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.