PURPOSE OF A LOCAL CHURCH?

When Kevin and I started looking towards the possibility of linking arms with Grace Harbor Community Church in Providence, RI we planned a final trip to meet with their elders. They sent us a handful of questions to be answered and sent back to them before we arrived--mostly about the role of the local church, elders, etc. I'm posting some of my answers since these are such central and important questions and deserve sharpening from any brothers or sisters reading this blog. For conscience sake I didn't use any resources (save the Bible) when answering, so surely, there is lots of room for improvement both in addition and clarity.

What is your understanding of the identity, focus, and purpose of the church?

I’m baptistic in my ecclesiology because I believe only Christians are to be baptized into the church. And so I believe the identity of the church is a local group of Christians, uniting together as the body of Christ on earth, being equipped and cared for through the office of deacon and spiritually shepherded, taught, prayed for, and led by elders, assembling together for the preaching of and submission to God’s Word in everything and the observance of the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, caring for one another’s souls and bodies and evangelizing to an unbelieving world for the ultimate purpose of glorifying our triune God.

The purpose and focus of the church is to be the attractive bride of Christ that God through Christ’s person and work purchased Her out of the world to be and is to reflect the heart and will of God as expressed clearly to us in the Bible and the New Testament epistles in particular.

COVENANT AND ESCHATOLOGY

For some fun reading before next semester I picked up Michael Horton's Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. His basic thesis is that the content of the Bible should determine the method for doing theology, rather than developing a prolegomenon before coming to the text.

Some notable quotes so far:

Furthermore, the covenant itself is stable, though hardly static; historical, though not historicist. The vertical "intrusions" keep redemptive history from being "one damned thing after another," while the horizontal stride keeps eschatology from being subsumed into some ahistorical event. The "new thing" is a true novum, yet not "wholly other." The new creation is both new and creation--that is, both that which transcends creation and that which renews and therefore has some considerable continuity with it.

Peter Berger as quoted by Horton says,

"In a culture where religion is functional both socially and psychologically, Chrsitian preaching itself ought to call men to a confrontation with the God who stands against the needs of society and against the aspirations of the human heart." We need to recover that sense so pervasive in other periods; namely, that even Christians do not know what they really need or even want--and that attending to their immediate felt needs may muffle the only proclmation that can a ctually satisfy real needs. Berger judges that "the more general personal consequence of the abandonment of theological criteria for the Christian life is the cult of experience...Emotional pragmatism now takes the place of the noest confrontation with the Christian message.

ROBERT REYMOND ON THE TIMING OF CHRIST'S INCARNATION

"When the time had fully come, that is to say, at God's appointed time--when the Jewish diaspora had spread throughout the Roman Empire and the Old Testament had been translated into Greek, opening the eyes of the Greek world to its theological power and beauty, when the pax Romana extended over most of the known world with great roads and the Greek language linking the empire of the Caesars and making travel and commerce possible on a scale formerly impossible, when Greek philosophical thought had atrophied into skepticism, offering no hope in human wisdom to improve the ancient world (1 Cor. 1:19-21), when the so-called civilized world as a result had sunk so low morally (Rom. 1:21-32) that even pagans were crying out for relief from the rampant immorality all around them--in keeping with the Old Testament 'promises, prophecies, sacrifices...and other types of ordinances..., all foresignifying Christ to come' (Westminster Confession of Faith, VII/v), 'God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law' (Gal. 4:4) as the Messiah and Mediator of the covenant of grace."

A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 545

Ps. This book is, in my humble opinion, the best Systematic Theology around. He's a presbyterian cat, so the chapters on baptism and church polity are off, but it is pretty helpful to see such a level-headed and clear cat propose such flat arguments for paedo-baptism and presbyterian church polity. Reading those chapters has made me feel even better about being baptist.

It's going for $23 (includes shipping) on abebooks right now if anyone wants to snag it.

ANTHONY HOEKEMA ON ESCHATOLOGY

"From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the present. The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but it is the medium of the Christian faith as such, the key in which everything in it is set...Hence eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine. Rather, the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, and of every Christian existence and of the whole Church."

HOLY PLACES

"Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed."

Westminster Confession of Faith 21:6

D. MARTYN LLOYD-JONES ON PERSEVERANCE

Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Welsh pastor in London in the first half of the Twentieth Century. His books (which are basically just his sermons) have helped me to read the Bible better. I would recommend anything with his name on it.

In his sermons on Philippians he notes the following:

"Thank God, my hope of that day of Jesus Christ and his glory does not rest upon my own will power or upon my own desire or understanding. It rests upon this fact that he would never have started the work if he had not decided to finish it...What Paul means (in Rom. 5:10) is this: if Christ died for you when you were an enemy and a rebel and hated him, if he died for you in that condition, how much more, then, will God keep and sustain and hold you, and finish the work by the love of Christ--it is unanswerable logic. The character of God guarantees the completion of the work."

MODE OF BAPTISM?

For Baptist churches the mode of baptism has been viewed as a very important part of the ordinance. By-in-large we believe that Scripture is clear enough that immersion--that is, submerging the candidate under the water-- (as opposed to effusion or sprinkling) is the proper way to be baptized. As a result, Baptist elders have encountered a handful of tricky theological and ecclesiological questions. For instance, when do you consider someone's previous 'baptism' as invalid and thus require a "rebaptism"?

EASY SITUATIONS:

1. He/she was baptized before conversion.
2. He/she believed the baptism was saving.
3. He/she was baptized by a non-Christian “church”.

In all of these situations I would say that his/her "baptism" (if the quotation marks haven't given it away) wasn't a genuine baptism at all. He/she should be baptized.


A DIFFICULT SITUATION

He/she was baptized as a believer by sprinkling as opposed to immersion. Here's a hypothetical situation. We have a girl named Libby Brighton who wants to join our Baptist church. She was baptized upon conversion in a PCA church by sprinkling. She had a proper understanding of the ordinance as a symbol representing a spiritual reality. Everything about her baptism fits the biblical description except for the mode. Should she be ‘rebaptized’?


MY REASONS TO SEE LIBBY'S PREVIOUS BAPTISM AS VALID

1. We wouldn’t say the Lord’s Supper is invalid simply because the mode isn't precise: grape juice instead of wine.

2. There is no EXPLICIT command in Scripture to be immersed--the Lord could have used more explicit language. We take our practice from what we consider to be very strong implicit evidence, from the physical accounts in the Gospels and Acts and the symbolism of baptism as going down into the grave and being raised with Christ. But even so, immersion isn’t explicitly commanded in Scripture.

3. She was baptized under the care and authority of her Gospel-believing elders. As a young believer she was submitting to her leaders, which in any case, we would say is the proper default (Heb. 13:17). I believe for this reason alone, this baptism was a true and genuine baptism with which the Lord was pleased.

4. There were baptisms in the first century when candidates were sprinkled because of a lack of water and these were seen as valid. Historically, immediacy has been given priority over precision of mode.

5. Out of all the details for a Christian baptism given in Scripture, mode seems to be the most inconsequential:
a. Baptized by a Gospel-preaching church under the authority of elders.
b. Had proper understanding of the ordinance as not saving, but symbolic of a spiritual reality
c. Was a believer when baptized
d. Baptized by immersion

6. A 're-baptism', even with an explanation could cause unhelpful doubt among the other members of a congregation.

7. Scripture seems to deal less severely with those lacking in knowledge: Luke 12:47-48, Matt. 11:20-22, James 3:1.

In my opinion Libby's situation is not preferable, but not enough to overturn a one-time ordinance. One caveat however: It is important to remember that conscience is key and while a good conscience doesn’t necessarily mean one shouldn’t be baptized again, a consistently guilty conscience over time would necessitate this.

CORRECTIVE CHURCH DISCIPLINE

I come to two different passages of Scripture teaching in detail on the process of church discipline: Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5. On a simplistic reading, the two don't seem to fit neatly together. Jesus in Matthew 18 outlines very clearly that a brother/sister shouldn't be excommunicated until three levels of intervention have occurred: A single individual approaches the brother, a group of 2 or 3, and finally, the entire local congregation. Only at that point should the sinner "be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 however seems (on a simplistic reading) to bypass both initial steps and moves directly to step 3: instant excommunication. Some would argue that Paul's 'bypass' is because this particular sin (a man sleeping with his father's wife) is in a different class than some other sins--namely because it was a 'public' and 'heinous/gross sin'. I don't think the text warrants this distinction. My reasons:

1. Matthew 18 is clear and didactic, whereas 1 Corinthians 5 is situational and relies in part on information that we aren't privy to (5:9's "I wrote to you...")--namely, a previous letter to this church. In any case, Paul's direction in this specific case when we aren't given all the details isn't reason enough to bypass the clear teaching of Jesus in Matthew 18.

2. Corrective discipline is a potentially disastrous tool. 2 Corinthians 2 says about a man who was under such discipline: "For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him." Corrective discipline is designed by the Lord to shame and sorrow the sinner. Therefore, this is one topic where local churches should be particularly careful in their proceedings.

3. Every other example of the process of discipline or potential discipline in the New Testament stresses these initial steps.

a) Revelation 2:20-21: "But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality."

The text is particularly helpful because this sin is the same kind as that of the man in 1 Corinthians 5--gross public and heinous sexual sin. However, John in this text makes it clear that he had given her "time to repent" and presumably would have discontinued the process of corrective discipline if she had. Important verse for this discussion!

b) 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15: "If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn his as a brother." (Next post will be on what it means to "have nothing to do" with "your brother"... Kind of confusing)

This instruction follows the commands of Paul in his first letter to the Thessalonians in which he says, "And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all" (1 Thess. 5:14) He also notes his public teaching from his last visit to them: "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). What we see in the case of these rebellious Thessalonians is that they had at least two previous rebukes/appeals by Paul and the Thessalonian Christians. There is more reason to believe that in this way the steps of Matthew 18 had been taken than not.

c) 1 Timothy 5:19-20: "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear."

Once again, there is no exception given which would lead to instant discipline. It is only when the offender "persists in sin" that discipline (in this case the public rebuke of an elder) takes place.

d) Titus 3:9-11: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Same as above.

4) Finally, it's instructive to see where Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, places Jesus' teaching on church discipline--between the parable of the lost sheep and the unforgiving servant.

18:10-14 is the parable of the lost sheep--the point being that the shepherd will leave the ninety-nine, symbolizing his willingness to do anything to gain this sheep back. 18:21-35 is Jesus' parable of the unforgiving servant--the point being that a Christian should forgive their brother 'seventy times seven times' and "forgive your brother from your heart."

These parables corroborate the teaching in the rest of the New Testament that a believer is never to delay in any way forgiveness to a brother or sister as long as he/she is repentant.

CANON QUESTIONS

A brother reminded me this week about the importance of having adequate answers to questions about our canon of Scripture. For instance, it's pretty intuitive to ask, 'How do we know that the Bible books in our Bible are the ones that are supposed to be there?' I looked at this questions about two months ago and found lots of help from a couple of Herman's--Ridderbos and Bavinck. Bavinck in Volume 1 of his Church Dogmatics (which is well worth the 27 bones it's going for on half.com) says,

"The canonicity of the Bible books is rooted in their existence. They have authority of themselves, by their own right, because they exist. It is the Spirit of the Lord who guided the authors in writing them and the church in acknowledging them." (I:401)

PSALM 51

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:1-5)

I have been so thankful for this Psalm. Basically, it's allowed me to take 'Repentant Scott' and compare it to 'Repentant David under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit'. I have been challenged and humbled by seeing the differences. Two stand out:

1. I have trouble keeping my sin "ever before me".
2. I have trouble realizing that in a very real way, the most real way in fact, my sin is against God and God alone.

Calvin's commentary on this Psalm has given me advice on both these fronts.

1. HOW DO I KEEP MY SIN "EVER BEFORE ME"?

"The more easily satisfied we are under our sins, the more do we provoke God to punish them with severity, and if we really desire absolution from his hand, we must do more than confess our guilt in words; we must institute a rigid and formidable scrutiny into the character of our transgressions."

From this passage of Scripture (and Calvin's commentary) and conversation this week with some dear brothers, I've realized that the best first step for me in learning true repentance is studying my sin, or as Calvin says, "instituting a rigid and formidable scrutiny into its character". I have to anticipate the excuses which I in my flesh will no doubt employ to get myself off the hook and I must leave no room for these lies. I am guilty of sin and my sin is heinous with heinous consequences, for those whom I've sinned against directly, my local church family, and myself.

2. HOW DO I BELIEVE IN MY HEART THAT MY SIN IS TRULY AGAINST GOD?

"But I conceive his meaning to be, that though all the world should pardon him, he felt that God was the Judge with whom he had to do, that conscience hailed him to his bar, and that the voice of man could administer no relief to him, however much he might be disposed to forgive, or to excuse, or to flatter...To one who is thus overwhelmed with a sense of the dreadfulness of being obnoxious to the sentence of God, there needs no other accuser."

Scripture certainly acknowledges that as Christians, we sin against our brothers and sisters. And the Bible gives us clear direction and command to reconcile those relationships with repentance and forgiveness, but Calvin's point (which I think is also Scripture's point) is that God is our ultimate judge--and when compared to human judgment, the latter seems arbitrary. Two sinful tendencies get in the way of me believing this: My fear of man and my lack of fear of God.

The good news is that the rest of this Psalm goes on to anticipate the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners--the Just for the unjust. And because I have placed faith in Jesus' person and work, I am seen as innocent in my Father's eyes. And not only that, but God by his Holy Spirit is actually making me into what He has declared me to be in Christ. The New Testament makes clear that this is motivation for acknowledging and battling sin--recognizing who I am in Christ.

GEORGE LADD ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES

"The one bond which brought his disciples together was personal relationship to his person. This set him apart from other Jewish leaders. The disciples of the rabbis found common ties in the rabbinic teachings, the Pharisees in their observances, the apocalyptists in their eschatological hopes, while Jews as a whole recognized a common bond in their Abrahamic descent and the covenant. The disciples of Jesus had no common bond other than the person of Jesus."

(The Presence of the Future, 247)

Ladd has reminded me once again that as Christians, we don't follow a system of thought or philosophy. We don't follow a particular set of ethical teachings. We follow a man--the Son of Man--Jesus Christ. This is why new believers can be justified by faith without really understanding the ins and outs of the doctrine. We aren't saved by a doctrine, but by a man.

Wright on Resurrection/Afterlife in the Old Testament

I've found some help in N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God--in particular his chapter on the development of 'resurrection/afterlife' in the Old Testament. An astute reader of the Old Testament notices that it seems to lack the emphasis placed on resurrection and afterlife found in the New Testament. In fact, in some parts of the Old Testament--the pentateuch, the history, and some parts of the wisdom literature--there seems to be no expectation of an afterlife at all! However there are some Psalms as well as parts of the latter prophets that mention the idea explicitly and some that aren't explicit, but at least leave room for it. Wright explains well the revelational progress of this idea through Israel's history.

His main contention is that even when God hadn't clearly revealed to Israel that there was an afterlife, he had given the Israelites categories to make sliding into this doctrinal belief very easy. Wright traces the development of Israel's idea from belief that:

1) When you die you're dead spiritually, physically, the whole nine yards.

TO...
2) When you die, you're still alive spiritually and can be spiritually blessed, or spiritually cursed.

TO...
3) When you die, if you are one of God's people, you will be raised from the dead in a physical body, i.e., resurrection.

Wright says,

It would be easy, and wrong, to see the hope for resurrection as a new and extraneous element, something which has come into ancient Israelite thinking by a backdoor or roundabout route. (121)

In other words, this is not a move away from the hope which characterized all of ancient Israel, but a reaffirmation of it. It is a reaffirmation, indeed, in a way which the hope simply for a blessed but non-bodily personal life after death (as perhaps witnessed by Psalm 73 and one or two other passages) would not be. (122)

We might suggest that the likely turning point in the sequence--the moment when somebody really begins to think in terms of human beings themselves actually dying and actually being given a newly embodied life at some point thereafter--is to be found in Isaiah's servant passages. (123)

The idea that God reveals Himself and His eternal plan progressively throughout redemptive history in the canon as opposed to all at once is the foundational idea for the discipline of biblical theology. It's interesting that B.B. Warfield basically argued the same way for recognition of God's triunity as Wright does here for belief in resurrection. Warfield said that although we don't have reason to think Israel believed in a Three-Person God, the Lord had at least prepared them with the main categories they would need--namely, that the way God revealed Himself to them was multi-faceted and yet, 'the Lord your God is one'!

WHAT SHOULD THE CHURCH DO? Part I

The distinction between individual Christians and the church is helpful in and of itself. For instance, if what I wrote below is true, this distinction will keep the church from what I consider to be a huge danger--namely, making pronouncements for her members (and her members' consciences) that aren't clearly spoken to in the Bible.

However, making this distinction shouldn't be our final destination, but more of an onramp--an onramp to a bigger issue. And that issue is this: It seems to me that many local churches are involved in pursuits for which the New Testament gives no precedent and further, these pursuits occur to the detriment of those which the New Testament does give precedent (a commanding precedent in fact!).

The way that these local churches (including their various associations and church planting organizations) argue for this faulty understanding is by appealing to Systematic categories and frameworks developed from human reason that they believe are implied in the text, but which, I think, are in fact contrary to clear and plain scriptural teaching.

THE INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIAN VS. THE CHURCH: A Helpful Distinction

Basically, the reason for the distinction (in my head at least) is to protect the consciences of individual church members. My logic:

1a. Each individual member is responsible in some way before the Lord for what his/her church teaches (both explicitly and implicitly). This is a congregational distinctive I know, but I see it in the Bible--Galatians with false teachers, Acts 6 with deacons, Matthew 18 and 1 Cor. 5 with discipline, etc.

1b. When a local church teaches on anything publicly--whether it's explicit teaching, or implicit through endorsing certain programs, 'causes' the church might be involved in, etc.--that church is speaking (in part at least) for her members.

2. Therefore it's safe for churches to teach on/endorse topics that are:
a) clearly discussed in the Bible or,
b) not so clearly discussed, but that require a stance in order to practically run a peaceful church (such as baptism or issues of polity).

3. The Bible talks about the Gospel. The Bible doesn't talk about specifics for how to take care of the 21st Century homeless in a democratic state (or to pick up one of Wright's pets, third-world debt)--it doesn't even come close.

4. Therefore, in order to protect the consciences of individual members of local churches--saints who are tied to these bodies and responsible for their teaching--a church, to the best of its ability, should be incredibly slow to teach on or endorse any idea that the Bible doesn't speak to at least implicitly.

Individual Christians however, can endorse lots and lots and lots of ideas that aren't explicitly/implicitly spoken to in the Bible. I've been under the care of elders who had drastically different thoughts on politics--fiscal policy in particular--and at one point even debated against one another on the floor of United States Senate. These men had very different perspectives on how Christians should solve this particular matter, but they both realized the Bible doesn't speak to it directly and therefore they could IN NO WAY make a decision on this issue binding on the consciences of their sheep, which is exactly what they would be doing if they had been representing their church.

PART II: Prolegomena

Any way you slice it N.T. Wright is an important figure in evangelicalism. He's a prolific author and speaker and, having been around for a while in both academic and popular settings, has an ever sprawling audience.

When most evangelicals talk about their nervousness with Wright they're referring to his thoughts on the doctrine of justification. From what I understand Wright is off-center on this issue--an issue that bears as heavily on the Gospel as any. Wright, in typical British evangelical fashion, gives himself to pacifism (in more ways than one!) and would like to stay above the fray, but the protection of this doctrine makes it worth picking the fight--a fight which Wright consistently characterizes as "mean".

However, his thoughts on "redeeming culture", seem to me at least, to be just as de-centered. These, while not as immanently dangerous as those on justification, will do serious damage if left unchecked. The combination of their palatable appeal with the lack of criticism Wright receives for them leads me to fear these ideas almost as much as those on justification (I may be reaching here).

The purpose of these posts (I'm assuming it will take several) is to interact with these ideas of Wright--ideas which I have no reason to believe will fall out of vogue any time soon. Currently my conscience is not burdened in characterizing his writings on this topic as confusing at best and dangerous at worst.

Points to keep in mind while critiquing Wright's ideas about redeeming the culture

1. N.T. Wright is Bishop of Durham in the Anglican Church and therefore also a member of the British House of Lords. If that sounds weird to American Christians it could be simply because, on this side of the Atlantic, we've grown up under a form of government that separates church and state. I would also attribute the perception of oddity here to good instinct. In any event, Wright's office in the church is tied to his participation in government, public policy, legislation, etc. Obviously, this will color his thoughts on these issues.

2. I've heard one brother give an Anglican definition of church as, "the plural word for Christian". This gets at what I think is a crucial distinction in any conversation about the Christian's role in politics--we must distinguish between a local church's responsibility as the church vs. an individual Christian's responsibility. The two are NOT the same! Wright assumes that they are.

3. Wright probably feels more freedom to publicly speculate on these matters than I do. That's not to say that he's not intellectually careful--he is. It is to say that Wright sees value in public theological speculation--not just in the academy, but also in the pulpit in ways that I don't.

If these points don't make much sense now, they will in conjunction with future posts.

CONTRA WRIGHT, ROMANS TELLS US HOW INDIVIDUALS CAN BE SAVED

Here's a helpful quotation from Brian Vickers' dissertation (supervised by Schreiner) answering the proposal by N.T. Wright and various others that in Romans, Paul is not talking about how individuals are 'saved'.

If by "soteriology" one means only 'conversion,' or a detailed discussion of the mechanics of God's salvation, then I agree with Hays and Wright and affirm that this text is not about "how one becomes saved." But saying that the text is not primarily concerned with soteriology is going too far. The presence of Abraham, a former idol-worshipper who became the patriarch of Judaism, argues that soteriology is a central part of this text. The larger context also argues for a concern with soteriology in this text through the uninhibited display of the sinful condition of humanity that has resulted in God's condemnation (1:18-3:20; 3:23), and Paul's linking of forgiveness and justification with the death and resurrection of Christ (4:25). The people of God are identified explicitly as those who believe in Christ who died under the just condemnation of God in their place for their sins (3:25). An absolute separation between covenantal and soteriological themes is unwarranted. The two themes exist in harmony."
(Brian Vickers, Jesus' Blood and Righteousness, 91n53).

NEITHER SURPRISED NOR HOPEFUL: An Interaction with NT Wright's Latest Popular Offering--Part I

I'm not really sure what to say about NT Wright anymore. If I follow the lead of trusted evangelical brothers then I should begin an entry like this with 'praise' for Wright. And for sure, there are lots of helpful sentences in Wright's works. But that's about as much as I can say. Wright has such a developed system for Bible reading and Christian experience that I can't really be faithful to his authorial intentions and at the same time commend any of his 'ideas'--just sentences and paragraphs...maybe some chapters.

I finished Surprised By Hope last week. This is the first book by Wright that I've read cover to cover and so, I am by no means an NT Wright scholar. But I have read several chapters from Simply Christian, What Saint Paul Really Said, and Resurrection of the Son of God, listened to about ten of his audio lectures, heard him lecture in person, and been part of a local church that, knowingly or not, endorses parts of Wright's system. I'm familiar with his main theses and was before I read his book. I was in fact surprised by very little.

The best chapter in the book is "The Strange Story of Easter" (4). This chapter is the safest in the book (IMHO), basically because it can stand alone, outside of Wright's tight-webbed system for understanding biblical Christianity. He does a fine job of giving evidence for the factuality of the resurrection. There are a few points where Wright's commentary shows his ideological hand and for this reason, I would say to anyone reading this chapter (as I would to anyone reading any NT Wright--a point to be discussed later), take the helpful sentences and do with them what is natural (and unavoidable)--interpret them through the lens of a clear reading of the Bible and the New Testament in particular. That being said, here are some sentences on evidence for the resurrection: (Hopefully readers of these quotations will find enough context to know what he's saying...)

"The disciples were emphatically not expecting Jesus to be raised from the dead, all by himself in the middle of history. The fact that they were second-Temple Jews and that resurrection was, as some have said, an idea that was in the air, simply won't account for the radical modifications they made in the Jewish belief or for the astonishing features of the Easter stories themselves." (60)

"There are, after all, different types of knowing. Science studies the repeatable; history studies the unrepeatable...Historians don't of course see this as a problem and are usually not shy about declaring that these events certainly took place, even though we can't repeat them in the laboratory." (64)

"If someone declares that certain kinds of events 'don't normally happen,' that merely invites the retort, 'Who says?' And indeed, in the case in point, we should note as an obvious but often overlooked point the fact that the early Christians did not think that Jesus' resurrection was one instance of something that happened from time to time elsewhere." (65)

And my favorite paragraph in the book (Which corroborates what I've been learning about evangelism--two posts down):

"We cannot use a supposedly objective historical epistemology as the ultimate ground for the truth of Easter. To do so would be like lighting a candle to see whether the sun had risen. What the candles of historical scholarship will do is to show that the room has been disturbed, that it doesn't look like it did last night, and that would-be normal explanations for this won't do...But to investigate whether this is so, we must take the risk and open the curtains to the rising sun. When we do so, we won't rely on the candles anymore, not because we don't believe in evidence and argument but because they will have been overtaken by the larger reality from which they borrow, to which they point, and in which they will find a new and larger home." (74)

This concludes Part I.

A THOUGHT ON THE ORIGIN OF GNOSTICISM

Gnosticism was an aberrant form of Christianity, perhaps the first heresy (at least the first we know of, I think). N.T. Wright summarizes in a broad stroke the belief of the 1st Century Gnostic:

"These children of light were like fallen stars, tiny pinpricks of light currently hidden within a gross material body. Once they had realized who they were, though, this knowledge (Greek gnosis) would enable them to enter into a spiritual existence in which the material world would no longer count."

Wright chalks up the origins of Gnosticism to the influence of Platonism on the church. Wright is brilliant and a brilliant historian, so I'll trust that platonic thought helped to nurture gnosticism. However, I do see Wright (perhaps due to other intellectual commitments to his brand of Christianity) as overstepping his bounds in saying that this heresy grew only only from platonic influence.

Couldn't this heresy have grown up, as most do, from taking an original Christian thought too far? Christianity contains the strange teaching that human beings are saved--that is, seen as innocent in God's eyes from all sin--not on the basis of doing anything (good behavior, making sacrifices, prayer, repentance, etc.), but by believing something. It really is a strange proposition...so strange that it's difficult to explain to the nonbeliever (and at certain points in one's life, to the believer). One is saved by believing certain events and a certain interpretation and application of those events. We're saved by believing something! Even Judaism of Jesus' and the early church's day didn't believe this. Second Temple Judaism (from what I've seen) believed individual Jews were saved on the basis of their election as the people of God + works and in particular, the work of repentance.

In it's context the idea of "belief unto salvation" (and especially belief unto salvation as opposed to works) was uniquely Christian. Maybe Gnosticism highlights this novelty. But then again, I'm no historian. Just a thought.

THOUGHTS AIMED TOWARD A MORE FAITHFUL SHARING OF THE GOSPEL

Brothers,

I'm hoping that your comments in response to this blog entry will help to sharpen my thinking on evangelism. I've told most of you, but in the Lord's sovereignty, I had a three hour Gospel-conversation with a Math major from Berkley about two weeks ago. Oddly enough, this encounter came on the heels of thinking/praying/searching the Scriptures/talking with Ann(i)e about evangelism.

Lately I've really questioned my approach to evangelism, which has basically been to try and get my hearer to think I'm cool and likeable and be sure that 'Scott would never believe anything that's crazy'. Once I think they think I'm cool enough, I tell them about the Lord and the Gospel and then...I stop. No call to repentance and faith, at least not one with any weight, pleading, etc.. I feel like this is the outcome of fear of man in my heart and a distrust in the Word of God as used by the Holy Spirit to change sinful people. I really feel like, in my evangelism at least, I'm a functional arminian.

So here are some thoughts on evangelism.



Broad Affirmations Concerning Evangelism (several of these, in principle at least, are from Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God"):


1. We should tell nonbelievers (and fellow brothers/sisters) what we think God would have them know that they do not currently know.

2. Every unbeliever intentionally distorts the truth (Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 1:18-2:16; 2 Cor 4:4).

3. Every unbeliever knows God (Rom 1:21) and doesn't know God (1 Cor 1:21, 2:14) at the same time.

4. Our arguments for the faith must use knowledge based on "fear of the Lord" and not "foolishness"--this dichotomy being found in Scripture.

5. We must make direct apologetic witness not to the unbeliever's empiricist epistemology, but to his/her memory of God's revelation and the methodology implicit in that revelation.

6a. The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity with the most active part (temporally) in evangelism: Rom 15:18-19; 1 Cor 2:4-5; 2 Cor 3:15-18; 1 Thes 1:5; 2 Thes 2:13-14.

6b. Our promise in Scripture is that the Holy Spirit will tie itself to God's Word...ergo, in evangelistic conversation we should make a beeline to Bible-talk (of course our particular words are 'tailored' to our hearer...of course!).

7. All arguments are circular to a degree--those for Christianity being no different--but there is a difference between 'narrow' circular arguments and 'broad' circular arguments. Both these being equal and depending on whom we're talking to, we should opt for the more fruitful option, which I think is the broad kind (but see #9 about the legitimacy of the narrow kind as well).

8. Scripture never argues for the existence of God; rather, the Bible states that He is clearly revealed in nature and in the hearts of men. I think this is true... Any pushback on the first part of that?

9. Scripture never rebukes childlike faith. In fact, I can think of few more beautiful dispositions towards God than that displayed by the new believer who lacks even a 'broad' circular argument for their faith (much less the arguments that evidentialists and classical apologeticians tout!), but simply believes the Lord because the Bible tells him/her to do it. I love it!!!!!

10. Because of #1, along with the fact that we are only messengers for the Lord--waiters that are just trying to get the food from the kitchen to the table without messing it up--there is a very real aspect of us talking "at" people as opposed to "with" them in evangelistic encounter. I say this because I'm not sure we can tell unbelievers what the Lord would have them know without a confrontational aspect to what it is we're saying(which is what I see in Acts, 1 Cor., etc.). This doesn't have to be prideful, pharisaical or selfish because we're not carrying our own words, but the words of another--the Lord. In keeping with authorial intent we should also carry His demeanor while speaking His words. And His is a demeanor of severe seriousness. "It is a gross insult to God, and a real disservice to men, to cheapen and trivialize the gospel by one's presentation of it." (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)

11. However, we must balance #10 with what Paul says in 2 Tim. 2:24- "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth..." Any practical suggestion (a hypothetical anecdote maybe) for what numbers 10 and 11 look like in tandem?

12. Creativity has its place in evangelism. I couldn't agree more with J.I. Packer: "Christ's command means that we all should be devoting all our resoureces of ingenuity and enterprrise to the task of making the gospel known in every possible way to every possible person. Unconcern and inaction with regard to evangelism are always, therefore, inexcusable." (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God)

13. The examples I see in Scripture (in 1 Corinthians in particular, but not exclusively) show Christians coming away from evangelistic encounters looking foolish, crazy, or both--the very adjectives I've strained so hard to avoid. "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of it power." (1 Cor 1:17)

14. The community of the local church is singled out in Scripture as a way unbelievers will know we are truly Christian. Therefore, we should bring nonbelievers to our meetings together.




What do you guys think about #5 and in particular the second part about an innate methodology? What about #10? These are the two that I wouldn't have thought about a month ago, am comfortable with for now, and think some of you guys might disagree with. If you don't disagree, help me think through how these principles should apply to my evangelistic encounters.