What St Paul Really Said

What St Paul Really Said
by Tom Wright
Lion Publishing, 1997

I don't often re-post old stuff, but I was re-reading What St Paul Really Said by Tom Wright in the last week and thought it worth putting up the review I first did back in 2009. I have only altered the review slightly where my views have shifted since 2009 or where the wording needed changed to reflect that my first reading of the book was four years ago

--

When I first read What St Paul Really Said I was determined not to like it. In fact I was resolute that I was going to hate it, find it heretical, say so in a scathing review and then chuck it in the nearest bin. It was the first book I read by N. T. Wright, one of the world's most eminent New Testament scholars, (then) Anglican bishop and churchman and leading proponent of the so-called New Perspective on Paul.

The truth proved to be a bit different. Not quite a Damascus road experience, but I finished the book convinced that far from being the heretic that some have caricatured him as, Tom Wright has more in common with the spirit of the Reformers than some of his opponents, even if he sometimes comes to different conclusions than them. His sole concern, it seems to me, is to find out what the Scriptures say, over against any traditions, even those of evangelicalism. Of course that does not settle the question of whether he does, in fact, succeed in finding out what the Scriptures say and in showing that his view is the correct one and the more traditional interpretations of say Romans and Galatians are in error, but in reading Wright it always feels as if his heart is in the right place.

"What St Paul Really Said" is his popular-level treatment of Paul's place in Christian theology. It is an engaging read, extremely well-written and fairly easy to read though dealing with a complex subject matter in considerable depth. In fact, it is a fine example of how interesting prose by theologians should and could be.

I am not convinced by everything Wright says. In fact, I strongly disagree with some of his conclusions - he does not always give enough credit to "old perspective" theology, its emphases, and the arguments of its greatest theologians. Often Wright frames the discussion in "either/or" terms when it might just as well be framed as a "both/and" situation. Justification is not just about ecclesiology in my view - it is also about soteriology and I think Wright overplays his hand on this point. Justification is at least partly about salvation, about how a sinner can be in the right relationship (i.e. be righteous) with a holy God, not just about the fact that Gentiles should be allowed to eat with Jews as members of the one covenant people.

That's not to say that the fact that every Christian is saved on precisely the same basis should not have massive ramifications for ecclesiology and the unity of the people of God. I think Wright is on to something when he emphasises those aspects of justification that Reformed and Lutheran theology has traditionally downplayed. To put it another way, I think the Old Perspective is fundamentally right on the substantial points regarding justification, but the New Perspective has valuable insights to offer regarding the implications of the doctrine of justification for the Church's and the individual Christian's life. Our fellowship with other Christians, our being the church, our being the covenant people of God is, after all, on the basis of this justification we have all equally received through faith.

I think it was Howard Marshall who made the comment about accepting what the New Perspective affirms but having a problem with what it denies. I would certainly share that view.

This book and indeed all Wright's work demands to be read by any evangelicals serious about New Testament theology, particularly the New Perspective on Paul, because I believe there are insights here that are valuable and can be taken on board even by evangelicals who reject the central claims of the New Perspective.

For me personally, I think the central planks of the New Perspective are correct and we need to work to bring the Old and New Perspectives together rather than play them against each other. As I said, affirming what the New Perspective affirms without accepting what it denies.

What St Paul Really Said is thoroughly recommended reading for the thoughtful Christian.

The Beginning of Advent

We are now in the season of Advent, the beginning of the Christian Year. Once again we mark enter this season of looking forward to the coming of Christ in two senses. We prepare to celebrate his incarnation at Christmas when he was born as a tiny baby and we anticipate his second coming in glory to reign forever.

Earlier this year I wrote a piece on the Christian year. I decided back then that when this new year began I was going to consciously try to follow the Christian year in my own devotional life. I'm going to be using the lectionary readings as my guide as well as a couple of books: Living the Christian Year by Bobby Gross and Ancient-Future Time: Forming Spirituality Through the Christian Year by Robert Webber.

This advent my thoughts are going to focused on God's plan to bless the world through Abraham's descendants, in calling Israel to be the light of the world and the nation's failure to meet that calling, in the prophetic witness that God himself would act decisively to restore his broken creation and finally in God's sending his own Son to be the one faithful Israelite, the Messiah, who would fulfil the plan that Israel failed to fulfil, to be the prophet, priest and king that would redeem, rescue, rule and recreate the world.

I'm looking forward to the exciting spiritual journey ahead.

Some interesting links around the web 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2013/09/interview-with-n-t-wright-on-paul-and-the-faithfulness-of-god/

Two of my favourite New Testament scholars in conversation - Michael Bird and N. T. Wright - on Wright's forthcoming tome Paul and the Faithfulness of God.


http://www.webtruth.org/articles/calvinistic-issues-24/john-owen--double-payment-in-the-atonement-47.html

In this article, the author critiques John Owen's argument for the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.


http://theaquilareport.com/10-reasons-why-ministry-is-not-for-the-faint-of-heart/

A pastor tells it like it is on the hard side of being a spiritual leader and preacher.


http://christopherfisher.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/countering-open-theism/

Excellent piece by Christopher Fisher on what Calvinists would have to prove in order to prove open theism to be incorrect.

What's So Amazing About Grace

What's So Amazing About Grace
Philip Yancey
Zondervan 1997

I loved this book. I really loved this book. I suppose I am very late arriving at the party as the book is more than 15 years old and is now considered something of a modern classic. I can only say the reputation is well-deserved. Reading it was like a spiritual breath of fresh air.

The first thing to say is that the book is very easy to read. It is targeted at the average Christian; in fact at the average reader. Although it deals with the some of the most important of Christian truths it does so using not only language but a way of communicating that is both easy to grasp and very engaging for any reader. Rather than detailed exegesis of biblical texts or complex theological arguments, which let's face it can be off putting for people who are not theology geeks, Yancey mostly makes his points by telling a number of stories and anedotes. But then teaching by using parables has an impeccable Christian pedigree, doesn't it?

The main point Yancey makes is that grace - that most precious and uncontaminated of Christian concepts - ought to be at the very heart of the lives of individual Christians and of churches, but too often is missing. Grace is unmerited favour. Grace is treating people better than what they deserve. It is the attitude that God shows to sinners when he offers a saving relationship with them, and it is the attitude that Christians ought to show to others inside and outside the church. Yet it is often not there. So often Christians come across as narrow-minded, judgmental, moralistic and legalistic. Yancey uses the umbrella term "ungrace" to cover these kinds of attitudes.

Every church needs to think about its atttitudes and how it actually treats people. Just throwing the word "grace" around isn't enough. Just knowing the theological technicalities of salvation by grace is not enough. What's needed is the embodiment, the very incarnation of grace in people's lives. That is how Jesus lived. His life was the ultimate life of grace. It is what his followers are called to copy.

I can't see how any Christian would fail to benefit from reading this book. Go and get yourself a copy and be prepared to be encouraged and challenged in equal measure.

Looking at Yourself

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. (James 1:22-24)

I took a good break from blogging over the summer, partly on purpose, partly by necessity. Overall I enjoyed the summer very much, especially the time I spent with my wife and son and other family members. I had a great holiday on the Isle of Bute. I also had a couple of bad chest infections that put me into my bed and onto courses of antibiotics and having to use inhalers.

As well as these things going on, I've also felt this was a significant summer in my spiritual life as a Christian. 

One of the hardest things a person can do is take an honest look at themselves, especially when you look at yourself in the mirror of God's Word. I've always like those verses in the Epistle of James that talk about God's Word as a mirror in which we see ourselves as we really are.

It's not a comfortable thing to do. And it's probably not something that the Bible encourages us to do too often. Our "natural" position should be looking to Jesus and to those around us rather than looking inward. But it is healthy, I would suggest, to have a look at how you are doing spiritually every so often. When I do this, I always find it sobering. Even more so when the process is prompted by something someone else has said that make me really think.

This summer I've had to learn a hard lesson that sometimes I'm not as good at communicating clearly with people around me as I would have liked to think I was. I've had to go re-think some things and try to change how I approach conversations.

It's a slow and difficult to task to turn away from ingrained habits and ways of doing things - sometimes habits of a lifetime. It sometimes feels like turning around an oil tanker with a rather small rudder. But that's what the Bible means by "repentance" - it means turning around and doing things differently, even if the turning around isn't an instant 180 degree spin, but rather a slow turn towards the right direction. The important thing is the desire to change direction, not the speed of turn.

As we enter September, and in many churches programmes of activities begin again after a summer break, this is good time to have a spiritual checkup. How is your walk with God? How are things going with your friends and family? How are things looking in your church or fellowship? Is there anything God is calling on you to change in the days, weeks or months ahead?

Summer Days

Summer in the UK so far this year has been sunny and hot (which is not always the case overseas readers should note) and I haven't been blogging much. The lovely weather has seen me spend more time with my wife and son outdoors than in front of my computer. We've got to know quite a few of Glasgow's many beautiful parks this year on days out.

For a lifelong city dweller, this summer has brought me closer to nature than I can remember at any time for years, from all the spiders, flies and moths in the house from the garden to the little field mouse who ran into our living room the other night and then vanished again just as quickly. Plus there's all the trees and flowers that all look so vibrant in the sunshine.

Reflecting on all this, that God made this beautiful world and he made it to be our home, shows not only what a wonderful artist and designer he is. How write the Psalmist was when he wrote: "Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom." (Psalm 145:3)

Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part Two)

In my previous post I began to explore how evangelicals might respond to the General Assembly's decision to continue the path towards ordaining actively homosexual men and women into the ministry.

In this concluding post I want to continue my reflections on how we deal with those with whom we disagree regarding how to interpret the Bible.

There is a tendency in conservative evangelical circles to divide a mixed denomination like the Church of Scotland into "us" who believe in what the Bible says and "them" who don't. But if we're honest that's an oversimplification, is it not? The truth is rather more complex. Over the issue of homosexuality, those who would permit the ordination of practising homosexual ministers are actually composed of at least two broad groups.

First, there are those liberals who do not have as high a view of Scripture as evangelicals do. For them, the Bible is a testimony to God's people's experience of God down through the centuries. The Bible is therefore a fallible human document that reflects the times it was written in, but which may "contain" somewhere in it the actual Word of God, but presumably not in those parts that merely reflect the cultural background of its time. For this group, the Church is not bound by the Bible's teachings as such. This group likely regards contemporary attitudes towards homosexuality as more enlightened, more loving and dare we say more Christlike than the biblical prohibitions of the Old Testament and St Paul. I suspect that most "revisionist" supporters in the Kirk would broadly fall into this group. We could call this group the "liberal revisionists" for convenience.

But second, there is probably also a group who may have as high a view of Scripture as the Word of God as any other evangelical. This group accepts that what the Bible says is true and should be obeyed by Christians, yet rather than interpreting the biblical prohibitions as applying to all homosexual acts, they regard the Bible passages dealing with homosexual acts as merely condemning homosexual activity in certain specific contexts. For example, this group would see the Bible as condemning homosexuality connected to pagan worship and practices, as condemning homosexual rape, as condemning homosexual promiscuity, etc. Such an interpretation would leave the Bible at least silent on the question of same-sex acts within a committed, loving, consensual and monogamous context. This in turn would leave the possibility open that such relationships would not be against God's revealed will for people with a same-sex orientation. We might call this group the "evangelical revisionists" for convenience.

There is not much that can be said about the liberal revisionists. Liberals have been the majority in the Church of Scotland for probably a century or more. It would appear that there is still a liberal majority in the courts of the Kirk—certainly in the General Assembly if the recent votes are anything to go by. Like it or not, we evangelicals are in this kind of denomination and have been all our lives. We have learned to live with this group, share in what work we can, while not really being in meaningful fellowship with it.

The second group is more interesting. People in this group might believe 99% the same as any other conservative evangelical about the big issues - the authority of the Bible, about God, about Jesus, about the Holy Spirit, about sin and and about salvation. They differ from the majority on one point—they interpret the fairly scant references to homosexuality in the Bible not as general condemnations but as context-specific condemnations.

Those who believe this, in good faith, are not rejecting the Bible's teaching. They merely understand it differently than traditionalists do.

Perhaps we should not forget that the "revisionists" in one era become mainstream in another and then "traditionalists" themselves in another era. Just ask Luther and Calvin. And it was only a century and a half ago that mainstream evangelical writers defended African slavery, the subjugation of women, and openly anti-Jewish views, on the basis of biblical texts. Now, few if any mainstream evangelicals would take the same positions as Martin Luther on the Jews, Robert Lewis Dabney on slavery or Charles Hodge on women.
 
So how should we deal evangelicals in this second group, who do not interpret the Scriptures as imposing a blanket ban on homosexual acts even in the context of a same-sex marriage covenant? Conservative evangelicals differ with each other on a whole range of important issues including such important matters as:

• Spiritual Gifts
• Eschatology
• Baptism
• Communion
• Sabbath observance
• Church Government
• Women's Ordination

The list could go on to be a very long one!

We don't normally consider such matters as primary doctrines—we do not normally break fellowship over them when we disagree with other Christians.

The more evangelical revisionist position could be regarded as being on the same level as these other second order disagreements, and on that basis perhaps there can be fellowship with people holding these views. Our relationship with liberal revisionists will be different, but not because of the issue of homosexuality. Rather, the differences are over primary level doctrines and any break in fellowship should be over those primary doctrines, like denying Christ is the only way to God or that salvation is by good works.

Differences in views over Sabbath observance are directly relevant here. Those who insist on a strict Sabbath observance think the Bible is very clear on the issue—as indeed are the Presbyterian creeds—and for such people disobeying the Sabbath commandment is a clear sin issue. Those who do not believe the Sabbath commandments apply to Christians because the Sabbath is part of the Old Testament administration will do things on a Sunday that the others consider is sinful, yet they will be unrepentant about it and in fact refuse to accept it is a sin at all. Should those who accept the validity of the Sabbath laws for Christians refuse to regard those who do not as fellow Christians? After all, they are living in blatant and unrepented of sin. If the answer is no, then why should a different standard apply to those who do not regard a same-sex marriage covenant as sinful?

No doubt in the more strict parts of the Presbyterian world, a person who took a non-Sabbatarian view of the Lord's day would be barred from leadership, but I doubt that many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland would think this an issue worth leaving over. We simply agree to disagree, and each person is allowed to follow his or her own conscience in the matter.

I would like to suggest a similar approach may be possible between those who think the Bible condemns all homosexual acts in any context and those who think that such acts may be morally permissible in the limited context of a same-sex marriage covenant. The question is not whether a person agrees with you or I on every doctrinal or moral question, but whether that person loves God, trusts in Jesus Christ and seeks to follow his teachings as a disciple.

In closing, perhaps we need a timely reminder that our salvation does not rest on getting our doctrines or our ethical stances perfect. None of us are correct in all our views. We do our best to be work out what is right and trust in God to forgive us where we have gone astray. And God accepts us and loves us despite our failings. We are saved in Christ alone, by grace alone and by faith alone, not by our faith plus our views on homosexuality. And so for me, this issue is not a line in the sand.

Where do we go from here? I think those who are committed to the authority of the Bible on either side of this particular issue need to keep talking to each other. One side needs to make sure it is the Bible and not their feelings and tradition that are guiding them. The other side needs to make sure it is the Bible and not their feelings and contemporary opinion that are guiding them.

In the Church of Scotland context, we need to continue to work to guide the Church on the path we believe to be correct in dialogue with others and always showing the love of Christ to those who don't interpret the Bible the same way as us. I suggest that the single most important thing in this whole debate is that whoever wins it in the end makes their first and highest priority looking after and seeking the best for those on the other side.

Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part One)

This post and the next follows in the wake of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland's decision in May to continue on the trajectory of allowing at least some congregations - where the local leadership in the Kirk Session agrees to it—to induct practising gay and lesbian ministers as parish ministers. At the same time, the Kirk is maintaining as its "default position" the traditional Christian understanding that the covenant bond between a man and a woman in marriage is the only God-ordained sphere for sexual activity and that homosexual acts are contrary to God's will and therefore sinful, exactly in the same way as all heterosexual acts outside marriage are considered sinful.

Now, many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland are more than just saddened that the Church seems to be slowly but surely drifting from traditional Christian morality in this area. For them a line in the sand has been crossed here on this issue and it is time either to leave the Kirk now as a few others have done already or at least time to start concrete preparations for leaving in a year or two.

Now, supposing that the proposal does pass all remaining stages and becomes the Kirk's position. What then? What if the Kirk continues to adhere to the historic Christian position but allows individual congregations to depart from it if their conscience will permit it? Should that be an automatic trigger for everyone who disagrees with them to walk out of the Church of Scotland?

There are a couple of thoughts I would suggest we reflect on, in answer to this question, before we jump to any conclusions.

The first thing to point out, as I did in my letter to the Herald newspaper on 23 May, is that there is nothing fundamentally new revealed in this decision about the theological spectrum of views in the Kirk. It is misleading for people to talk about lines in the sand here. Evangelicals and liberals have co-existed in the Church of Scotland despite deep differences in their views on both doctrinal and ethical matters for a long, long time. There are liberal ministers and certainly members in the Kirk today (I think I am fairly safe in suggesting) who would deny such fundamental doctrines as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the Trinity as traditionally understood, the reality of sin, Satan or hell; there are those who teach salvation by good works and outright universalism (that all are saved), while others teach that all religions lead to God and many deny that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and so on and so on. In effect, there are people in the Church of Scotland right now, in membership, in leadership and in ministry who have views that evangelicals would spend our lives opposing with our very lifeblood.

Yet, evangelicals have never seen fit to walk away from the Kirk despite such views being tolerated within the Church of Scotland. We have separated ourselves and our congregations from such false teaching, while remaining within the organisation. Why then is the issue of homosexuality considered such a fundamental thing that it should be the line in the sand when outright heresies have been tolerated (and sometimes more than tolerated) within the Kirk for many years?

I have yet to see a satisfying answer to that most basic question. I have to say that if denominational separation from error or heresy is always right, then even if the traditional view of sexual sin had been upheld at the Assembly, no one who takes that line should have been able to remain, in good conscience, within the Kirk anyway. There are ministers who deny even the most basic tenets of the Christian faith according to Paul himself - that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead. If anyone can remain in a denomination where people can deny that without facing church discipline and removal from office, why then would the fact someone is gay or lesbian in leadership tip the balance towards separation? Compared to denying the resurrection, homosexual acts are small matters in biblical terms. We need to keep things in proportion.

Or perhaps it is merely because this would be an instance of the Church officially taking a position we would disagree with, whereas much of the liberal teaching is "swept under the carpet" of the "liberty of opinion" clause in the ordination vows? Perhaps, but that argument does not really wash. The Kirk's official positions on a number of points are also biblically questionable, for example the Kirk's official position on the nature of the Bible is hardly a ringing endorsement of evangelical Protestant doctrine! The Church has officially adopted non-evangelical positions on a number of issues over the years.

So we are then left with the impression that it is people's gut reaction to this issue that leads them to see it as such a big deal. If we can tolerate resurrection deniers in leadership but not gays, that tells us something about us and it's not a pretty picture.

All that has really happened is that two groups who disagree over what the Bible is have now found that disagreement surfacing over the question of the morality of same-sex sexual activity. The bigger disagreement was already there and both sides have lived with it for a century or more. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the Word of God written. Liberals, to a greater or lesser extent, believe the Word of God is only somewhere "contained" within the Bible. These two positions on the Bible have now been applied to the morality of homosexual acts within committed homosexual relationships and come to different conclusions.

If we walk away over this, we must do so in repentance for our own sin and the sins of our fathers and grandfathers in the faith who stayed within the liberal Kirk all these years and fought their corner, for if it is right to go now, then it was never right to be there in the first place—at least not in the last 100 years or so.

We have to tread very carefully here or it will merely look as if our true motivations are homophobic rather than theological or biblical.

(To be continued)

Pentecost

Today the Christian church celebrated Pentecost (also known as Whitsunday). The day celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Christian believers in power as recorded in Acts 2. Jesus promised that when he went away he would then send another "helper" (John 14:16).

The word used by Jesus was "paraclete" which is a rich word, difficult to translate by one English word. It means a helper, a comforter, a counsellor, a guide, an advocate, an encourager, an interceder, an uplifter. The meaning of the Greek word parakletos implies that the one helping and so forth gets right alongside the person being helped or comforted. It implies an intimate, close relationship. In the case of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Christian believer, he could not be closer to us, for the Holy Spirit dwells inside every Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14).

As I sat in church this morning, seeing a wide variety of nationalities present in the service, I couldn't help but imagine the impact of the apostles speaking in foreign languages and being understood by various nations, undoing the events of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) and signalling that God's Spirit and God's Word were now about to go out into all the earth to draw people to the Saviour.

And I gave thanks to God the Holy Spirit for coming like a rushing wind to Scotland over a thousand years ago. May the Holy Spirit come in power upon the Church of Scotland General Assembly this week for what will be a difficult and costly debate no matter what the Assembly decides. We all need his help, guidance and encouragement as much today as ever.

Ascension Day

We never fail to mark Christmas, Good Friday and Easter as Christians, but how many of us forget about the fourth leg of Christ's amazing salvation journey? Today is Ascension Day, when the church marks the fact that 40 days after his resurrection, Christ "ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty" (in the words of the Apostles' Creed). The event is recorded both in Luke's Gospel and in Acts.

The Ascension matters for a number of reasons including

1. It signals the end of his earthly ministry and his physical departure from this world. God the Father had lovingly sent His Son into the world at Bethlehem, and now the Son was returning to the Father.

2. It signified the ultimate success and complete triumph of his earthly work. All that he had come to do, he had accomplished.

3. It marked the return of his heavenly glory. Jesus' glory had been veiled during his sojourn on earth, with one brief exception at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) but now he is revealed in all his cosmic glory.

4. It symbolises his exaltation by the Father (Ephesians 1:20-23). The Son with whom the Father is well pleased (Matthew 17:5) was received up in honour and given a name above all names (Philippians 2:9).

5. It allowed him to prepare a place for us (John 14:2).

6. It indicates the beginning of a new work as High Priest making intercession for us (Hebrews 4:14-16) and being the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

7. It allowed him to send the Holy Spirit on his disciples (which happened 10 days later at Pentecost) as he promised. (Acts 2).

So let's celebrate the ascension of the Lord Jesus today.