17]; this sounds eerily familiar, Paul said that it is by our faith that we fulfill the law [Rom 3:31] and Jesus - wording it another way - said that if we love him we will obey his commandments [John 14:23]. I’m seeing a pattern here: if you have faith in God, if you have a relationship with God having been reconciled to him by his blood, if you love him in other words, then you will obey his teachings, you will fulfill the law, you will do good deeds, you will be like Christ, you will be led by the Spirit and walk with the Spirit etc. This is the New Testament principle. And so elaborating on this James adds: "you see that [Abraham’s] faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scriptures were fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" [James 2:22-24 in agreement with Romans 3:31 and 2:13], because in the end, Christ will ask us: when I was hungry did you feed me, or visit me in prison, or give me something to drink or invite me in, or give me cloths or take care of me when I was sick [or sponsor a child, be a friend to your lonely neighbor, or be an example of me at your work place, treat your wife with the love and respect she deserves, keep unity among my body of believers everywhere - Catholic and Protestant alike etc].

Christianity: Covenantal Nomism

All of this is in keeping - I believe - with the concept that Christianity is a covenantal nomism religion. That is, it is a religion that teaches a person is saved by grace through faith and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:22-24] and as a proper response to this saving grace that comes by faith a person obeys Jesus, the Covenant Creator [Luke 22:20; John 14:23; Rom. 3:31; James 2:17-18, 22]. Obedience is thereby the evidence that one has this faith [Rom 3:21; James 2:14 and especially 1 John 2:3] and overt and constant disobedience is how one loses this faith and thereby will be judged unrighteous at the echaton [Heb. 10:26-31; 1 John 1:9-2:1-6; Rom 2:13; and especially Matt. 24:10-13].

Conclusion: This is a snap shot at how it all fits together; present justification, future justification, faith, works, Torah, covenant, love… and in all this I have not even graced the surface of the atonement and victory of Christ within the context of justification. The point is that these matters are far too complex to make the overly simplified claim that "Luther added monon, therefore, Faith Alone is not biblical". Furthermore, to do this is to unnecessarily sow seeds of doubt among baby Christians who may not be grounded yet in the theology of the scriptures.

Jimmy, thank you very much for your dialogue. Fleshing out the relationship of Justification, Faith, Works and Torah was a fruitful exercise. You are not obligated to agree with all of my conclusions, and I am certainly not obligated to agree with your position - in my mind this does not effect at all our relationship or our faith in Christ.

Be blessed brother, continue to search (as I will and always do) and remain (as I am) teachable - but not always easily persuaded.

In Christ,

Derek

On Luther - An After Thought

It is not my desire to defend Luther as some type of infallible theologian; case in point, I criticize him on many grounds and stand radically opposed to his determinism philosophy. And the fact that he called the book of James "a strawy right epistle" is common knowledge, however, the circumstances in which that phrase was birthed should be considered with grace before we in our glass houses throw too many stones.

As far as the addition of the word "Alone" in his German translation goes, and the claim that it is found nowhere prior to Luther, I have only a few comments to make. Being an amature bible translator myself I have come to learn that we who are not bilingual are too quick in our ignorance to claim "this word is not there" or "that word is not there". When my wife who is bilingual (Spanish/English) has to translate something from Spanish into English for me she sometimes has to add words, not to change the meaning, but to clarify what is being communicated. In Luther's case - and naturally, considering his situation - inserting the word "alone" acted as emphasis: "It's not about penitence, or do's and don'ts or adhering to this or that law... it's not by works of the law, it's by faith ALONE". If I were translating Romans 3:28 I would probably choose to leave "alone" out of the text for two reasons: 1) it is less accurate to add it, and 2) it does not change my understanding of "faith and works of Torah" if I did add it. However, it is interesting to note that while inserting "alone" is less accurate, it is not wholly inaccurate. As a matter of fact there may be a number of Catholic translations which even include "monon" into the text and there may be a number of pre-Luther Leaders and Fathers in the Church who understood Romans 3:28 to be refering to faith "alone". (I say "may be" because my source is another web site and not an authoritative book. Either case is in-consequential to my argument.) None of this really matters too me since my authority is not Luther, but the Word of God.

And finally - Jim - you said that it was Calvin who persuaded Luther to keep James in the bible. This has no bearing on anything, but because it interests me I would like a source if you have one.

Comment from a Roman Catholic Friend

2009-04-06T00:01:00.005-04:00

Dear Reader,

I have a cousin and friend named Jim who also happens to be a devout Roman Catholic; somehow (probably through mother) he came across my blog and has read many of them and commented on some. So far I have allowed his comments to be published after carefully reading them over; I did this because dialogue can be fruitful and his perspective may invoke further reflection on the part of many of my readers. However, because my blogs are not a forum for Catholics and Protestants to debate – that is not the purpose I created this site, my interest expands far beyond such debates, for example, I am curious about Eastern Orthodox Christianity as well – therefore I may limit the amount of comments Jim makes. This has nothing to do with Jim or his understanding of Christianity.

A word about Jim and Catholicism:

It seems the Catholic/Protestant debate is a hot subject for Jimmy. From what I know of him, he is not (how many Protestants perceive Catholics) a nominal Catholic, on the contrary, he is a reflective believer and if I may be so bold, he is no less committed to Christ then I. I have heard many in the Protestant tradition who try and exclude Catholics from the faith (and vice-versa I might add!), I am in no position to judge each individual Catholic, not least Jim. And while we stand in polar opposition on various matters (the Papacy, Solo Scripture, and evidently Solo Fide – see below), I wonder if I would have more in common with Jim then many of my own kindred (the Word of Faith people and the such).

Why this Blog

As I study the New Perspective on Paul which happens somehow to interact with the Reformed doctrine of “Righteousness by Faith Alone” Jim found it as an opportunity to declare that “Faith Alone” is not even in the bible. He has written his comment in such a way as to declare a sure fact: “To the shock of most Bible Christians” he says and then concludes, “I don’t mean to put a thorn in your side” as if he somehow swiftly and decisively sent the poor uneducated Protestant buck running for the hills with his tale tucked between his legs.

I am not concerned, not persuaded, not intimated and only a little bothered that I have to interrupt my agenda (the New Perspective on Paul) to respond to Jim’s charge. I will try and avoid the temptation to do this too often in the future.

Be advised that much of what Jim says is true and much of it is misleading. Here is his comment:

Jim Writes:

“Concerning Sola Fide (by Faith Alone): To the shock of most Bible Christians, this concept is not Biblical. Yes, you will be able to find it in some modern version of Scripture (Romans 3:28, 5:1, Gal 3:24); however, the word “alone” (monon, in Greek) was not in the original Greek New Testament, nor any translation between then and the Reformation. Martin Luther added the word “alone” to his German translation of Scripture after the Reformation had begun. Luther didn’t seem to have much of a problem altering scripture (A side note: Luther also wanted to take the epistle of James out of the NT altogether, calling it “...an epistle of straw”, because it barely mentions Christ”; probably also because of that book’s emphasis on works. It was Calvin who convinced him not to).

Furthermore, in the verses cited above Paul was not writing ‘faith’ as a thing which one has but a verb. Therefore, he would not have said “we are justified by faith alone” (the noun, the thing: faith, by itself), but he uses a verb which means ‘believing/to believe, trust/to trust’. It could be argued that Paul could just have easily written “...we are justified by believing alone”; however, the fact of the matter is he did not. The Greek does not say men are justified by believing ALONE, but by “...believing apart from the law”.

I don’t mean to be a thorn in your side, but it is always useful to consider differing views (a part of being “challenged in your faith”). Don’t take it the wrong way; I’ve been doing the same thing to Bob Dutko for a long time.

Jim Gomes”

Conclusion: I will show in the next blog how Jim’s understanding of what it means to be a “bible Christian” (which is patronizing) is warped, that good exegesis does not exclude “faith alone”, that his understanding of Faith Alone and “not by works of the Torah” as reflective in his comment above is probably based on folk Protestantism, that his appeal to faith being a verb is also probably a response to folk Protestantism and that I, like most non-Lutheran Protestants, am not interested in defending Luther as some type of infallible hero.

St. Augustine is quoted as saying: “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials liberty, in all things, charity”.

Derek

Sanders: Contrasting Paul and Judaism

2009-04-02T00:14:00.004-04:00

Sanders on Paul

[Part 6: See Part: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

I want to conclude my study of Sanders – which deals specifically with Pauline theology – the same way I concluded the portion of his book on Judaism – by highlighting his conclusions. Of particular interest to Sanders study is to contrast Paul with the Jewish theology of the first century.

The Heart of Paul’s Theology

One of the main points Sanders labors to make is that while Reformed doctrine teaches that the center of Paul’s theology is the doctrine of Righteousness in Faith Alone, in actuality Paul’s central element is the doctrine of participation, ‘in Christ’. He says: “as long as one takes the central theme in Paul’s gospel to be ‘righteousness in faith alone’, one misses the significance of the realism with which Paul thought of incorporation in the body of Christ, and consequently the heart of his theology” [p.434].

Sanders appeals to another writer who has revealed several reasons why the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ cannot be Paul’s’ central doctrine: 1) The phrase always only appears in Romans and Galatians wherever the controversy over the Law has to be dealt with, and even then – “very significantly” – only when the scriptural argument is based on the uncircumcised Abraham. 2) The phrase always appears in connection to Paul’s doctrine of ‘in Christ’. 3) Paul does not connect it to the other blessings of redemption such as the possession of the Spirit and the resurrected life. 4) Closely connected to point three, Paul has no use for the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ when discussing ethics, baptism or the Lords Supper; ethics, for example, Paul discusses in relation to dying and raising with Christ (i.e. ‘in Christ’), he does not appeal to ‘righteousness by faith’ when exhorting his audience to live godly lives – again, enforcing the hypothesis that ‘righteousness in faith alone’ is not central to Paul’ theology [p.439].

Further to reinforce this hypothesis that ‘righteousness in faith alone’ is not central to Paul’ theology, Sanders appeals to his (Paul’) polemic against ‘works of the law’. Sanders shows in chart form [p.493] that the phrase ‘righteousness in faith alone’ by no means had a monopoly on his arguments against the law. On the contrary, many other phrases were used, aside from the familiar ‘righteousness by faith not by works of the law’ (Gal. 216) – i.e. Spirit… by faith… not by works of the law {Gal. 3:1-5); sons of Abraham by faith (3:7); blessed by Abraham by faith (3:9); promise of the Spirit by faith [not by works of the law] (3:14); etc. etc. Faith then – not ‘righteousness’ – is the foundation of Paul’ argument against works of the Law; you received the Spirit by faith, not by works of the Law, etc. In other words, you were saved, i.e. in Christ, by faith, and in so being, you were justified, Spirit possessed, crucified and raised with Christ and the such. The point being, ‘righteousness’ is only one of many that characterize a person’s status ‘in Christ’, it is not the central element, but only one of many.

Paul’s Usage of the Word-Group ‘Righteous’

Of further importance in Sanders is that the word-group of ‘to be justified’, ‘righteous’, and the such, did not have just one meaning in Paul. On the contrary Paul uses the ‘righteous’ word-group in several different ways:

“The righteousness of man is his uprightness before God with regard to his works (2:13) or the right relationship with God which is received by faith and not by law (4:11), being ‘justified’ or ‘made righteousness’ is the acquittal achieved by Christ’s death (5:9f., 18), or the possibility of salvation achieved by Christ’s resurrection in contrast to the acquittal of trespasses achieved by his death (4:25). It agrees with this that in general ‘righteousness’ is sometimes the forensic status of being justified (sanctified) from transgression so that one may then have life (5:1, 9) and sometimes simply the equivalent of life. In other terms righteousness may be either past, (5:1, 9) or future (2:13; Gal 5:5). Righteousness by faith in other words, is not any one doctrine.” [491-92]

Furthermore, ‘Righteousness’ is used in the sense of being ‘cleansed’ from sin [I Cor 6:9-11]; it is also used synonymously to being reconciled from past sins [Rom.5:6-9; 8:30]. Therefore justification is a reference to the intermediate state between being an enemy to God and the future state of glorification. The verb of justification is also used once in the sense of being ‘set from’ from sin (Rom. 6:7, cf. vs.18). So the family group of ‘justification’ is used by Paul (according to Sanders) in three ways: to be cleansed from sin; to be reconciled from past sins and to be set free from the power and enslavement of sin” [p.471-472].

(As an interesting side note: it seems Sanders holds – as the interpretive arching scheme of the atonement – to the view of Christus Victor; p.445 – 448 ff.)

Paul and Covenantal Nomism:

Sanders goes to great length (Section 5, Chapter V) to show that Paul did not hold to a Covenant Nomism “pattern of religion”, he says:

“The heart of Paul’s thought is not that one ratifies and agrees to a covenant offered by God, becoming a member of a group with a covenantal relation with God and remaining in it on the condition of proper behavior; but that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation, that one is a member of the body of Christ, and one Spirit with him, and that one remains so unless one breaks the participatory union by forming another.” [p.514]

The reference to breaking the union with Christ by “forming another” is in reference to becoming an idolater. According to Sanders, the only way to break the union of being ‘in Christ’ is by forming another union with something or someone else. Unlike Judaism which taught that one remained in the covenant by obeying the Torah and thus being righteous, Paul teaches that one remains in Christ by not giving oneself over to another.

Sanders concludes that this is “one of the major conclusions of the study: Paul’s ‘patter of religion’ cannot be described as ‘covenantal nomism’, and therefore Paul presents an essentially different type of religion from any found in Palestinian Jewish literature.” [p.543 – italics original]

I want to note here that I am not convinced of Sanders conclusion on this point. If – even in Paul – Christ is seen as being the climax of the covenants (as Wright shows), and if Jesus was the true answer to the problem of creation in the way that Israel was meant to be, yet they failed, then to be ‘in Christ’ – as Sanders understands Paul’s central doctrine to be – is to be ‘in Israel’, that is, to be in the True Israel. Christ did in point of fact declare a New Covenant, one that superseded the previous covenants because while the old covenants pointed to Gods answer to a corrupted creation, Christ himself was the fulfillment of those covenants. And if in Judaism, as Sanders contends, the dominant covenantal idea was that one was elected on the basis of being ‘in Israel’ (something Pharisee Paul no doubt would have known all too well), then it seems to me that while ‘righteousness’ had a different function in Paul then it did in Judaism, nonetheless, Paul’s doctrine of being ‘in Christ’ is very much a covenantal concept. To be ‘in Christ’ is to essentially accept the New Covenant he offered by his death and resurrection “that one dies with Christ, obtaining new life and the initial transformation which leads to the resurrection and ultimate transformation” as Sander says. I understand this concept to be very covenantal. But is it ‘nomistic’? We shall see below that I believe it is.

Paul: Righteousness by Works?

In quoting Romans 2:12-16 and commenting on verse 13 (“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified”) Sanders observes: “If there is any passage in Paul that is aberrant, it is Rom. 2:12-16, but not because it mentions judgment on the basis of works. The curiosity is rather that it mentions righteousness by works, which Paul otherwise insists must be by faith and not by works” [p.516 f]. The solution to this problem seems to be in the word “will” – future tense. So there is a strong sense in which justification is a future declaration based on the works of a person while the present declaration of justification is based on the grace of God which comes by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9). So in Romans 2:13 the word group of ‘to justify’ is in reference to the question of punishment and not to one of being saved as it usually is in Paul.

Sanders finds this point very interesting (as do I) that on the very “point which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism – grace and works – Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism. There are two aspects of the relationship between grace and works: salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in’, but they do not earn salvation” [p.543 – italics original]

If this is Sanders conclusion of the place of works within Paul then I must conclude that Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ is very much ‘covenantal nomistic’. That is, I argued above that to be ‘in Christ’ is to accept the New Covenant Christ offers and thereby participating in his death and new life (as Sanders emphasis’) but that ‘works are the condition of remaining ‘in’’ Christ as Sanders shows above. Is this not the very definition of ‘covenantal nomism? Sanders should know; he’s the one who coined the phrase and then gave it its definition: “Covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression” [p.75]. In other words, that one’s place in God’s redemptive scheme is based on God’s grace and election, but that works are the natural response of those ‘in’ that relationship and are necessary to remain ‘in’.

Therefore in my opinion it can be shown that – based on Sanders definition – Paul’s ‘pattern of religion’ can be described as ‘covenantal nomism’ and so I disagree with Sanders here. However, it is interesting to note that according to Sanders, “Paul’s view [of supposedly rejecting a covenantal nomism ‘pattern of religion’] could hardly be maintained, and it was not maintained. Christianity rapidly became a new covenantal nomism” [p.552].

Contrasting ‘Righteousness’: Judaism and Paul

This is perhaps one of the most important aspects of Sanders study in light of the debate that has since erupted as evidenced by Pipers book The Future of Justification and Wrights forthcoming response simply titled Justification.

The key to unlocking this debate is in the use or application of terms! As I’ve said before and will again emphasis here: The term ‘righteousness’ had a completely different function in Judaism then it does in Paul. Until one can grasp this concept (as I have gone to great pains to carefully explain to a fellow blogger on another site who failed on every point to understand this) the cloud fogging the issues surrounding this debate will never go away.

As a matter of fact I’m not sure Piper feels the weight of this exegetical principle. In a little foot note on the bottom of page 36 [Future of Justification] he actually belittles this principle by stating – contra to Wright – that it is the words themselves that are most important, not how they are employed. In doing this Piper – an experienced and influential theologian of sorts – commits the fallacy of eisgesis, of interpreting into the text what he wants the words to mean rather than pulling out of the text what the words were intended to mean. I feel it adds weight here to the fact that Piper must know that he in doing so is committing a fallacy that will mislead his fans and that D.A. Carson – someone I would consider to be akin to Piper – on another subject acknowledges this principle in favor of Wright and contra Piper! [See Carson’s Becoming Conversant, p.116ff].

Now without further ado, here is the distinction as the New Perspective sees it:

“To be righteous in Jewish literature means to obey the Torah and to repent of transgressions, but in Paul it means to be saved by Christ. Most succinctly, righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in Paul it is a transfer term. In Judaism, that is, commitment to the covenant puts one ‘in’, while obedience (righteousness) subsequently keeps one in. In Paul’s usage, ‘be made righteous’ (‘be justified’) is a term indicating getting in, not staying in the body of the saved. Thus when Paul says that one cannot be made righteous by works of the law, he means that one cannot, by works of the law, ‘transfer to the body of the saved’. When Judaism said that one is righteous who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby stays in the covenant. The debate about righteousness by faith or by works of law thus turns out to result from the different usage of the ‘righteous’ word-group” [Sanders, p.544]

I could not have summarized it better myself, so there you have it, the distinction between the use of the word “righteous” in Judaism and its most common use in Paul.

Conclusion:

Paul and Judaism Disagree: Covenantal Nomism

Judaism: Patter of Religion – Covenant Nomism

Paul: Patter of Religion – Participation; it’s all about dying and rising with Christ

Paul and Judaism Agree: Grace and Works

Judaism: Judgment and rewards based on works while salvation based on grace.

Paul: Same as Judaism – Judgment and rewards based on works while salvation based on grace.

Paul and Judaism Disagree: Application of the word group “righteous”

Judaism: Righteousness – relates specifically to remaining in the covenant by doing good works.

Paul: Righteous word-group – has a wide range of applications but mostly relates to getting saved.

It must be remembered that Sanders study was not called 'the New Perspective on Paul', and to while - obviously - I see and finally understand - I think - the distinctions which Sanders study has drawn, I as yet do not see how it changes (or even if it changes!) Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith alone and not by works of the law. While I do see a repositioning of this doctrine from the Reformed understanding of its' central place to being subservient to Paul's doctrine of participation (i.e 'in Christ' language). This does not in my mind remove the doctrine of righteousness by faith alone - properly understood and articulated.

Several years after Sanders book Paul and Palestinian Judaism was published ('77) another highly acclaimed scholar, James Dunn, wrote a book around 1983 titled The New Perspective on Paul. While this edition is no longer available, a updated edition has been published 2008 containing several essays between those dates and with a new introductory chapter (some say worth the price of the book itself) responding to his critics. Since the essays in this book began to be published soon after Sanders', and since the very phrase of which this perspective was refered was coined by Dunn, there then seems to be the most obvious next book to study as I try to understand the issue and contentions.

Until then continue to grow and be challenged in your faith.

Derek

Future of Israel - In light of the first century Judaism

2009-03-19T20:13:00.003-04:00

I interrupt our series on the New Perspective on Paul to jump down a rabbit trail that caught my attention while studying what Sanders has illuminated about first century Judaism. (Note: for Sander's page references see the last heading in the previous blog.)

While reading Sanders book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and studying the New Perspective on Judaism which examines Jewish literature between 200 bce and ce 200, I discovered something of interest as a near side note.

When Paul states in Romans that 1) all Israel will one day be saved, but that 2) not all Israel are Israel, he wasn’t saying anything new, rather he was echoing what was common in Judaism of his day. It is most prevalent among the Dead Sea Scrolls and also among the Apocryphal literature but can also be seen among the Rabbinic literature as well – this common belief that “all Israel will be saved” but that “not all Israel are Israel”!

There is this pervasive thought among a certain sector of Christianity today that one day (i.e. in the eschaton – end) all Israel – by which is meant all those who are born of the blood line of Abraham, all those who are of national and ethnic decent etc – will accept Jesus on some type of compulsion. This belief is most common in the Left Behind epidemic in which many believe that the reference to ‘all Israel’ actually includes all ethnic Israelites from the past as well as those present and future. One friend actually suggested that since Jesus led the captives from Paradise to glory after his crucifixion (i.e. the thief on the cross, and presumably all previous Israelites – remember wicked Ahab! Yup, in glory) that Paradise – which then was emptied – is now filling up with unbelieving Jews until the eschaton (the end) when they will be led to glory again!

These theories are a gross misunderstanding of first century Jewish beliefs, of the nature of grace, election, covenant and law, of Paul and ultimately of the scriptures holistically and of the plan and purpose of redemption in particular!

Cleaning up some misunderstandings:

In the Dead Sea Scrolls the Essence community believed that they were the only “true Israelites” since they alone were the only ones to truly understand the covenants and laws of God. It was possible – through a rigorous process – to join the Essence community and become a part of “true Israel”, but for all the other ‘so-called’ Israelites outside of the community, because they would not join the ‘true Israelites’, they had forfeited their identity as ‘Israel’ as far is the Qumran community was concerned.

And in the Apocryphal (before Christ) and the Rabbinical (after Christ) literature the belief was similar: Salvation was based on Israel’s call and election in God (i.e. grace), but the law was given to separate those ‘in’ Israel from those ‘outside’ of Israel. So obedience to the law was necessary for an Israelite to remain in the covenantal relationship with God (i.e. to be saved!); those who obeyed the law and atoned for their sins in the prescribed ways will be saved, while those Israelites who rejected the law and refused to repent and atone for their sins would in a sense declare their rejection of the covenant and election of God. In other words, such a rebellious Israelite would – by rejection of the law – forfeit their status as an ‘Israelite’ and become no different then a pagan Gentile. And so even in the Apocryphal and Rabbinical literature ‘all Israel will be saved’ but ‘not all Israel are Israel’, i.e. only those faithful to the covenant by obedience to the law would remain as ‘true Israel’. Those Israelites who rejected the covenant by disobeying the law were no longer considered ‘true Israel’, but rather apostates!

So not even Jewish religion taught salvation to all ethnic Israelites, but only to those who remained faithful to the covenant, such a one was considered a ‘true Israelite’. So even within the Jewish religion there was an "Israel within Israel"!

Paul on the ‘true Israel’

Paul captures this common belief in Judaism and yet redefines it in terms of being ‘in Christ’; “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children” (Romans 9:6-7). Then Paul goes on to say that “Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25b-26a).

Two things become clear here; 1) someone is not a descendant of Abraham just because they are an Israelite (ethnicity is irrelevant when discussing soteriology!) – through Paul’s elaborate argument he shows that a true Israelite is one who is of the promise which is obtained by faith, not faith plus (i.e. faith plus works or faith plus ethnicity). And 2) it is not until the full number of Gentiles comes in that “all Israel will be saved” – i.e. believing Israelites plus Gentiles equals “all Israel”. That is why Paul stresses elsewhere that there is neither “Jew nor Greek” (i.e. Gentile – Galatians 3:28) “for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (ibid, 3:29). And thus together we all ‘in Christ’ make up the “Israel of God” (6:16).

So Paul has captured the common Jewish belief that “all Israel will be saved” on the one hand and that “not all Israel are Israel” on the other and has redefined ‘Israel’ as those who are ‘in Christ’ – i.e. believing Jews and Gentiles.

This ridiculous notion that one day all ethnic Israel (based I suppose on the arbitrariness of God) will one day be saved, that the state of Israel will (I’m going to use a term nobody like because I don’t know how else to accurately express it) ‘forcibly’ be saved while the rest of the human race must come to believe ‘the hard way’ (i.e. without being forced into it) is absolutely foreign to the scriptures, to the Old Testament, to the New Testament to the belief of Judaism in between the Testaments and during the time of Christ and as in Paul. It is an abuse of the scriptures by way of ‘proof-texting’ as a result of placing our stock in current events then scouring the scriptures for some ‘proof’ that ‘such a such’ must be unfolding bible prophecy!

So will all Israel be saved? We must answer with a resounding YES; but then we must remind ourselves that not all Israel are Israel, but only those who are 'in Christ' or - to word it another way - those who have a 'covenantal' relationship with God.

No one is saved based on some type of arbitrary ethnic superiority! The scriptures do not teach this false dichtonomy. If you are 'in Christ' then you are a member of the Israel of God!

Just a thought

Derek

Highlights on the New Perspective on Judaism

2009-03-11T11:07:00.004-04:00

(Part 5: See Part: 1, 2, 3, 4)

Introduction:

The material covered by Sanders – in a well accomplished attempt to be thorough – is quite extensive and the issues, long. I have decided that since we could easily get bogged down in endless quotes and the such on numerous points, and eventually lose interest, that perhaps it is best to summarize without defense the issues I believe are most relevant to Sanders study.

Therefore, in order that we might be brief, I will summarize the issues in categories (below) with the following conclusion in mind: Sanders has discovered a basic unity among nearly all forms of first century Judaism(s) regarding the following subjects.

Covenantal Nomism:

I briefly defined covenantal nomism in the previous blog, but I believe an ancient rabbinic piece of literature further illustrates Sanders ‘covenant nomism’ with the following parable:

“I Am the Lord Thy God (Ex. 20:2). Why were the Ten Commandments not said at the beginning of the Torah? They give a parable. To what may this be compared? To the following: A king who entered a province said to the people: May I be your king? But the people said to him: Have you done anything good for us that you should rule over us? What did he do then? He built the city wall for them, he brought in the water supply for them, and he fought their battles. Then when he said to them: May I be your king? They said to him: Yes, yes. Likewise, God. He brought the Israelites out of Egypt, divided the sea for them, sent down the manna for them, brought up the well for them, brought the quails for them. He fought for them the battle with Amalek. Then he said to them: I am to be your king. And they said to Him: Yes, yes.” [p.86]

… “He continues: ‘Now just as you accepted my reign, you must also accept my decrees: ‘thou shalt not have other gods before me’’” [ibid]

As if the matter were not clear enough let me add: “‘When it says ‘I Am the Lord thy God’, it means this: Am I not he whose kingship you took upon yourselves at Sinai?’ When the Israelites answer affirmatively, God replies, ‘You have accepted my kingship, accept my ordinances’”. [p.85, see also p.93-94, 263, 422 etc]

And this is covenantal nomism, that God called them by grace, they accepted his lordship, he then gave them his ordinances and they willingly obey as a proper response to God, the king who did all he did for them.

Original Sin:

It seems important to acknowledge a crucial distinction between Judaism and Christianity (as if there aren’t several crucial distinctions?), unlike Christianity (at least since Augustine, via Paul), Judaism had no doctrine of ‘original sin’ [p.115]. For them, sin was simply defined as transgression of the Torah. Therefore, there was not a human ‘condition’ which required perfection in order to be ‘elected’ (or ‘saved’).

This is very important to the discussion at hand, and especially so when we begin to discuss how it relates to Paul: Salvation was based solely on ‘election’ and not on ‘justification’ for some universal human condition. Your place as one of God’s elect was not based on ‘justification’ or ‘righteousness’, but on whether or not you were ‘in’ Israel and thereby elected by the grace of God. As we’ll see in a moment, righteousness had a completely different roll in Judaism then it does in Christianity – which is where much of the confusion in the current debate seems to revolve around. [p.112-114 ff.]

Righteousness and Law in Judaism:

Closely connected to the fact that Judaism had no doctrine of original sin is that they therefore did not require ‘repentance’ as a means to join the people of God. As I already said, one became a member of the elect by being elected in grace, not by being good enough (works), nor by repenting for sins since “[h]uman perfection was not considered realistically achievable by the Rabbis, nor was it required” [p.137]. God did not choose you because you were perfect (righteous), neither did he need to make you 'righteous' to elect you, but because of his sovereign grace he elected you.

Repentance was important to the Jewish religion, but it was not status-achieving, rather it was status-maintaining [p.178]. That is, repentance was done only after one was ‘in’ or apart of the elect. Since obedient to the Torah was a natural response to being called and elected by Gods grace, it is only natural that when someone failed to be obedient to the law (i.e. transgressed the law) that they repent (i.e. said sorry and promise not to do it again).

This again, like we saw under ‘original sin’, is also closely connected to the Jewish doctrine of righteousness. It was not necessary for one to be perfect or righteous in order to join the covenant community of God, but after one becomes a member (by grace of course) they have the responsibility to abide by the Torah, and by this they confirm the covenant. Therefore, “[t]he righteous are not the sinless, but those who confirm the covenant” by their obedience to Torah [p.143, see also p.204-5, 312, 362, 368]

This is very important: Judaism did not teach that one had to be righteous (i.e. sinless) to belong to the covenant community of God, Paul, however does! Judaism did not teach that one was made righteous by the Torah in terms of salvation; it taught rather that one was made or remained righteous by the Torah only in terms of covenant maintenance, that is, it was how they stayed in the covenant, not how they got in the covenant. This is a crucial distinction and I believe it is key in understanding the debate on the New Perspective on Paul, and it may be key in deciphering the current debate between Piper and Wright.

Rewards/Punishments and Law in Judaism:

I just want to add a word here about Rewards and Punishment in Judaism. According to them, it seems that reward and punishment was dealt out by God both in this life and in the life to come based on works of the law. That is, even though one were a member of the elect, at the eschaton, one would be judged and rewards or punishment would be distributed according to their works. However, this was not an issue of salvation, but only of rewards and punishment (which remains vague, as they do in Christianity). Of course those outside the covenant will also be judged by their works, but will only receive punishment since they are not apart of the elect [p.107 ff.].

Salvation is based on election; rewards and punishment are based on works [p.181]. It is extremely noteworthy that Paul is in perfect agreement with Judaism on this point, as we shall see.

Atonement/Repentance:

Repentance in the Rabbis was considered so efficacious that a single act of repentance outweighed a lifetime of sin and disobedience [p.176]. But repentance – as stated above – was only necessary after one ‘gets saved’ (to use modern language).

As far as atonement goes; “the universally held view is this: God has appointed means of atonement for every transgression, except the intention to reject God and his covenant”. [p.157, italics added]

There is an interesting discussion of the Jewish use of ‘intention’ which I will not get into, except to summarize. Basically, with so many Jews living throughout the world, if it was not always possible to travel to Jerusalem and offer the appropriate atonement sacrifices, the ‘intention’ of the individual was efficacious enough that his/her sins would be covered. In Judaism it was believed that neither the Day of Atonement nor the act of sacrificial atonement actually had any mystical power in and of themselves, but rather it was God himself who made the atonement efficacious. [See p.142 ff. especially p.164 and 168, 180 ff.]

All Israel will be Saved

For a discussion on “All Israel will be Saved” and on Individual salvation within the covenant community, see the next blog. It is very interesting to observe Judaism on this point in light of Paul’s redefinition of “all Israel”.

What I will say here is that Judaism taught (in agreement with Paul) that though all Israel will be saved, not all Israel (i.e. national, ethnic Israelites) are Israel, but that there was an Israel in Israel. God elected Israel (the group), but the individual Israelite still had the responsibility of 'status-maintenance', as stated, there was no sacrifice that could keep someone 'in' Israel who's intention was against God and his ordinances (eg. wicked Ahab, etc.).

“The explicit statement that ‘all Israelites have a share in the world to come’ appears in Sanhedrin 10:1” [p.147, 361, 369-71], but is also extremely prominent among the Essence Community (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls).

Conclusion: I have attempted to summarize the prominent points in Sanders work which I believe are relevant, and to define some of the main terms and ideas (such as 'righteousness' in Judaism), whether or not I succeeded, I don't know, but soon I will bottom-line all of this and illustrate how I think it works and how it contrasted (or agreed) with Christian soteriology.

Stay tuned,

Derek

Sanders and Covenantal Nomism

2009-03-05T13:01:00.005-05:00

(Part 4 - See Part: 1, 2, 3)

Law in Grace, Grace in Law

Before we begin it is important to define what is meant when referencing ‘Judaism’ or ‘first century Jewish religion’ and other similar terms. It is often said that there is no such thing as ‘a’ Jewish religion since there were so many different and opposing sects in Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducee's, Essence, and Zealots etc). Since this is the case can we in any way refer to ‘a’ first century Jewish religion? Sanders says, “To the frequent assertions that there are many Judaisms in the Palestine of the period studied, one can reply ‘yes’ or ‘no’, depending on just what is meant. There were obviously different groups and different theologies on numerous points. But there appears to have been more in common than just the name ‘Jew’”, such as their unanimous voice – if somewhat tweaked on various points – of their doctrine of salvation. [p. 423 – all page references in this blog are from Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism ©1977].

So when discussing first century Jewish religion I am speaking with our conclusion in mind – that they are generally agreed on the subject of soteriology.

Let me begin then by summarizing that the ‘pre-70’s’ interpretation of Judaism (as illustrated in the previous blog) was believed to be a works for salvation religion, i.e. a legalistic religion: “The legalistic conception of mans relationship with God led to the view that at the judgment all of one’s works would be counted and weighed, the verdict on a man’s fate being determined by the balance of merits verses demerits” [p.45].

Contrary to this pre-70’s understanding of Judaism stands Sanders observation of what he has coin ‘covenantal nomism’: “Covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression” [p.75].

So while the old interpretation of Judaism was that one had to be more then 51% obedient to the commandments of God to be saved (i.e. works based religion or legalism), Sanders interpretation is that one is saved on account of being ‘in’ the covenant, and obedience to the law of the covenant is expected, but when one does transgress the law there is a way to atone for those sins. Thus one is not ‘in’ the covenant by obeying the law; rather one is elected (i.e. grace) to be ‘in’ the covenant and therefore expected to be obedient. The difference – subtle but of the utmost importance – is how one becomes ‘in’ the covenant.

Yet anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Judaism in the first century will note how precise and overly concerned they were regarding every detail of the law. So the question becomes; if they taught salvation by election, and not by works of the law, then why were they so concerned about every minute detail of the law? After quoting the midrash extensively Sanders concludes: “The reason for defining the commandments so precisely is to be able to do what God enjoined. The reason for doing what God enjoined is that he dwells with his people” and again he concludes further: “Why are the commandments so narrowly defined and the mode of fulfillment so thoroughly discussed? Because keeping the commandments is Israel’s response to the God who has chosen them, who has made a covenant with them, and who dwells with them – even when they are not perfectly obedient” [p.82].

There is a Christian sermon somewhere in all of this, for the Christian can (should) certainly be able to relate. Jesus said bluntly, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” [John 14:23]. And so if we love God – Father and Son in this text – and if we are thankful for the ‘exodus’ of the cross, we will show our appreciation quite naturally by striving to be obedient to what Jesus commanded, and of course the bottom line – the engine that drives redemption history both in Judaism and in Christianity – is that – as the midrash says – the ‘Shekinah dwells’ in their midst, or – as the Jesus put it – that God (i.e. Jesus and the Father) will make their ‘home with him’.

So their concern for the law was not unto salvation but onto relationship; that is, if they have a covenantal relationship with the God who delivered them and called them into relationship with himself, and if this holy God dwells among them, then obedience to his commandments is only a proper response. It is not a means of getting ‘in’, but rather it is how one lives when one is ‘in’.

Thus Sanders observation he coined ‘covenantal nomism’ is that they had a covenantal relationship with God (i.e. grace) which called for obedience to his laws (i.e. nomos, gr. ‘law’).

In a sense Christianity is also a covenantal nomistic religion (John 14:23 above), that is, it is a religion of grace, called and elected by God, and as a proper (natural) response to the called who elected us and died for us (exodus) we obey his "teaching".

When I say, "in Christ", I mean it in this fashion: that those who are "in" Christ and those who have entered a covenantal relationship with God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth (cf. Gen. 1:1-3; John 1:1-14; 2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:15-23)

Derek

Qualifications on Sanders

2009-03-03T12:14:00.003-05:00

(Part 3 - See Part: 1, 2)

Following our study from the previous blog, before I try to make any attempt at summarizing Sanders argument, I must add here at least one very large qualification: it has become evident to me that I am held hostage to the mercy of the work and nature of Sanders study. That is, I do not have access to either Rabbinic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Apocryphal/Pseudepigrapha of the period of and before Christ; furthermore, even if I did have access to this wide body of literature I would not be able to access them in their original language! And even if I did have access to them and if I understood the original language my primary interest lay in Biblical, not Rabbinical, studies. I am only interested in this study insofar as it relates to and shines light on the context of Christ and his Message. Therefore I am wholly dependant upon Sanders, on the specific material he references and the such, without the means to “verify” and cross-check the context of his work.

What this means is that when Sanders quotes a certain Rabbi I am compelled to trust that he has quoted accurately, that he has not taken the said Rabbi out of context and that he has not ‘ignored’ other Rabbi’s who might disprove his thesis. This does not mean, however, that I must accept the conclusions which he has drawn from the material he has referenced, for indeed to that my response is that I have my own mind.

So then the question becomes: can I trust Sanders work? The answer I believe is yes and the reason is due to scholarship support since the 70’s of Sanders thesis of first century Judaism. However, I am not so blind as to assume that just because the majority support a view that I must agree also (if I were, I would on the one hand join the bazillions of people who have accepted Tim Lahey’s caricature of the End Times exemplified in his novel series ‘Left Behind’, and on the other hand, wholly accept Darwinian evolution and the ridiculous notion of a ‘Big Bang’). However, there is something to be said about the fact that Sanders study has literally altered (it seems to me) an entire generation of scholarship, but what is most interesting is that many of those who accepted his thesis regarding the generally accepted first century Jewish doctrine of soteriology, are also those who have rejected his conclusions regarding the affect of this study on Paul (i.e. the New Perspective on Paul) which adds credibility to his work and is a testament to his reliability.

For these reasons primarily I accept Sanders work as reliable, until or unless I read other scholars to the contrary, and only if they can be more convincing. Furthermore, I have concluded most of Paul and Palestinian Judaism, the major sections regarding the wide body of literature in Palestine from 200 bce to 200 ce, and have been persuaded that the ‘official’ religion of Judaism was in fact a ‘grace based religion’ (which I believe is in keeping with Old Testament soteriology) and not a religion that taught ‘works righteousness’. However, I am not convinced that the ‘official religion’ was properly understand and practiced by the average Jew. It’s the difference between the orthodox Christian doctrine of sin nature (Augustinian) and the common unorthodox Christian practice of Semi-Pelagianism (especially among Pentecostals – see Olson, Arminian Theology ©2006, and see also Alan Jacobs, Original Sin, ©2008).

Now then, having acknowledged my weakness in this area – and I believe also my justification for moving forward – let us turn to the question: Was first century Judaism ‘officially’ a religion of ‘justification by works’ or ‘justification by grace’?

Sanders and A New Perspective

2009-02-23T17:23:00.007-05:00

(Part 2 - See Part: 1)

James Dunn was the first to employ the phrase ‘a new perspective on Paul’ which was picked up on by the system’s critics who began to refer to ‘the so-called New Perspective on Paul’. Thus the fruit of superb research received its very own catch phrase; sadly though the phrase "New Perspective on Paul" fails to do justice to what is actually at stake here. The New Perspective on Paul is not so much about Paul at all, at least not directly, rather it’s more about first century Judaism and only consequentially is it about Paul (though the implications may be staggering!); thus a better catch phrase, slogan or whatever may be ‘The New Perspective on First Century Judaism’.

The trouble maker who so tenaciously flipped the apple cart of New Testament scholarship upside down was E.P. Sanders in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). Prior to Sanders New Testament scholarship taught that Judaism from the Second Temple period to the Rabbinic period was a religion of works based salvation which Paul was confronting everywhere he went, thus central to Paul’s theology was a doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law.

Sanders thesis, that which he seeks to prove, is that Judaism was not a works based religion contrary to popular scholarship, but rather, it was a grace based one! That Judaism (in its various forms) taught that they were saved by grace based on their election "in" Abraham and/or "in" Israel - i.e. God called Israel to be his (unmerited grace) apart from any works - and thus the real issue was not a type of legalism per se, but rather "the position of national superiority which Judaism had thought to claim on the basis of God’s choice of her" (N.T. Wright, Commentary on Colossians p.33).

Rabbinic Literature

Sanders book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism works backwards examining the period of time between 200 BC to AD 200 (p.1), first looking at the Rabbinic literature from AD 70 - AD 200, then looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls and finally at the Apocryphal literature beginning in 200 BC. After laying the historical context of Judaism (p.33-426) he then takes a look at how this revealed knowledge of the Judaism Paul knew affects what Paul said and consequently how we should interpret him (p.431-552).

What Everyone Presupposed:

Sanders begins by revealing what current (at least then) thoughts of first century Judaism taught in contrast to Paul and spends much time naming scholars and their generally accepted (if somewhat tweaked) views on the matter - an exercise I will gladly spare you the tears of boredom of. (When I refer to "popular scholarship" hereafter I mean scholarship which Sanders is combating, i.e. prior to 1977 - it appears Sanders work has literally swayed an entire generation of scholars, the more I read the more I discover that even those who reject the 'New Perspective on Paul' none-the-less have been persuaded by Sanders research into Second Temple Period Judaism: that it was a religion of grace - See Heyler, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, p.264)

According to popular scholarship, "the Jewish view… was that righteousness is earned by works, while Paul’s was that righteousness was a gift from God received by faith" (p.2). Furthermore, "Judaism was the antithesis [opposite] of Christianity. Judaism was a legalistic religion… [while] Christianity is based on faith rather than works" (p.33). In the Jewish religion (according to the popular thought) righteousness was earned (works) by two ways, 1. keeping the Law - which no one could do perfectly - and 2. doing ‘good works’ such as giving money to the poor (p.37). One could also atone for your sins in various ways such as sacrifices, the rituals associated with the Day of Atonement, doing ‘good deeds’ and the such, and doing these things rendered previous sins as if they never happened. But each act of atonement removed only each sin atoned for, thus there could be sins not atoned for which will 'weigh' over one’s head on the day of judgment (p. 37-38).

This last point is significant because the popular belief regarding the first century Jewish doctrine of salvation was one of weighing "sins" over against "good deeds" (or merits verses demerits): "Every fulfillment of a commandment earns for the Israelite a merit, while every transgression earns a debt or guilt. God keeps a record of both merits and demerits. When a mans merits are more numerous he is considered righteous, but when transgressions outnumber merits he is considered wicked… Man does not know how his reckoning with God stands" [until judgement day] (p.43) which results in insecurity or pride - the man who is unsure has great fear, while the other man who believes he lived a superbly righteous life exhibits great pride (consider here Paul’s statement, "not by works lest any man boast").

I want to observe with Sanders one more curious fact; "one must note in particular the projection on to Judaism of the view which Protestants find most objectionable in Roman Catholicism: the existence of a treasury of merits established by supererogation. We have here the retrojection of the Protestant-Catholic debate into ancient history, with Judaism taking the roll of Catholicism and Christianity the roll of Lutheranism" (p.57). To this Heyler acknowledges that "there is much truth in [this] critique" (Heyler, Witness, p.265)

So to summarize what NT scholars have believed regarding the Judaism Paul knew (i.e. Judaism between 200 BC and AD 200):

· It was basically the opposite of Christianity in its legalistic teaching.
· It was a religion which taught salvation by works of the law.
· Since no one could keep the law perfectly it was based on a ‘weighing’ system.
· God kept record.
· If your obedient acts 'out-weighted' your sins you were righteous.
· If your sins 'out-weighted' your obedience you were wicked.
· You could add ‘merits’ to your life by doing good deeds (feeding the poor), or making atonement by one of the means prescribed in the scriptures.
· Thus Judaism was a legalistic religion.

Sanders bluntly concludes: "one of the intentions of the present chapter, to put the matter clearly, is to destroy that view" (p.59, italics added). His goal is to "destroy" the pervading misconception outlined above regarding Rabbinic Judaism: that it was not a legalistic religion, that it did not depend on works of the law to be saved, that ‘good works’ and ‘acts of atonement’ did not store up merits in ones favor and that one was not eternally judged based on a weighing system!

On the flip coin - and many may find this interesting - Sanders argues for an understanding of Judaism that (as stated) is not legalistic but rather holds to a sense of national pride and segregation as a result of their electing in the grace of God! The Law in Judaism, therefore, was a barrier that separated the elect (Israel) from the Gentiles - these include laws of cleanliness, circumcision and meal fellowship; the consequences of this view on the book of Galations may be much and worth considering!

So then, what did Rabbinic Judaism teach on these matters? I’ll attempt to answer that question and summarize Sanders arguments in the next blog.

Tell then
Derek

New Perspective on Paul

2009-02-23T17:06:00.005-05:00

For about a month I was out of touch with my studies, pretty much from the time my dad entered the hospital (mid January) to his passing and funeral (Jan 29-Feb 2) until mid February as a period set aside for grief. I reserve the right to interrupt our regular blogs occasionally to honor my dad, but for the mean time I desire - almost need - to enter the swing of things once again. So without further ado, the academic topic of interest (drum roll please)…:

I have entered a potentially revolutionizing debate currently bantering back and forth in the halls of academia. Recently that debate has been trickling down into the public view as writers like John Piper are beginning to blow their horns. The debate has been called - and is often referred to as the ‘so-called’ - New Perspective on Paul.

It would seem inevitable as someone who reads N.T. Wright regularly that I would eventually pick up on the ‘New Perspective’. I read Wright’s book, Paul in Fresh Perspective, last year and to be honest I didn’t really know what he was trying to defend (never having heard of the ‘New Perspective’). Shortly thereafter I noticed John Piper (those who love this guy, usually have a disdain for Wright - I’ve observed) had written a book titled the Future of Justification, subtitled; A Response to N.T. Wright. Reading Piper’s book three things became evident to me: 1. Piper was responding to an earlier book by Wright titled What Saint Paul Really Said; 2.There were many places where what Piper said was misleading in a way that only those who adore him would not pick up on, and 3. After reading it, I still had little idea what the New Perspective actually was.

Working backwards, I got a hold of Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said, and quickly read it. I gathered many good and useful things out of it, but a certain amount of ambiguity coupled with what seemed to be Wright’s assumption that the reader had some knowledge of what the New Perspective was, and not to mention the haste in which I read it, led to the same problem I had with Pipers book: no clear answer as to what the New Perspective was.

About this time I came across another name, Peter Stuhlmacher, who wrote a book titled Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, subtitled; A Challenge to the New Perspective. Also in this little book is an essay by Donald A. Hagner. Together and with great respect many of the issues were clarified and I was introduced to others who have contributed to the discussion.

Working backwards still, I picked up Krister Stendahl’s highly referenced little book titled Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Stendahl, being a Lutheran bishop, carries a significant amount of influence in this discussion due to the fact that the New Perspective on Paul may be seen as a direct challenge (some might say, and only in some regards) to the Reformed (particularly Lutheran) doctrine of Justification by Faith (which explains why Piper is all up in a frenzy).

Of every contributor of the New Perspective out there, there is one who’s work shattered aggressively the - my term - ‘Old’ perspective, dare I say decisively! The work I speak of is E.P. Sanders critically acclaimed six hundred page mammoth of a book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he states, for example, "one of the intentions of the present chapter, to put the matter clearly, is to destroy that view" p.59 ("that" being the popular view that Judaism was a work’s based religion - a sneak-peek for into the discussion that awaits.)

(I am compelled to interject at this point, not wanting to get a head of myself, it is none-the-less necessary to 'backup' my statement that "Sanders shattered the old perspective decisively" by quoting someone who stands opposed to the New Perspective and yet cannot deny Sanders research into first century Judaism: Larry Helyer says "In my opinion, Sanders and Dunn do a disservice to Paul's thought." And yet regarding Sanders research into Judaism, was it a religion of grace or law, Helyer says, "This [to read Paul against the backdrop of a Judaism of works], says Sanders, and I think correctly, is simply wrong. Judaism was very much aware that salvation was first and foremost by grace" - Larry R. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John; p.264; he also references his own work, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period)

So now I have found myself at the root that started it all (I think), Sander’s book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. If three names continue to surface as the banner carriers of this debate they are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn - it is important to note that Dunn is the one who coined the phrase ‘New Perspective on Paul’, and N.T. Wright. So in turn I am currently reading Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which will be followed by Dunn’s The New Perspective on Paul (revised edition), and then I will be in the proper place to return to Wrights’ What Saint Paul Really Said and Paul in Fresh Perspective followed by Pipers attempt at rebuttal (The Future of Justification) and in between of all this I will review Stendahl’s and Stuhlmacher’s books as time permits (I found them both helpful the first time around, how much more the second?).

I invite you then to join me on this journey as we explore the New Perspective on Paul, what it is, what merit does it hold, and how can it deepen our understanding of the scriptures.

One thing must be said before we begin: Piper warns his readers that it is easy to jump on to bandwagons of things ‘new’ or ‘revolutionizing’ and the such, and encourages his fans to stay the course (by which he means the course set for them by Luther and the Reformers - a revolutionary term to be sure!). Do not too hastily embrace such exhortation, the term "New Perspective on Paul" (not the best coin phrase I admit) is so because it seems since Luther everyone accepted the Protestant/Catholic retrojection onto the first century with Judaism taking the roll of Catholicism and Christianity taking the roll of Protestantism (to quote Helyer again, "[According to Sanders, Dunn and Wright] Luther and his successors misread what the conflict was really all about. In the process the Reformers branded Judaism in its entirety as a religion of works and saw its' contemporary reincarnation in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, this stereotype persists, even in our own time. There is much truth in their critique." (p.265, italics added - again, I quote Helyer because he is not in favor of the New Perspective)

The New Perspective on Paul has thoroughly examined Judaism between 200 BC and 200 AD and has found Luther’s assumptions about Paul’s polemics wanting. Namely, Judaism was a ‘grace’ religion, not a ‘works’ religion as Luther assumed, thus they cannot be compared to the works religion of sixteenth century Catholicism (in which Luther’s doctrine of Justification by Faith arose). Judaism - says the New Perspective - must be examined on its' own terms, not on our Christianized terms or through the lens of Paul. Therefore we need to return to the drawing board of Paul’s statements; "by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28) and "from faith in Christ and not from works of the law" (Galatians 2:16). If he was not challenging a Jewish religion of salvation by works (because there was no such a religion - says the New Perspective), then what do these statements mean? This - I think - is where Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said, enters the discussion. But I’ll get to that book in due course.

For now, it’s on to E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

Stay Tuned

Derek

Love Letter From Beyond

2009-02-23T13:54:00.013-05:00

As I noted in the previous blog, my parents had separated over a year before dad passed away - with the intention of getting back together! - yet the separation was necessary in order for healing and reconciliation and - dare I say - that God might become the center of the family once again (at the least, the center of each of our lives again). During this period of separation my dad wrote a letter to my mom which he apparently folded up and placed in the bottom of a box somewhere, never to be discovered until after he passed away.

What follows is a peeling back of a man; the exposure of a soul in all its shame, ugly guilt and scars and at the same time its hope and expectation for a powerful God-centered life of reconciliation.

And now, the letter:
____________________________________

Dear Wendy, Feb 26/08

Self loathing, I hate myself
Passive
Irresponsible
Coward
Deceitful
Thoughts of suicide
Boastful
Proud
Self centered/serving
Angry
Bitter
Rejected
Withdrawn
Avoids conflicts
Fearful
____________________

I [am] writing this letter to ask ["ask" is scratched out] beg for your forgiveness. What I have done deserved what I recieved - our separation. No Excuses. My prayer is that Jesus restore our marriage.

Please know that God is at work [in] my life. He has revealed and shown me things about myself that explain[s] why I did what I did. I was not a good friend, husband, lover, father and grandfather.

In explanation I can only state that God showed me Proverbs 23:7 states "As a man thinks in his heart, so does he become". I became the very things I never wanted to be. But, thanks be to Jesus, for the love He has shown me. Jesus has taken the roots of my problems, and is replacing them with Himself. He is taking the old man replacing him with the new man. I know this will take time. I believe that this time of separation will turn out for good. Jesus will make me new. He will take this time to mould and make me the person He designed me to be. A good friend, husband, lover, father and grandfather, as I put into practice those lessons He's shown me. Will I be perfect[?] no, but I will grow "in the grace of the Lord". If you allow it, I will make you fall in love with me again. I will do whatever it takes. You are my treasure from God, and I will treat you as precious every day that you and God let me. This [is] a time for us to draw near to God, the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit our guide. And I am using this time to do just that. I will never change if I don't. My journey this far has been awesome. I'm learning things I never understood before. Like God so desires a relationship with us He will do whatever it takes to achieve this. He started by giving us Jesus, and His sacrificial atonement for us. Awesome!

I know you don't trust me, that's okay trust our Lord and Saviour Jesus instead. All the things that you prayed and hoped, believed and faithfully waited for Jesus to make me ARE coming to fruitation. I'm just sorry that is took so long.

You ARE precious to me. Let me show you how precious you really are to me.

My love Always,
Yours in Christ

Ken

_____________________________________________________

My dads letter above is laced thick with good theology; consider the reference to the Trinity, the Atonement and the 'new man', but of particular interest is the connection he made between a husbands reconcilation with his wife and God's reconcilation with us!

Consider the phrase he wrote describing his strong desire to reconcile his relationship with my mom: "If you will allow it I will make you fall in love with me again I will do whatever it takes. You are my treasure from God" and the theological connection dad made with God's strong desire to reconcile us to Himself by doing "whatever it takes": "I'm learning things I never understood before. Like God so desires a relationship with us He will do whatever it takes to acheive this. He started by giving us Jesus, and His sacrificial atonement for us. Awesome!"

My dad finally grasped the concept that love and reconcilation required a sacrifice of the greatest depth; for most of his life he could not accept the fact that God loved (someone like) him so much that He would die if it meant reconcilation (which God did), until his final year on earth when the fact became an illustrated reality, that my dad himself loved my mom so much that he would die for her if it meant reconcilation.

And one glad morning, the morning when all things reach their consumation, the morning when creation is restored, on the shores of a new earth - a paradise for all who are "in Christ"... on that day mom and dad will recieve their full and long awaited perfect reconcilation as the walk the sand along the crystal sea hand in hand.

We love you dad / we painfully miss you / and we look forword to seeing you again.

Derek

and Family

In Rememberance of Dad: Part 2 (A Letter From Beyond)

2009-02-17T19:53:00.005-05:00

Setting the Stage:

For some, family life may be picture perfect in a 'Leave it to Beaver' style. For others, family life falls into the tragic category of 'disaster'. If my family fell somewhere in between, it tended to lean toward the latter. As time progressed it become obvious that something had to change:

Dad spent his days watching TV.

While mom worked to pay the bills and feed the family.

My little sister - Katlynn - was in the height of her rebellion!

Dad's spirituality was nominal at best, as filthy language and excuses to skip church increased.

Mom tried desperately hard to maintain her faith and her family.

Katlynn wasn't sure that God existed and simply didn't care - church was out of the question.

Dad tried to be Katlynn's 'best friend' and actually sided with her against mom.

Mom tried desperately hard to 'parent' Katlynn, but because she worked so much, she could not do it without dad's help - he was no help!

Katlynn was skipping school, sneaking out of the house at night to do drugs and building unhealthy relationships with boys - she was only 13!

SOMETHING HAD TO CHANGE!

My mother was compelled to make one of the most difficult choices of her life - dad had to go. This did not mean divorce, what it was was tough love. It was not just for mom's sake, or for Katlynn's sake either, no, it was for dad's sake also. Dad had to change.

And change he did.

Dad began going to church three times a week, and because he had no means of transportation he would take the city bus, even at night, even in the cold (I doubt I would have the same level of committment!) - as a matter of fact, often getting off of work I would see my dad waiting for the bus at night and would give him a lift to his little run down apartment, I miss not seeing him standing at that bus stop as I drive by.

Dad began reading his bible regularly and did devotions every day. In short, he fully realized his desperate need for God in his life and His transforming power. As a result he turned his affections and attention over to winning his wife - my mom - back! He began to wooo her like teenagers or young love birds - and what's more... she gladly (though slightly cautiously) let him. Furthermore, he began to take his responsibility toward Katlynn seriously; and in it all, all three of their lives changed drastically, for the better, for the glory of God.

It would have probably been only a matter of months before they were all living under one roof again - before dad would be living with mom again - when the great tragedy of his heart attack abruptly ended it all.

It was during this period of separation and - simultaneously - of reconciliation, that dad wrote mom an incredibly transparent - the most transparent a letter can be - love note. Then dad stuffed this note in the bottom of a box, never - for whatever reason - having actually given it to the recipient, to his love, to my mom.

It was not until after the funeral, while going through what little items dad actually possessed, that this love note came to light. It's relevance is astounding, it could very well have been written some three weeks before he passed - if it weren't dated.

I use this note - this beautiful love letter of sin and pain, yet of love and reconciliation - by permission. What's to come is dad's final message, his final act of parenthood, his final gift to those he left behind.

Yes it is addressed to mom, but in a way - perhaps a mystical way - it is telling of the rest of us: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" and then also; "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."

Thanks dad... - the letter to follow...

Derek.

In Memory of Dad: Part 1

2009-02-05T19:36:00.009-05:00

This is how my morning began on January 29th at 6:30 am:

Jarred out of my sleep, I tossed on whatever clothing was in reach, hopped in the car and drove like a reckless maniac from Windsor Ontario to Detroit Michigan - Henry Ford Hospital to be precise.

The trip - normally constituting a travelling time of about twenty minutes - took me over an hour. My stomach twisted and turned until I could not contain my nerve shot bowels any longer, I was forced to make a moments decision of ramming the car up a curb like a lunatic into the parking lot of Peter's Place - a small tavern I have never been to or even noticed before - stalling out the car in the process.

After relieving the tension in my stomach I continued on my way - thanking God the car started up again. After two detours due to traffic accidents and a short delay at the boarder I finally had the hospital within my sights, it was only a block away as I sat idol waiting for a green light. When it finally came I pressed my foot on the accelerator, and in a sort of ironic pose the car stalled yet again. By the time I managed to start it up the green light had turned red and I was forced to sit patiently - ever so tempted to risk my life at the busy intersection.

Finally I pulled into the parking lot and squeezed my car into the first illegal open spot I could find. I ran through the front doors of the hospital, down the hall ways, up the elevator, around the bend and into the ICU.

I burst into the private room where the curtain was drawn closed, the room where my mother, grandmother and aunt all stood, gazing at me in silence. I peered up at the monitor above then down to the body below.

"Nothing" - I said, half asking and have stating.

My mother grabbed me and we wailed like we had never wailed before, like the world was going to end, like the greatest catastraphy of mankind had suddenly come down upon us... we wailed!

I reached down and grabbed my fathers hand... it was still warm.

... I love you dad, and I always will...

- Derek

Saving Darwin: Follow Up With Karl

2009-01-06T13:30:00.003-05:00

I was humbled recently by a comment made to a blog I wrote several months ago. You may recall back in September I reviewed a book I read titled Saving Darwin; my sarcasm throughout the blog was so thick it could be cut with a knife, and even now when I go back to read it I think, “man oh man, was that comment necessary”.

None the less, my sarcasm served a purpose, it was to release my frustration over (what I perceived to be) the authors failure to deliver on the sub-title of his book, namely, the “how” in How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution. And so my criticism was not so much what the author did say (he said many good things apart from this) but rather, what he did not say, namely, he did not answer the question which the sub-title promised. I did add in my blog however that “if the title of his book was something to the effect of: Saving Darwin: A 20th Century Historical Analysis of the debate between Creationism and Evolution, I would give this book two thumbs way up”.

My humbling comes into play when recently I received a comment from Professor Karl Giberson himself, who evidently read my blog; he begins:

“Hi. Solid review with many relevant comments”

Re-reading my blog, there were many relevant points, but the emotion with which I wrote birthed many unnecessary comments as well, yet Pro. Giberson showed brotherly love and respect by choosing to focus on the positive which he could glean from my review – for this I am humbled and grateful, and reminded of the necessity to do the same!

Then he continues on to briefly clarify a crucial point:

“The subtitle of the book was chosen, over my objections, by the marketing dept at Harper”.

This explains a lot! Like, no wonder he never seeks to develop a “how” of the subtitle, for he even objected to it. This fact does not render my criticism useless, rather it simply redirects it – while I think marketers obviously must be strategic (for example I may have been less prone to pick up the book had the subtitle been something else), I still believe they have a responsibility to be honest, and evidently, the title chosen does not reflect well the purpose of the book which Giberson clarifies as;

“…to ‘explain in an accessible way why evolution remains so unsettling’”.

Some time ago I sent an email to radio personality Bob Dukto asking him if he had read Giberson’s book and commenting that an interview would be interesting. A few weeks later I turned on my car radio on my way to work and sure enough Bob Dukto was interviewing Karl Giberson. What struck me most about the interview was the grace and love which Giberson and Dutko exchanged; there was no doubt in my mind of Giberson’s seasoned faith!

I wish to thank Karl for his grace and I want to exhort anyone who is interested in the history of the debate of Creation and Evolution in the American public system to pick up Giberson’s book, Saving Darwin. Read it critically of course (as we should all things), but there are many good and useful things said, so glean.

United we stand in Christ,

Derek
P.S. to see Karl’s original comment to my blog click here and follow it to the end

A Year of Blogging Theologically

2009-01-03T18:10:00.003-05:00

Hello ladies and gents!

I trust all of you had a wonderful holiday season.

With 2008 now behind us and '09 before us I feel it appropriate to take a time out and reflect on where we've been and where I would like to see us go.

Technically I have not been blogging for a complete year since my first blog was in April, none the less, the last nine months of been challenging and were filled with many good and some bad blogging choices and many fantastic subjects I'd like to touch on.

'08

I began by reading, reviewing and growing theologically in my understand of the Atonement of Jesus Christ which has probably had the most return out of everything else I have discussed. The realization of Christus Victor as the over-arching Atonement Theory has literally revolutionized my theology.

Working in conjunction with the Christus Victor motif is Covenantalism (as opposed to Dispensationalism), the discussion of Law and Grace (Why Torah as Covenantal Charter), the biblical motif of Idolatry (though I have not written a blog on this subject yet - forth coming), and a defence of Arminianism (technically, I explained why I reject Calvinism); the scriptures are beginning to unfold for me in a way that makes them relatively coherent rather then the "chopped up", "pick and choose", "unrelated" book of facts I always treated it to be. In short, I'm almost thirty years old and my theology is finally beginning to come together - very exciting.

Of course I've made a few mistakes at times (the Local Pastor and Ex Cathedra comes to mind) and I often write with way too much emotions (review of Saving Darwin 2 comes to mind), but all in all I think this time of blogging has been very beneficial for me, and I hope for you as well.

'09

When I began to blog I had certain intentions - subjects I wanted to address right away - but then I got busy or other subjects popped up and things got jumbled around or I lost the resources necessary to write a well articulated blog (not lost so much as they are in storage and I haven't had time to dig them out). Not to mention other subjects that have taken on a great interest to me which I wanted to blog about, but not before I solidified myself enough in the subject that I could say - for an armature - that my views are educated ones. The following are subjects which I intend to blog about in the 2009 year, but my upcoming blogs are not restricted to these as other interest may take priority:

1. Open Theism: I have given open theology a fair hearing (probably devoting more time and money of books for and against Open Theism then any other subject except perhaps the History of the Bible), and I believe the views of Open Theist are at least worthy to be heard. In the words of one Arminian Theologian: the fanaticism against Open Theism is "over the top" and "I do not see what core doctrines of the Christian faith would be negatively affected by it". We'll explore that question one day soon hopefully.

2. The History of the Bible: If I were a pastor of an Evangelical church I would devote a minimum of one and probably two months annually to teach the congregation how we got the bible. Considering how important the scriptures are among Evangelicals I find it astounding how ignorant most of us are regarding the transmission of our most holy book! And with so many translations available and not to mention the continued lingering stench of "King James Onlyism" which is a devisive and legalistically binding and condemning issue in evangelicalism still to this very day (take it from me, working in a Christian book store - I know!), Christians need to know why they can trust Gods Word.

3. Inerrancy or Infallibality: I have a very high view of scripture, but I wonder how usefully the word "inerrancy" actually is, and whether or not it may actually be a damaging doctrine. After reading several books (by Evangelical authors - not Liberals!), I wish to explore this subject in the future.

4. Others: I would also like to explore other subjects I'll briefly note here: Heaven and the Resurrection; Evil and God; Genesis 1-6; Ancient Israel - Polytheistic or Monotheistic?; Biblical Idolatry; the so-called New Perspective on Paul; and many more subjects.

I look forward to a fruitful and blessed year; pray for me, and I for you.

Derek