An Evangelical Manifesto

A number of prominent American evangelicals have drawn up an Evangelical Manifesto. Although the document very much reflects the situation in the USA, it has much to say to the global evangelical community. The Manifesto seeks to define what it means to be evangelical in biblical and theological terms. The dangers of gospel-denying Liberalism are exposed and the shortcomings of Fundamentalism are assessed critically yet fairly. The authors make persuasive case that evangelicals should be constructively engaged in public life. But they wisely caution against identifying the Christian faith with political parties, be they "right wing" or "left wing". Evangelicals in the West will benefit from what the document has to say about bringing the values of the gospel to bear upon a postmodern and pluralist society. What I liked about the Manifesto was its gospel-centeredness, honesty and humility. Evangelical failings are acknowledged and those who call themselves evangelical are called to wholehearted Christian discipleship. Charter signatories include Kevin Vanhoozer, Miroslav Volf. Here is a summary of the introductory section:

First, we reaffirm our identity. Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (The Greek word for good news was euangelion, which translated into English as evangel.) This Evangelical principle is the heart of who we are as followers of Jesus. It is not unique to us. We assert it not to attack or to exclude, but to remind and to reaffirm, and so to rally and to reform.

Evangelicals are one of the great traditions in the Christian Church. We stand alongside Christians of other traditions in both the creedal core of faith and over many issues of public concern. Yet we also hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct—distinctions we affirm as matters of biblical truth, recovered by the Protestant Reformation and vital for a sure knowledge of God. We Evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.

As followers of Jesus Christ, Evangelicals stress a particular set of beliefs that we believe are true to the life and teachings of Jesus himself. Taken together, they make us who we are. We place our emphasis on ...

1. Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.
2. The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.
3. Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
4. New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.
5. The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.
6. The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.
7. The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.

Sadly, we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling, and all too often illustrate our own doctrine of sin. The full list of our failures is no secret to God or to many who watch us. If we would share the good news of Jesus with others, we must first be shaped by that good news ourselves

See here for the Evangelical Manifesto website, which includes the 20 page document in full (PDF). I think you'll find it a thought-provoking read.

Pierced for our Transgressions, a review

Pierced for our Transgressions: rediscovering the glory of penal substitution,
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach, IVP, 2007, 373pp.

The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement was one of the distinguishing features of evangelical Christian theology. It could almost be taken for granted that evangelical theologians and preachers taught that Christ died on the cross, bearing the penalty of his people's sin. This consensus has recently been called into question by a number of influential figures in the evangelical world. We find a case in point in the now notorious comments of Steve Chalke and Alan Mann on penal substitution,

"The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." (The Lost Message of Jesus, Zondervan, 2003, p. 182)

Such remarks demand a response. Does penal substitution really construe the cross in those terms? Messrs Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have risen to the challenge of explaining and defending the biblical teaching on penal substitutionary atonement. Their book was probably one of the most discussed theological works of 2007. Tom Wright (who endorsed The Lost Message of Jesus) entered the fray with a highly critical review. This, and the writers' response can be found here. Pierced for our Transgressions comes with ten pages worth of ringing endorsement of from some top evangelical luminaries including Don Carson, Jim Packer, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson and John Frame. Given all the attention that the book has already received, why bother with a review? Well, it is possible that some people may not have read it yet!

What I liked about this book can be expressed in three words: style, structure and substance. The authors write in an easy, accessible style. Undue technicalities are avoided. But this does not mean that a depth of theological reasoning has been sacrificed for easy simplicities. The book has been designed to be read by any thoughtful Christian who wishes to grapple with the controversy over penal substitution. Although the work is polemical, you will find no carping criticism of the views the opposed by the writers.

The book is helpfully structured. It comes in two main parts, Making the Case and Answering the Critics. In part one, the controversy is introduced. Then the biblical material examined at some length. A pretty formidable case is made that the Bible does indeed teach that Christ died bearing the penalty of sin. Next, attention devoted to the theological framework for penal substitution. This view of the cross is related to the themes of creation, sin, the covenant of grace and intertrinitarian relationships within the Godhead. Due emphasis is given to the different biblical perspectives on the atonement. The cross was an act of victory over sin and the devil. By the death of Jesus, we are also redeemed and reconciled to God. Penal substitution lies at the heart of each of these biblical concepts. The doctrine of union with Christ ensures that cross does not amount to the legal fiction of guilt being arbitrarily transferred from sinners to the Son. Jesus died for his people, to whom he was united in the eternal purposes of God. The authors' defence of definite atonement gives strength to this argument.

The writers reflect on the pastoral implications of penal substitutionary atonement. Knowing that God sent his Son to bear the punishment of our sins assures us of the depth of his love for us. This also teaches us that God will always be true to his word. He said that sin always leads to death. The only way that we could be saved from death and condemnation was for Jesus to die in our place. God did not "bend the rules" to save us. By the cross, he saves in truth and justice. Knowing this should give us every confidence in God's promises and a passion for justice in God's world.

It is often argued that the penal substitutionary understanding of the cross stands at odds with the teaching of much of the Church throughout the centuries. This point is not decisive. What Scripture says is the thing that really matters. But a chapter on historical pedigree of penal substitution gives the lie to the oft repeated suggestion that the teaching was invented by Anselm, only to resurface in a modified form at the Reformation. A whole host of quotations is produced, spanning the the Patristic, Medieval, Reformation and Modern periods. Figures like Athanasius, Augustine and Calvin, as well as more recent evangelicals such as John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, all taught penal substitution in the clearest terms. We should think very carefully before abandoning this historic doctrine. So ends part one. A masterful case has been made for penal substitutionary atonement. But can that case withstand the many criticisms that have been levelled against the doctrine? Part two seeks to answer the critics.

Various objections are considered and responses given. Some argue that penal substitution is not really taught in the Bible, others that it sanctions "the myth of redemptive violence", and is unjust. It is said that the doctrine distorts our view of God, and undermines the Christian life. The writers take these criticisms seriously. They engage with their opponents fairly, firmly and with grace. Almost every conceivable objection to penal substitution is stated and then countered. Misunderstandings are cleared up and false aspersions challenged, while the clear biblical teaching is set forth. The structure of the book, where the constructive theology of part one is followed by the critical dialogue of part two, enables the reader to assess whether penal substitution is in fact grounded in the witness of Scripture. I'm sure than on reading Pierced for our Transgressions, you will agree that it certainly is!

When it comes to matters of substance, the writers have given us a clear, biblically grounded and theologically rich exposition of penal substitution. Here we encounter the triune God of the gospel. His just wrath is provoked by human sin. We deserve to be punished for transgressing his holy law. Yet in his love for us, God took our punishment upon himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus willingly offered himself to God as a propitiatory sacrifice on behalf of his people. In the cross we see God's justice and love working together harmoniously for the salvation of sinners. By his penal substitutionary death, Christ triumphed over Satan and redeemed the people of God from slavery to sin. Here is the ground of the believer's justification and the basis upon which God has reconciled the world to himself. The eschatological renewal of the cosmos is rooted in fact that on the cross, Christ was made a curse for us. In him, God's curse upon our fallen world is removed. In the many splendored cross, we see the glory of God displayed as never before.

I heartily commend this well-argued and compelling account of penal substitution. If you are sceptical about this doctrine, but have an open mind, then pick up this book and give it a fair hearing. If, like me you don't need convincing of this truth, then Pierced for our Transgressions will enrich your understanding of the cross. It will also equip you to refute many of the objections that are currently being raised against the teaching. An appendix gives preachers some valuable advice on avoiding unhelpful illustrations that will detract from the true meaning of the cross of Jesus. See here for dedicated website.

Read this book and rediscover the glory of penal substitution!

The recurring challenge of mysticism

The Mystical Meister Eckhart

On Monday, Fred Serjeant, our outgoing Fraternal Chairman, addressed the Westcountry Reformed Minister's Frat. on the subject of mysticism. Here are some notes on what he had to say.

1. Introduction

Mysticism appears in one form or another in the three main world faiths; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The phenomenon has appeared throughout the history of the Christian Church. Mysticism can often seem attractive to those who are interested in the spiritual growth. Contemporary evangelicalism is open to mystical influences. We need to understand the attraction of mysticism. What is lacking in evangelical piety that makes mystical spirituality so alluring?

2. Definition

Mystics desire to achieve a state of union with Ultimate Reality. Mysticism has five key characteristics:

1. An Ultimate Being exists

2. An Ultimate Being can be known

3. An Ultimate Being can be perceived by human sense

4. An element in the soul is akin to the Ultimate Being. Man is possessed of a divine spark, so that to find God is to find oneself.

5. The goal of mysticism is union with the Ultimate Being.

Mystics aim to transcend the phenomenal world to attain a fresh perspective on Reality by entering an altered state of consciousness. This will lead to a direct experience of union with God.

3. Roman Catholic mysticism

It has been suggested that a mystical strain may be found in Augustine of Hippo. But that claim cannot be substantiated. The apopaphic spirituality of Gregory of Nyssa and Basil of Caesarea was was tinged with mysticism. But Christian mysticism only really comes into its own with the pseudopigraphal writings of Dionysius the Areopagite in 5-6AD. He pioneered the via nagativa, the negative way. According to these writings, mystical union with God is achieved by a process of purification that leads to illumination and ultimately deification. Despite their dubious provenance, the Pseudo Dionysius literature helped to stimulate mystical tendencies in the Church.

In the 12th Century, the Franciscan movement drew on Dionysian mysticism, as did Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits in the 16th Century was also of a mystical bent. His Spiritual Exercises helped to popularise mystical spirituality.

4. How mysticism influenced Evangelical Protestantism

The 14th Century mystic Meister Eckhart is a key figure. Eckhart taught that, "The core of the soul is the core of God." And, "If I were not, God were not." John Tauler a disciple of Eckhart was a popular preacher, whose views were to have an impact on evangelical spirituality. But the later, 16th century mystics were all opponents of the Reformation. Loyola is a case in point. Luther was once attracted to the mystical way. Later, he came to see that mysticism is incompatible with justification by faith alone and a forensic understanding of the atonement.

The German Pietist movement was a reaction against dead orthodoxy and formalism in the Lutheran Church. The Pietists leaders looked back to the likes of John Tauler for inspiration and used his writings as a resource for spiritual renewal. John Wesley's parents were steeped in the mystics and he came under the spell of Tauler and the mystical Madame Guyon. Wesley was also infuenced by the Pietistic Moravians. The preacher was to adopt a more critical attitude towards mysticism, but to the end of his days, he would recommend Thomas A' Kempis' The Imitation of Christ and other mystical works to his Methodists. Wesley's view of sanctification as a crisis experience where the believer is swallowed up in God, and filled with perfect love smacks of mysticism. His teaching fed into the Holiness movement of the 19th century, associated with the Keswick Convention and figures like Andrew Murray and Oswald Chambers. The mystical way of purgation which leads to illumination followed by union with the divine can be traced in many who took their lead from Wesley. This can be found in some of our hymns, "But we never can prove the delights of his love/until all on the altar we lay". A spiritual crisis will only follow extreme negation of the self. This kind of thing may also be seen in A. W. Tozer, who had a great admiration for the mystics. Pentecostal emphasis on the "Second Blessing" is a development of Wesley's teaching on perfect love.

Some contemporary evangelical writers are returning to the mystics in an attempt to stimulate the spiritual life of the churches. But mysticism is ultimately based on works rather than grace. It teaches that the goal of union with God can be achieved by human techniques and programmes. This is a denial of the total depravity of man in sin. We need to develop a properly biblical spirituality that is based on our experience of the God of saving grace.

5. Discussion

The meeting was opened up for discussion and various points were raised. Mysticism aims at man's ontological union with God by bringing out the "divine spark" in the human soul. But our union with God us not ontological, it is soteriological. Union with God in Christ is the basic presupposition of the Christian life. That is where be begin. Divinisation means being made like Christ and sharing his resurrection glory, not being subsumed into the divine essence. A properly biblical spirituality is based on communion with the triune God. It is rooted in the election of the Father, the sacrifice of the Son and the sanctifying work of the Spirit. We, like the Puritan John Owen need to work out a trinitarian experiential theology. We must beware of putting so much emphasis on Scriptural doctrine that we leave little room for the direct work of the Spirit in Christian experience. Holiness is not achieved in a mystical crisis event that follows purgation and illumination. Our holiness begins with definitive sanctification on union with Christ. Then, the life of holiness is worked out in the Spirit-enabled activity of mortification and vivification.

We often encounter "soft" mysticism in evangelical Christians who claim that the Lord has told them to do this or that, even if their impressions or feelings are contrary to Scripture. But we should not prize our subjective experiences above what God has revealed in the Bible. That way lies Quietism and the Quaker emphasis on "inner light" over and against the light of the written Word.

In his paper, Fred quoted these words, "Mysticism begins with mist and ends in schism." There is certainly something in that. We need to beware of mystical tendencies and respond to the challenge of mysticism by constructing an evangelical, that is a gospel-based account of the believer's experience of union and communion with the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Foundations Autumn 2007

Foundations: a journal of evangelical theology, 58, Autumn 2007, Affinity

In his editorial note, Kenneth Brownell tells us that this is his last issue as editor. I don't know at this stage who will be taking over the role. But thanks is due to Ken Brownell for his labours in editing Foundations over the years. I always look forward to receiving the journal every spring and autumn and this issue does not disappoint. It's a shame, as the outgoing editor reveals, that he has sometimes struggled to find articles of sufficient quality for this, the foremost theological journal for independent evangelical churches. Brownell contributes a useful Church History Literature Survey to this edition.

Robert Strivens, Principal elect of the London Theological Seminary has an article on The Evangelistic Preaching of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. He comments that for "the Doctor", preaching was the primary means of evangelism. Many people tend to think that Lloyd-Jones was mainly a Bible teacher, with his famous expositions of Romans and Ephesians. But while at Westminster Chapel, he invariably preached evangelistically on Sunday evenings. These meetings were Lloyd-Jones' equivalent of a weekly evangelistic campaign. Church members brought their non-believing friends along to hear the gospel preached and many were converted. Lloyd-Jones worked hard to engage non-believers in his sermons, but not at the expense of gospel truth. He believed than the non-Christian must be brought to a sense of their sin in the presence of a holy God before he or she will cry out to the Lord for salvation. Strivens recognises the value of personal witness and Christianity Explored courses, but he argues passionately for a return to evangelistic preaching as the New Testament sanctioned method of outreach. This may not mean preaching evangelistically every Sunday evening as "the Doctor" did, but we need to remember that it is through the foolishness of preaching that God is pleased to save those who believe. We may no doubt feel totally inadequate for such a task. But this in itself should drive us to our knees to seek the blessing of the Spirit on the preaching of the gospel so that sinners are brought to salvation in Christ.

Dr Anthony McRoy is a lecturer on Islamic Studies at Wales Evangelical School of Theology, he writes on Faith of Constantine - Pagan Conspirator or Christian Emperor. His main goal is to refute a conspiracy theory perpetrated by Dan Brown in The Da vinci Code and Islamic apologists. It is suggested that Constantine was in point of fact a pagan who affected Christianity in order to corrupt the faith with pagan influences. The Council of Nicea, where the doctrine of the Trinity was defended and clarified is often cited as an example of Constantine's paganising policy. McRoy responds by setting out the evidence that Constantine was regarded as a Christian by other believers, by pagans and that he thought of himself as a follower of Jesus. When Constantine relocated from Rome to Constantinople, the city bore a distinctly Christian flavour in its architecture and public policy. All this is not to say that Constantine's conduct would be entirely acceptable to contemporary evangelical churches. But the evidence from all sides shows that he was far from being a underhanded pagan conspirator. As McRoy points out, whether it was right for the Church to get so close to the State under Constantine is a different matter altogether.

Evangelicals are often guilty of neglecting the riches of church history in the name of holding to the Bible alone. But Dr Nick Needham regards this as a serious failing. In his piece on Learning From Tradition, he argues that we need church historical consciousness to deliver us from narrow provincialism. Engaging with Christian tradition will broaden our perspective on the whole counsel of God. Evangelicals often tend to overlook the history of the early church and the middle ages. That is to our detriment, because the early church was especially preoccupied with the central question of Jesus' identity as God and man. In today's world, we cannot simply tell people to "come to Jesus", unless we explain to them who Jesus is. It is here that the great creeds and confessions of the early church can be of such help to us in our present situation. The Reformers did not reject church tradition altogether. They valued the Ecumenical Councils and the teaching of Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux and others. These men did not accept tradition uncritically as was the tendency in the Roman Catholic church. But neither did they adopt the position of the Anabaptists who renounced tradition to read the Bible without the guidance of the church. One such Radical Reformer wrote scathingly of Ambrose and Augustine as "apostles of Antichrist". Sadly, Sebastian Frank developed a Modalist view of the Trinity and a Gnostic understanding of the incarnation. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. I wonder whether the contemporary evangelical attitude towards tradition is more Anabaptist than Reformed. Today's evangelicals need to learn to value the wisdom of the past. As we do, we will be saved from many errors and have our theology enriched by engaging in the historical expression of the communion of the saints. Nick Needham has done some stirling work in making church history accessible with his ongoing series, 2000 Years of Christ's Power, Part One: The Age of the Early Church Fathers (2002 revised edition), Part Two: The Middle Ages (2000), Part Three Renaissance and Reformation (2004), Grace Publications.

The prodigious Dr Needham also contributes an in-depth review of Robert Letham's Though Western Eyes- Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective, Mentor Books, 2007. Letham has written appreciatively, yet not uncritically of Orthodox theology and spirituality. This book is certainly on my 2008 reading list.

I really enjoyed reading these stimulating articles and reviews. See here for subscription details.

Evangelicalism: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good

1. Gospel centred
2. Bible based
3. Historic orthodoxy
4. Mission minded
5. Practical Christianity

The Bad

1. Fragmented
2. Legalistic
3. Faddish
4. Traditionalist
5. Church lite

The Ugly

1. Censorious
2. Hyper-critical
3. Anti-intellectual
4. Culturally disengaged
5. Divisive

Wilberforce Meeting Report

William Wilberforce: “The Abiding Eloquence of a Christian Life”

Last Monday we held the third annual Protestant Truth Society meeting at Penknap Providence Church. This year is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. To mark the occasion, the event was devoted to the life of William Wilberforce. Our speaker was Simon Chase, a trained historian and an elder at Gillingham Baptist Church, Dorset. He gave us a clear, moving and instructive account of Wilberforce’s life.

The talk began with a sketch of the period into which Wilberforce was born in 1759. The industrial revolution was launched 1760 with the building of the first iron bridge. Adam Smith argued for a capitalist economy in his The Wealth of Nations. John Payne argued for a new political culture in The Rights of Man. Alongside industrialisation and the world of new ideas, this was also a time of social disintegration, captured vividly by the artist Hogarth. The gin craze was at its height. Immorality, drunkenness, poverty and squalor were widespread.

Wilberforce was the son of a wealthy Hull merchant. As a child, he spent some time living with his caring uncle and aunt, who introduced Wilber to evangelical Christianity. But when his parents became aware of his interest in “Methodist enthusiasm”, they brought him back home and immersed him in the glitzy world of high society. William’s early religious impressions soon evaporated. At university, Wilberforce wasted much of his time playing around and gambling, only obtaining his degree by the skin of his teeth. With his ready wit, easy charm and beautiful singing voice Wilber was a popular, but directionless young man.

All this changed when William invited an old friend, Isaac Milner to join him on tour of Europe. Milner was a convinced evangelical. The two men often talked of religious matters and Wilberforce became increasingly serious about spiritual things. He read Philip Dodderidge’s The Rise and Progress of Religion, and the Lord used his to effect “a great change” in the young man’s life. He was converted to evangelical Christianity.

Career-wise, Wilberforce had decided to enter politics with his old friend from Cambridge, William Pitt. But his conversion made him consider abandoning politics to enter the Christian ministry. The preacher John Newton, whom Wilber had known from childhood, urged him to continue in politics where he could use his influence for the good of society.

Wilberforce now understood what he was to do with his life, “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation Manners (or Morals)”. He realised that politics is the “art of the possible”. Change cannot simply be foisted on people. Wilberforce set about gathering support for his two great aims both in parliament and in the nation at large. He worked closely with a range of interested parties, including his close friend William Pitt, who became Prime Minister of Great Britain.

After many reversals and set backs, the slave trade was abolished in 1807 with Parliament voting 283 to 16 in favour of Wilberforce’s Bill. In 1833, shortly before his death, slavery was totally abolished in the British Empire.

But Wilberforce was involved in much more than the abolition of slavery. He was an author. His A Practical View of Christianity exposed the nominal religion of the upper classes and set forth the evangelical faith in a provocative and engaging manner. He was an active philanthropist, involved in many good causes including the improvement of working conditions in the factories, the RSPCA. He advocated the work of overseas mission. In a three hour speech to Parliament, he argued against the East India Company’s ban on evangelistic work in India. The change of legislation forged a new relationship between Britain and the colonies. No longer was the emphasis only on trade, the empire was given a moral and spiritual aspect.

Wilberforce was a devoted family man. He married Barbara Spooner at the age of thirty seven. Together they had six children. His income of £8,000 a year made him a quite a rich man. By way of comparison, the income of Jayne Austen’s exceptionally wealthy Mr. Darcey £10,000. But Wilber ended his life in relative poverty and with no home of his own. He had to sell his property to pay off the debts incurred by one of his feckless children.

Here was a man who served in public life to the good of the people. His efforts alleviated the misery of countless thousands of slaves. He made goodness fashionable in the UK, and helped to reform society for the better. As a reflection of the nation’s esteem, Wilberforce was buried in Westminster Abbey. The plaque on his monument says it all,

In an age and country fertile in great and good men,
He was among the foremost of those who fixed the character of our times
because to high and various talents, to warm benevolence, and to universal candour.
He added the abiding eloquence of the Christian life.
Eminent as he was in every department of public labour
And a leader in every work of charity.

Whether to relive the temporal or the spiritual wants of his fellow men
His name will ever be specially identified with those exertions
Which, by the blessing of God, removed from England
The guilt of the African slave trade,
and prepared the way for the Abolition of Slavery
in every colony of the Empire.

The meeting ended with a time of discussion where points were raised on what we can learn from Wilberforce’s campaigns today and the difficulties of being a Christian in politics.

Special John Newton edition of Banner magazine

To mark the 200th anniversary of his death, the August/September double issue of the Banner of Truth magazine has been devoted to John Newton. It carries an excellent biographical sketch by Iain Murray. Michael Haykin considers Newton's contribution to the Olney Hymns. William Jay's personal memories of the old preacher are reprinted. The magazine has some valuable excerpts from Newton's writings. As this year also marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade, William Wilberforce's recollections of his friend and counselor are detailed.

On reading these articles and excerpts, I was astounded afresh by God's amazing grace in the life of John Newton. How the Lord transformed this man! He was once a blasphemous, almost inhuman wretch. But God made him into a wise, gracious and talented preacher of the gospel. This is his fitting, self-penned epitaph,

JOHN NEWTON, Clerk
Once an Infidel and Libertine,
A Servant of Slaves in Africa, Was
By the Rich Mercy of our Lords and Saviour,
JESUS CHRIST,
Preserved, Restored, Pardoned,
And Appointed to Preach the Faith
He Had Long Tried to Destroy.

Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology

Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences,
Sung Wook Chung (Editor), Paternoster & Baker Academic, 2006

This is the second of the two Barth books that I read while on holiday. (See here for my thoughts on his Evangelical Theology: An Introduction). This title is a compilation of essays on key ideas in Barth's theology by leading evangelical scholars. All are agreed that Barth is worth studying and that evangelicals have something to learn from him. Most of the essays are appreciative and yet critical of his theological proposals.

The book has twelve chapters, each by a different scholar. The contributions vary in quality and tone. One problem with the work is that it lacks a coherent understanding as to what constitutes authentic evangelical theology. While several writers are Reformed in outlook, others are from a variety of camps including Pentecostal and Postevangelical. So, the book lacks an agreed starting point for assessing Barth's theology. That said, several of the essays are really outstanding. The opening chapter on Revelation by Gabriel Fackre helpfully introduces and critiques Barth's understanding of this vital subject. In his A Person of the Book? Barth on Biblical Authority and Interpretation, Kevin Vanhoozer reflects on the hostile reaction of evangelicals to Barth's doctrine of Scripture. Cornelius Van Til and Carl Henry were especially critical of Barth in this respect. But as Vanhoozer points out, while Barth taught that the Bible is the authoritative witness to the Word of God rather than the Word of God written, he nevertheless had a high view of Scripture. His Church Dogmatics is full of careful and detailed scriptural exegesis. But Barth disagreed with the traditional evangelical teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. For him, this "materialised" revelation and made it subject to human control. The Bible only becomes the Word of God in an event of divine self-revelation. Vanhoozer attempts to resolve differences between Barth and evangelicals by appealing to speech-act theory,

"The Bible is the word of God insofar as its witnesses - which is to say the inspired locutions, illocutions - really do present Jesus Christ. Yet the Bible also becomes the word of God when its illuminated readers receive and grasp the subject matter by grace through faith, which is to say, when the Spirit enables what we might call the illocutionary uptake and perlocutionary effect. The full measure of Scripture as a communicative act of God, then, involves the-Spirit-testifying-about-Jesus-through-Scripture-to-the-church". (p. 57)

Will this proposal effect a reconciliation between Barthians and evangelicals on Scripture? It is difficult to say. But it has the merit of insisting on both the full inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and recognising the importance of the Spirit's witness to the word of God.

Oliver Crisp's Barth on creation discusses agreements and differences between the theologian and traditional reformed teaching. He deals with Barth's attempt to "christologise" creation, his rejection of natural theology and his unusual ideas on God's relationship to time. Henri Blocher on Barth's anthropology untangles his fusing of anthropology and Christology. For Barth, Jesus was the first man, not Adam. This seems to suggest that Christ was eternally incarnate. But this undermines the event character of the incarnation, whereby the Word who was God became flesh. Barth's denial of a historical fall and his insistence that human beings were created fallen are also subjected to rigorous analysis. Blocher gets the prize for the best Barth joke by way of a footnoted Balthasar quote, "in this theology of event and history, nothing seems to happen, perhaps because everything happened in eternity." (p. 110).

Alister McGrath's chapter on Karl Barth's Doctrine of Justification from an Evangelical Perspective is full of useful insights. He proposes that for Barth with his background in Liberal theology, the big issue was not primarily, "How can a sinner be right with God?" What he wanted to know was whether God has revealed himself to human beings. Revelation, not justification is what lies at the heart of Barth's theology. In the light of Barth's teaching, McGrath calls upon evangelicals to reflect afresh on whether justification should be regarded as a centrally important doctrine. The editor, Sung Wook Chung's contribution on A Bold Innovator: Barth on God and Election, is helpful on Barth's actualistic theology. But the discussion of his views on election is a little confused. He accuses the theologian of being both a Calvinist and an Arminian. I'm not sure how that can be the case. For a Calvinist, God in Christ has chosen his people (not all humanity) for salvation despite their sin and unbelief. For an Arminian, God chose those whom he foresaw would believe in Christ. Barth's teaching that Christ is elect and reprobate for humanity is quite different from both Calvinist and Arminian constructions. The universalistic overtones of Barth's views on election are discussed here and elsewhere in the book.

John Bolt in Exploring Karl Barth's Eschatology: A Salutary Exercise for Evangelicals, related his distinctive form of amillenialism to the concerns of Americal dispensationalist teaching. The conjunction of Barth's Christ-centred vision and the unaccountably popular Left Behind novels made this an intriguing chapter. The book also features essays on other aspects of Barth's thought: Kurt Anders Richardson on realist christology, Frank D. Macchia on pneumatology, Timothy George on church and sacraments, Veli-Matti Karkkainen on theology of religions and John R. Franke on the postmodern turn and evangelical theology.

Each contributor seems to have thought long and hard about Barth's theology in relation to evangelical teaching. They show familiarity both with Barth's own writings and the secondary literature. Convergences are noted, but points of real difference are not ignored. The book has one or two little typos and would have benefited from at least a subject index. Full and detailed footnotes are provided.

There has been a resurgence of interest in Barth's theology in the last twenty years or so. It is good that evangelical theologians are getting to grips with his teaching in a serious way. Many pastors like myself do not have the time to pursue Barth's mighty Church Dogmatics. But this book is a helpful introduction to his thinking from an evangelical point of view.

[Update: See the newly published Engaging with Barth edited by David Gibson and Daniel Strange. Contributors include, Henri Blocher, Paul Helm, Donald Macleod and Garry Williams. This work critiques Barth from a definite Reformed perspective].

Foundations Spring 2007

The latest edition of Foundations, features a number of stimulating articles and reviews. In my opinion, if pastors only subscribe to one theological journal, it should this journal of evangelical theology.

Mission in Europe: Biblical Basis and Cultural Context by Daniel Webber

This article discuses the Biblical basis for mission in the Old and New Testaments before probing the cultural context for mission in Europe. In conclusion, three main concerns are highlighted. First, we need to engage in a battle for truth in the mind of man. Second, in mission, our priority must be the proclamation of the gospel. Third, the church must think afresh about her role in the world as an authentic missionary community. Daniel Webber is Director of the European Missionary Fellowship. He writes with deep insight into the contemporary situation in the world and the church.

Roman Catholicism and the Evangelical Alternative by Leonardo De Chirico

De Chirico, an Italian pastor argues that Roman Catholic teaching says "Yes and no" to the gospel. "For example, Christ is told 'yes' but also 'no' because, in the Catholic view the prerogatives of the church end up by arrogating what belongs exclusively to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour." (p. 17). We do not simply disagree with isolated Roman dogmas, our problem is with the Catholic system that both affirms and denies the gospel of Christ. The evangelical alternative is an unhesitating "yes" to the Biblical gospel. Evangelicals must resist being absorbed by the ever expanding Catholic ecumenical project. The Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative is a case in point. This important and timely article sets contemporary ecumenical rapprochement in the light of the gospel.

Why Study Biblical Hebrew? by David M. Green

Dr. Green, who teaches Hebrew at the London Theological Seminary explores some of the reasons why Hebrew is often neglected by pastors. He urges us to give fresh attention to this key Old Testament language. I must confess that my Hebrew has grown a little rusty over the years. But reading this challenging article had me reaching for my Hebrew textbooks for the first time in a while.

Man of Prayer by Keith Ives

Alexander Moody Stewart (1809-1898) was a Scottish minister who was mightily used of God during seasons of revival blessing in the Victorian period. Part of the secret of his success was that Moody Stewart was a man of prayer. This article is a great reminder that theological study and reflection should led us to the throne of grace. We cannot engage in mission, have the wisdom that we need in the face of ecumenical challenges or study the Bible in any language apart from humble reliance upon God. Moody Stewart often gave three directions to encourage reality in praying,

1. Pray till you pray.
2. Pray till you are conscious of being heard.
3. Pray until you have received an answer.

The old preacher was deeply versed in experimental Calvinism and was aware of his "absolute need of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit to make the word of God, whether read or preached effectual...In every service he prayed for the breathings of God's Spirit." (p. 33-34).

The God Delusion or the Dawkins Delusion? (Review Article) by Stephen Clark

Clark reviews Dawkins' infamous book The God Delusion. He points out the Dawkins' angry style of writing has even alienated atheists. Some of the book's factual errors are highlighted and a number of Dawkins' logical fallacies are challenged. Clark also considers The Dawkins Delusion by Alister and Joanna McGrath. The reviewer is appreciative of the work of this husband and wife team. They easily demonstrate the weakness of some of Dawkins' key arguments. The McGraths write from a theistic evolutionary perspective. Clark admires their sophisticated understanding of the history of the relationship between science and the Christian faith. He points out that creationist literature, often displays "a woeful ignorance of the history of Christian thinking on creation, and a lack of sensitivity the to the diverse literary genres found in Scripture." (p. 42.) This means that creationism is often dismissed as anti-intellectual fundamentalism. But, the reviewer wonders if the authors' theistic evolutionary approach is a 'Trojan Horse' in the evangelical camp. This accommodation to evolutionary theory may well have catastrophic consequences for our witness to the truth. We need an account creation and the fall that takes Genesis 1-3 seriously as historical narrative. But we also need to interact with the challenges raised by scientific ideas with intelligence and understanding. It has to be said that creationists have not always succeeded on this score. Stephen Clark is Minister of Free School Court Evangelical Church, Bridgend.

The Mission of God (Review Article) by Bill Nikides

This is an appreciative, but not uncritical review of Christopher Wright's book The Mission of God: Unlocking the Grand Narrative.

Foundations: a journal of evangelical theology, Spring 2007, no. 57, 47 pp, is published twice-yearly at £4.00 per issue by Affinity.

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.

Leadership crisis

The London Theological Seminary

For the first time since its inception in 1977, the London Theological Seminary (here) has failed to attract any UK students for the two year course, due to begin in October 2007. The seminary was founded by Martyn Lloyd-Jones to train men for the preaching ministry in evangelical nonconformist churches. The course does not lead to a diploma or degree, it is simply designed to equip men for pastoral ministry. I studied there in 1988-1990 and found the course intellectually demanding, spiritually enriching and practically helpful.

No doubt some men from evangelical free churches are training at WEST (here), where degrees are awarded. I know of others who have done the Cornhill Training Course (here), run by the Anglican Proclamation Trust. Oak Hill College (here), again an Anglican institution also attracts evangelical nonconformists who wish to train for the role of pastor-teacher. I welcome an emphasis on training pastor-expositors in evangelical Anglicanism. But some of the distinctives of the nonconformist approach to preaching are not necessarily shared by Anglicans. In evangelical Anglicanism, the idea of the anointing of the Spirit in preaching is often downplayed and is sometimes dismissed as little more than a Lloyd-Jonesian aberration. Evangelical nonconformity has a unique perspective on Christian ministry which needs to be preserved.

But, when all's said and done, there seems to be a shortage of godly and gifted men who are training for ministry of the word in the evangelical free churches. I wonder why this is? Here are some suggestions:

1. Training is expensive. When I went to LTS, the Gwent Local Education Authority paid for my fees, board and gave me some pocket money every term. That is no longer the case. But can the churches afford not to invest in leadership training?

2. Ministry is difficult and demanding. Geoff Thomas once redefined the "Five Points of Calvinism" acronym TULIP to mean, "Totally Unappreciated Low Income Pastors". Many a true word has been spoken in jest. Why would promising men be interested in being a pastor, given the way in which some churches treat their ministers. (I should say that this is not a gripe against the churches I serve, just a general point). I may be mistaken, but my impression is that many theological students are hoping to pursue a career teaching theology in the world of academia. They are not necessarily studying to develop their skills as pastor-theologians. How many theology bloggers are training for the pastoral-preaching ministry?

3. The system of calling pastors to churches is chaotic. The relationship between the churches and the collages/seminaries is often poor. Godly and gifted men may finish theological training without a call to a pastorate in view. They may be kept waiting for years before actually entering pastoral ministry. Candidates for ministry can be called to preach several times in a church and then be dropped without a word of explanation. Why would a man give up a good job to train for ministry when the prospects of actually being called to pastoral work is often quite tenuous? We have the bizarre situation where churches have been pastorless for years, while there are men in secular employment who have the spiritual maturity, ability and training to pastor the people of God. The result of all this is that evangelical free churches are left leaderless for long periods of time.

4. Lack of appreciation for the pastoral-preaching ministry. We don't want to return to the bad old days when Ministers were accorded almost unquestioning deference because of their office. Neither am I advocating an "one man ministry" approach to the detriment of other gifts and ministries in the body of Christ. But the work of pastor-teacher used to be regarded as the ministry. The preacher's task is to equip the church for service and bring the people of God to unity and maturity in Christ. (Eph 4:11-16). No more important calling can be imagined than to proclaim the unsearchable riches of the gospel and pastor God's flock. Do contemporary evangelical free churches share the Bible's high view of pastoral ministry?

5. Too much moaning by pastors. Do we (yes, I include myself), sometimes give the impression that being a pastor is such a rubbish job that only a masochistic nutter would want to do it? Have we lost something of the joy of ministry? Yes, times are hard, but our task is a highly privileged one. We are paid to give ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. Our task is to read wonderful works of theology and biblical commentary. We get to spend time having fellowship with the saints in their homes as part of pastoral visitation. We share in their joys and sorrows. Around three times a week we have to preach and teach God's word! Can anything compare to preaching Christ when our hearts are set on fire by the Spirit? Often our preaching falls flat. But we can hope that the Spirit will come and set us free not just to expound, illustrate and apply the Word, but to preach.

Who will say, "Here I am send me"? Go on, I dare you.

President of ETS returns to Rome

Francis Beckwith was President of the Evangelical Theological Society until he resigned from his position on 5th May (here). The reason for his resignation is that on April 29th he was received back into the Roman Catholic Church (here). He gives two main reasons for his conversion: First, he became convinced that the Roman view of justification by faith is more faithful to the teaching of Scripture and the early church than the Protestant view. Second, he wished to identify himself with the church's creeds that Protestants and Catholics alike regard as statements of Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy. I cannot discuss these points in detail just now and I certainly do not wish to speculate on Dr. Beckwith's motives. But here are some thoughts by way of response.

The Roman teaching on justification is that we are justified by grace at baptism. But this initial justification must be improved by our works. Does this understanding of justification really have greater 'explanatory power' than the Protestant view? Where in the New Testament is justification related to baptism? In the teaching of Paul, we are justified by faith apart from works. God's declaration that we are right with him in Christ cannot be improved upon. The Roman Catholic teaching is not straightforward justification by works, because it is held that we are graciously justified at baptism. But the notion that our justification by grace must be supplemented by works is at best semi-Pelagian. The Catholic teaching downplays the seriousness of sin and calls into question the the freeness of God's grace. Perhaps the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement (here) has had the effect of blurring the dividing lines between Rome and the Reformation over justification? The new perspective on Paul has had a similar effect.

As far as the creedal orthodoxy of Rome is concerned, it is anachronistic to suggest that Nicaea and Chalcedon were conducted under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. Those key ecumenical councils occurred prior to the East/West schism in 1054 and the Reformation. The ancient creeds belong to the whole Church, not just to Rome. Roman Catholicism as a distinct entity with its own defining doctrines did not come into being until the counter Reformation caused Rome to define herself against Protestant teaching. Dogmas such as the immaculate conception of Mary and the infallibility of the Pope are relatively recent innovations. The present-day Roman Catholic Church is much different from the Catholic Church that drew up the orthodox creedal statements.

It is sad that an eminent Evangelical leader like Dr Beckwith has decided to return to the church of his youth. His conversion represents a challenge to Evangelical world. Are we teaching justification by faith alone with sufficient Biblical clarity? Have we become so obsessed with present day issues that we have lost touch with the theological riches of the past?

See here for Carl Trueman's helpful response.

See here for Roman Catholic reaction to this post at Pontifications.

The use and abuse of traditon

Robert W. Oliver

Earlier today I attended a Minister's Fraternal at the Old Baptist Chapel, Bradford on Avon. Robert Oliver spoke to us about The use and abuse of tradition.

He began by reminding us that the Bible itself contains traditions. The Old Testament prophets based their teaching on the traditions of Moses as found in the Pentateuch. A man whose teaching did not match the Mosaic traditions was to be regarded as a false prophet. The apostle Paul urged the Church at Thessalonica to keep the traditions that they had received from him (2 Thess 3:6). The message that Paul preached to the Corinthians was the gospel tradition that they had received from the apostle (1 Cor 15:1ff).

Tradition in this sense is good and Biblical. We must hand down the teaching of the Bible from generation to generation. But there are also unscriptural traditions. Jesus attacked the scribesand Pharisees because they made the word of God of no effect through their traditions (Mk 7:6-13). Paul warned the Clossians to beware of the traditions of men (Col 2:8).

Tradition is abused when traditions contradict or undermine Biblical teaching. The Roman Catholic Church abuses tradition when she makes ancient oral tradition, the teaching of the Fathers and the decrees of the Pope equal to Scripture. Roman doctrines like transubstantiation, the immaculate conception and the infallibility of the Pope are traditional rather than Biblical. Such are "the traditions of men". They are without divine authority.

Does this mean that Evangelicals have no use for tradition? Certainly not. We hold to the inscripturated traditions of the Bible and we recognise that we have a lot to learn from the history of the Church. We are not the first generation of believers to read the Bible. We benefit from learning from the great teachers of the past.

The early Church gave special attention to the question, "Who is Jesus Christ?" After much deliberation and discussion the Nicene creed and definition of Chalcedon were drawn up to set forth the Church's understanding of the Person of Christ. The creeds embody healthy traditions of theological teaching. They set forth an accurate exposition of the Bible's teaching. We do not need to reinvent the Christological wheel in every generation of Church history. As part of the communion of the saints, we may learn from the wisdom of the past.

In the middle ages, theologians like Anselm faced the question, "How does Christ save us?" He developed the view the Christ died to satisfy God's offended honour and justice. More work needed to be done on the atonement, but Anselm can point us in the right direction.

The Reformation gave particular attention to the matter of "How can we be right with God?" The doctrine of justification by faith alone was rediscovered. The Reformers were not right on everything. But we can benefit from their insights into the Biblical doctrine of justification.

Creeds and confessions are helpful because they save us from being individualistic and theologically naive. They must not be placed alongside Scripture, but they are a good guide to accurate Bible teaching. We must not succumb to chronological snobbery that assumes that Evangelicals today do not need to learn from the great teachers of the past. It takes all the saints, including those of the past to enable us to grasp something of the multi-dimensioned love of Christ. In theo-dramatic terms, tradition helps the Church to understand the Biblical script with greater depth and accuracy. It is only as we grasp the script that we can perform it authentically in our day.

The address was followed by a time of discussion where we considered how we may best give our people a right sense of history and tradition. This was a fruitful exchange of views that led to some practical suggestions. We thought about the pros and cons of using Church history to illustrate sermons. Robert Oliver said that he had done some potted church history talks during Sunday evening services. We considered the vale of older commentaries and the writings of past theologians. No one said, "I remember Lloyd-Jones going on about...". But, one frat member confessed that he had come across my blog earlier in the week. Must have done some good.

Robert Oliver was the pastor at The Old Baptist Church. He currently lectures in Church History at the London Theological Seminary and the John Owen Centre. His book on the History of the English Calvinistic Baptists was recently published by the Banner of Truth Trust (review).

The theodramatic bit was my Vanhoozerism, RWO didn't actually say that.

What's the problem with Reformed Christianity in the UK?

In comments on a recent post, Martin Downes raised an important issue. We seem to be pretty adept at exposing the theological errors of others. But we are correspondingly inept at facing our own weaknesses.

I know that some, even many Reformed churches are vibrant and growing. But my impression is that the movement as a whole is inert and moribund. There are a number of matters that we need to face. I don't have all the answers, I'm not necessarily asking all the right questions. I would especially welcome your feedback on this post.

1) Lack of conversions

This is very basic. If people aren't being saved, are we doing the Great Commission? Why is it that we are failing to reach people around us? Are we failing to communicate the gospel in a contemporary way? Why do people find the thought of entering our buildings for services so off putting?

2) Fragmented and fractious

Reformed Christianity had been weakened by unnecessary controversy and strife. Is it not a crying shame that people will go to the barricades over Bible versions and hymn books? This state of affairs does not suggest that we are focused on the main task of proclaiming and embodying the gospel in our day. When believers will leave churches over such matters, is that a sign of principled spiritual maturity?

3) Traditionalism

Have we sometimes failed to distinguish between peripheral traditions and Biblical Christianity? Are we so afraid of innovation and improvisation that we risk being stuck in some kind of time warp?

4) Faddishness

Is it right to go for change for change's sake, however divisive may be the outcome? Are we sometimes too quick to try the latest quick n' easy church growth fad? When that doesn't work we just get disillusioned and give up.

5) Strategic self denial

How many gifted people in their 20's to 50's would be willing to get involved in a small church to help turn things around? I know that there is safety in numbers etc. But small churches often need outside help to get off the ground. Are larger churches thinking strategically in this respect? Are smaller works willing to be helped to grow by believers with fresh ideas?

6) Lack of prayer

Why is it that people do not make the Prayer Meeting a priority, or when they turn up, they don't pray? Have we been driven to our knees by a concern for the glory of God in our age?

7) Powerless preaching

Every Sunday 100's of doctrinally accurate, well structured, interestingly illustrated and well applied sermons are preached. But where is the fruit in terms of the transforming power of the gospel?

8) Revival

I know that some might say that revival would be a panacea. We certainly need one. We should pray urgently and persistently for a powerful outpouring of the Spirit. But we might be surprised at the shape a fresh revival may take. Would we really welcome it? Anyway, evangelism, discipleship and innovation are not the enemies of revival. They are the things that we should be doing now in anticipation of a time of awakening.

Am I asking the right questions? What answers would you give?

The Lloyd-Jones problem

I'd better say this first: I'm a great admirer of "the Doctor". As a young Christian I read his sermons on Romans with great relish. My theological outlook has been influenced by the ministry and writings of the great preacher. I think that he was right to force Evangelicals to face up to the challenge of the ecumenical movement in 1966. His call for church-based evangelical unity was admirable and prophetic. I share something of his burden for revival.

However, there is a problem. Not perhaps with the man himself, but with the way in which his name and views are used to stifle debate in some circles. Am I the only Reformed minister who feels a little frustrated at conferences and fraternals when the following happens? A man gives an excellent paper. The subject is opened up for discussion. Views fly back and forth and an interesting exhange of views develops. Suddenly someone stands up and says, "I remember that we talked about this at the Westminster Fellowship and the Doctor said...." And that's virtually it. Once the name of Lloyd-Jones has been invoked, debate grinds to a standstill.

Now, I know that Lloyd-Jones was a very wise and gifted minister. We can learn a lot from him. But I think that he would be horrified were he to turn up at some of our meetings. He was a provocative, original and independent thinker, not a man who parroted the view of others. In his sermons on Romans he often disagreed with Calvin, Hodge and Haldene. He refused to hide behind names. We should not be hiding behind his. Today's ministers face new challenges that demand fresh, Biblical thinking. Trotting out "the Doctor said...." just isn't good enough. We need to learn what we can from him and then move on to serve God faithfully in our generation.