2011 Review of the Year

What a year of ups and downs this has been!

The year couldn't have got off to a worse start when my dad died on 1st January. Because of the need to have a postmortem exam and delays because of the Christmas and New Year backlog, his funeral didn't take place until 17th January. That period of time is a strange mixture of sharp memories of certain things and a total blur of winter days that passed so slowly while we waited for the funeral.

January was followed by a difficult February as the period of mourning continued. All this happened in the middle of our trying to start a family.

Then at the end of March we found out that Laura was pregnant and suddenly the year took on a completely different complexion as we began the nine month journey towards our baby's birth (a journey we are still on as the due date of 8th January approaches).

All this happened against the backdrop of world events in which the so-called Arab Spring swept through a number of Middle East countries as popular uprisings led to changes in governments.

The same could not be said in Scotland as the SNP was returned for the first time as a majority government at the Scottish Parliament elections in May.

In May too, the minister at our church retired and since then we have been "in vacancy". However, the number and range of good preachers that have taken services since May have been great.

In June, we took our summer holiday to our favourite cottage on the Isle of Bute. It was a good holiday although Laura's morning sickness was quite bad at that stage.

The Scottish summer wasn't great this year. I can hardly remember more than a week of hot sunny weather throughout the three months of June, July and August.

From September through to December, our main focus has been on getting ready for the new arrival. It is amazing just how much needs done around the house and how much equipment needs to be sought, reviewed, bought and assembled. But by Christmas we got there. Because there's no way to know when the bambino will decide to come, you have to be on standby all the time. That makes things exciting, but it also makes things tense, especially now we are in the last few weeks.

As far as my faith goes, it has also been an up and down year, but I feel that I have grown this year in understanding of theology and in trusting the Lord. I feel very content as we head into 2012.

The Problem with the Arminian View of Foreknowledge

It occurs to me that there is a problem with the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge.

Typically, Arminians believe that God only has simple foreknowledge of what will occur in time. He foresees what will happen and that is all. He then lets it all "play out" so to speak in time. If this is so, then God's foreknowledge is more-or-less useless to him; he knows what will occur, but he is unable to change what will occur. If God has simple foreknowledge of all that will happen in time, then God is unable to change what will occur, for his own actions must also form part of his foreknowledge. Nothing can be different from it is in this world, because God has foreseen and foreknown what will happen.

As I understand it, this does not even leave God with the option of not creating a particular person or allowing a particular course of events to take place, so that the future can be changed, for if God foreknows something, and God cannot change, then what God foreknows cannot be changed either, not even by him.

The God of Arminianism therefore appears to be trapped by his own foreknowledge. This does not seem to me to be in accord with the Scriptures regarding God's sovereignty and ability to bring all his purposes to fulfillment.

This is in sharp contrast with Calvinism where God ordains the future and so could have ordained anything he wanted, and it is also in contrast with Molinism where God foreknows a range of possible worlds and chooses to actualise one of them. It is also in contrast even with Open Theism where God knows possible worlds, but not which one will be realised until free choices are made. Instead, in the simple foreknowledge view, God simply knows what will occur and there appears to be no way for this to be changed, even though God may hate what is going to occur.

In any event, Arminians must face exactly the same criticisms they level at Calvinists. It is common for Arminians to say to Calvinists things like: if your God chooses to allow sin to occur, he is the author of sin. But if God foreknows that sin will occur and does not stop it, he is also morally culpable by any normal reckoning. And if God cannot stop it, then he is not sovereign at all. But according to simple foreknowledge God logically cannot stop evil from occurring or his foreknowledge would be different, which is impossible given the classical view that God's omniscience is immutable.

Reading the Bible for Life

Are you looking for a Bible reading plan for 2012? I came across the "Reading the Bible for Life" plan today: http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/readthebible/

What I thought was interesting was that it seeks to put the readings in roughly chronological order. If you are like me, you will always have found it tricky to work out where the prophets fit in with the Old Testament historical books, and also why the New Testament letters do not come in the order they were written.

This plan will help you get an overview of the Bible's story line by ordering the readings into a timeline and you can use it with whatever Bible translation you normally use.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to everyone. We pray that you will know and experience the blessing of God this Christmas day and always.

I've been struck this year by this verse in Luke's Gospel that I've heard now at 2 or 3 services and bible studies during the last few weeks: "Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord."

Three titles in a single verse, each with something important to teach us about the baby born in Bethlehem whose birth we celebrate today.

Saviour - The name Jesus means "The Lord saves". And Jesus is the Saviour of the world, the one appointed by God to rescue humanity from its wickedness and stupidity. It is only by trusting in him that we can escape the punishment that we all deserve for rejecting God and failing to love either him or our neighbour as we should. The baby born in Bethlehem is therefore of supreme important to the lives of each one of us.

Messiah - The word "Messiah" in Hebrew means "the anointed one". In Greek, the same name is "Christ". This is the title of God's chosen and anointed King, foretold in the Old Testament. He would be a descendant of King David, born in Bethlehem, who would grow up to rule God's people and all the nations of the world. This is a reminder that Christianity is grounded in Jewish history and Old Testament prophecy.

Lord - The "Lord" is also the title accorded a king, but "Lord" (Adonai in Hebrew or Kurios in Greek) is also the way the personal, covenant name of God was normally referred to in Scripture. It is very likely Luke is here telling us that Jesus the Messiah is none other than Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob come to earth as a human being. As another title of Jesus says - he is Immanuel, which means "God is with us".

Putting these three things together, the birth of Jesus is about the promised King of the Jews coming to earth and revealing himself to be God incarnate, God become human flesh and blood, with the purpose of delivering and rescuing sinners, bringing them into God's kingdom, and preparing them to live for all eternity in a relationship of love with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No wonder we celebrate his birth with this great Christian festival year after year. No wonder we also sing with the angels:

Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those who have his goodwill (Luke 2:14).

Providence and Prayer

Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?
Terrance Tiessen
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 2000

This book on providence and prayer is great. It is one of the best Christian books I have read this year. In it, Tiessen explores various models of God's providence and how the various views have an impact on how we might view intercessory prayer.

Tiessen presents a total of eleven different models of providence. The first ten models he presents with meticulous fairness, presenting each model in as positive a light as possible (as if being presented by a proponent of the view) without negative criticism. The models presented range in a spectrum from "semi-deism" at the one extreme through to "fatalism" on the other extreme. The viewpoints explored include:

• The Semi-Deist Model
• The Process Model
• The Openness Model
• The Church Dominion Model
• The Redemptive Intervention Model
• The Molinist Model
• The Thomist Model
• The Barthian Model
• The Calvinist Model
• The Fatalist Model

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is that Tiessen presents a fictional scenario to begin with in which a man's son who is a missionary has been kidnapped with two others and is being held for ransom in a foreign country. The father then goes to his church prayer meeting and people pray for the men who have been kidnapped. Each chapter ends with how a person holding to each of the models of providence might pray in the circumstances in line with what each model teaches.

Towards the end of the book, Tiessen changes approach from a neutral presentation of facts to a more polemical approach favouring an eleventh model of providence which is his own preferred choice. Tiessen calls this view "Middle Knowledge Calvinism" (hereafter "MKC"). MKC is an attractive model somewhere between Molinism and Calvinism.

MKC differs sharply from Molinism because it rejects libertarian free will and accepts compatibilist free will - that we have a free will to make choices voluntarily, but not independently of our own desires, characteristics, circumstances, etc. Because God can influence these things, he is able to achieve his plans and purposes through the free choices of human beings without using anything like force or coercion. In effect, God has an infallible ability to influence us to do what he wants through doing what we want.

MKC is basically a form of infralapsarian Calvinism. The only difference being that in Tiessen's MKC, God does not need to positively foreordain everything in order to foreknow it will happen. Because he has middle knowledge of everything a free creature would do in any set of circumstances in any one of an infinite number of possible worlds, God merely has to choose to realise or "actualise" the particular world in which what human beings do what he wants to fulfil his purposes. God's will is then perfectly carried out while human beings act perfectly freely in the world God chose to actualise. The difference in Tiessen's view from standard Calvinist models is that MKC gives a much greater place to God's permission of events to achieve his purposes. If God knows what creatures would do in particular circumstances, all God has to do is create this particular world in which those circumstances arise to render certain future events without having to directly control them or even cause them. Due to middle knowledge, much of what happens in history only has to be left to happen because it is foreknown, though God is still free to intervene or display his power in direct action whenever he wishes to do so.

It seems to me that MKC is an excellent model of God's providence that preserves the biblical teachings on God's sovereignty and on human responsibility and freedom. Tiessen's view combines the sound aspects of several different models of providence. Although basically Calvinist, it also incorporates the key idea of middle knowledge from Molinism, and the concept from Open Theism that God's emotional responses to events are real and not merely anthropomorphisms.

Tiessen's book concludes with a chapter on how MKC offers a useful background to a sound doctrine of prayer.

Though not an easy read in that it deals with some of the most complex issues in theology, Providence and Prayer is not a technically difficult book. The chapters are all well-written and clearly explain the ideas involved in each model presented. It deserves to be better known that it is. It is a classic treatment of the doctrines of providence and prayer.

Understanding Advent

I don't think I've ever understood the waiting for the birth of a baby through the advent season as well as I do this year. As we wait for the birth of our son due on 8 January, I really felt a fresh insight into what Mary and Joseph experienced in those months, weeks and days before Jesus was born.

Of course there is a lot of emotion and sentiment in this as we have a unique "study guide" to advent in our lives this year, but this is something that will stay with me forever.

When you see a pregnancy close up, I can't help but think it gives some kind of extra insight into the mystery of the incarnation itself. The creator of the world really did come to us through the wonder of a pregnancy, the trauma of a birth, and the helplessness of a new born baby.

A Short Guide to Just War

On Remembrance Sunday when the nation remembers the War dead in two world wars and in post-war conflicts since 1945, I thought I would outline briefly why I think the concept of "Just War" (or Bellum iustum) is an acceptable ethical position for Christians to take, as opposed to outright pacifism that regards all military action as an evil to always be avoided no matter what the circumstances are.

The first thing to say is that for followers of Jesus, war is never an inherently good thing - it is always an evil, even though sometimes it may be the best choice and thereby an excusable one.

The way of Christ is the way of love and peace. The Christian ethic is to love our enemies, not wage war against them. And there are no exceptions. We are to love all our enemies, just as God loves all his enemies. So war is never good, it is always evil. And it is always a failure of politics and a sign of broken human relationships. There is never "glory" in war, only regret and sadness that "it came to this."

Now, this must be set alongside a second important point. This world is fallen in sin and imperfect. All human beings are fallen in sin and imperfect, and so all governments and nations are by extension fallen in sin and imperfect. This state of affairs means that sometimes we only have the choice between two courses of action that in themselves are evils. And in this situation, we should choose the lesser of two evils. This seems to me to be a pragmatic necessity in a fallen world. In such circumstances, the lesser evil is ethically excusable.

Just War theory is a particular application of this principle. It recognises that there are occasions when war is the lesser of two evils and it can be justified where it prevents a greater evil from taking place or where it will lead to greater evils being prevented.

Just War theory is often thought of as a Christian theory, which of course it is in one sense as many Christian thinkers have taught versions of Just War theory. However, its origins go back further than Christianity to Ancient Rome and philosophers such as Cicero. And it has also been advocated as a theory by non-Christian philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.

There are two main parts to Just War theory: Ius ad bellum - the right to go to war and Ius in bello - the right conduct of war. Some theorists have also added a third category: Ius post bellum - right actions after war is ended. They can be briefly outlined as follows.

Ius ad bellum – the right to go to war

1. Just cause: There must be a just reason for the war. War is never justified simply to punish a nation, or to gain territory or for economic gain. There must either be danger of great loss of innocent life or gross violations of basic human rights.

2. Comparative justice: There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of a conflict, but war can only be justified when the injustice suffered by one party is significantly greater than on the other side.

3. Competent authority: Only properly constituted governments or authorities can wage war.

4. Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose, not as a pretext to implement other intentions.

5. Probability of success: War should not be waged for a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

6. Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

7. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the ius in bello principle of proportionality in how the war is conducted.


Ius in bello – right conduct in war

Once war has begun, Just War theory also has a bearing on how a conflict should be fought.

1. Distinction: We must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. And acts of war should only be directed towards enemy combatants. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction.

2. Proportionality: Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

3. Military Necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

4. Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them, mistreat them or kill them.

5. No use of means malum in se: Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are simply considered as always evil in themselves. Examples would be mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled.

Ius post bellum – right post-war conduct

1. Just cause for termination: War should be terminated when there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

2. Right intention: War should only continue until war aims are reached. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.

3. Public declaration and authority: The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

4. Discrimination: The victors must differentiate between political and military leaders, combatants and civilians. Punishment should be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.

5. Proportionality: Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community would not be permitted.

Conclusions

It is clear from these criteria that a war started, conducted and concluded in a completely just manner is a rare thing indeed in history and there have often been wrongs and excesses on all sides in historical and modern conflicts. It is also clear that while a conflict such as the Second World War was a "just war" overall (in that Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Militarism surely had to be stopped), there were parts of the conduct of the war that were not right.

Finally, I think it is important to distinguish between approving of a war or its conduct and supporting those who fought in it. Whatever view we take of military conflict we have to love and care for those who have served in the armed forces, and on this day, everyone should remember those who gave their lives that we might live in freedom.

God in the Shadows

God in the Shadows
Brian Morley
Christian Focus Publications 2006

This book is subtitled "Evil in God's World" and is a good overall textbook on what theologians and philosophers call "the problem of evil". This treatment of the subject is written from an evangelical Christian perspective.

The problem of evil can be stated quite simply in this question: How can it be that there is evil in the world created by a all-good and all-powerful God? The problem being, so philosophers state, that if God can stop evil but doesn't then he isn't wholly good, yet if God cannot stop evil but would, then he isn't all-powerful.

Brian Morley's book looks at this issue and these presuppositions and subjects them to biblical and theological examination.

The book begins with looking at what Morley - and Christian theism generally - would say are wrong answers to the problem which include:

1. There is no God
2. There is no real evil
3. God is not really all-powerful
4. God is not really all-good

He then examines a number of answers that have been put forward to show that there are reasons why an all-good and all-powerful God might nevertheless permit evil to exist in the world he created. These include the following arguments:

1. The free will defence - God gives human beings real choices. We are not mere robots or actors who don't realise we are acting out a pre-written play. As soon as freedom is given to a moral creature, it is possible to choose evil instead of good.

2. That suffering is used to build character - in other words, that there are ways in which our character can be shaped through the suffering we go through. For example, suffering the grief of losing someone close to us might give us the empathy, sympathy and compassion to help other people who are grieving in ways that wouldn't be the same if we hadn't gone through it. I don't think this is a strong argument as it doesn't really explain why there is suffering in the first place; rather it is an argument for how some good can come out of evil, but for me that's a different point.

3. The justice defence - that the world is sinful and we are all sinners. Sometimes, "evil" or suffering comes to us in response to our own actions. On some occasions, the link is natural: if we do harmful things to ourselves like over drinking, taking drugs or smoking, for example, then there is a price to pay for this. If our health suffers as a result, such suffering should be expected. Sometimes the link is moral: although it is unpopular to say it, Morley doesn't shy away from saying that sometimes bad things happen to bad people. Finally, there are times when there is no link and a person suffers who has "done nothing to deserve it." However, in a fallen world where sin has consequences, there is often what military theorists would call "collateral damage". Morley points out the Bible has a different understanding of responsibility to our western philosophical ideas. Sometimes there must be corporate responsibility and individuals suffer because of the sins of a nation or a society.

There are a number of other chapters dealing with subjects such as illness, war, poverty, etc. And there is a useful chapter on looking at the world from the eternal viewpoint of heaven and hell to come (putting suffering now in perspective).

I thought this was an excellent book addressing some of the most difficult theological and pastoral problems. Definitely recommended.

Anti-Abortion and Pro Death Penalty

According to an online article by N. T. Wright: "You can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty."

This is in many ways a typically pithy Tom Wright remark. Unfortunately, it is absurd. Maybe Wright cannot reconcile it in his mind, but I can't see anything inherently illogical about affirming both. What he seems to leave out of the equation is justice. He puts an absolute value on life so that it is wrong to take life no matter what the circumstances. Presumably Wright is a pacifist who would also oppose all military action or war no matter what the reason for it? Otherwise I would say: "Wright can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and the death penalty and pro-death on just war."

The Bible takes a different view and I would argue a more realistic view. The biblical teaching, it seems to me, can fully reconcile opposing abortion (with exceptions such as where the mother's life is physically in danger or where the pregnancy has been caused by rape) and supporting the death penalty for murder. The first opposes the deliberate taking of a baby's life that does not deserve to die; the latter supports the judicial taking of life in just punishment for having taken another person's life.

Now, that's not to say I would support re-introduction of the death penalty in the UK at this time. In our current system I wouldn't. We would need far greater safeguards than we have before I think the death penalty could be sanctioned (such as the death penalty for perjury where the false evidence results in someone being executed and the need for two witnesses before the death penalty would be justified).

I know many Christians and others take different views on these matters. That's okay. But it does no good to overreach ourselves in argument as Wright does from time to time. It's quite possible to argue against abortion and against the death penalty - that's fine. But it's not illogical to argue differently in the two different cases. On this one, Wright is simply wrong.

September 11th - Ten Years On

As in a previous generation everyone "knew where they were" when President Kennedy was assassinated or when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, for my generation, everyone "knows where they were" on 11th September 2001 when the planes were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I had just started working in a new job. I remember I was in the office and when a couple of colleagues came back in from lunch they told me what had happened having seen the news on a pub television.

That evening, going home, it was possible to listen to a running news commentary on events all the way from the office to my bus stop. It was a warm "Indian summer" evening in Glasgow and every vehicle in town had its radio on and the driver's window open and they were all listening to the news coverage. Already by 5.00 pm UK time there was a special edition of the Evening Times (Glasgow's evening paper) showing pictures from New York.

For the rest of the day I think I watched wall-to-wall news, finding it hard to comprehend what had happened and finding it impossible to understand. Of all the wicked acts that humankind has perpetrated on each other, this seemed to rank with the very worst. The visceral impact of global news including live footage and later capturing the planes crashing on camera seared the images into our collective consciousness.

Even though we are ten years on, I do not believe enough time has yet passed to be able to gain a true perspective on what impact the attacks will have on world history.

Sinclair Ferguson's Sermons on Romans

Found this excellent resource. Sinclair Ferguson's Sermon series on Romans. http://ow.ly/68KoY

Paul: Fresh Perspectives

Paul: Fresh Perspectives
N. T. Wright
SPCK 2005

Paul: Fresh Perspectives (hereafter "PFP") builds on and updates Wright's earlier work in What St Paul Really Said and the more technical The Climax of the Covenant by focusing on various aspects of the New Perspective on Paul (or "Fresh" Perspective as Wright prefers). However, PFP is very much an "interim report" as we still wait for volume four in his massive series Christian Origins and the Question of God which will deal with a lot of the same material in much greater detail and has the proposed title Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Each of the main chapters in PFP, which are around 20-30 pages, will, so I've heard, be expanded to up to 200 pages in Wrght's much anticipated yet delayed big book on Paul.

This earlier book from 2005 was based on a several series of lectures Wright gave and particularly on the Hulsean Lectures at Cambridge University.

Wright's is a grand theological vision in many ways which takes in God creating the world and then recreating or renewing the world through Christ and his people who are in him (en Christo = in Christ = "in the Messiah"). Wright deals with this in his chapters on "Creation and Covenant" and "Messiah and Apocalyptic". He then also argues that the Christian gospel is about much more than "fitting us for heaven, to live with thee there" as the children's carol puts it. It is about bringing the new creation to bear on this world as it is. For Wright, as I think for Jesus and Paul, the Gospel has a hard political edge to it. Wright deals with some of this in the chapter "Gospel and Empire".

In the second part of the book, Wright then turns to an analysis of how Paul built on Old Testament ideas to forge Christian theology and a Christian worldview. These three chapters are entitled "Reworking God" which is about how Paul incorporates a high Christology into the Jewish monotheism he grew up with , "Reworking God's People," about how God's covenant people Israel are redefined and rebuilt around Jesus the Messiah as the one faithful Israelite, and "Reimagining God's Future" concerning eschatology and Paul's doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The final chapter "Jesus, Paul and the Task of the Church" explores Paul's mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and tries to draw all the threads Wright has spun together in a conclusion.

This overview clearly demonstrates that Wright's project is much bigger than redefining "justification" though it is about that. Wright believes that justification is primarily about ecclesiology and only secondarily about soteriology (whereas traditional evangelical theology has seen justification as the other way round and perhaps hardly about ecclesiology at all).

This is such an interesting area of theological debate just now. It seems to me that there is no question that the implications of the doctrine of justification by faith alone are writ large in the New Testament. Almost every time justification is mentioned in the New Testament, it is mentioned in the context of Jew and Gentile Christians coming together to form one body, one church. On this I think Wright is largely correct. And it is an implication that much of the church has forgotten for too long.

In a similar way, Wright teaches that justification is first about covenant membership and then - because the covenant's purpose is to bring salvation to people - about individual salvation and the forgiveness of sins. Traditionally, it has been the other way round, that justification is first about salvation - right standing before a holy God - and then about covenant membership as an implication of having a new status of righteousness.

I wonder sometimes if it matters much which way round we view things as long as we teach that both exist and both are important and both have implications for how we "do church". My heart is still with the Old Perspective, but a renewed Old Perspective that takes a lot of New Perspective concerns on board.

That's to get away from this being a book review though. This book is worth reading, and stimulating in many ways. However it may fall between two stools between Wright's earlier work and the big book to come and so may have a limited readership for those reasons.

The Lost World of Genesis One

The Lost World of Genesis One
John H. Walton
Inter-Varsity Press 2009

John Walton is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, one of the leading Christian liberal arts colleges in the United States. He has written a number of books including a commentary on Genesis in the well-respected NIV Application Commentary series.

The Lost World of Genesis One is a controversial book, no doubt about that. If it's claims are correct, Christians have had one of our most central doctrines wrong for the best part of the last two thousand years.

Walton's argument is that our normal way of reading Genesis as an account of the material creation of the universe is wrong. According to Walton, Genesis One has nothing to say about what could broadly be called the scientific view of origins, or how matter came into existence, or how life came into existence. Instead, Walton says that Genesis One operates within a very different worldview. Walton says that Genesis One describes functional creation. It is about how God assigned functions to things that were already in material existence, and how God fits them into the created order he has created, which is focused on the practical matter of an environment suitable for human beings to inhabit and thrive in. To give just one example, how the sun was materially created is nothing to do with Genesis One, whereas the text teaches that God functionally assigned the sun to mark times and seasons and give light during the day.

Walton argues for his interpretation on the basis of comparisons with other ancient creation accounts, evidence of the worldview of people in Old Testament times, and analysis of the Hebrew text. He is adamant that it is anachronistic and invalid to read our modern concerns, with our modern worldview, back into the Genesis text.

Walton's argument is clearly laid out in 18 propositions (one per chapter) that link up and build on each other.
 

Walton's view seems to strike many similar notes to the framework hypothesis. In one of the chapters he points out that much of what he says could easily be incorporated into the framework view and I think this is correct. However, I still have a problem with Walton's central idea that Genesis One has nothing to do with material origins. I think the evidence he puts forward for this is not as convincing to me as it is to Walton himself. I'm no Old Testament professor of course, but I find it hard to jettison centuries of exegesis on the evidence he puts forward.

I remain more comfortable with the view I hold that Genesis One is a polemical, didactic and analogical framework. In other words, I still think Genesis is a literary account of material origins and their functionality, rather than a literal account of functionality only. This means that Walton has many useful things to say, but I cannot see this view being accepted in the mainstream of evangelicalism any time soon.

Tom Wright for Everyone

Tom Wright for Everyone
Stephen Kuhrt
SPCK 2011

This is a short but readable book on the theology of N. T. Wright and how it might influence the local church for the better, written by a Church of England vicar, Stephen Kuhrt. The chapters run as follows:

Chapter one outlines Tom Wright's career both as a New Testament scholar and as a churchman (Wright is an ordained Anglican minister and was until recently the Bishop of Durham).

Chapter two discusses a number of issues and problems facing the 21st century church that Kuhrt obviously sees Wright's theology as a possible way of addressing.

Chapter three is an excellent and accurate summary of Wright's theological distinctives. For anyone who is unfamiliar with Wright's work, this chapter should be required reading.

In chapters four, five and six, Kuhrt explores how Wright's theological approach might reinvigorate and renew the church's work in the fields of pastoral issues, mission and the church's life of fellowship and worship. The final chapter is a challenge to the church to engage with Wright and accept at least some of what he is teaching.

My own view of Tom Wright has always been, and remains, mixed. Much of his focus is different from what I would call mainstream evangelicalism which can tend towards pietism and individualism. Wright's insistence on the gospel's social, political and corporate demands would be a shot in the arm for many such churches. On the other hand, there are times where I feel strongly that although Wright is usually correct in his affirmations - for example that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith must have an impact on how we handle church membership and Christian unity and equality, he is sometimes wrong in his denials - that justification is not about a sinner's righteous standing before a holy God.

If we read Wright with this twofold approach - being slow to reject his affirmations and even slower to accept his denials - there is much in Wright's theology I agree with Kuhrt that we need to engage with and accept for the benefit of our churches.

For the record, I welcome Wright's emphasis on the covenant and the Jewish roots of Christianity, his insistence that the gospel has important social and political implications alongside teaching about personal salvation, his recognition that the resurrection is as important a doctrine in its own right as Christ's atoning death, his analysis that the Christus Victor theme is more important to the biblical authors than evangelicals have traditionally recognised, that eschatology is central to the apostles' message, and that the Christian hope is not "to die and go to heaven" but to have everlasting life in a new renewed creation on earth, and that the Gospel's message of the Kingdom and the Epistles' message of salvation are closely linked, and that justification was used by Paul as a doctrine to explain the breaking down of barriers between Jew and Gentile.

Kuhrt's book is a useful tool in this ongoing dialogue. I feel that Kuhrt is overly gushing in his praise of Wright and his acceptance of virtually every substantial point, hook, line and sinker. The few things where Kuhrt registers disagreement with his hero are few and very minor. My disagreements with Wright are much larger, but since there are also many points that Wright emphasises that I haven't found from any other source, and so I continue to think that Wright is well worth reading and learning from. I only wish he was better informed about Reformed theology. If he was, I think he would realise that the differences between him and us is neither as great as he thinks, nor as great as we tend to think.

Reclaiming Genesis

Reclaiming Genesis
Melvin Tinker
Monarch Books 2010

Reclaiming Genesis is more an exposition than a commentary dealing with the first twelve foundational chapters of Genesis. These chapters are foundational, not just for the rest of Genesis and the Pentateuch, but for the whole Bible.

The book consists of ten chapters, each basically dealing with one chapter of Genesis, except for Genesis 7 (part of Noah's story on the ark) and 10 (a genealogy from Noah's sons).

Tinker takes a literary approach to the early chapters of Genesis and sees the primary meaning of these chapters in theological and polemical terms. He also argues that there is no need to accept a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) standpoint and even accepts that theistic evolution would be a compatible view with Genesis, so long as we only accept evolution as a mechanism under God's control. It is evolutionism - the naturalistic view that the life in the universe came about and continues without God - that the Christian view of creation cannot accept.

Rather than on the 'how" of creation, Tinker's chapter on Genesis One focuses on the chapters polemics against paganism, and a functional view of creation whereby God fits the universe to be "the theatre of his glory" (Calvin) and fills it with creatures.

A similar viewpoint carries us through the other chapters through to God's calling Abram in Genesis 12.

Tinker himself claims that much of what he writes would be agreed by Christians, no matter what view of creation we accept. In other words, much of what he says Genesis One teaches would not be denied by YECs. I'm sure he is correct in this. Even so, I think many would have problems with Tinker's acceptance that Genesis One does not rule of the biological evolution of life, even the descent of human beings from other primates.

This book is of value to all Christians, even those who cannot accept anything other than a YEC interpretation of Genesis. As someone who also takes a literary-theological approach to Genesis One (albeit a slightly different one), I found that a lot of what Tinker says made sense. I think he shows that the main points of these chapters of Genesis is not arguing over science, but seeing God as he really is and human beings as we really are.

Trevin Wax on Piper on Wright

Enjoyed this series by Trevin Wax reviewing John's Piper's book on N T Wright: http://ow.ly/5RZNE

From Orphans to Heirs

From Orphans to Heirs
Mark Stibbe
The Bible Reading Fellowship 1998, 2005

Three quarters or more of this book is an excellent and heart-warming treatment of the doctrine of adoption. This is the important, but often neglected biblical teaching, that when we become Christians we enter into a family relationship with God, we are adopted as God's sons and daughters, and we then have Jesus as our elder brother and all other believers as our brothers and sisters.

The fact that Stibbe was himself adopted as a child gives an edge to the book as he warms to his subject and understands it at both a head and heart level in a deeper way than perhaps many others have.

It is interesting that Stibbe sees adoption as absolutely central to the Christian faith and life alongside justification. So much so, that he almost sees adoption as the overarching theme of salvation as we move from slavery to sonship, from sin to salvation. He then goes through various aspects of adoption and views its relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

As I said, most of the book is brilliant and I found it both inspirational and heart-warming. The only significant problem is that Stibbe is a Charismatic with a capital C. This extends to his acceptance and even praise of the so-called Toronto Blessing some years ago. Peppered throughout the "good stuff" are charismatic views that this reviewer certainly does not share. The charismatic views get in the way rather than support the main thrust of teaching on adoption.

As long as the reader knows that this is part of Stibbe's theological make-up, and can filter out the parts that it is not necessary to accept in order to accept the parts on adoption, then this book could be a breath of fresh air for many Christians and many churches.

Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places

Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places
Eugene Peterson
Eerdmans/Hodder & Stoughton 2005

Eugene Peterson's book is difficult to categorise, but I found it very interesting, challenging and thought-provoking.

The book's subtitle is "A Conversation in Spiritual Theology" which captures some of the strengths and weaknesses of the book. It is a conversation. It meanders through its subjects and is light in places where more weight was needed in argument. In other places it sparkles and glints with biblical truth.

The title comes from one of the remarkable poems by the English Jesuit poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins: "Christ plays in ten thousand places / Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his / To the Father through the features of men's faces." I take this to mean that through and in our union with Christ as Christians, he acts through us and we act in him in all we do, so that when the Father looks on us, he sees Christ.

This sums up what I think Peterson was trying to achieve in this book. He wants us to realise that Christ is Lord of every part of life and as Christians living in union with him, all of life is transformed and made special. As we realise this, so our lives are energised, beautified and sanctified.

The main part of the books consists of three sections entitled: "Christ plays in Creation," "Christ plays in History" and "Christ plays in Community." In them, Peterson deals with creation, salvation and the resurrection and the church respectively.

The book follows an unusual method, and contains some aspects that could be disputed or rejected by many evangelical Christians, but there is much more that is profitable. Overall, the book is well worth reading.

The Cross of Christ

The Cross of Christ
John Stott
Inter-Varsity Press 1986

I first read this book on many aspects of the Cross of Jesus Christ by John Stott about 20 years ago, not that long after he wrote it in the mid-1980s. It was in the first handful of serious Christian books I read as an earnest young Christian in my late teens and as such it had a big impact on my views then. Re-reading it now with a lot more theological and biblical reading under my belt, I still felt this is one of the best books on the meaning and implications of the Cross available and it well-deserves the epithet "classic".

The book teaches the penal substitutionary view of the atonement though there are chapters that deal with the truths in the Christus Victor and Moral Influence theories as well. One of the strengths of the book is that as well as the theoretical side of things, Stott devotes a section to "life under the cross" and this section is really excellent.

Stott is brilliant in his expositions of Scripture and how careful he is when outlining the fact that Christ's death is both substitutionary and a satisfaction. It struck me how close some of what Stott writes is similar to what Steve Chalke got into so much trouble for saying in his book The Lost Message of Jesus. Stott equally will have no truck with crude versions of penal substitution that envisage a cruel father venting his anger on his innocent son. He points out that the atonement starts not with an angry God but with a God who so loved the world. He points out that on the cross God the Father suffered and the atonement involved God substituting himself on the cross and in a sense punishing himself in Christ.

This book deserves a place on the bookshelf of every Christian and can be read with much profit wherever you are on your Christian pilgrimage.

The Free Church on Marriage and Divorce

Here's an interesting report from the Free Church of Scotland on marriage and divorce: http://ow.ly/53twO

Christian Giving According to Paul

Adapted from a Bible Study on 2 Corinthians 8:1-15
 
Background and Reasons for the Collection in Corinth

At the beginning of chapter 8 it is clear that Paul changes subject from what he’s been talking about before and now begins to talk about one of the main reasons for writing 2 Corinthians. It has to do with a collection of money the Corinthians were supposed to gather for the relief of poor Christians in Judea, especially the city of Jerusalem. We know this because the collection is mentioned in Paul’s earlier correspondence in 1 Corinthians 16:1-3.

This collection that Paul was involved in organising seems to have been designed with three purposes in mind.

Firstly, it was to help relieve the suffering of fellow Christians. And that’s a worthy end in itself. It doesn’t need any other reason than that. As God’s people we need to show love and care for each other, not just in words, but in actions, including how we use our money, and even how we give our money directly or indirectly to one another.
 
But secondly, it was also in Paul’s mind an example of how all barriers of race and class are broken down when people enter into union with Jesus Christ. Those in need were the Jewish Christians in and around Jerusalem. The home church of the whole Christian movement – the church in Jerusalem where it all started was a poor and a persecuted church at this time. And Paul’s collection was being gathered from the predominantly Gentile churches of Asia Minor and Europe. For Paul the collection was a practical manifestation of the fact that the enmity between Jew and Gentile had been destroyed in Christ as he discusses fully in Ephesians 2.
 
Thirdly, for Paul it is clear that how the churches use their money is a kind of spiritual barometer for where they are at in their walk with God. Paul uses the Corinthian attitude to the collection as a way of seeing where the Corinthian church is at spiritually.

Eight Principles of Christian Giving 

The problem that has prompted Paul to write 2 Corinthians 8-9 is that although the Corinthians were keen at the beginning to get involved in this collection, they have since reneged on their promises and seem to have stopped collecting money. As Paul writes to remind them about it and encourage them to carry on and complete the collection, he touches on a number of principles for Christian giving that remain very relevant for Christians today. In fact, I think I’ve found eight principles of Christian giving in this passage. Our time is short here tonight so we’ll speed through these principles quite quickly, but to get a rounded picture of Paul’s teaching on Christian giving, we need to keep all of these principles together and in some cases in balance with each other.
 
The first principle we find is the passage is that Christian giving is Generous Giving. In verses 1 to 3, it is obvious that Paul commends the giving of the Macedonian churches to the Corinthians. Being generous is a good thing. That much is very clear. Just in passing, if you’re wondering who these Macedonian churches were that Paul mentions, they would include Thessalonian and Philippian congregations that three of Paul’s other New Testament letters were addressed to. But Paul is clear that the Macedonians were very generous in their giving and Paul holds this generosity up as an example and an encouragement to the much wealthier Corinthians. He says of the Macedonians that their joy and their extreme poverty “welled up in rich generosity”. One commentator calls this strange mix of joy and poverty producing generosity as being like an acid and an alkali being mixed – two opposites – coming together in a chemical reaction to produce a new thing – salt. So our giving should be generous.

The second principle we find is that Christian giving is Sacrificial Giving. Again this is covered in the first four or five verses in the passage. Paul commends not only the generous spirit of the Macedonians, but a generosity that was sacrificial in nature. “Out of the most severe trial” they gave Paul says. Out of not just poverty, but out of “extreme poverty” they gave. They gave as much as they were able and beyond their ability. The Macedonians didn’t put what was easy money into the collection, they put money in that cost them a lot. They couldn’t afford it, but they did it anyway. That’s the kind of sacrificial giving Paul commends here.

How can Christians give in this generous and sacrificial way? The third principle begins to fill in the full-orbed picture Paul is painting here. Christian giving is Faithful Giving – it flows out of living faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The kind of giving that the Macedonian churches had achieved was only possible because of their relationship with Christ. Paul’s clear about that in verse 5. “They gave themselves first to the Lord and then to us” Paul writes. They had their priorities right. They were dedicated to the Lord’s service. And the fruit of this was their amazing giving to the Lord’s work.

The fourth principle is that Christian giving is Committed Giving. In verse 6, Paul is really only reminding the Corinthians to be committed to what they had already promised they were going to do. He points out to them that a year previously they were the first to get involved. And so calls on them to continue in that commitment. You’ve started well so “Now finish the work” he exhorts them in verse 11. It’s no accident that many charities encourage us to give a small amount every month rather than one-off donations. That’s because regular, committed giving that the charities can plan ahead with is more useful than not knowing if there’s going to funds there tomorrow or not, depending on ad hoc donations. Commitment in our giving to the Lord’s work is a sign of our commitment to the Lord.

The fifth principle is that Christian giving is Enthusiastic Giving. God wants everything we do for him to be done enthusiastically. As Paul writes in the next chapter – “God loves a cheerful giver”. Look at the attitude of the Macedonians that Paul mentions. In verse 4, their enthusiasm is evident. They “urgently pleaded” to get involved in giving to the collection. They counted giving not as a duty but as a privilege! They regarded it as a grace and not a burden to help their fellow Christians. When we give enthusiastically, not only does this give us a lift knowing we’re helping others, but it must give the recipients a lift too, knowing that what they received is not begrudged or given half-heartedly, but is a genuine love token.

The sixth principle is that Christian giving is to be Free and Loving Giving. Paul makes it very clear that he is not ordering the Corinthians to give, although he had apostolic authority to do that if he had felt that was the right thing to do. But he doesn’t do that. He says it plainly in verse 8 – “I am not commanding you.” Christian giving is not a new law that we have to obey out of fear of punishment. How could it be? There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, as Romans 8:1 says. We are not saved by our good works. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, but as Ephesians 2:10 says we are saved for good works. Our works, including our acts of generous giving, flow out of the solid salvation we have in Christ. So instead Paul encourages them to give freely, because they want to, not because they have to. There is no “must” but there should be a thankful “want to”. He encourages them to act not out of duty but out of love. In his great chapter on love in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul wrote: “Love is patient, love is kind...Love never fails.” Now here in verse 8 Paul regards giving as an obvious manifestation of love: “I want to test the sincerity of your love,” Paul says. Of course that doesn’t mean Paul won’t point out that they should want to do the right thing as Christians, but he leaves it up to them to make the right choice freely and in love.

The seventh principle is that Christian giving is Thankful and Christ-like Giving. Some of the other principles are about the attitude we might seek to have in our giving but this one is about the motivation for our giving. According to Paul we are to give to Christ and to others out of gratitude for what Christ has done for us. In verse 9, Paul says “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.” Christ gave up everything for our benefit, by coming to earth and accepting his mission as God’s Messiah to save the world, a mission of obedience all the way to death on the cross for sinners. Paul’s saying to the Corinthians, since Christ has done so much for us, this should spur us on to do what by comparison is so little for our brothers and sisters in need. It’s also worth mentioning in passing here that this verse is a clear statement – among the clearest in Paul’s letters – that Paul regarded Jesus Christ as no less than God become a human being, God incarnate. There’s no other meaning for the phrase that Christ “became poor” that makes sense. When did Christ become poor in this life? He was born in a stable and lived as an ordinary working man his whole life. He was never rich from Bethlehem to Calvary. So Paul’s statement must mean that Christ has pre-existence before his birth. It must mean Christ is God. As the Christmas carol puts it: “He came down to earth from heaven, who is God and Lord of all.”

The eighth and final principle is that Christian giving is to be Practical and Fair Giving. Paul makes it clear in verse 13 to 15 that he doesn’t expect the Corinthians to do the impossible or to act unwisely. And so although our giving is to be generous, sacrificial and enthusiastic, it is not to cross over the line and become foolish giving. It is not to be at the expense of being wise, realistic and proportionate giving. Our giving is to be proportionate, in line with what we have, but also with awareness of what others can also give. In verse 12, they are to give according to what they have and not according to what they don’t have. And in verse 13 Paul makes the point that the idea is not that the Corinthians give so much that they end up themselves in need from other people, or even that those they are helping end up better off than them. Instead, the ideal is equality between churches. They have to be wise about their giving in other words, so that everyone’s needs are met by each other.

Application
 
This passage surely challenges all of us. Each of us can look at his or her own attitude to giving and the principles shown in this passage and see where we stand in comparison to Paul’s picture of Christian giving. Ask yourself: Am I giving generously, sacrificially, out of my faith in Christ? Am I giving with commitment and enthusiasm, freely because I want to, and out of love for those my giving will help? Am I giving out of a thankful spirit for what Christ has done for me? And am I being practical and wise in my giving? Am I making sure that I’m not being so generous that I’m putting myself in debt or putting my family in need? Only each of us can answer these questions for ourselves. If the answer to each of these questions is “yes” then our giving will be a powerful witness and a useful tool as we work to advance God’s kingdom. And we will be able to say in the words of the hymn:

Take my silver and my gold;
not a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect, and use
every power as Thou shalt choose.
Take my love, my Lord, I pour
at Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself, and I will be
ever, only, all for Thee.

May it be so. Amen.

The Principles and Prejudices of Christian Worship

I recently been reading three very different books about Christian worship that have in their own way been beneficial and challenging to me. To two of them I am happy to give very positive reviews; the third has some good material, but is also problematic. The three books in question are the following:

Worship by the Book
Edited by D. A. Carson
Zondervan 2002

Worship Matters
By Bob Kauflin
Crossway 2008

The Lord's Service
By Jeffrey J. Meyers
Canon Press 2003

Worship by the Book is a collection of four essays on worship, each one is of some value. They are 'Worship Under the Word' by Carson himself, 'Following in Cranmer's Footsteps' by Mark Ashton, 'Free Church Worship: The Challenge of Freedom' by R. Kent Hughes and 'Reformed Worship in the Global City' by Timothy Keller.

Carson's essay is a masterful overview of a theology of worship and is worth the price of the book by itself. Ashton's essay is basically a call to pay heed to the liturgical tradition handed down from Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer in particular and will appeal to those of a traditional bent in worship matters. Hughes's essay says much that is helpful for all forms of Christian worship. Keller's essay attempts to deal with the tension between Reformed worship and dealing with today's postmodern people in big cities like New York.

The book is also useful because it contains a number of liturgies or orders of service for actual services in the congregations of each of these pastors (except Carson I think). Overall, it is a very useful book on worship with a balance between the theoretical and the practical.

Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin of Sovereign Grace Ministries is an excellent book. In some respects it is a more specialist book as it is aimed at 'worship leaders' or music leaders, yet it is actually an excellent primer on worship and even theology generally. Kauflin offers a working definition of what a good worship leader is and does:

A faithful worship leader
magnifies the greatness of God in Jesus Christ
through the power of the Holy Spirit
by skilfully combining God's Word with music,
thereby motivating the gathered church
to proclaim the gospel,
to cherish God's presence,
and to live for God's glory.


He then spends a chapter dealing with each line of this definition. The second half of the book is a series of practical chapters of guidance to worship leaders in the churches. This book is thoroughly recommended.

The Lord's Service by Jeffrey J. Meyers is a call to a very traditional, high church form of worship, which the author calls 'covenant renewal worship'. While Meyers makes some good points about the importance of not disregarding tradition - I liked his quoting of Chesterton that tradition is 'the democracy of the dead' - ultimately the book failed to convince. There are countless times where Meyers pleads that high church worship should not be rejected just because it resembles Rome or Canterbury. This may be fair enough, but he largely fails to show why it should be accepted either. Time and again he appeals to Old Testament passages to do with Temple worship to support his case. However, as the likes of Carson would point out, we are not under that covenant. Meyers also thinks that only the ordained pastor should lead worship or preach (and certainly administer the sacraments). He keeps saying that the minister represents Christ or God to the congregation, but he fails to give any solid exegetical evidence for this, and this seems to set up an 'us and them' of clergy and laity or 'priest and people' that the New Testament, it seems to me, knows little of.

In the end, Meyers sounds more like  a Roman Catholic or High Anglican than he does a Presbyterian. It would certainly be useful for many churches to take some of the more traditional liturgy elements into modern worship services without throwing out the strengths of modern worship (which Meyers simply cannot see).

It should also be pointed out that Meyers is part of the Federal Vision movement and it seems to me this fits with his worship views, which are to be frank, very unusual for a Presbyterian minister, and much closer to Canterbury than they are to Edinburgh or Geneva.

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse
David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen
Bethany House Publishers 1991

I found this profoundly pastoral and thought-provoking book a very useful and emotional read. It is a book filled with the spirit of grace - true New Testament grace - and though I have never experienced the kind of spiritual abuse outlined in the book by many people, I found it of benefit in many ways. Reading it, I was saddened and angered that some so-called Christian leaders could act towards those in their care in such ways and justify the abuse through some kind of warped view that because they are in church leadership they are somehow above criticism for their actions.

In the course of the book, the authors deal with a number of problems that are all too real in many churches. Some of these are things like pressure to obey the leadership, not because it is biblical teaching, but because it is what the leaders say is to be done. Or the subtle message that to be a "good Christian" you must do A, B and C (which might be good things but not necessarily biblical commandments) or avoid doing X, Y and Z (which are nowhere forbidden in the Bible), thereby going beyond the Bible's requirements and ending up like clumsy pharisees. Or that to question the leadership is to question God. Such things rob the people of God who live under such leadership of their joy and turn Christian service into guilt-ridden chores. Let us not pretend that any church can face such dangers unless the leadership is on its guard and open to the correction of God's Word and the Holy Spirit themselves.

As I said, I have not experienced the kinds of excesses described in the book from my own pastors and elders, who have often been models of good leadership, but there must be few churches where some of the things described here exist from time to time at some kind of low grade level. Mostly it occurs as unintentional and well-meaning behaviour that is thoughtless, but no less difficult to deal with for those on the receiving end. It is when such behaviour becomes a pattern that it becomes serious enough to be called abuse that must be rooted out of the body of Christ like a cancer.

This book is highly recommended for Christians and ex-Christians who have left the church because of how they have been treated. It would also be read with profit by anyone in a leadership role within the church.

The Beliefs of Christian Reformed Church

The Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA) seems to me to be the kind of body in theology and practice that most evangelicals in the Church of Scotland would like our own church to be.

This page is a summary of their beliefs and it sounds about right to me. http://ow.ly/4Ptm0

The Cross of Jesus

The Cross of Jesus
Leon Morris
Paternoster Press 1988

In the run up to Easter this year, I've read several books that focus on the cross of Christ, which seems a very suitable area of study and reflection in this season of Lent and the preparation for Easter that comes to a climax this weekend with Good Friday tomorrow and then Easter Day on Sunday. Of the various books I've read, this little gem by the great Australian New Testament scholar, Leon Morris, is one of the best.

It was fascinating to read Morris's book just after Holmes's recent book The Wondrous Cross. I could hardly believe how closely the thoughts of Morris shadow those of Holmes. Perhaps it is because Leon Morris has impeccable evangelical credentials that the thoughts are somehow easier to accept from him, but essentially he says the same thing as Holmes does. He argues that all the main theories of the atonement are aspects of the truth and appeal at different times to more or less people. He argues that no one theory (i.e. neither Christus Victor or Penal Substitution) contains all the truth about the atonement or what Christ's death achieved in terms of salvation.

In fact, in a passage that could have come from Holmes's book, Morris writes:

Despite the centrality of the cross from the earliest days of the church, there has never been agreement on the way the cross saves us. The New Testament has a great deal to say on the subject of salvation through the death of Christ, but it never explains precisely how that death works. [emphasis added]

He goes on to say that there are three basic views of the atonement and all three are true. In simple terms, Morris describes them as:

• The Bearing of penalty
• The Demonstration of God's love
• The Victory over evil

Morris then goes on to describe a number of other achievements that he sees in the cross. He points out that in the cross is the answer to such modern problems as the apparent futility of life, ignorance, loneliness, sickness and death. These chapters form the main section of the book.

Along with Morris's two other classic books on the cross and the atonement, namely The Cross in the New Testament and The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, this little book of only 118 pages is well worth acquiring and reading for any Christian. It is not a difficult read, though it is a very thought-provoking one.

Let's Study Galatians

Let's Study Galatians
Derek Thomas
Banner of Truth Trust 2004

The Let's Study series from Banner of Truth aims to provide a basic exposition/commentary suitable for individuals or groups studying a book of the Bible. It is less detailed than the Bible Speaks Today series from IVP or the Welwyn Commentaries from Evangelical Press, but is broadly aimed at the same readership. It may have more of an application emphasis than the other series, which makes it ideal as a guide for busy house group leaders or Bible study leaders.

The exposition of Galatians is by Derek Thomas and is a useful guide to this important letter of the apostle Paul. Thomas takes the Old Perspective on Paul (as one might expect from a book published by Banner) but does interact with the New Perspective at a basic level. Having read Galatians again with his book as my guide, I failed to see any significant problem with an Old Perspective reading of Paul's letter.

The chapters are short and the Bible passages are printed at the beginning of each chapter in the ESV. This made it ideal to read during the commute to work each day.

The book also benefits from questions at the back designed for group study. The six chapters of Galatians are helpfully divided into 13 studies. Although the book claims that there is enough material for 26 studies, I would question taking the letter at that pace for most groups. Even if someone is studying Galatians as an individual the questions listed at the back would be ideal to ponder to really get to grips with the book. Having now read through the book, I'm going to go back and read Galatians again with the questions in mind.

Definitely recommended, though I would probably go with John Stott's book in the BST series before choosing this book, and I think that comes with a study guide for groups too.

The Wondrous Cross

The Wondrous Cross
Stephen R. Holmes
Paternoster 2007

The Wondrous Cross is a short book which tries to steer a middle course between affirming the traditional evangelical doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) and modern attacks on this doctrine and the promotion of alternative theologies. Holmes seeks to do this by arguing that the penal substitution model is merely one of many "metaphors" or "stories" that the Church has and still tells to convey the mysterious truth that Christ died to save us.

I enjoyed the reading the book. It is well written. It is clear. It is fair to all sides and has a calm and peaceful spirit. "Irenic to a fault" was how another reviewer accurately summed it up. But then - as that reviewer also said - Holmes can afford to be like this when PSA is just one of many helpful ways of talking about the cross. If, on the other hand, PSA is the objective truth and the foundation for all the other ways of viewing the cross, then it is difficult to be quite so calm when the truth is undermined, especially when done by those within the evangelical camp.

Personally, I find Christus Victor immensely helpful in tying in the cross with the incarnation and Christ's earthly ministry. The Lord was battling the evils of sin, death and the devil from the moment he was born of the Virgin Mary through to when he cried out "It is finished" on the cross and died. But without the objective reality of penal substitution in the cross, we cannot really explain how the cross works. The truth is that Christ defeated evil on the cross by expiating the guilt of sin, satisfying the justice of death and propitiating the wrath of God - and by so doing he liberated us from the hold of the devil. Does that mean all the different facets of the atonement need to be stressed? Does that mean that none are to more privileged than any other? Emphatically not! Here I think Holmes goes too far.

One reviewer praised Holmes for basing his theological conclusions on exegesis. Actually I found his interaction with Scripture one of the weakest parts of the book. I know it is a short volume barely more than a hundred pages, but he really does not do justice to the biblical texts. If he had, I think that in examining the biblical evidence he would find a preponderance of material teaching that Christ died in our place (a substitute) and that Christ's death was a judgment and punishment on sin (penal).

To argue otherwise is like saying that a recipe is just one way of describing what a cake is. Other ways might include the cafe menu, a compliment from a happy diner to the baker, a restaurant review or a nutritional report. True these are other ways of talking about the cake, but without the recipe, there would be no cake to list on the menu, or eat and enjoy, or write about, or analyse for its nutritional content. That's how I feel about PSA and the other ways of looking at the cross. There are many ways to talk about what the cross achieves, but really only one way to talk about how it achieves it. Holmes however seems to think the recipe for the cake is acceptable to talk about, but no more fundamental than any of the other things. But unfortunately for Holmes, as the proverb goes, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Christus Victor

Christus Victor
Gustaf Aulen
Wipf and Stock Publishers 2003
(Originally published 1931)

I suspect Christus Victor is one of those Christian classics that more people have talked about than actually read. It is often referred to as the classic book on the theory of the atonement that bears the name Christus Victor, which is essentially that the on the cross Christ defeated and triumphed over all principalities and powers including sin, death, hell and Satan.

Aulen was a Swedish historical theologian in the Lutheran tradition. His thesis in this book is that the dominant "Latin" theory of the atonement that finds its key exponents in Anselm and Aquinas has got it wrong. The Latin theory is similar in many respects to the evangelical Protestant view of the atonement known as penal substitution - that Christ was punished in our place on the cross which enables God to forgive us and accept us into this people.

Aulen goes back to an earlier tradition found in the Church Fathers, and which he also believed was taught by Luther, though not by subsequent Lutherans, which he calls the dramatic or classical view of the atonement. This is the view now known as Christus Victor - that Christ is conqueror, fighting and defeating his enemies through his death and resurrection.

It must be said that the Church Fathers did not all have the same view, nor were their views exactly the same as Aulen's. In the early writers, the dominant theory was probably that Christ defeated evil by paying a ransom to the devil. Aulen moves away from this idea. Rightly so. He sees in Luther the best advocate of this point of view. However it remains controversial whether Aulen actually reads Luther correctly or fairly (or at least completely).

The book is not easy reading, but I found it rewarding. There are few evangelicals who would dispute that Christus Victor is a biblical idea and certainly part of what the cross achieved. Some of us would question if this is all the Bible teaches about the cross however. Aulen fails to explain exactly how the cross works to defeat evil and liberate mankind. The strength of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is precisely that it focuses on the how question. Perhaps when the two theories are held together - one focusing on the how, the other focusing on the why - we may get a more rounded picture of the New Testament's teaching. For raising the issue at all, and in such a short and relatively accessible book, we are all in Aulen's debt, even though his claims are in the end unproven. I tend to agree with Henri Blocher whose article "Agnus Victor" seems to me to demolish a lot of Aulen's arguement. Blocher argues that though both Christus Victor and PSA ideas are present in Scripture, the primary idea is PSA and only through PSA can Christ's victory be explained.

The Framework Interpretation of Genesis One

The doctrine of creation is rather a direction; not a proposition to be affirmed so much as a habit of the mind (and the heart) to be practiced. The doctrine of creation directs disciples to believe, see, feel and judge everything that is as the handiwork of a personal, loving and wise God. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer)

1. A Conservative Evangelical Interpretation

The framework interpretation is not liberalism and is based on strong exegetical arguments. It focuses on the theological meaning of the text rather than tangential scientific concerns. It regards Genesis One as history, not as myth, legend or mere parable. It is a conservative evangelical view of Genesis One. The main proponents of this view have been Reformed evangelicals who affirm that, in the simplest and most straightforward terms, the creative acts of God in Genesis One really happened. This point is critical to understand, but is too often either misunderstood or deliberately distorted by opponents.

The framework interpretation has a conceptual link with Augustine’s interpretation of Scripture. Although Augustine believed in an instantaneous creation he would agree that the days are a figurative arrangement written for our teaching rather than a chronological history. The framework view also has conceptual links with the Day-Age view, but whereas the latter thinks that the ‘days’ are literally epochs and the week a figurative one, the former regards the ‘days’ are literally days and ‘week’ is figurative. The attitude to mainstream science in both interpretations are also similar – not uncritically accepting, but not uncritically rejecting it either.

2. An Old Earth Interpretation

Strictly speaking the framework interpretation is compatible with both Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism, but is usually maintained by Old Earth Creationists who accept the scientific consensus on the age of the universe and the earth.

The framework interpretation teaches that the Bible does not address the scientific questions of when the creation took place, or how it was actually accomplished. As such it is fully compatible with an Old Earth understanding of the age of the universe and the earth. The framework interpretation removes any potential conflict with information gained from God’s general revelation by observation and analysis of data. Framework advocates tend to accept that the serious criticisms levelled against Young Earth Creationism are legitimate, and that mainstream science is correct in assessing the ages of the universe in general and the earth in particular. Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, requires all orthodox science to be substantially and massively wrong, across all kinds of fields, including geology, oceanography, biology, physics, astronomy, etc. And such matters as the speed of light, sedimentary rocks, radiometric dating, dinosaurs, geology, etc are simply dismissed as incorrect or corrupt and evil. Young Earth Creationism plays fast and loose with the science all the time and is very selective in its use and abuse of scientific method.

3. A Literary Interpretation

In essence the framework interpretation regards the creation week of Genesis One as a literary framework or pictorial device that frames God’s creative work as a week of ordinary solar days. The literary device is used by Moses as a teaching tool for all God’s people in all times and places, including Israel in the period following their exodus from Egypt, long before scientific questions were even being asked far less answered.

The framework interpretation does not regard Genesis One as poetry. It recognises that the passage bears none of the hallmarks of Hebrew poetry. Yet though not poetical, neither is Genesis 1:1–2:3 straightforward history. The prose is highly stylised and almost mathematically precise in its use of the numbers three, seven and ten, so symbolic in the Bible. It is impossible to notice the tremendous literary skill involved. There is a marked contrast in style between Genesis One and Genesis 2:4 onwards. Genesis One might be called ‘exalted prose’ or ‘semi-poetical’ (Edward J. Young) or ‘hymn-like’ prose designed to draw its readers into the worship of Elohim, the Hebrew God who is the focus of the chapter (and the whole Bible). It is certainly a literary masterpiece, which appears to be weaved with the precision and art of an ornate tapestry. The framework interpretation simply states that the historical events of Genesis One did not happen in the literal timescale or order that the events are portrayed in Genesis One. The difference in style between Genesis One and the rest of the book (from Genesis 2:4 onwards) is remarkable in this regard. The framework view understands that through the artistry of Moses, creative acts that are too vast and complex for anyone to understand even in our scientifically literate age, could be grasped and understood by ordinary people all through history. And the artistic construct Moses used was a week of seven days into which all of God’s creative acts are arranged and pictured.

The framework interpretation says in effect that Genesis One is like an art gallery showing a series of pictures, each portraying a creative act of God, and together forming an analogy between God’s work of creation and our weekly pattern of work and rest. It should be noted that the pictures are of real, historical events, but they remain distinct from the events themselves. Just as a passport photograph of a person is a true depiction of the person, but the picture is not the person, and is neither the same size nor shape as the person, so the days of Genesis One, the framework view says, are depictions of creation on the scale of a week of days, rather than descriptions of actual days.

Each picture-day shows the creative activities of God. It portrays God going to work during daylight hours and resting during the hours of darkness – just like a typical agricultural worker in ancient Israel. This is a major clue that the working week is a figurative one and an analogy is being drawn between God’s creative work and the weekly labour of human workers. After all God does not grow weary literally, not does he have a problem seeing in the darkness of night.

This view sees the days are ordinary solar days – all six of them – but the week is figurative. It is sometimes claimed ‘evening and morning’ means 24-hour days. But this is simply incorrect. The phrase means the period of darkness between sunset and sunrise and is the period in which workers would stop work and rest. The words are equivalent to ‘dusk till dawn’ in English. Psalm 55:17 uses a different formula when it means a full 24 hour day – ‘evening, and morning, and noon.’ The fact that Days One to Three are themselves solar means the sequence of days is not chronological since the sun is mentioned again on Day Four. Nowhere does Scripture say the light on Day One was not sunlight and in fact the use of sunrise and sunset on Day One points to the sun already existing. This points to the figurative nature of the text.

The framework also has a number of didactic and polemical functions. The week draws an analogy between God’s creative acts and human work in there being a pattern of six days of work followed by a day of rest. The six creation days are like six picture frames arranged in an art gallery to show God’s working week followed by a day of rest.

The framework interpretation thus argues that Genesis One presents historical truth or true history in a non-chronological, thematic form. This interpretation sees in the days of Genesis One a pattern of warp and weft that reveals both a 123–456 logical sequence and a 14–25–36 topical parallelism. The sequential element is intended to be a pattern for the covenant people to follow as they work six days and keep a weekly sabbath.

4. A Straightforward Interpretation

Some have dismissed the framework interpretation as being very difficult to understand, but we do not accept this appraisal. In fact, it is no more or less complex a view than any other interpretation. At a simple level, the creation week can be understood by a child – God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh day, and so we are to work six days and rest one day a week. That is the teaching of the framework view at the simplest level, just as it is the teaching of more literal views.

The framework interpretation only becomes more complex when we approach it with more complex questions. But exactly the same can be said of the other views. The literal 24-hour view in particular requires the speculations of creation science and flood geology to sustain its claims once a certain level of scrutiny is reached. It is therefore unfair to label the literary approach to Genesis One as hopelessly complex as if this was in contrast to other views.

5. A Satisfying Interpretation

The framework interpretation states that the days of Genesis One are presented in a non-chronological order yet arranged in a sequential pattern designed to teach the readers about how God’s creative acts formed and filled the earth to make it a suitable home for mankind and how and God has given mankind a weekly sabbath rest of one day in seven. Rather like a tapestry with threads running in two directions, the warp and weft of Genesis One includes the topical and parallel arrangement of days that has been noted by many commentators throughout history, but it also contains a sequential march of days that clearly points to the creation of mankind as the pinnacle of creation and onwards to the story’s climax in God’s rest on the seventh day.

There is a strong parallelism between the days as has been noted by many Old Testament scholars. Meredith Kline’s scheme is typical:

Creation Kingdoms

Day 1. Light
Day 2. Sky and Seas
Day 3. Land and Plants

Creation Kings

Day 4. Light Bearers
Day 5. Birds and Fish
Day 6. Animals and Mankind

Day 7. Sabbath Day of Rest

The parallelism features the concept of dischronologisation where the events of Day One when light is created and is viewed as God giving form to the universe are then repeated on Day Four where the same light source – the sun – is mentioned as a light bearer filling the heavens. This is known as temporal recapitulation and is a common narrative device in Hebrew narratives.

The parallelism seeks to focus the attention on the seventh day and is a teaching tool to show the importance of observing the weekly sabbath rest to God. But the parallels also This points to a strong link between the creation of plants and mankind. The reason for this becomes apparent in Genesis 2 and 3 where man’s relationship to the plants is closely linked with the covenant relationship between man and God before the Fall in terms of life in the Garden and the trees of life and of knowledge.

However, there is also a strong sequential march over Days 1-3 and then Days 4-6 followed by Day Seven. Robert Godfrey’s idea is that the key to interpreting Genesis One comes in verse two. Immediately after the creation of the earth and heaven the focus of the narrative turns to the earth and there are four problems of chaos that need to be solved before the newly created planet can be a suitable home for God’s image bearers, human beings. The four problems are: darkness, wateriness, formlessness and emptiness. God is then pictured as a workman, working from sunrise till sunset and then resting at night, each day fashioning the earth to be a suitable home for his image bearers. On Days One to Three God sorts out the issue of darkness, wateriness and formlessness by creating light, sky and sea, and land and vegetation, then on Days Four to Six God sorts out the problem of emptiness by creating the light bearers, birds and fish, land animals and finally mankind. The point to remember is that this ‘form and fill narrative’ is logical and historical it must be noted, but it is not chronological.

6. A Narrative Interpretation

The framework interpretation agrees that Genesis One is written as a narrative or story. This is shown by the presence of the ‘waw consecutive’ verb form characteristic of Hebrew narratives. Those committed to a Young Earth 24-hour day interpretation often use this fact to argue against the framework view. In fact, this is not the significant problem for the framework interpretation that some literalists seem to think. There are many biblical narratives that present historical information in a non-chronological or topical arrangement. This is known as dischronologisation. Ezra 4:1-24 is a clear biblical example. The same happens in the Gospels, for example in the temptation of Christ. There is also a device known as temporal recapitulation. This is where an event is repeated out of chronological sequence for some other purpose. The framework interpretation sees Genesis One as a narrative of a week of creation acts. Within the narrative structure, the events are presented sequentially, but it is clear that the narrative is not purporting to report events in the actual chronological order in which they occurred. Indeed, it is our view that Moses was completely unconcerned with the chronological order of events, preferring to impose his own form and fill narrative structure on the creative acts. A similar argument would apply to the numbered sequence of days.

It is for this reason that the framework interpretation is not phased by literalist claims that the days are portrayed as ordinary solar days of 24 hours. Indeed, the framework view completely agrees this is the case. However, they are not literal 24-hour days but literary days.

7. An Exegetical Interpretation

Opponents may dismiss the view as a compromise with ‘atheistic science’ and other such cavils, but above all the framework interpretation is grounded in the exegesis of the biblical texts. The exegetical case for the framework interpretation is based on a number of different biblical arguments.

a) The Unending Seventh Day

The Bible indicates that the seventh day of creation week is an unending day and that at the present time in human history we are still living in the seventh day. If this is so, then the seventh day in Genesis One is figurative and there is no reason the same cannot be true of the other days. Hebrews 4 treats the seventh day as ongoing and shows that creation week was not a normal human week of seven 24-hour days. This makes sense since the seventh day in Genesis One has no ‘evening and morning’. Hebrews 4:3-5 explains why this is so. God’s people are called to enter into God’s own Sabbath rest. This argument is well-handled by Lee Irons in his section of The Genesis Debate book.

b) ‘Because it had not rained’ (Genesis 2:5)

Genesis 2:5 shows that ordinary providence was at work in the creation period. It states that plant growth was dependent on rain falling. This indicates that much longer periods than 24 hours must have passed during the time that plants grew on the earth on Day Three. So the days of Genesis One cannot be literal 24-hour days. This is one of the key arguments of Meredith Kline and Mark Futato in their seminal essays on the framework interpretation.

Similarly the events of Day 3 indicate it was much longer than 24 hours in duration. The simple reading here is against the literal 24-hour view. Genesis 1:11 says the land ‘sprouted’ or ‘produced’ vegetation. It does not say that God simply created the vegetation out of nothing, but that it sprouted and grew. This process takes months, not minutes. The eminent Old Testament scholar, Edward J. Young, states: ‘And the work of the third day seems to suggest that there was some process, and that what took place occurred in a period longer than twenty-four hours.’ (In the Beginning: Genesis Chapters 1 to 3 and the Authority of Scripture)

c) The Temporal Recapitulation of Days One and Four

As we have previously mentioned, the fact that Day One talks about the creation of light and has an evening and morning (using words that literally mean ‘sunset’ and ‘sunrise’) means that the sun was created on Day One and is the source of light from Day 1 onwards. When the sun is mentioned again on Day Four as the ‘greater light’ this is a typical example of Hebraic recapitulation in a narrative. The focus second time round is on the sun as light bearer, filling heaven, and its functional purpose in setting day and night and in marking the seasons by its height above the horizon.

d) The Long Day Six

A plain reading of Day Six reveals that too many events happened on this day for it to be realistically a period of less than 12 hours (remember literally evening and morning is the period from dusk till dawn). From Genesis 2, we learn much of what had to have happened on that Day Six. God planted the Garden of Eden and had it grow to maturity (so there would be fruit on the trees) and no mention is made of this happening instantaneously. The text does not say God created the plants and trees mature. Also all the animals were created by God and then brought to Adam to be named by him. Adam also named the birds. During this same day, the text indicates Adam had time to get lonely – the word for ‘Now’ in Genesis 2:23 could be translated ‘At long last!’ It is a word that shows Adam’s relief. Why would he be lonely if he had only been created a few hours? Patience is a virtue, not a vice. So how would unfallen Adam not have patience, and how could he be dis-satisfied with all that God had given him in such a short time? Especially bearing in mind he was in perfect fellowship with God and had so much to see and do. Then in the same few hours, Eve was created as well. The great Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck makes the point that it is unlikely this would all happen in a few hours. It is simply not feasible that Day Six was a literal 24-hour day.

8. An Analogical Interpretation

Meredith Kline talks about a concept called ‘two register cosmology’ which basically says that there is heavenly time and earthly time, and Genesis One talks about earthly things created in heavenly time. His language can at times be quite difficult to understand. The concept would be better simply viewed as analogy or anthropomorphism – that the creation days are not identical to our 24-hour days but are instead analogous to our days. The Genesis days are God-days, not human-days. The reason Genesis One is written as a week of days is so that the creative work of God can be readily understood by the ordinary men and women of God. Time indicators are merely anthropomorphisms for simple people to understand God’s unimaginably long and complex creative time periods.

C. John Collins writes: ‘God’s rest is not the same as [as ours] but is analogous to ours, he will go back and read the passage looking for other instances of analogy. Then he will see what the significance of the refrain is: it, too, is part of an anthropomorphic presentation of God; he is likened to the ordinary worker, going through his rhythm of word and rest, looking forward to his Sabbath. The days are God’s work days, which need not be identical to ours: they are instead analogous.’ (Collins in Did God Create in Six Days? pp. 138-39)

The Bible is full of analogies and it would not be out of place for Genesis One to be written in the same way. An analogical view is how we find the New Testament sometimes interpreting the Old Testament. In Matthew 4 the 40 days in the wilderness is an analogy of the 40 years in the wilderness of the Israelites. Mankind is an analogy of God – created in the image of God, but not identical to God. As Van Til has argued, even our knowledge is analogical to God’s knowledge.

Creation can only be understood properly when we see the relationship that exists between heaven and earth. Scripture teaches that the earthly is a picture of the heavenly or as something that is a copy of heavenly. Examples include the tabernacle and temple, the sacrificial system, David’s throne, and the Sabbath rest. All involve divine realities and human analogies. In no case is the earthly shadow identical to the heavenly reality or ‘archetype’. It is important to note that it is not that the creation days are a symbol of our days, but that our days are symbolic of those momentous creation days of God. Both Herman Bavinck and W. G. T. Shedd (‘God-divided days’) suggest the creation days were alike our days in one way, but not like our days in other ways.

A common argument against the framework view is that Exodus 20:11 plainly means that creation week was just an ordinary week of time like our weeks. The fact that the creation week can be viewed as an exemplary analogy takes the sting out of this argument. The point surely in the commandment is that we are to work and rest because God worked and rested, even if our days and God’s days are on a different scale this would not affect the example or command.

9. A Didactic and Polemical Interpretation

Genesis One is primarily constructed as a theological text to teach the covenant people about God and his acts of creation and secondarily as polemical text showing the superiority of Yahweh, the covenant God of Israel, over the pagan agricultural fertility gods of the nations that surrounded Israel and against the pagan creation myths of other nations. It is no accident surely that the very things that the pagans worshipped as gods or where they thought the gods lived are specifically mentioned as things created by Yahweh: the sun, moon and stars, the sea, the sea monsters and the crops for example.

In stark contrast, it is made clear that God made everything and he is not part of the created order, but rather stands above and beyond it. The Genesis account will not even let anyone delude themselves that the universe has always existed. The idea of eternal matter is alien to the biblical narrative. In the beginning God – and God alone existed – and he created everything else out of nothing by his powerful word.

In writing his polemic, Moses seems to have used the traditional creation stories in his world and adapted them. The narrative shows the true God superior to any pagan false gods like the sun and moon, the stars, or the great sea creatures. It is not a text written to answer modern scientific questions about origins.

10. A Commendable Interpretation

The framework interpretation stands up to exegetical scrutiny and focuses on the theological meaning of Genesis rather than getting caught up in a modern phoney war with science. As such it allows the sacred text to speak to readers on its own terms and to present the covenant God to his covenant people as the creator and ruler of the world. As such he is to be worshipped, loved, obeyed, enjoyed and glorified.

11. Further Reading

Books

· Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis

· C. John Collins, Science and Faith: Friends or Foes?

· W. Robert Godfrey, God’s Pattern for Creation

· Lee Irons with Meredith G. Kline: ‘The Framework Interpretation’ in David G. Hagopian (ed.), The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the ‘Days’ of Creation

· Robert C. Newman, Perry G. Phillips & Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr, Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth

· Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?

· David Snoke, A Biblical Case for an Old Earth

· John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One

· Mark S. Whorton, Peril in Paradise

· David Wilkinson: The Message of Creation (Bible Speaks Today)

Articles (most are available online)

· C. John Collins, ‘Reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 as an Act of Communication: Discourse Analysis and Literal Interpretation’ in Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?

· Mark Futato: ‘Because it Had Rained: A Study of Genesis 2:5-7 With Implications for Genesis 2:4-25 and Genesis 1:1-2:3’ (1998) Westminster Theological Journal 60(1): 1-21

· Meredith G. Kline, ‘Because It Had Not Rained’ (1958) Westminster Theological Journal 20(2): 146-157

· Meredith G. Kline, ‘Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony’ (1996) Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (48): 2-15

· Lee Irons: ‘The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary’ (2000) Ordained Servant 9(1): 7-11

· Donald M. Poundstone (Chairman), The Report of the (OPC) Committee to Study the Framework Hypothesis

· Mark E. Ross, ‘The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1–2:3’ in Joseph A. Pipa & David Hall (eds.), Did God Create in Six Days?

· Peter J. Wallace, ‘The Archetypal Week: A Defense of the Analogical Day View’

· Rowland S. Ward, ‘Length of Days in Genesis’

NOTE
A PDF version of this essay is available for downloading at http://www.scribd.com/doc/44424533/The-Framework-Interpretation-of-Genesis-One