Blogging in the name of the Lord, Series 6

I'm thinking of doing a new series of interviews in the next few weeks. Who would you like to see in the hot seat?

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.

Words of Life by Timothy Ward

Words of Life: Scripture as the living and active word of God,
by Timothy Ward, IVP, 2009, 186pp

Regular readers may have noticed from recent book reviews that I've been reading up on the doctrine of Scripture. I suppose it was being asked to critique Andrew McGowan's proposals on abandoning inerrancy in his The Divine Spiration of Scripture that got me going. The doctrine of Scripture is a fascinating and important area of theological study. There is certainly more to it than simply offering a defence of biblical inerrancy. What we need is a contemporary evangelical treatment of Scripture that sets the Bible in the context of the communicative action of the triune God. Timothy Ward offers us just such a work. He draws on the promising insights of speech act theory to present a fresh and compelling study of Scripture as the living and active word of God.

After a brief introductory chapter, Ward gives attention to the relationship between God and Scripture. paying close attention to the biblical text, he shows that in both Old and New Testaments there is a tight link between God's actions and his words. In creation, providence and redemption, God acts by speaking. God's person is so tied up with his words that to believe and obey his word is to believe and obey him. The human words of Scripture are at the same time God's covenant words to his people. To encounter God's communicative action through the prophets is to meet with God himself. The same is true of Jesus. We encounter the Word of God incarnate through the portrait of his words and actions given in Scripture.

In the next chapter on 'The Trinity and Scripture', Ward moves from laying the biblical foundations of his study to theological analysis. He discusses the doctrine of the Scripture in relation to each person of the Trinity. After creation and in response to the fall, the Father's great work of redemption takes centre stage. Scripture narrates and explains the work of salvation. Indeed Scripture itself is one of the Father's redemptive acts by which he draws his people into saving union with Christ by the power of the Spirit. The Bible is the book of the covenant. God's covenant purposes are unfolded and advanced in and through Scripture. It is a mistake to suggest that the Bible is 'just words'. In Scripture we have the speech-acts of the God of the Gospel. He acts by speaking to make promises, issue commands and threaten warnings. This is one of the reasons why it is right to regard Scripture as the word of God. To believe the Bible's covenant promises is to accept that the God who made them is trustworthy. His word is an expression of who he is as the God who cannot lie. Some, like Karl Barth worry that identifying Scripture with the word of God rather than regarding it as a witness to the word of God will have the effect of divinising a text. Ward is aware of that danger. But as he points out, it is better to think of Scripture as word or message rather than simply a text. In Scripture we have the communicative action of the Father. We should avoid separating God from his self-revelatory speech in the Bible.

Writers such as John Webster (here) and Andrew McGowan (here) have questioned whether it is right to drawn an analogy between Jesus as the divine Word made flesh and Scripture as the word of God through human beings. This matter demands careful handling and theological sensitivity. We must make a clear distinction between the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in the person of Christ and the Bible as a divine/human book. But as Ward points out, both Jesus and Scripture are identified as the logos of God. In his handling of the Old Testament, Jesus himself made it clear that for him, what Scripture said, God said. We cannot downgrade the status of Scripture as God's written word in order to safeguard the uniqueness of Jesus as the Word of God incarnate without disregarding Jesus' own testimony to the Bible. But when we confess that the Bible is God's word through human beings, we are not suggesting that there is a personal union between the divine and human sides of Scripture that is analogous to the union of God and man in Jesus. Rather that Scripture is the communicative action of the living God who speaks to us through the human words of the Bible. This construction safeguards both the uniqueness of Christ and respects what Scripture says about itself as the word of God.

In traditional Reformed dogmatics attention is given to some of the key attributes of Scripture. Ward devotes a chapter this subject. He makes it clear that the attributes of Scripture are best considered in the light of the biblical exposition and theological reflection of the earlier parts of the book. His consideration of the necessity, sufficiency, clarity and authority of Scripture is fresh and illuminating. Under the heading of the Bible's authority, Ward gives a nuanced defence of biblical inerrancy. Inerrancy is an implication of the fact that all Scripture is God-breathed. The doctrine is not dependent on the so-called "common sense philosophy" of Princeton theologians B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge. The Bible is inerrant because it is the speech act of the faithful and true God of covenant grace.

Finally, Ward gets down to practicalities in 'The Bible and the Christian Life'. It is sometimes assumed that the Reformers swept aside the theological heritage of the church and looked to the Bible alone. But their commitment to sola Scriptura did not mean that the Reformers saw no value in the traditions of the church. They rejected the unbiblical traditions of the Roman Catholic Church on the basis of the supreme authority of the Bible. But they valued the historic creeds and the writings of the church fathers. The solo Scriptura attitude of Fundamentalists who claim to eschew all tradition for the sake of the Bible alone is quite different to that of the Reformers and tends to an individualistic reading of the Scripture. The writer has some helpful things to say about preaching in the life of the church. He emphases the importance of the proclamation of the Word of God in the power of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit gave us the Bible and he continues to speak through Scripture. He transforms the lives of preachers and empowers them to so preach Christ that sinners are saved and the church is built up. God is actively present in the church by the power of the Spirit as the people of God gather to listen to the Word of God being proclaimed.

It is only once he has described the relationship between the church and the Bible that Ward has something to say about Scripture and the individual believer. This is surely right. The Christian reads the Bible as a member of the people of God, informed by the preaching and teaching of the church. It is beneficial to use commentaries and study notes which help to explain and apply the Scriptures. These aids can make prayerful Bible reading more meaningful and helpful. We approach Scripture with the question, "What is God wanting to do to me and in me, through the words I am reading?" (italics original, p. 176-177).

Of all the books that I have read on the Bible in the last few months, this is undoubtedly the best. Ward's study is based on clear biblical exposition and insightful theological reflection. The work is informed by the old masters, Warfield and Bavinck. But what we have here is not simply a rehash of older Reformed treatments of Scripture. The writer's approach is thoroughly up-to-date, drawing on Kevin Vanhoozer's proposals on theology and speech-act theory. Ward offers a cogent defence of Scripture as the word of God against the criticisms of Karl Barth and interacts well with recent writers, John Webster and Andrew McGowan. I heartily recommend this most helpful book on the Book of books.

From the rising of the sun to its setting

We caught the 5.30am ferry from Weymouth to Jersey when we set off for our hols the other Saturday. The early start was worth it. Witnessing the rising of the sun against the backdrop of the glistening sea, with mist pouring over the Dorset hills was just awesome. Jersey sunsets were a sight to behold too. Psalm 19:1-6 and Psalm 113:3 came to mind.

From the rising of the sun...

to its setting...

the Lord's name is to be praised!

Jersey

We've gone to the lovely island of Jersey for a half term break. Far from the madding crowd.

Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch by John Webster

Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, by John Webster,
Cambridge University Press, 2007, 144pp

Christian theology is an attempt to articulate the gospel in accordance with the witness of Scripture. But how should we view Scripture in the context of the church's theological task? Should we see the Bible simply as a human book that speaks of man's consciousness of the divine? Or would it be better to regard Scripture as a God-given text that the church must seek to understand and obey as best it can? Both positions are obviously reductionistic. The first fails to take seriously Scripture's own claim that it is the living and enduring Word of God. The second recognises the divine origin of the Bible, but does not give sufficient attention to the place of Scripture in communicative action of the triune God. How then may we understand Scripture in relation to God's self-revelatory presence and saving purposes? This book is John Webster's attempt to sketch out an answer to that question.

In the first chapter Webster discusses Revelation, Sanctification and Inspiration. From the outset Webster makes it clear that he does not want to consider the Scriptures in isolation. A theological account of Scripture must set the Bible in the context of God's self-revelation and the reception of that revelation by the church. Webster's concept of revelation has a decidedly Barthian emphasis. For him revelation is reconciliation. But it is possible to hear of God's offer of reconciliation without actually being reconciled to him. Revelation is only reconciliation in the context of the effective call of the Gospel. Webster is right, however to stress the role of Scripture the communicative action of the Triune God. Scripture serves the revelatory presence of God, as the Father brings his people into fellowship with himself through the work of the Son in the power of the Spirit.

The biblical writings are distinguished from all other literature by the designation “Holy Scripture”. Webster invokes the concept of the ‘sanctification’ of Scripture to hold together both the divine and human aspects of the Bible, “the biblical texts are creaturely realities set apart by the triune God to serve his self-presence.” (p. 21). But the theologian is unhappy with the oft drawn analogy between Scripture as a divine/human book and the union of divine and human natures in the person of Christ. He suggests that the analogy blurs the distinction between Christ and the Bible. Webster prefers to speak of Scripture as a witness to God’s Word. This was Karl Barth’s preferred way of viewing Scripture, to the extent that he viewed Scripture as a fallible, human witness to the divine Word,

“The men whom we hear as witnesses speak as fallible, erring men like ourselves. What they say, and what we read as their word, can of itself lay claim to be the Word of God, but can never sustain that claim”, (Church Dogmatics Book I, 2, p. 507).

Webster formulates the idea of Scripture as testimony with greater care and respect. He does not want to so stress the fragility of Scripture’s human witness to the divine Word that the relationship between the Bible and God’s self-revelation become almost accidental. We have to bear in mind the work of the Spirit in the production, preservation and interpretation of Scripture.

What Webster wants to avoid in rejecting the analogy between Christ and the Bible is the attribution of divine properties to the text of Scripture. At this point he draws on Herman Bavinck’s idea of the ‘servant form’ of Scripture. As developed by Berkhouer, this perspective is taken to suggest that in the Bible we have the treasures of God’s self-revelation in ‘earthen vessels’, subject to human weakness. Webster does not spell out what he means by human 'weaknesses', but I guess he has the traditional Evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy in his sights. This calls for a couple of comments. First, in Bavinck, the notion of the ‘servant form’ of Scripture is explicitly rooted in an incarnational analogy,

"The incarnation of Christ demands that we trace it down into the depths of its humiliation, in all its weakness and contempt. The recording of the word, of revelation, invites us to recognise that dimension of weakness and lowliness, the servant form, also in Scripture. But just as Christ's human nature, however weak and lowly, remained free from sin, so also Scripture is 'conceived without defect or stain'; totally human in all its parts but also totally divine in all its parts." (Reformed Dogmatics Volume 1, Herman Bavinck, Baker Academic, 2003, p. 435).

Second, I agree that it would be wrong to attribute divine properties to a text. But the Bible is not simply an inert text. It is the product of the God's communicative action. As Timothy Ward points out, Scripture is better described as ‘Word’ or ‘message’ than ‘text’. In Scripture we have God's speech acts performed through the words of Scripture. This construction does not entail divinizing the biblical text, but it does mean that Scripture will reflect the divine identity of its ultimate author. As God’s speech act, we can expect that Scripture will be wholly reliable and without error. (Words of Life, Timothy Ward, IVP, 2009. See p. 78ff for his interaction with Webster).

After discussing the sanctification of Scripture, Webster moves on to reflect on the inspiration of the Bible. He holds to the verbal inspiration of Scripture. But the theologian rightly insists that inspiration does not simply have to do with the original production of Scripture, as God moved men to write the Bible. As Bavinck points out, theopneustos (2 Timothy 3:16) means that Scripture is both God-breathed as to its origin, and God-breathing as he continues to speak through his written Word.

Despite the strictures noted above, there is much that is helpful and thought provoking in Webster’s treatment of the relationship between God’s self-revelation and Scripture. In setting Scripture in the context of the communicative presence of the triune God, he is able to conclude, “what we encounter in Scripture is the terrifying mercy of God’s address.” (p. 41).

Webster also discusses Scripture, Canon and the Church. He provides a good Protestant account of the canon of Scripture in terms of the Church recognising what God has given in the sacred writings rather than the Church conferring its authority on the Bible. He interacts with Gerorge Lindbeck’s postliberal approach to the Bible. Lindbeck lays great stress on the role of the Church as an interpretative community. What the Church makes of the Bible is what seems to matter above all else. But this proposal virtually ignores the self-communication of God in Scripture. The Church is enabled to understand the Bible by the witness of the Spirit. Her authority is not the voice of the Church as an interpretative community, but the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture.

A rich chapter is devoted to reading in the economy of grace. Shortcutting complicated hermeneutical theories, Webster commends a simple, trusting and attentive reading of Scripture, saying, "Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (p. 87). How we ought to remember that when tempted to skim through our daily Bible readings! We need to cultivate a deep, meditative and prayerful engagement with Scripture.

Finally, drawing on the teaching of the Reformers, Webster makes a case for Bible-based theology in the context of the secular university.

Webster’s dogmatic sketch of Holy Scripture helps to place the Bible in its proper theological context – the self revelation of the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He has attempted give a us coherent account of Scripture as the living and active Word of God to human beings, through human beings. He could have gone further in asserting the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible as God’s authoritative speech. We certainly need to avoid giving the impression that we attribute divine properties to Scripture. We do not worship a Book. But ‘bibliolatry’ is not the only danger we face. We also need to avoid driving a wedge between the eternal and omniscient God of the Gospel and his communicative action in Scripture. God’s Word is ever God’s Word.

“‘The grass withers, and the flower falls but the word of the Lord remains forever’. And this word is the good news that was preached to you.” (1 Peter 1:24-25).

What a State!

For days the media has been full of embarrassing stories about MP's expenses. Honourable Members have been claiming for all kinds of things from gardening bills to extravagant furnishings. One Tory grandee apparently billed the taxpayer for the cost of cleaning his moat. Yesterday the Speaker announced his resignation due to criticism of his handling of the affair. This was an historic event. The last time a Speaker was ousted from office was 300 years ago. The Prime Minister announced that measures to reform the MP's expenses will be hastily implemented.

Of course, were it not for the harsh glare of the media and widespread public outrage, it is doubtful that the system would have been reformed so quickly. The sad thing about this whole business is that it has made people even more cynical and distrusting of those who are meant to be governing our country. The State is in a rather sorry state. Churchill famously said that democracy is the least worst system of government. But does democratic government in the UK have to be quite this bad? Far right parties like the BNP are looking to exploit this sorry mess in the forthcoming local and European elections.

No doubt many MP's have not been abusing the expenses system. There are still men and women of integrity in Parliament. But we are reminded that the best of men are men at best. Sadly, not even our legislators can be trusted to regulate themselves. This has happened as the State has become increasingly secular and intent on removing faith-based values from public life. But more than ever we could do with some men and women with strong Christian faith and gritty integrity in Parliament. This is no time for believers to withdraw from the political process. Think of what Wilberforce acheived, when at first the tide of opinion was against him.

The Bible teaches us to value the State, which has been appointed to maintain law and order in society (Romans 13:1-8). Christians should pray for those who wield power in the land (1 Timothy 2:1-4). But we should not expect too much from our fellow human beings, "Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save." (Psalm 146:3).

The speech acts of Scripture and God in action

I'm really enjoying Words of Life (2009, IVP) by Timothy Ward. Here's a taster,

"Whenever we encounter the speech acts of Scripture, we encounter God himself in action. The Father presents himself to us as a God who makes and keeps his covenant promises. The Son comes to us as the Word of God, knowable to us through his words. The Spirit ministers these words to us, illuminating our minds and hearts, so that in receiving, understanding and trusting them, we receive, know and trust God himself." (p. 97)

An interview with Stuart Burgess

I quiz Professor Burgess about the interface between his Christian beliefs and his work as a scientist.

1. Who are you?

I am married to Jocelyn and have 5 children. We attend Zion Baptist Church. I am a Professor at Bristol University in the department of Mechanical Engineering. I have also taught at Cambridge University where I was a Bye-Fellow of Selwyn College. Before academia I designed spacecraft for the European Space Agency.

2. How did you become a Christian believer?

I come from a non-Christian home in the Bristol area. When I went to University in London in 1981 I attended an independent evangelical church and was soon converted on hearing the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ. One of the things that impressed me was the kindness and hospitality of a couple called David and Ruth. They still send Christmas cards to me to this day!

3. The world of science is often assumed to be anti-religion. What do you think about this?

I do not see true science as being anti-religion. In fact I believe that science was pioneered by religious people such as Newton, Pascal, Kelvin, Faraday and Maxwell. Since God is the author of both the Bible and creation there should not be a conflict between science and the Bible. One key to seeing there is no conflict is to recognise God's greatness. God is so powerful that He can create the world in any way He likes whether it is 6 days or 6 seconds.

4. What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

The key idea behind Intelligent Design is simple - that design reveals a designer. In the same way that the intricacies in a spacecraft reveal a designer so the intricacies in a bird reveal a designer.

5. Can ID on its own lead people to God?

ID only shows that there is a Creator not necessarily that the Creator is the God of the Bible. However, having said that, I believe that the design of the earth shows that the Creator is a 'caring' God. The Psalmist says that earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.

6. Do you agree with the ideas of Charles Darwin?

Darwin was correct to say that creatures like finches adapt to the environment by changing beak shape. However, he was wrong to then assume that creatures could undergo enormous changes (change into other types of creature) that are thousands of times greater than minor adaptations. Modern studies show that whilst birds adapt to the environment, they always remain birds. Adaptation can be illustrated by the shuffling of a pack of cards and randomly choosing a subset of cards from the pack. A pack of cards represent the gene pool between parents. Whilst shuffling the genes and choosing a new subset of cards can produce some adaptations, the amount of adaptation is limited by the cards available in the pack. No amount of shuffling can produce dramatic changes. This is why changes through adaptation are very limited.

7. Do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like creature?

I have written a book about this question called The Origin of Man. There are enormous differences between humans and apes and I believe this makes it impossible for man to have evolved form an ape-like creature in the past. Some of the main unique features of humans are: upright stature, fine hands, fine skin, intricate facial expressions, fine language, long childhood, unique marriage and birth, unique brain, unique beauty and unique DNA.

8. What do you think of theistic evolution?

The whole point of evolution is to say that there is no designer, so I cannot see how theistic evolution is compatible with the Bible. Evolution also involves a violent struggle for survival which is not compatible with the Garden of Eden. Evolution involves death before the Fall which is theological against the fact that creation was 'very good'. Even if evolution could work, I do not believe God would use it because it is such a clumsy way of creating. In reality God creates in a very elegant way by just speaking the word (Ps 33).

9. Do you think creation should be a positive message rather than arguing over old bones?

I believe that the creation message is a positive one - that the beauty and intricacy of creation reveals a Creator. You do not need a PhD in genetics or design or biology to see that there is a Creator. A young child can see evidence for a Creator as much as a professor at University. But people will always argue over bones and scientific data because data can always be interpreted in different ways. Having said this, there is a place for Christians who are scientists to stand up for true science.

10. Do you believe in six-day creation?

I believe that God created the Universe in six 24 hour days as described in the book of Genesis. I believe that He made a mature fully functioning Universe that would have had the appearance of age from the beginning of creation. Adam and Eve would have looked adults, and trees would have been mature and producing fruit. In the same way, stars were already sending light to the earth. The idea of mature creation is logical to me since engineers do this all the time. When an engineer makes car or an aeroplane it is a mature fully functioning system that in some ways has the appearance of age. Because creation is a supernatural event, it is impossible to scientifically measure or prove the age of the earth.

11. Well, thanks for dropping by Stuart. You can discover more books by Professor Burgess at Day One Christian Books.

Gender inclusivity and the Bible

Over on Facebook I've been having a discussion with Chris Bennett on gender inclusivity in Bible translation. Chris favours the inclusive stance of the TNIV, while I prefer the less radical policy of the NKJV and ESV. His comments have got me thinking. But Facebook is a bit limiting when it comes to theological discussion, so I thought I might continue to reflect on the matter here.

Exact gender correspondence is impossible in translation as the Hebrew has no neuter. We would not want to refer to inanimate objects like the an altar in the temple as "he" or "she". In English it's an "it". Also, it would be theologically insensitive to refer to the Spirit as "it", although in Greek the pronoun for pneuma is neuter (the AV does this somewhat pedantically in Rom 8:16.)

But, to take an example, when TNIV translates anthropou as "human being" rather than "man" in 1 Cor 15:21, the specificity of the two men, spelt out in 1 Cor 15:22 is lost. Adam as man/male is head of fallen humanity. Christ as man/male is head of God's new humanity. Unless we are saying that Adam's maleness was incidental to his headship, we have no right to translate "human being" rather than "man". The same is true for the second "man" in 1 Cor 15:21, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor 15:47, where "man" is used of "the first man" and "the second man" in TNIV). Was maleness incidental to Jesus being God as man for us and for our salvation? Clearly not. Presumably the Son of God incarnate could not have taken a female human nature. As the last Adam he had to be male. The translation "human being" in 1 Cor 15:22 weakens the link between this text and the broken symmetries of Paul's Adam/Christ parallels Romans 5:12-21, where "man" is rightly used in connection with both figures in TNIV, rather than the non-gender specific, "human being". Also note that Paul makes Christ's headship of the church a pattern for male headship in the home, (Eph 5:22-33).

It is true that in Christ there is neither male nor female, (Galatians 3:28), but that does not mean that gender specificity has no place in English translations of the Bible. In taking gender inclusivity too far TNIV is depriving its readers of some of the rich connotations of the biblical text that can only be expressed in gender specific terms. The ESV is right to be gender inclusive when anthropos means humanity whatever the gender. But it is also important to retain gender specificity when the theological concerns of the text demand it.