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.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, July 18, 2008
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).
Saturday, July 12, 2008
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...)
And my favorite paragraph in the book (Which corroborates what I've been learning about evangelism--two posts down):
This concludes Part I.
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.
Monday, July 7, 2008
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.
"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.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
