The Intolerance of Tolerance by D. A. Carson

The Intolerance of Tolerance, 

D. A. Carson, Paperback 186p, IVP

Don Carson has been reflecting on the issue of tolerance for a number of years. He touched on the subject in The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Zondervan, 1996 and returned to it in Christ and Culture Revisited (reviewed here), Apollos/IVP, 2008. In fact, Carson sees this volume as a supplement to Christ and Culture Revisited. In this book-length treatment he has the space to develop thoughts that could only be hinted at in his earlier works. As promised, here is my review. 

Carson’s basic thesis is that the meaning of tolerance has changed in the last few decades. Tolerance used to mean putting up with views with which we might strongly disagree. More recently tolerance has taken on a new aspect, involving the acceptance of all views as equally valid.

The old tolerance involved a commitment to truth as well as a willingness to allow people with whom we disagree to say what they think. The new tolerance barely acknowledges that there is any such thing as truth.   Accordingly, it is regarded as the height of intolerance to suggest that one’s views are right and others are wrong. Such “intolerance” simply should not be tolerated.  

As a con-coercive faith, Christianity sits comfortably with the older understanding of tolerance. The new tolerance, however his highly problematic because we believe in truth, the truth of God’s word, revealed supremely in Jesus Christ.

Carson details the intolerance of the “new tolerance” when it comes to the worlds of government, education, the law, the media, “gay rights”, and the Christian faith. His examples are drawn from incidents in the USA and the UK. In an increasingly secular age faith-based values are being squeezed out of public life.

In a final chapter the writer suggests some ways ahead when it comes to responding to the “new tolerance” from a Christian standpoint. His “Ten Words” call for a robust confession of the truth and civility in public discourse.

This timely book is highly recommended.

* Reviewed for Protestant Truth

From the Resurrection to His Return by Don Carson

From the Resurrection to His Return: Living  Faithfully in the Last Days,

by Don Carson, Christian Focus, 2010, 48pp.

How should Christians live in the last days? As Carson points out by "last days" the Bible does not  simply mean the period immediately before the Second Coming, but the whole epoch between the resurrection of Christ and his return. In other words the question is, how should Christians live now in the time between the  accomplishment of salvation and its full consummation? Thankfully, the Bible does not keep us guessing on this point. The apostle Paul addresses it directly in 2 Timothy 3:1-4:8. And it is to this portion of Scripture that Carson directs our attention in this little book. 

In the "last days" Christians have to live in a world that has been corrupted by sin. We will face false teachers who will endeavour to dupe the faithful. Let us be under no illusions, believers can expect persecution and opposition from the world. In such an environment Christians need to choose good spiritual mentors who will model what it means to follow Jesus authentically and with godly integrity. We need to hold fast to the Scriptures that will point us to Jesus and show us how to live out the gospel. In addition we have been called to live contagious Christian lives, holding out the Bible's message of salvation to lost men and women, boys and girls. 

With great clarity and simplicity Carson explains, illustrates and applies the lessons of this key passage of Scripture on living faithfully in the last days. An ideal book for Christian young people as they seek to  live for Jesus in today's world. More mature believers will also find food for thought here. If young believers need mentors, it is for us to be able say,  "Imitate me as I also imitate Christ". (1 Corinthians 11:1). Now there's a challenge.

Special Offer

Our friends at 10ofthose.com  have a  great offer specially for Exiled Preacher readers. Quote "Exiled Carson" when emailing your order to sales@10ofthose.com and you can get this excellent little title for just £2.80 a copy (inc. p&p) or £20 for a pack of 10 (inc. p&p). Go on, you know it make sense. 

2009 Westminster Conference Report (2): Don Carson on Calvin as commentator and theologian

Calvin as commentator and theologian
Don Carson

Carson is famed a New Testament scholar rather than a Calvin specialist. As he approached his subject he reminded us of the words of the 'famous American theologian', Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations." But he suggested coming from his specialism he might be able to offer some fresh perspectives on the matter in hand.

Introduction

Calvin was remarkable in that he was a systematician and a Bible commentator. Today's commentators are not often systematic theologians and many systematicians are not too hot on biblical exegesis. Much of what passes for systematic theology today is in fact historical theology where the views of figures from the past are compared and contrasted. Some systematics is more akin to philosophical theology, others give attention to prolegomena, but there are few biblically informed systematic theologies. Calvin however was a systematiser in the Institutes and a prolific biblical commentator. The Institutues and the commentaries fed off each other. In his preface to the Institutes, Calvin made it clear that his systematic work and the commentaries needed to be read together. He did not dilate on doctrinal points in his commentaries because he had dealt more fully with theological issues in the Institutes. As the Institutes expanded from the modest 1536 edition to its 1559 definitive form, it is possible to trace the impact of Calvin's exegetical work on his overarching theological system.

The term 'Biblical Theology' was first used in 1604 of a book full of proof texts for Lutheran orthodoxy. By the 18th century Biblical Theology denoted the study of the theology of the Bible in historical sequence. Under the influence of the Enlightenment, Biblical Theology fell under the spell of the history of religions school of thought. Today Biblical Theology tends to focus rather narrowly on the theology of John, Luke, Peter or 'Q' rather than looking at whole Bible Biblical Theology. Calvin was a 'whole Bible biblical theologian' and a systematic theologian.

Calvin criticized both Melanchthon and Bucer's approach to writing commentaries. 1) In his commentaries Melanchthon gave attention to the theological loci found in the text rather than the whole textual unit. 2) Melanchthon's loci were determined by Aristotelian philosophy. He did not follow the flow of the biblical text. Calvin's expositions followed the text wherever it led. 3) In Bucer we find both the loci approach and an exegesis of the text, making his commentaries massive, unreadable tomes. Calvin aimed at 'clear brevity' in his commentaries. Many of his commentaries were transcripts of his lectures on the Bible. He dealt with the loci in the Institutes.

The development of Calvin's thought can be noted as the Institutes expanded over the years. Material was added to sections on the knowledge of God and ourselves, justification, repentance, the likeness and dislikeness of Old and New Testaments, predestination, providence, the Christian life and monastic vows. His exegetical work influenced and enriched his treatment of these subjects.

Case Studies

Genesis 1 & 2

In the 1536 Institutes there is a lengthy discussion of the image of God under the heading of the knowledge of God and ourselves. In his Commentary of Genesis, he gives scant attention to the image of God.

Genesis 1:2 & 26

From the start the Institutes was thoroughly trinitarian, but Calvin was cautious about seeing the Trinity in the text of Genesis 1. In his commentary he does not draw trinitarian conclusions from the plural divine name Elohim or the use of "us" in Genesis 1:26. He knows very well that God is Trinity, but did not wish to dump his wider theological conclusions into every text of Scripture. Calvin was accused of being a Judaizer because of his reluctance to read truths only fully revealed in the New Testament back into the Old.

Calvin was a master of grammatico-historical exegesis. He eschewed Luther's more explicitly Christological approach to the Old Testament, refusing to read the Old Testament anachronistically.

Genesis 3

In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin spoke of the cancellation and effacement of the image of God due to the fall. As his work expanded he gave more attention to the matter of living for righteousness, with large a sections of Book III of the 1559 Institutes becoming in effect "A Little Book on the Christian Life". He has little to say about this in his commentary on Genesis 3.

Ten Commandments

Calvin wrote a Harmony of the last four books of Moses, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Here he follows a more loci-based approach rather than straight exposition. He gives a more lengthy discussion of the purpose of the law than we find in the Institutes. Unlike in his Harmony of the Gospels, his work on the Pentateuch does not follow the original order of events. The order is changed for the sake of theological emphasis. This more complex approach is partly due to the fact that the work was written rather than being based on his lectures.

In the Harmony his treatment of Exodus 20:1-17 is very much like that of his exposition of Deuteronomy 5 in his commentary on the last Book of Moses. But he comments on Exodus 20:18 first in order to set the scene. In the Harmony Calvin was attempting to provide a biblical theology of the Pentateuch.

1 Peter 2

In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin argued that there are three marks of a true Church, the right preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. Thereafter, while he emphasizes the importance of discipline, only the Word and sacraments are mentioned as the marks of the church. Calvin was willing to adapt his material for the sake of emphasis.

1 Corinthians 1

In the categories of systematic theology, 'justification' is a once-for-all forensic declaration that a sinner is right with God by faith in the finished work of Christ. 'Sanctification' is defined as the progressive transformation of the believer. Calvin recognised that sanctification does not always carry that meaning in the Bible. Paul described the Corinthians as "saints", 1 Corinthians 1:2. But as the rest of the letter shows, that does not mean that they were living holy lives. Calvin saw that in this case sanctification simply meant being set apart to God. In a similar way, the instruments used in the temple were described as "holy", without implying moral change. Calvin did not use the later language of definitive or positional sanctification in contrast to progressive sanctification. But he was aware that the discourse of systematics is often different to the vocabulary of the biblical text. We need to be sensitive to this too. In systematic theology, we speak of the 'effectual call' to salvation, but in the Synoptics 'call' means invitation. It is in Paul that 'call' means 'effective call'. Philippians 3 is all about progressive sanctification in the sense intended by systematic theology, but the word 'sanctification' is not used once. Preachers need to be aware of the differences between the discourse of systematics and the way language is used in the text of Scripture, so that we do not simply read the categories of systematic theology into the Bible.

Those who read a lot of systematic theology need to compliment that study by reading commentaries that give serious attention to the text of Scripture. Those who read lots of commentaries also need to engage with systematic theology to gain a holistic and coherent view of biblical truth. Biblical theology helps systematic theology to consider texts in their proper redemptive-historical setting. Systematic theology helps biblical theology to locate individual texts in the context of the whole counsel of God. The fact that Calvin was a fine systematiser and a model of clear and concise biblical exegesis makes his God-given gifts seem all the more remarkable.

Discussion

The ensuing discussion mainly ranged around the issue of Christ-centred hermeneutics. Is Calvin Christ-centred enough in his Old Testament commentaries, especially compared with Luther? Carson said that Calvin got it right. When we take his ministry as a whole, he was thoroughly Christ-centred. But he did not read Christ into every Old Testament text. Carson argued that a simplistic "this points to Jesus" approach to the Old Testament is unhelpful. For example, Psalm 69, quoted several times in the Passion Narratives is firstly about David. We understand it as Messianic due to God's covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, and the expectation of a Davidic Messiah in the prophets - Isaiah 9:6-7 etc. We need to show how the Old Testament Scriptures speak of Christ by making these redemptive-historical links clear. Calvin did this. But still some were unhappy with the apparent lack of Christ-centeredness in Calvin's OT commentaries. His work on Genesis was cited as a case in point. This is also a complaint that might be levelled against many contemporary conservative Old Testament commentaries. The text is expounded in accordance with the rules of grammatico-historical exegesis, but very seldom is an attempt made to show how the passage points to Christ. This is out of kilter with what Jesus said about his place in the Old Testament, Luke 24:46-47 and also 1 Peter 1:10-12. On its own, a grammatico-historical approach to the Old Testament is not sufficient for the Christian expositor. We also need to be sensitive to the redemptive-historical and Christological pattern of biblical revelation.

Don Carson's Love of God trilogy free online

We have been discussing the doctrine of Scripture in some of our recent Bible Studies. I asked what people had found helpful in their personal Bible readings. One friend said that he uses the Robert Murray M'Cheyne Bible Reading Plan that takes its users through the whole Bible in a year, reading the Psalms and New Testament twice. He also suggested that we try Don Carson's 'For the Love of God', a set of notes based on the M'Cheyne scheme. I've used the M'Cheyne calendar for many years, but I don't have Carson's notes. So, I was pleased to note that Volumes One and Two of 'For the Love of God' and 'The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God' are now avalible online for free:

For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God’s Word, Vol. 1. (Crossway, 1998)
For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God’s Word, Vol. 2. (Crossway, 1999)
The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Crossway, 2000)

H/T Tony Reinke. Check out his blog, Miscellanies for more Carson freebies.

Christ and Culture Revisited by D. A. Carson

Christ and Culture Revisited by D. A. Carson,

IVP/Apollos, 2008, 243pp

How should Christians view their relationship to culture? The classic response was formulated by Richard Niebuhr in his still influential Christ and Culture, 1951. He suggested five possible ways of modelling the interface between Christ and culture, 1) Christ against Culture. This position set Christ in opposition to culture, emphasising the falseness of the world and the need for believers to adopt a hostile stance to to the values and achievements of society. This is the Fundamentalists' preferred model. 2) The Christ of Culture suggests an altogether more cosy relationship between Christ and culture. The culture is seen as an expression of the imminent presence of Christ in all men. Gnostics and theological liberals tend towards this viewpoint. However, the uniqueness of Christ as set forth is biblical revelation is often compromised and the seriousness of sin minimised. 3) Christ above Culture acknowledges the uniqueness of Christ, but attempts a synthesis between Christ and the culture as seen in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. He sought to integrate philosophy and theology, law and gospel into one grand system. Aquinas provided the intellectual underpinnings for medieval Christendom, where Christ and culture were unified (at least in theory). As has been pointed out, option three runs the risk of institutionalising the gospel, and conflating the Kingdom of God with the prevailing culture. Lutherans have proposed a more dualistic model: 4) Christ and Culture in Paradox. Luther knew full well that all human culture has been corrupted by sin. But he was also aware that this is God's world in Christians which have been called to live for his glory. The believer simply has to cope with the tensions of this situation, which will remain unresolved until the consummation. This paradoxical stance has led to cultural conservatism amongst some Lutherans. Evils such as slavery or the rise of National Socialism have been viewed as symptoms of the unavoidable tension that exists between Christ and the kingdom of this world, and left unchallenged. Then we come to 5) Christ the Transformer of Culture. According to Niebur, this option is in keeping with certain strands of biblical teaching and is the preferred option of Augustine and the Reformers. However, at least as Niebur understands it, this model tends towards the universal transformation of culture by the power of Christ. The problem is that in this construction, the distinction between the church as the people of God, and the world that lies under his judgement has been eroded. Yes, Christians may and should have a transformative effect upon a society, but there will be no total cultural renewal this side of the new creation.

Carson criticises Niebuhr's "five model" approach on a number of grounds. Apart from option 2, all of his models have some basis in Scripture. They are not to be set against each other as competing options. That way lies reductionism. Also, some of his models may be more applicable than others in certain cultural situations. The Bible has a positive view of the state and its powers (Romans 13), but Scripture also knows that the state can become an agent of demonic oppression (Revelations 13). Believers in the West will be aware of the many paradoxes that exist between Christ and culture. But we are also in a position to try and effect cultural change through the democratic process. For Christians living under radical Islamic regimes, where persecution is rife and cultural transformation seems pretty unlikely, option 1 provides the most relevant model. Bearing all this in mind, we are not entitled to elevate any single one of Niebuhr's models as the only option that is open to Christians in every given situation.

What then does Carson propose in place of Niebur? He suggests that we should view the Christ/culture relationship in the light of the great turning points of redemptive history namely, Creation and the Fall, Israel and the Law, Christ and the New Covenant, and A Heaven to Be Gained and a Hell to Be Feared. God created this word and declared it very good. Human beings are God's image bearers with a responsibility to govern and care for the created environment. But we sinned against God and brought suffering and death into the world. The essence of sin is idolatry, the attempt to de-god God and put man in his place. We deserve nothing but his judgement and wrath. But God did not abandon this fallen, rebellious world. He still upholds all things and showers the human race with his good gifts. This means that while all human cultures are deeply affected by sin, they are not altogether devoid of good things as a result of God's common grace. But beyond "common grace" God has chosen to bring the blessing of saving grace to the nations. He entered into a covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants, the children of Israel. Israel was constituted as theocratic nation subject to God's law.

The promise of the Abrahamic covenant was ultimately fulfilled in the coming of Christ, the incarnate Word of God. By his, life, death and resurrection, Christ has inaugurated the kingdom of God. Unlike Israel, the church is not a theocratic nation. The church comprises the people of God who have been gathered out of all nations. This poses a question for the relationship between the Christian and the state. How should followers of King Jesus relate to the powers that be? Jesus himself addressed this issue saying that we must, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21). Caesar's power is not ultimate. He cannot take the place of God. But the state has been ordained by God to keep law and order in society and Christians must respect this fact (Romans 13:1-7). While we aught to be good citizens and work for the benefit of society, we know that there will be no earthly utopia this side of the consummation. We have to live with the tensions characteristic of the last days where the kingdom of God has come but has not yet been fully realised. Jesus' kingly rule will be contested until he returns and only then will every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord.

Carson argues that viewing the Christ/culture relationship from the standpoint of the key stages of biblical theology will give us a robust and adaptable way of handling the subject. His approach is rooted in the non-negotiables of Scripture and is flexible enough to be applied to a whole range of cultural situations. While Niebuhr's models may be of some value, no single one of them may be accorded canonical authority and some are only of use in particular cultural settings.

In the remainder of the book Carson uses his redemptive historical grid to reflect on a whole range of issues. Refining Culture and Redefining Postmodernism are discussed in chapter 3. Secularism, Democracy, Freedom and Power are given the Carson treatment in chapter 4. The relationship between Church and State is further probed in chapter 5, before the book concludes with a summarising chapter On Disputed Agendas, Frustrated Utopias and Ongoing Tensions. Carson writes on all these subjects with great insight and understanding. He mainly has the American situation in mind, but is also aware of what is happening in the UK, Europe and the developing world. He challenges the hardline secularist vision of culture, found all too often in the West which attempts to push the Christian faith to the sidelines of society. With this in mind, Carson attempts to set out a scriptural account of the relationship between church and state. The distinction between church and state in the New Testament suggests that the church should not be established as the religious arm of the state (the Church of England should therefore be disestablished - see here). But this does not mean that the Christian faith has no role in the public square. Jesus Christ is Lord of all. While his Lordship may be contested, believers have been called to bear witness to Christ in every area of life.

In this book Carson helps us to think through the often difficult relationship between Christ, his followers and culture. He makes a helpful distinction between the task of the church in fulfilling the Great Commission and the role of the individual believer who may engage with the culture on a whole range of levels including politics, the arts and social reform. Ever the careful scholar, Carson interacts critically with a wide range of authors from Augustine to Hauerwas and Derrida to Kuyper. His proposals avoid the extremes of Fundamentalist rejection and Liberal accommodation. We must endeavour be faithful to the Lord Jesus and "seek the good of the city" until he comes to make all things new. Carson doesn't tell us whether we should like Coldplay or Chopin, though. I suppose we'll have to work that one out for ourselves.

Don Carson on "What is Evangelicalism?" (2)

Carson divided his exposition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 into eight defining words and five clarifying sentences. This gospel, he argued forms the material principle of evangelicalism. See part 1 (in the post below) for introductory matters and the "eight defining words". Now my report continues with the "five clarifying sentences" and some comments on the rest of the day's proceedings.

1. This gospel is normally disseminated through proclamation.

This is the message that Paul preached to the Corinthians (15:1). Preaching is the most appropriate way of disseminating the truth because the gospel is an announcement of good news. The message of the King is to be heralded by his servants.

2. This gospel is fruitfully received in authentic persevering faith.

The Corinthians received the gospel and were saved so long as they continued in it (15:1 & 2). Paul was concerned that they did not move from the gospel that he had proclaimed to them. This is why he gave serious attention to their problems with the resurrection in this chapter (vs. 11 & 12).

3. This gospel is properly disclosed in personal self-humiliation.

The gospel humbles sinners to the dust and makes us honest and repentant about our sin. Paul saw himself as the least of the apostles because he was the last eyewitness to Jesus' resurrection and because he had persecuted the church. He was what he was as a believer and apostle by the grace of God (15:8-10). The gospel subverts human pride and self-reliance. We are saved by Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone - glory to God alone.

4. This gospel is asserted to be the central confession of the whole church.

Time and time again in this epistle, Paul appealed to the fact that this gospel was believed in all the churches (4:17, 7:17, 11:16, 14:34). Also, this is what was preached everywhere by all the apostles (vs. 11). We should hold to true gospel ecuminicity and catholicity. Beware of the lust for endless doctrinal innovation.

5. This gospel is boldly announcing the contested reign and inevitable victory of Jesus the King.

All of God's sovereignty is mediated through Christ. All power in heaven and earth is given to him (Matt 28). He is the world's true Lord (Philippians 2). His reign is contested. He has enemies - (1 Corinthians 15:25). But his triumph is certain (15:28).

In the light of this gospel we are to be "steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (15:58). The gospel is cognitive and propositional, but it works itself out in the moral and spiritual life of the believer. The gospel determines everything in the life of the church. In terms of 1 Corinthians, it is the announcement of God's wisdom - chapters 1 & 2. It unites divided churches, 3 & 4. It demands holiness and church discipline, 5 & 6. The gospel speaks to marriage and singleness, 7. It resolves disputes about adiaphora like food, 8-10. This message defines male-female relations, 11. The Lord's Supper is focuses on the gospel of a crucified Christ, 11. The gospel is the context in which the church exercises the gifts of the Spirit in Christian love, 12-14.

Nothing should be allowed to displace the gospel. This is what makes us evangelicals - people of the evangel. Social reformers like Wilberforce were "prophetic from the centre" because their social activism was the outworking of their passion for the gospel. We must hold to the formal principle of Scriptural authority and the material principle of gospel truth.

This presentation of the theological basis of evangelicalism spanned two one hour morning sessions. Me and a few of my friends headed to Carson's table to eat our buffet lunch. We plied him with questions about the doctrine of the church and the importance of systematic theology. I asked him what he made of Vanhoozer's theodramatic proposals. He was aware of the discussions between Vanhoozer and Paul Helm over this matter and answered very diplomatically! After lunch, Carson changed his style. He was more conversational and anecdotal. He discussed several issues that arose from his earlier presentation.

Liberation Theology

Carson chose Liberation Theology as an example of what happens when the norm is shifted from the Biblical gospel. In LT, the norm is not the Scripture as a whole, but the exodus event understood as liberation from political oppression. The exodus is chosen as the theological norm because of the present-day social context where the poor are oppressed. But in Scripture, the exodus event is interpreted in the light of the gospel - Christ's exodus (Luke 9:31). In Christ we are liberated from sin, death and hell. Not that we are to be unconcerned about poverty and oppression, but we are to be prophetic from the centre.

World vision

Carson drew on anecdotes from his global ministry to urge us to be world-Christians. We need to be aware of global trends. Christianity is growing in every continent apart from Europe. The birth rate among indigenous Europeans is falling, while the birth rate among immigrant Islamic communities is increasing. This will present challenges in the future.

How evangelicals relate to other church traditions

He explored ways in which evangelicals can work together in ventures that transcend ecclesiastical differences. The gospel is what counts. Deviation from the gospel brings the apostolic anathema (Galatians 1). The gospel is our final authority. Even the apostles were subject to the gospel - Peter was rebuked by Paul because he did not walk according to the truth (Galatians 2). But truly evangelical Christians can and should work together for the good of the gospel.

Is the Reformation Over?

Carson asked if anyone in the congregation had read Mark Noll's book. Only yours truly raised his hand (see my review here). He was critical of Noll's proposal that the major differences between evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism have been resolved. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church still differs radically from the Biblical gospel of the Reformers on matters like justification by faith alone. Carson promised that an in-depth review of this book would be published soon on thegospelcoalition.org. I've just checked the site and it is still a work in progress. Should be a useful resource when it gets going.

The last afternoon session was a Q&A. It was not taped so the Don could be a bit more unguarded in what he said. Maybe he didn't count on the Exiled Preacher being present to spill the beans in cyberspace! But I'll limit myself mainly to the questions that were raised because it would be a shame if men like Carson had to watch every word for fear of their comments being reported on the net.

Questions were asked on Is the Reformation Over?, the gospel and the church, Tom Wright and the new perspective on Paul, the Anglican doctrine of the church, Emerging Church (DAC confessed that his book on that subject was now out of date, prompting some wag to ask for his money back), homosexuality (he said that while we may not want to pick a fight over this issue, homosexuality may become a test-case for faithfulness to Scripture as indulgence sales were the tipping point at the Reformation) and gospel ecumenism.

In all, yesterday was a wonderfully stimulating and encouraging time of ministry and fellowship. Carson should some to the south west of England more often!

Contact St. Bartholomew's Church (here) for info on CD's.

Don Carson on "What is Evangelicalism?" (1)

Today I attended a seminar led by Don Carson on What is Evangelicalism. It was held at St Bartholomew's Church, Bath under the auspices of Bath Word in Action. Here's a report of what he had to say:

Methodology

Trying to define evangelicalism is a complex affair. The word can mean different things in different countries and cultures. We need to bear that in mind. In addition, there have been a number of approaches to the task of defining evangelicalism. Some employ a sociological method. The views of all who call themselves evangelical are collated and synthesised to come up with the main features of evangelical belief and practice. Others prefer a more historical approach, such as David Bebbington in his well known Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. On the basis of his historical analysis, Bebbington proposed four defining features of evangelical Christianity, conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism.

Carson discussed whether we should employ a boundary-based or a centre-bounded perspective on defining evangelical beliefs. The first category clearly excludes all who fall outside of the clearly-defined boundary, while the second insists on harmony in the centre, while allowing for differences on the outer-edges of belief. He prefers centre-bounded evangelicalism.

Rather than try to define evangelicalism sociologically or historically, Carson proposed a Biblical and theological approach. He set out the formal principle and material principles that govern evangelical theology.

I. The Formal Principle

This, quite simply is the authority of Scripture. Holding the Bible as God's inspired and infallible Word is no late evangelical invention. The Bible's own self-witness as well as the testimony of the church throughout history acknowledges the unique authority and reliability of Scripture. This "norming norm" must be what defines evangelical or gospel Christianity, not sociological or historical factors. But the formal principle is not sufficient on its own, which brings us to...

II. The Material Principle

This is nothing less than the gospel to which Scripture bears witness. Carson focused our attention on 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 to set out the essential components of the Biblical evangel. He did this using eight defining words and five clarifying sentences. I will simply give his headings with a little comment. This, according to Paul is what is of first importance - the gospel which he proclaimed of Christ crucified for our sins, buried and raised from the dead.

1. The Gospel is Christological

Wherever we look in the New Testament, Christ - his Person and work are central. Christ died and was raised the third day. He has been appointed the Last Adam and the world's true Lord.

2. The Gospel is Theological

Christ died for our sins. Sin is a theological category because God is always the most offended party when sin is committed. This takes us back to the fall and forces us to face up to God's wrathful response to sin. Carson traced the theme of God's judgement through Scripture, culminating in the apostolic proclamation that God will judge the world through the risen Jesus (Acts 17). Any account of the gospel that minimises sin and God's wrath is badly deficient. Without this backdrop we cannot understand Christ's propitiatory work.

3. The Gospel is Biblical

Christ died, was buried and raised according to the Scriptures, Paul insisted, which brings us back to our formal principle. It is the Biblical gospel that counts.

4. The Gospel is Apostolic

In the passage, Paul refers to the apostle's eyewitness testimony to Jesus' resurrection. He appeals to his own apostolic proclamation that was based on his sight of the risen Christ "as one born out of due time". The Corinthians received an apostolic gospel "so we preached and so you believed." The apostles teaching is normative for the church.

5. The Gospel is Historical

Not in the sense of a "natural" event in the historical process, but because the resurrection of Jesus was an act of God in history. This is a unique feature of the Christian faith. God has revealed himself most fully in the historical birth, life, miracles, teaching, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the Son of God. We cannot meaningfully hold onto New Testament theology without this solid historical basis.

6. The Gospel is Personal

This is the gospel by which the Corinthians were saved and in which they stood (15:1). The gospel must be appropriated personally by saving faith in Christ.

7. The Gospel is Universal

Christ is the Last Adam (15:22, 47-50), he is the head of God's multi-ethnic new humanity. All who are united to him are delivered from sin and death in the first Adam. But all who are not united to him remain in their sin.

8. The Gospel is Eschatological

Salvation is the in-breaking of the future into the present. Believers are justified by faith now, ahead of the day of judgement and raised with Christ in anticipation of the resurrection of the dead. But the gospel is eschatological primarily because its trajectory is the final consummation of resurrection glory (15:50ff).

I'll leave the five qualifying sentences for another post. But even from the above sketch, it can be seen that to be an evangelical Christian is to embrace the good news of Jesus in all its wonderful dimensions. This part of Carson's address was demanding and exhilarating. He made little allowance for the "mixed" character of his audience, leaving some wishing that they had brought a dictionary with them to look up words like "eschatology", "epistemology" etc. But it was a bravura exposition of the gospel that froms the material principle of evangelical theology.