For me no verse of any hymn quite sums up what Good Friday is all about for the Christian believer better than this one from Man of Sorrows by Philip P. Bliss:
Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
in my place condemned He stood;
sealed my pardon with His blood:
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!
This is why what would otherwise be the darkest day in history is forever "Good" Friday to the faithful, the day our salvation was achieved through the cross. And the darkness merely proved to be the prelude to the brightest day in history when Christ rose from the dead three days later on Easter Sunday.
Friday, 6 April 2012
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Arminian Theology
Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
Roger E. Olson
IVP 2006
This is a very interesting book that claims to introduce Arminian theology as it really is and not as it's opponents too often portray it. As such, Olson is adamant that Arminianism is at least as much a legitimate option for evangelical Christians as Calvinism (and in his view more so).
I have to admit that I was intrigued as I have till now based my judgment of Arminianism almost exclusively on Calvinist resources. I also have to admit serious ignorance of what Arminianism actually teaches. I honestly thought that Arminianism more or less taught simply the opposite to the five points of Calvinism and was surprised that evangelical Arminians affirm total depravity and some also affirm perseverance of the saints (two out of the five points of Calvinism). In this respect, Arminianism can be seen as a kind of moderate Reformed theology rather than the antithesis of it.
Olson's book goes through a series of ten "myths" about Arminianism and seeks to dispel each one. The book focuses a lot on historical theology and unfortunately there is very little biblical exegesis. I don't say this to score a cheap point. It is not a reflection on Arminianism's inability to base its conclusions on the biblical text. I simply think that Olson has chosen to focus on what some of Arminianism's most important theologians have taught. He makes the point that true Arminianism is both misunderstood by its opponents and perhaps by many who claim to embrace it. This confusion amplifies the problem, but the fact is that true Arminianism is more Calvinistic (if I can put it that way) than many of it's proponents think. Olson says that much of modern day evangelicalism is semi-Pelagian not truly Arminian. The problem is that Calvinists looking on, think that when they see semi-Pelagianism they are actually seeing Arminianism, and so Arminianism is semi-Pelagian. But Olson makes a good case for distinguishing sharply between the two. I found Olson's counterpoints a real eye-opener.
The "myths" that Olson seeks to dispel are that:
It seems to me that Calvinists looking to deal with Arminianism fairly could do a lot worse than use Olson's book as a reference. I only wish that Olson had done a lot more exegesis to back up the arguments for his position. Had he done so, the book would have been even more valuable.
Roger E. Olson
IVP 2006
This is a very interesting book that claims to introduce Arminian theology as it really is and not as it's opponents too often portray it. As such, Olson is adamant that Arminianism is at least as much a legitimate option for evangelical Christians as Calvinism (and in his view more so).
I have to admit that I was intrigued as I have till now based my judgment of Arminianism almost exclusively on Calvinist resources. I also have to admit serious ignorance of what Arminianism actually teaches. I honestly thought that Arminianism more or less taught simply the opposite to the five points of Calvinism and was surprised that evangelical Arminians affirm total depravity and some also affirm perseverance of the saints (two out of the five points of Calvinism). In this respect, Arminianism can be seen as a kind of moderate Reformed theology rather than the antithesis of it.
Olson's book goes through a series of ten "myths" about Arminianism and seeks to dispel each one. The book focuses a lot on historical theology and unfortunately there is very little biblical exegesis. I don't say this to score a cheap point. It is not a reflection on Arminianism's inability to base its conclusions on the biblical text. I simply think that Olson has chosen to focus on what some of Arminianism's most important theologians have taught. He makes the point that true Arminianism is both misunderstood by its opponents and perhaps by many who claim to embrace it. This confusion amplifies the problem, but the fact is that true Arminianism is more Calvinistic (if I can put it that way) than many of it's proponents think. Olson says that much of modern day evangelicalism is semi-Pelagian not truly Arminian. The problem is that Calvinists looking on, think that when they see semi-Pelagianism they are actually seeing Arminianism, and so Arminianism is semi-Pelagian. But Olson makes a good case for distinguishing sharply between the two. I found Olson's counterpoints a real eye-opener.
The "myths" that Olson seeks to dispel are that:
1. Arminianism is simply the opposite of Calvinism/Reformed theologyThe corresponding realities are therefore:
2. A hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible
3. Arminianism is not an orthodox evangelical option
4. The heart of Arminianism is belief in free will
5. Arminian theology denies the sovereignty of God
6. Arminianism is a human-centred theology
7. Arminianism is not a theology of grace
8. Arminians do not believe in predestination
9. Arminian theology denies justification by grace alone through faith alone
10. All Arminians believe in the Governmental theory of the atonement
1. Arminianism is more like a branch of Reformed theology than its oppositeLate in the book, Olson says that it is incumbent when criticising a position to engage with its proponents (and indeed its best proponents) and allow them to put forward what they actually think. I have certainly been guilty of not doing this.
2. Although Calvinism and Arminianism share much in common, they are distinct theological systems on a number of key points and no hybrid is possible on these points
3. Arminianism is an orthodox evangelical option and affirms all the fundamental points of the historic Christian faith
4. The heart of Arminianism is the loving and gracious character of God
5. Arminianism affirms the sovereignty of God but sees it as choosing to give human freedom rather than meticulously controlling all human choices
6. Arminianism is not an "optimistic" theology of human nature, but agrees with Calvinists that human beings are dead in trespasses and sin by nature
7. Arminianism is a doctrine of grace, recognising that no-one can come to God unless drawn by God's grace through the Holy Spirit. The difference with Calvinism being that Arminianism understands God to draw everyone in the same way and such grace to be resistible
8. Arminians believe in predestination but not unconditional election and reprobation, rather they either affirm the predestination of the church corporately or of believers through God's foreknowledge
9. Arminians strongly affirm the central Reformation insight of justification by grace alone through faith alone, including Arminius and Wesley
10. Many Arminians affirm penal substitionary atonement, including Arminius and Wesley
It seems to me that Calvinists looking to deal with Arminianism fairly could do a lot worse than use Olson's book as a reference. I only wish that Olson had done a lot more exegesis to back up the arguments for his position. Had he done so, the book would have been even more valuable.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Generous Justice
Generous Justice
Timothy Keller
Hodder & Stoughton 2010
I've pretty much enjoyed everything I've ever read by Tim Keller and Generous Justice is no exception. It seems to me that Keller's central thesis in this book is crucial in our time to the health, vitality and witness of the churches, particularly the evangelical churches, who perhaps need to hear this message most. Keller's thesis is simply that doing justice, in our daily lives as Christians at a personal, social and societal level, is a necessary outworking of the grace of God we have experienced through the gospel.
Keller writes in the introduction for example: "There is a direct relationship between a person's grasp and experience of God's grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor...I have observed over decades that when people see the beauty of God's grace in Christ, it leads them powerfully towards justice." (p. xix).
It is immediately apparent that Keller wants to challenge several wrong views. To begin with he challenges the secular voices that claim that the Bible is somehow a hindrance to establishing justice in our world. But more interestingly from my point of view, he also challenges the still all-too-typical evangelical mindset that sees the church's true biblical role as "saving souls" and teaching correct doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone. For too long there has been a false dichotomy in many churches between the evangelical gospel of salvation and the so-called liberal gospel of social justice. Keller is a Reformed theologian and minister of an evangelical Presbyterian church, yet he correctly sees that social justice is fundamental to the church's mission, not as a replacement for the gospel (which is where liberal Christians go wrong) but as a necessary outworking of the gospel.
The rest of the book explores a variety of angles of justice to give a rounded picture of the biblical material.
To begin with, Keller looks to define "justice" and finds that in the Bible it is about far more than simply punishing sinners. Again, too often in evangelical circles, "justice" is restricted to enforcing morality and punishing wrongdoers and we can end up looking simply like the religious equivalent of the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"! No, biblical justice is more akin to "social justice" that looks after the poor, the widow and the fatherless. It is about doing what is right for everyone and about living in a "harmonious peace" (as Keller defines the key Hebrew concept of shalom) with our fellow human beings and with all creation. It is about fair treatment of immigrants. It is about making sure workers are paid fair wages and work in decent conditions. The list of applications of the biblical principles could go on and on. Keller also points out that justice in biblical terms is not about doing the bare minimum of good for others, it should be generous. Why? Because when we act like that we reflect God's own character. The Scriptures say that God is on the side with the weak, the poor and the oppressed. And as we claim to be the people of God, so should we.
Later chapters highlights material from the Old Testament, especially the prophets, and the New Testament, especially the teachings of Christ himself, that all back-up the point of view outlined. Keller's treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a particular highlight.
A later chapter in the book called "How Should We Do Justice?" is very practical and very challenging. In it, Keller gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually putting the theory into practice and I found it useful when he talks about three levels of doing justice called "relief, development and social reform" and how Christians are called to involvement at all three levels. Relief is immediate help given to someone in need. Development is longer term involvement to help someone in need improve things so the need no longer exists. Social reform challenges governments to change the law and/or society to stop the situation that caused the need from happening in the first place. In the example of the old proverb, relief is giving a man a fish, development is giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him to fish, social reform questions the government why the poor have to live off fish while others have plenty to eat.
The book ends with a chapter where Keller links peace, justice and beauty and reiterates the link between the gospel of grace and living out a gospel life of grace that seeks justice for others (in the true biblical scope) and closes with a final challenge to us as Christians. In essence, if we have received so much blessing from God's hand, shouldn't we be more willing to bless others from our hands? In Keller's own words:
Timothy Keller
Hodder & Stoughton 2010
I've pretty much enjoyed everything I've ever read by Tim Keller and Generous Justice is no exception. It seems to me that Keller's central thesis in this book is crucial in our time to the health, vitality and witness of the churches, particularly the evangelical churches, who perhaps need to hear this message most. Keller's thesis is simply that doing justice, in our daily lives as Christians at a personal, social and societal level, is a necessary outworking of the grace of God we have experienced through the gospel.
Keller writes in the introduction for example: "There is a direct relationship between a person's grasp and experience of God's grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor...I have observed over decades that when people see the beauty of God's grace in Christ, it leads them powerfully towards justice." (p. xix).
It is immediately apparent that Keller wants to challenge several wrong views. To begin with he challenges the secular voices that claim that the Bible is somehow a hindrance to establishing justice in our world. But more interestingly from my point of view, he also challenges the still all-too-typical evangelical mindset that sees the church's true biblical role as "saving souls" and teaching correct doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone. For too long there has been a false dichotomy in many churches between the evangelical gospel of salvation and the so-called liberal gospel of social justice. Keller is a Reformed theologian and minister of an evangelical Presbyterian church, yet he correctly sees that social justice is fundamental to the church's mission, not as a replacement for the gospel (which is where liberal Christians go wrong) but as a necessary outworking of the gospel.
The rest of the book explores a variety of angles of justice to give a rounded picture of the biblical material.
To begin with, Keller looks to define "justice" and finds that in the Bible it is about far more than simply punishing sinners. Again, too often in evangelical circles, "justice" is restricted to enforcing morality and punishing wrongdoers and we can end up looking simply like the religious equivalent of the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"! No, biblical justice is more akin to "social justice" that looks after the poor, the widow and the fatherless. It is about doing what is right for everyone and about living in a "harmonious peace" (as Keller defines the key Hebrew concept of shalom) with our fellow human beings and with all creation. It is about fair treatment of immigrants. It is about making sure workers are paid fair wages and work in decent conditions. The list of applications of the biblical principles could go on and on. Keller also points out that justice in biblical terms is not about doing the bare minimum of good for others, it should be generous. Why? Because when we act like that we reflect God's own character. The Scriptures say that God is on the side with the weak, the poor and the oppressed. And as we claim to be the people of God, so should we.
Later chapters highlights material from the Old Testament, especially the prophets, and the New Testament, especially the teachings of Christ himself, that all back-up the point of view outlined. Keller's treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a particular highlight.
A later chapter in the book called "How Should We Do Justice?" is very practical and very challenging. In it, Keller gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually putting the theory into practice and I found it useful when he talks about three levels of doing justice called "relief, development and social reform" and how Christians are called to involvement at all three levels. Relief is immediate help given to someone in need. Development is longer term involvement to help someone in need improve things so the need no longer exists. Social reform challenges governments to change the law and/or society to stop the situation that caused the need from happening in the first place. In the example of the old proverb, relief is giving a man a fish, development is giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him to fish, social reform questions the government why the poor have to live off fish while others have plenty to eat.
The book ends with a chapter where Keller links peace, justice and beauty and reiterates the link between the gospel of grace and living out a gospel life of grace that seeks justice for others (in the true biblical scope) and closes with a final challenge to us as Christians. In essence, if we have received so much blessing from God's hand, shouldn't we be more willing to bless others from our hands? In Keller's own words:
Proverbs 14:31 says, "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker." The God of the Bible says, as it were, "I am the poor on your step. Your attitude towards them reveals your true attitude toward me." A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith.Now, if that doesn't challenge any Western Christian who reads it, what will?
Saturday, 25 February 2012
How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative
How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative
Roger E. Olson
Zondervan 2009
This is an interesting book by Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, which seeks to show that being an evangelical Christian does not mean that one has to therefore be a "conservative" politically or even theologically.
I have to admit that the book resonated with me, though I am not sure that Olson's picture of "conservatism" which is a distinctly American one, travels that well on this side of the Atlantic. In the UK, evangelicals are less linked intrinsically to conservative political and social causes (far less to the Conservative Party) than appears to be the case in the USA. In that sense, Olson's ideas are less controversial here than they may be in America.
Some of the chapters of the book deal with distinctly American situations, but others are relevant as much to Britain.
Though I don't agree with everything Olson says, I think that in most of the chapters he does score hits against opponents and makes valid criticisms of the assumption that anyone who is evangelical (and therefore to some extent at least conservative theologically) must therefore be conservative across the board.
Olson's definition of an evangelical is hardly controversial. He emphasises five beliefs common to all evangelicals (adding the fifth to David Bebbington's well-known quadrilateral):
1. Biblicisim - holding the Bible in high regard and placing its teaching at the centre of faith and practice.
2. Conversionism - the belief that human beings need to go through a conversion process to saved.
3. Crucicentrism - that the atoning work of Christ on the cross lies at the centre of the faith.
4. Activism - the belief that the implications of the gospel outworks in practical activities in the world, particularly mission.
5. Respect for the Great Tradition of Christian doctrine - respecting though perhaps not slavishly following the Christian traditions of the past.
Olson then goes on to attempt to show that a person can embrace these five beliefs and therefore be a genuine evangelical, but not then necessarily have conservative political views or in fact take a conservative (in the sense of traditional) line on all theological issues.
After an initial chapter explaining what he means by evangelical and conservative, Olson then goes through a number of chapters explaining that to reject "the conservative line" on a subject does not mean abandoning an evangelical position. I felt some of the chapters were more successful than others - in this sense the book overall must be rated "patchy" but each one has at least something interesting to make you think in it.
The chapters are entitled as follows:
"Being Biblical without Orthodoxy" - here Olson marks the difference between the Bible's own authority and the lesser authority of accepted "orthodoxy" by the church. He points out the need to distinguish between the biblical text which is the Truth, and our interpretations of it, which may or may not be true. I felt this was a successful chapter.
"Building Character without Moralism" - in this chapter Olson criticises attempts to force "Christian behaviour" through legislation on non-Christians. He also criticises a judgmental attitude that I'm afraid many evangelical Christian do display at times. Instead he says the church should be focused on discipline within the church rather than the morals of those outside it. And instead of looking to law to change behaviour, we should be looking to the gospel to transform people's lives. Again I felt this chapter made many good points.
"Celebrating America without Nationalism" - this chapter is very America-focused. I don't think the attitude that Olson explores - that America is a nation specially chosen and blessed by God - is one that really exists in the UK now (that Britain his the special nation) though it certainly did when Britain was the world's superpower. Olson's criticisms are fair and I think the distinction he makes between patriotism and nationalism is valid and does transfer to other countries, including Scotland at this time in history. For Olson, patriotism is a good thing, but nationalism isn't.
"Seeking Truth without Certainty" - this chapter explores the difference between "faith" and "false certainty" and argues that it's okay for Christians to have honest doubts at times. He suggests that Kierkegaard was right to distinguish certainty with certitude. "Certainty" is the absolute knowledge that something is true and Olson thinks that this is inconsistent with the real life of a Christian. "Certitude" is "the settled, inward assurance of faith; it believes without proofs and learns to live with doubts." Although interesting, I'm not yet sure how much of this I agree with or not, but since doubts are okay, that's not a problem!
"Taking the Bible Seriously without Literalism" - here Olson distinguishes fundamentalism which claims to take the whole Bible literally, with evangelicalism which takes the parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally, literally. I pretty much agree with everything he says here. Olson claims that since the term "fundamentalism" gained a bad press many who would at one time have been seen as "fundamentalists" now fly under the banner of "evangelical" in effect shifting evangelicalism "to the right" as it were.
"Being Religionless without Secularism" - here Olson argues that one can be Christian and evangelical without being "religious". By religious he seems to mean traditional in Christian worship, church structures and practice. I struggled to understand what he was really saying here. If he simply means that non-traditional ways of doing church are still valid, then I agree.
"Transforming Culture without Domination" - This chapter is similar in some ways to the one on moralism.
"Redistributing Wealth without Socialism" - This is a chapter that I think many evangelicals will hate, but I liked it. Olson argues in effect that it's okay to be an evangelical Christian and lean towards the left politically. Phew!
"Relativizing without Rejecting Theology" - Olson's point here is that we need to put "theological systems" in their correct place, and not end up putting our system above Scripture. That doesn't mean of course that all systems are equally valid. To be honest I had some problems with this chapter in the details though Olson may be correct on the broad brush strokes.
"Updating without Trivializing Worship" - In this chapter Olson simply points out that being an evangelical isn't tied to any one worship style.
"Accepting without Affirming Flawed People" - I found this chapter the most challenging in the book. Olson points out that though evangelicals acknowledge with our heads that we are all sinners, in our hearts and in our practice we act as if some of sinners should be excluded from fellowship, while others are embraced. I think this is by-and-large true. He says that it is strange that once a person is "in" as long as they only lapse into "acceptable sins" they will be supported and looked after, but other people will never "get in" because of their "unacceptable sins". The answer seems biblical to me - we need to be accepting of all people without affirming that their sins are "okay".
"Practicing Equality without Sacrificing Difference" - in this chapter Olson argues that it is okay to be evangelical and egalitarian (supportive of women being allowed to hold all church offices).
The book ends with a postscript advocating a "postconservative evangelicalism". I'm not sure about that. Rather I think we need an evangelicalism that neither unthinkingly takes nor rejects the "conservative line" but seeks to be reformed and always reforming in line with God's Word.
Roger E. Olson
Zondervan 2009
This is an interesting book by Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, which seeks to show that being an evangelical Christian does not mean that one has to therefore be a "conservative" politically or even theologically.
I have to admit that the book resonated with me, though I am not sure that Olson's picture of "conservatism" which is a distinctly American one, travels that well on this side of the Atlantic. In the UK, evangelicals are less linked intrinsically to conservative political and social causes (far less to the Conservative Party) than appears to be the case in the USA. In that sense, Olson's ideas are less controversial here than they may be in America.
Some of the chapters of the book deal with distinctly American situations, but others are relevant as much to Britain.
Though I don't agree with everything Olson says, I think that in most of the chapters he does score hits against opponents and makes valid criticisms of the assumption that anyone who is evangelical (and therefore to some extent at least conservative theologically) must therefore be conservative across the board.
Olson's definition of an evangelical is hardly controversial. He emphasises five beliefs common to all evangelicals (adding the fifth to David Bebbington's well-known quadrilateral):
1. Biblicisim - holding the Bible in high regard and placing its teaching at the centre of faith and practice.
2. Conversionism - the belief that human beings need to go through a conversion process to saved.
3. Crucicentrism - that the atoning work of Christ on the cross lies at the centre of the faith.
4. Activism - the belief that the implications of the gospel outworks in practical activities in the world, particularly mission.
5. Respect for the Great Tradition of Christian doctrine - respecting though perhaps not slavishly following the Christian traditions of the past.
Olson then goes on to attempt to show that a person can embrace these five beliefs and therefore be a genuine evangelical, but not then necessarily have conservative political views or in fact take a conservative (in the sense of traditional) line on all theological issues.
After an initial chapter explaining what he means by evangelical and conservative, Olson then goes through a number of chapters explaining that to reject "the conservative line" on a subject does not mean abandoning an evangelical position. I felt some of the chapters were more successful than others - in this sense the book overall must be rated "patchy" but each one has at least something interesting to make you think in it.
The chapters are entitled as follows:
"Being Biblical without Orthodoxy" - here Olson marks the difference between the Bible's own authority and the lesser authority of accepted "orthodoxy" by the church. He points out the need to distinguish between the biblical text which is the Truth, and our interpretations of it, which may or may not be true. I felt this was a successful chapter.
"Building Character without Moralism" - in this chapter Olson criticises attempts to force "Christian behaviour" through legislation on non-Christians. He also criticises a judgmental attitude that I'm afraid many evangelical Christian do display at times. Instead he says the church should be focused on discipline within the church rather than the morals of those outside it. And instead of looking to law to change behaviour, we should be looking to the gospel to transform people's lives. Again I felt this chapter made many good points.
"Celebrating America without Nationalism" - this chapter is very America-focused. I don't think the attitude that Olson explores - that America is a nation specially chosen and blessed by God - is one that really exists in the UK now (that Britain his the special nation) though it certainly did when Britain was the world's superpower. Olson's criticisms are fair and I think the distinction he makes between patriotism and nationalism is valid and does transfer to other countries, including Scotland at this time in history. For Olson, patriotism is a good thing, but nationalism isn't.
"Seeking Truth without Certainty" - this chapter explores the difference between "faith" and "false certainty" and argues that it's okay for Christians to have honest doubts at times. He suggests that Kierkegaard was right to distinguish certainty with certitude. "Certainty" is the absolute knowledge that something is true and Olson thinks that this is inconsistent with the real life of a Christian. "Certitude" is "the settled, inward assurance of faith; it believes without proofs and learns to live with doubts." Although interesting, I'm not yet sure how much of this I agree with or not, but since doubts are okay, that's not a problem!
"Taking the Bible Seriously without Literalism" - here Olson distinguishes fundamentalism which claims to take the whole Bible literally, with evangelicalism which takes the parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally, literally. I pretty much agree with everything he says here. Olson claims that since the term "fundamentalism" gained a bad press many who would at one time have been seen as "fundamentalists" now fly under the banner of "evangelical" in effect shifting evangelicalism "to the right" as it were.
"Being Religionless without Secularism" - here Olson argues that one can be Christian and evangelical without being "religious". By religious he seems to mean traditional in Christian worship, church structures and practice. I struggled to understand what he was really saying here. If he simply means that non-traditional ways of doing church are still valid, then I agree.
"Transforming Culture without Domination" - This chapter is similar in some ways to the one on moralism.
"Redistributing Wealth without Socialism" - This is a chapter that I think many evangelicals will hate, but I liked it. Olson argues in effect that it's okay to be an evangelical Christian and lean towards the left politically. Phew!
"Relativizing without Rejecting Theology" - Olson's point here is that we need to put "theological systems" in their correct place, and not end up putting our system above Scripture. That doesn't mean of course that all systems are equally valid. To be honest I had some problems with this chapter in the details though Olson may be correct on the broad brush strokes.
"Updating without Trivializing Worship" - In this chapter Olson simply points out that being an evangelical isn't tied to any one worship style.
"Accepting without Affirming Flawed People" - I found this chapter the most challenging in the book. Olson points out that though evangelicals acknowledge with our heads that we are all sinners, in our hearts and in our practice we act as if some of sinners should be excluded from fellowship, while others are embraced. I think this is by-and-large true. He says that it is strange that once a person is "in" as long as they only lapse into "acceptable sins" they will be supported and looked after, but other people will never "get in" because of their "unacceptable sins". The answer seems biblical to me - we need to be accepting of all people without affirming that their sins are "okay".
"Practicing Equality without Sacrificing Difference" - in this chapter Olson argues that it is okay to be evangelical and egalitarian (supportive of women being allowed to hold all church offices).
The book ends with a postscript advocating a "postconservative evangelicalism". I'm not sure about that. Rather I think we need an evangelicalism that neither unthinkingly takes nor rejects the "conservative line" but seeks to be reformed and always reforming in line with God's Word.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Simply Jesus
Simply Jesus
Tom Wright
SPCK, London 2011
I can't help but thinking that N. T. Wright is getting distracted from finishing the long-awaited massive volume on Paul in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series as writes more and more popular level books. So far we've had Simply Christian, Surprised by Hope, Virtue Reborn and several volumes to complete the New Testament for Everyone series. Now in that same vein comes Simply Jesus.
The book aims to answer three simple, yet central and profound questions for the Christian faith: who was Jesus, what did he do, and why does it matter?
There is little new here for those who have read some of Wright's previous work, but it was still gripping reading to see the arguments laid out in such a straightforward manner in this book.
For Wright, Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah who "embodied Israel's God" (I think that's a direct quote - if not, Wright certainly says something very similar). He came to do for Israel what Israel could not do for itself - namely be God's light for the Gentiles and the rightful Lord and King of the whole world. Through this, he is able to bring salvation to everyone who has faith in him.
As we might expect, Wright takes the historical background to Jesus' life and ministry very seriously. He talks about a "perfect storm" in the form of a combination of Jewish expectations of deliverance by the Messiah, the power of imperial Rome, and God's strange and powerful purposes for history all coming together at the time of Jesus' life and shaping Christ's life, death and resurrection.
One thing I noted in this book is how firmly Wright seems to have moved towards the Christus Victor view of the atonement as the primary view, although not denying that penal substitution is also a motif in the New Testament, though a secondary one. I would perhaps take issue with this. I do not think Christ could be victorious without penal substitution.
Though most of the book explores who Jesus is and what he came to do, I actually found the short third section on what it means for us to say that Jesus is the king of the world in practical terms to be the most challenging and interesting part. Perhaps this is because I was already familiar with most of what Wright says in the earlier sections from his other books. But this third section where Wright begins to apply his views to normal life was new to me and fascinating. I was certainly excited by Wright's invitation to join in and play our part in God's work of building his kingdom.
In the end, it still seems to me that Wright says the very same things that thoughtful evangelical Christians have always said, but it's as if the thoughts are translated into a different language, using different words at times. This explains how he can both be lambasted by conservatives as a closet liberal and by liberals as a closet fundamentalist! Truth is he is neither, but in good Anglican tradition, he occupies middle ground, yet middle ground much more familiar to evangelicals than liberals I would say as he always seeks to honour what the Bible teaches over all traditions. This is very evident in the extended metaphor of the perfect storm he uses in the first part of the book, where he seeks to show that neither the liberal Jesus of social action, nor the conservative Jesus of deity and salvation in heaven do justice to the New Testament's full-orbed doctrine of Christ and his work.
Tom Wright
SPCK, London 2011
I can't help but thinking that N. T. Wright is getting distracted from finishing the long-awaited massive volume on Paul in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series as writes more and more popular level books. So far we've had Simply Christian, Surprised by Hope, Virtue Reborn and several volumes to complete the New Testament for Everyone series. Now in that same vein comes Simply Jesus.
The book aims to answer three simple, yet central and profound questions for the Christian faith: who was Jesus, what did he do, and why does it matter?
There is little new here for those who have read some of Wright's previous work, but it was still gripping reading to see the arguments laid out in such a straightforward manner in this book.
For Wright, Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah who "embodied Israel's God" (I think that's a direct quote - if not, Wright certainly says something very similar). He came to do for Israel what Israel could not do for itself - namely be God's light for the Gentiles and the rightful Lord and King of the whole world. Through this, he is able to bring salvation to everyone who has faith in him.
As we might expect, Wright takes the historical background to Jesus' life and ministry very seriously. He talks about a "perfect storm" in the form of a combination of Jewish expectations of deliverance by the Messiah, the power of imperial Rome, and God's strange and powerful purposes for history all coming together at the time of Jesus' life and shaping Christ's life, death and resurrection.
One thing I noted in this book is how firmly Wright seems to have moved towards the Christus Victor view of the atonement as the primary view, although not denying that penal substitution is also a motif in the New Testament, though a secondary one. I would perhaps take issue with this. I do not think Christ could be victorious without penal substitution.
Though most of the book explores who Jesus is and what he came to do, I actually found the short third section on what it means for us to say that Jesus is the king of the world in practical terms to be the most challenging and interesting part. Perhaps this is because I was already familiar with most of what Wright says in the earlier sections from his other books. But this third section where Wright begins to apply his views to normal life was new to me and fascinating. I was certainly excited by Wright's invitation to join in and play our part in God's work of building his kingdom.
In the end, it still seems to me that Wright says the very same things that thoughtful evangelical Christians have always said, but it's as if the thoughts are translated into a different language, using different words at times. This explains how he can both be lambasted by conservatives as a closet liberal and by liberals as a closet fundamentalist! Truth is he is neither, but in good Anglican tradition, he occupies middle ground, yet middle ground much more familiar to evangelicals than liberals I would say as he always seeks to honour what the Bible teaches over all traditions. This is very evident in the extended metaphor of the perfect storm he uses in the first part of the book, where he seeks to show that neither the liberal Jesus of social action, nor the conservative Jesus of deity and salvation in heaven do justice to the New Testament's full-orbed doctrine of Christ and his work.
Friday, 27 January 2012
"Neo-Reformed" or "Neo-Fundamentalist"?
An interesting piece distinguishing between the two labels: http://timgombis.com/2012/01/26/neo-reformed-or-neo-fundamentalist/
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Spiritual Milk
The Apostle Peter wrote: "Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:2-3).
Having spent the last week with our baby son at home, feeding him every 3-5 hours day and night, every day, I feel I have more insight into Peter's meaning in these verses than I ever had before.
From my observations of Jonathan and thinking about this verse, I would say that we might consider the following points:
1. Our feeding has to be regular. Just as a baby feeds to a more-or-less regular schedule, so must we feed regularly in communion with Christ and God's Word.
2. Our feeding has to be our priority. Feeding isn't something Jonathan crams into his life in between "more important things". Alongside sleeping, feeding is his main focus! We are to "crave" spiritual milk, not adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
3. Our feeding has to be trusting. Jonathan relies on me or his mum to prepare his food for him. He trusts us and relies on us completely. So must we trust and rely on God to feed us.
4. Our feeding has to be accessible. Just as Jonathan has to take his food through either his mother's breast or a special bottle, so we must take our spiritual milk in ways that we can imbibe and take into ourselves so that it will actually nourish us. This may affect the ways we choose to consider Christ and his Word such as the Bible translation we use or the other ways we engage with God's Word.
5. Our feeding takes time. Each feed with Jonathan takes between 30-90 minutes. He has to pause to be winded from time to time and to clean his dribbles. We cannot rush our spiritual feeding either or we end up with spiritual indigestion or fail to get sufficient nourishment for us to "put on weight" in terms of Christian growth.
Having spent the last week with our baby son at home, feeding him every 3-5 hours day and night, every day, I feel I have more insight into Peter's meaning in these verses than I ever had before.
From my observations of Jonathan and thinking about this verse, I would say that we might consider the following points:
1. Our feeding has to be regular. Just as a baby feeds to a more-or-less regular schedule, so must we feed regularly in communion with Christ and God's Word.
2. Our feeding has to be our priority. Feeding isn't something Jonathan crams into his life in between "more important things". Alongside sleeping, feeding is his main focus! We are to "crave" spiritual milk, not adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude.
3. Our feeding has to be trusting. Jonathan relies on me or his mum to prepare his food for him. He trusts us and relies on us completely. So must we trust and rely on God to feed us.
4. Our feeding has to be accessible. Just as Jonathan has to take his food through either his mother's breast or a special bottle, so we must take our spiritual milk in ways that we can imbibe and take into ourselves so that it will actually nourish us. This may affect the ways we choose to consider Christ and his Word such as the Bible translation we use or the other ways we engage with God's Word.
5. Our feeding takes time. Each feed with Jonathan takes between 30-90 minutes. He has to pause to be winded from time to time and to clean his dribbles. We cannot rush our spiritual feeding either or we end up with spiritual indigestion or fail to get sufficient nourishment for us to "put on weight" in terms of Christian growth.
Thursday, 12 January 2012
The Birth of My Son
My baby son, Jonathan James Miller, was born at 1.49 am on 11 January 2012 at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow, weighing 8 lbs 4 oz.
The name Jonathan is from the Hebrew Yonatan and means "given by Yahweh" or "the gift of Yahweh" or as we might put it "God's gift".
It reflects our faith that our son was given to us by God as a precious gift.
His middle name James is after my late and much-missed father and by extension, after me.
Jonathan already has a special place in my heart and I am looking forward so much to sharing the rest of my life with him and his mother who was truly "super-mum" personified throughout the pregnancy, labour, birth and beyond.
The name Jonathan is from the Hebrew Yonatan and means "given by Yahweh" or "the gift of Yahweh" or as we might put it "God's gift".
It reflects our faith that our son was given to us by God as a precious gift.
His middle name James is after my late and much-missed father and by extension, after me.
Jonathan already has a special place in my heart and I am looking forward so much to sharing the rest of my life with him and his mother who was truly "super-mum" personified throughout the pregnancy, labour, birth and beyond.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Christ as the Faithful Israelite
One of the key underlying concepts in the New Testament is that Jesus Christ is the one faithful Israelite through whom God works to bless the world. That is part of what his mission was to be as the Messiah.
Too often in evangelical theology we have been guilty of downplaying or ignoring the fact that Christ was first and foremost the long-promised and prophesied King of the Jews. And it is precisely because he is the Jewish Messiah that he could be the Saviour of the world and the King of kings.
Too often in evangelical theology we have been guilty of downplaying or ignoring the fact that Christ was first and foremost the long-promised and prophesied King of the Jews. And it is precisely because he is the Jewish Messiah that he could be the Saviour of the world and the King of kings.
Instead, we often seem to talk as if God could have chosen to use more-or-less anyone as his appointed Saviour as long as he made sure they were sinless (by virtue of the virgin birth), in order that they could end up an innocent sacrificial victim dying as our substitute to take our sins away and give us his righteousness in return.
Now, of course, nothing in this presentation is wrong. It is true that Christ could only be the Saviour because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and was born sinless. It is true he was an innocent sacrificial victim and that he died as our substitute on the cross to take our sins away and rose again that we might be justified in his righteousness. Yet if the story of Israel is missed out and if we ignore the fact that Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah, then we will miss out a whole lot of biblical nuances from the overall picture presented.
Now, of course, nothing in this presentation is wrong. It is true that Christ could only be the Saviour because he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and was born sinless. It is true he was an innocent sacrificial victim and that he died as our substitute on the cross to take our sins away and rose again that we might be justified in his righteousness. Yet if the story of Israel is missed out and if we ignore the fact that Jesus came as the Jewish Messiah, then we will miss out a whole lot of biblical nuances from the overall picture presented.
God's plan was always to bless and save the world through the Messiah, through the promised Redeemer. As far back as Genesis 3:15 this is promised. "I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel." (HCSB).
But it is also clear that the Redeemer would be born not just as a human child, but as one of Abraham's descendants: "I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3, NIV). "And through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed." (Genesis 22:18, NIV).
God's purpose was therefore always to choose Israel as a means of bring salvation to the whole world. Yet, there was a problem. Israel as a nation was far from perfect. Israel was chosen to be "light bearers" for the world: "I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6, ESV). Yet the people time and again chose darkness rather than light. They always revealed themselves to be "in Adam" - just as sinful at heart as all the rest of humanity.
This is why though Israel was called to be faithful to God, it was going to take an extra special Israelite who would actually be able to fulfil the divine covenant promises and fulfil the divinely appointed mission for Israel. It was going to take the Messiah to do for Israel and for the world what Israel could never do for herself.
Christ's coming as Saviour and Lord was not God's Plan B. He only ever had a Plan A: to save the world through Israel.
How he did it is extraordinary in its sheer scale and wisdom and utterly surprising grace. All the gospels make it clear, but especially Matthew's Gospel, that Christ came to re-enact the failed history of Israel in his own life and person, except that where Israel failed over and over again, the Messiah, Jesus would not fail but would fulfil his divinely appointed destiny - all the way to death, his death on the cross, and right through to his rising from the dead on the third day.
Matthew's Gospel is basically structured to show the parallels between Christ's life and Israel's history. Like Israel, Jesus is called out of Egypt (only Matthew focuses on the Egyptian period of exile when being hunted by Herod). He then goes into the wilderness for 40 days (compared to the nation's 40 years in the wilderness). Like Moses with the Ten Commandments, Christ goes up a mountain to teach the people the truth about God's law in the Sermon on the Mount. And so on. Parallel after parallel until we reach that last passover in which Christ offers himself as the unblemished lamb that takes away sin and breaks the power of death.
Through his life, death and resurrection, the Messiah redefines who the people of God are around himself, so that he becomes their representative and what is true of him, then becomes true of them too. This re-booting of Israel as God's people (if we can use that modern phrase) includes such clues as choosing twelve apostles (the number twelve tying in with the twelve tribes of Israel), talking about Christ's people being the true temple of God - and by implication not the Temple in Jerusalem, and so on.
As people respond to the gospel message in faith they enter into union with Christ, become part of the people of God, and receive all the blessings of salvation that belong to God's people in Christ (Ephesians 1).
N. T. Wright sums it up like this (discussing Romans 3:21-31): "And, beginning in 3.21, he provides a fresh answer to the question, an answer not available to writers like 4 Ezra: God has unveiled his dikaiosyne in the faithful Messiah, Jesus, the one in whom at last we find an Israelite faithful to God’s purpose, the one through whose death sin has been dealt with, the one through whom God has now called into being a renewed people among whom Jews and Gentiles are welcome on equal terms."
So much of the richness of biblical teaching is lost if we neglect or silence the link between Israel, Christ and the saving purposes of God. Nothing is lost, and much is gained when we include the fact that Jesus wasn't just acting as a sinless man in his mission, but as the faithful Israelite whose life was fully and comprehensively in line with God's will for the glory of God and the rescuing and renewing of the entire cosmos.
Friday, 6 January 2012
Epiphany
Today is widely celebrated in Christianity as "Epiphany" (from the Greek meaning "manifestation" or "sudden appearance") where we reflect on the fact that Jesus came not just for the Jews but for the whole Gentile world also. This was first shown not long after his birth when he was visited by the Magi or wise men in Bethlehem (Matthew 2).
We tend to think of the visit of the wise men as part of the nativity story. But the fact that Jesus was born in a place where animals were kept, but the family were in a house by the time the wise men arrived, strongly suggests that some time had passed between the two events. So perhaps the couple of weeks between Christmas and Epiphany is not so daft.
In the ancient world the division between the science of astronomy and the magical belief of astrology was blurred. The Magi were probably from modern day Iran or Iraq - we don't know if there were three of them - but they must have journeyed a long way and for many months to arrive in Palestine.
The Magi story is one of my favourite passages of Scripture. It tells us so many important things. Most of all it tells us that God's love and God's salvation is for everyone. It's for Gentiles as well as Jews. It's for people whose lifestyle the Scriptures do not approve of (astrology is condemned in the Old Testament as a pagan practice). It's for educated, sophisticated, intellectual people, not just for simple shepherds - the Magi were part of the intellectual elite of Persian culture. And it's for the wealthy as well as the poor - the Magi could afford to present Christ with lavish gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh - very expensive, luxury items of the ancient world.
Christ is for everyone. That's the central message of Epiphany. Isn't that a good reason to celebrate today?
We tend to think of the visit of the wise men as part of the nativity story. But the fact that Jesus was born in a place where animals were kept, but the family were in a house by the time the wise men arrived, strongly suggests that some time had passed between the two events. So perhaps the couple of weeks between Christmas and Epiphany is not so daft.
In the ancient world the division between the science of astronomy and the magical belief of astrology was blurred. The Magi were probably from modern day Iran or Iraq - we don't know if there were three of them - but they must have journeyed a long way and for many months to arrive in Palestine.
The Magi story is one of my favourite passages of Scripture. It tells us so many important things. Most of all it tells us that God's love and God's salvation is for everyone. It's for Gentiles as well as Jews. It's for people whose lifestyle the Scriptures do not approve of (astrology is condemned in the Old Testament as a pagan practice). It's for educated, sophisticated, intellectual people, not just for simple shepherds - the Magi were part of the intellectual elite of Persian culture. And it's for the wealthy as well as the poor - the Magi could afford to present Christ with lavish gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh - very expensive, luxury items of the ancient world.
Christ is for everyone. That's the central message of Epiphany. Isn't that a good reason to celebrate today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)