In Christ Alone: Perspectives on Union with Christ edited by Stephen Clark & Matthew Evans

Affinity/Mentor, 2016, 283pp 

This volume gathers together the papers presented at the 2015 Affinity Theological Studies Conference. I was present for that event and very much appreciated reading the various papers and discussing the issues raised by them with fellow conference members. 

The doctrine of union with Christ has rightly received renewed attention in Evangelical circles in recent decades. Few themes are so central to our understanding and appreciation of the work of Jesus on our behalf and how we come to benefit from what he has done for us. 

The chapters explore union with Christ from a variety of perspectives, biblical, historical and theological. Welcome attention is given to the writings of John and Paul, where union with Christ is explored most fully in the New Testament. The Reformer John Calvin and the Puritan John Owen placed union with Christ at the core of their presentation of salvation accomplished and applied. Much may be learned from their insights as teased out by Robert Letham and John Fesko. Papers are also devoted to the relationship between union with Christ and justification and sanctification respectively. 

In a final chapter Stephen Clark endeavors sum things up the heading, 'Union with Christ': Towards a Biblical and Systematic Theological Framework for Practical Living. This essay was not one of the papers written for the 2015 conference. Clark seeks to make good some aspects of the doctrine not covered by the six papers, reflecting on union with Christ in the Old Testament and the Synoptic Gospels. Especially helpful is his discussion of the union and the ordo salutis. Christ was united to his people in eternity, before the foundation of the world. Historically speaking they were crucified and raised with him. But they were only united to Christ existentially when drawn to him by faith that they might enjoy the benefits of his saving work on their behalf. (See Ephesians 1:4, Romans 6:4, 16:7).

A certain order applies even when it comes to the existential aspect of union with Christ. Logically, the sinner needs to be made spiritually alive in order to believe and so be justified by faith. Yet regeneration is not the grounds of justification. Rather God justifies the ungodly simply on the basis of Christ's obedience, blood and resurrection. Those who have been united to Christ for justification have also been united to him for progressive sanctification, having died with Christ to the old life of sin and been raised with him to a new life of holiness. 

The Christian life is not about trying to conform to a bunch of arbitrary rules laid down by the church designed to suck as much pleasure out of life as possible. It's about living out of the fullness of our union with Christ as justified sinners whom God is conforming to the image of his Son by the power of the Spirit. It is in Christ we live, suffer and die. And it is in Christ we shall be raised to everlasting glory. 

Some of Clark's lengthy footnotes are worth reading, especially the ones on time and eternity, and the interpretation of the Song of Solomon. 

I'm glad that these essays are now available to a wider audience. The authors' attention to the biblical texts offer surprising (if not always convincing) exegetical insights. At least I wasn't convinced by Cornelis Benema on John 14:1-6. Robert Letham provocatively advocates Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper in relation to union with Christ. The chapter on John Owen reminds us that unlike Lutheranism, Reformed theology is not overly based on the teaching of a single Reformer. And a good thing too. 

Theology students, pastors and serious Christian readers will find much to help them here as we seek to understand that which is beyond full human comprehension; the believer's mystical union with Christ. This work serves as a good companion piece to the 2007 Affinity Theological Study Conference papers on the person of Christ, published under the title, The Forgotten Christ: exploring the mystery and majesty of God incarnate. 

Affinity Theological Study Conference 2017

The 'Magnificent Seven' speakers'  panel

The theme of this year's conference was, 'The Christian Church: Its Mission in a Post-Christian Culture'. Timely, what with the church in the UK struggling to adjust its mission to a more secular climate. 

As is the practice with these events, the papers were circulated beforehand for delegates to study. Here are the titles/authors: 

1: ‘Light to the Nations and Aliens and Strangers: an Overview of the People of God in the Old Testament’ – David Green

2: ‘Light to the Nations and Aliens and Strangers: an Overview of the People of God in the New Testament’ – Chris Bennett

3: ‘When Society is Collapsing: Augustine and The City of God’ – Paul Helm

4: ‘The Church Militant and Martyred: The Reformation till Today’ – Lee Gatiss

5: ‘On Understanding our Times’ – John Stevens

6: ‘On Serving God in our Generation’ – David McKay

A session was devoted to discussing each paper in turn after a word of introduction by their authors. We then divided into small groups to chew the fat, before coming together to feed back to the whole conference. A speaker was delegated to each discussion group, meaning we all got to 'grill' one, which was nice. (Maybe not so much for the authors).

There were some points of disagreement. In his paper Chris Bennett argued for the Chris Wright view that the mission of the church should reflect the mission of God to restore and renew the whole universe. He questioned the distinction that is sometimes made between what may be done under the auspices of the organised church and what is a matter for individual believers. The distinction has its uses, however. Churches may organise things like Parent and Toddler Groups to foster links with the local community as well as run directly evangelistic activities, but it is down to individual believers to get involved in local politics, or help with urban redevelopment projects. They do so as members of the organic church and with the prayerful support of their local fellowship, but such activities are not in themselves an expression of the mission of the organised church. That's what I reckon, anyway.

Another thing was the extent to which we should make use of the diminishing heritage of Christendom. Most agreed that we should use our Christian heritage as a point of contact with the unbelieving world. But our primary purpose is not to preserve this at all costs. Contrary to Anglican friends (and some inconsistent Nonconformists) I don't believe we should retain Bishops as ex-officio members of the House of Lords, or the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Let Church and State be separate, each with its own sphere and mission. That does not entail a faith-free public square, but in Augustinian terms, the City of God should not be confused with the City of this world. 

The papers and discussion that arose from them were certainly thought provoking. A good mix of theological reflection and cultural analysis that helped us to apply biblical truth and lessons from church history to contemporary concerns. It is only as we do that will we be able to equip the church for its God-given mission in a secular world. The papers will eventually be published in book form, so I'm not going to provide a summary here. The 2015 set are available under the title, In Christ Alone: Perspectives on Union with Christ, and very good they were too.

One of the joys of a conference like this is the times of informal chat and discussion that spill over into coffee breaks and meal times. That's where you get into the practical nitty gritty of how to work out all this stuff in the context of church life. You may also find yourself engaging in discussion of whether holding that ensoulment is not from conception implies an Appolinarian moment in Christ's incarnate life. Or watching some of the most ineptly played games of Pool you're ever likely to witness. 

Despite me not being quite so active on the blogging front these days, some of the delegates were familiar with this here blog. More familiar than me it seems, as I had no recollection whatever of posting this in response to Ruth Palgrave's criticism of Affinity a few years ago. Must be getting old. 

The next Affinity Theological Study Conference will be in 2019, on the theme, 'Worship'. 

Affinity discussions

As I was saying, the Affinity Theological Studies Conference is a proper confer-ence. Meaning that those who attend get to confer together and discuss papers presented in small break-out  groups and in plenary sessions. Cool, eh? The break-out groups comprised of around twelve people.

I once attended a Ministers' conference in the UK where the big shot American speaker did not deign take his meals with the rest of us. Did he think we Brits have disgusting eating habits or something? No such aloofness was allowed at this event. Speakers duly ate with the rest of us and took their place in discussion groups along with everybody else, which is as it should be.

Philip Eveson, retired Principal of the London Theological Seminary chaired our group. Hywel Jones, who gave the final paper on preaching in the power of the Spirit, another former LTS Principal was also a member of "Group 4". But neither man attempted to hog the discussions, which gave mouthy delegates like me a chance to contribute.  We talked about the pros and cons of the papers delivered and tried to work out how to apply what we had learned in church life. For some reason, Philip Eveson got rather fixated on John Frame's point, cited in Dan Strange's paper about the Bible being sufficient for a Christian plumber. Did he mean that there is a distinctly Christian approach to welding pipes and changing washers, or that a Christian plumber will do an honest job? We thought that it was probably the latter.

It was nice to be able to put Hywel Jones on the spot when it came to discussing his paper. What are we seeking when we pray for the power of the Spirit in preaching? Boldness, liberty, life-transforming power. Can we discern the Spirit at work when we feel that we have failed in preaching, but our people are helped? Yes, God is sovereign, but we should nevertheless seek more of the empowering presence of the Spirit in our preaching.

I don't know why, but I felt OK saying my piece in the small group sessions, but didn't feel like piping up in the plenaries. Maybe something to do with my Welsh inferiority complex. Then again, 50% of the speakers and Affinity's new Director, Peter Milsom were Welsh, as were a good number of some of the most vocal contributors at the plenaries. In fact, most of the people I spoke to at the conference were either Welsh, had trained/taught at LTS, or, like me were both Welsh and LTS'ers. 

The plenary sessions were good though, especially the panel discussion when all the speakers took to the stage and fielded questions from the floor. Questions ranged around the application of biblical principles in the contemporary situation, where our people are often confronted with tricky ethical dilemmas. Should a Christian in the military use torture to obtain potentially life saving intelligence? Is there such a thing as "the lesser of two evils" - i.e. telling a lie to prevent someone being murdered? Or will the Lord not put his people in a position where the only option is to sin? What of the Christian guesthouse owners who were found guilty of breaking the law in refusing a bed to a homosexual couple? Were they right to do so? (On this, take a look at Mostyn Roberts' thought provoking post, Changing Times: the Christian in a secular society). Conference chairman Stephen Clark suggested that we need to give fresh attention to biblical ethics, an area where we are weak in comparison to our forebears. It was suggested that the next Affinity Theological Studies Conference (2013) might be given over to this issue.

Theological discussion laced with friendly banter continued at meal times and in coffee fuelled late night conversations. On Wednesday night I was chatting to Mostyn Roberts about the theology of Kevin Vanhoozer, when a chap from a neighbouring table asked if he could join us. It turns out that the brother from Romania is currently engaged in doctoral studies on Vanhoozer's theological method. We had an stimulating conversation on KJV's theodramatic proposals. It was also nice to bump into several people who I've not met before who are regular readers of this blog.

This was my first Affinity Theological Studies Conference and I really enjoyed it. The papers were very helpful and the discussion orientated format worked well. Oh, and unlike one of the speakers, Carl Trueman (where did they get him from?), the lady at the Affinity desk did know my name.

But before wrapping up my reflections on the conference, I feel I should share with readers a couple of important truths that were impressed upon me at the event. 1) Allusions to pop music are likely to be lost on many pastors and  theologians. I found myself having to explain Trueman's mealtime reference to Mark Knopfler. And I can't stand Dire Straits. It was demeaning. For me the 80's were all about Going Underground by The Jam and U2's Joshua Tree, not dire yuppie music. Also, Eminem (whose music I loath even more than Dire Straits) is a rap singer, not a packet of sweets. 2) Wearing chunky-knit jumpers with jeans and brown brogues isn't a good look.

To Affinity and back again

Dan Strange, Peter Naylor and Hywel Jones

Following on from Part 1 of this report, on the Affinity Theological Studies Conference on, "The Truth Will Set You Free: The Doctrine and Function of Scripture in the 21st Century":

Stephen Clark got down to brass tacks with a paper on The Use of the Bible in the Church. Our authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. The Bible is God's clear and present word to the world and the church. Scripture was given for this purpose, "that people may come to know the Living God, who has been revealed supremely in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, and then grow in their knowledge of him and their likeness and conformity to him: in Paul’s memorable words, that everyone may be presented mature in Christ (Col. 1:28)." The reading of Holy Scripture is an essential component of the public worship of God. The Bible should ordinarily be read in this context by Ministers of the Word. What the church sings and the language of her prayers should be informed by the Bible. In preaching, Scripture should be expounded accurately and in the power of the Holy Spirit. In Preachers should not offer distorted readings of the Bible for the sake of practical application. The case was given of Joel Beeke's commendation of Jephthah's daughter as an example of "contagious submission" (see here). The Bible should be brought to bear on the ethical dilemmas faced by the people of God in the 21st century such as embryo research, civil partnerships etc. Pastors should help believers to feed themselves on the riches of God's Word so that the church is nourished on a rich diet of biblical truth.

The paper that generated the most discussion and debate was Dan Strange's piece, Not Ashamed! The Sufficiency of Scripture for Public Theology. Strange reminded us of Stephen Green's appearance on BBC's Question Time back in 2005. The Director of Christian Voice met with howls of derision from the audience when he persisted in answering questions from the Bible. The debacle was an indication of what can happen when the Bible comes into contact with the public square. This raises the question of how we might best speak Christianly in the public arena at a time when the Bible is no longer held in high regard. Strange set out two alternative proposals for "public theology" from within the world of Reformed theology. First, the "two kingdoms view", that emphasises the distinction between the temporary kingdom of this world and the eternal kingdom of God. The civil realm is subject to the "light of nature" or "natural law" that is common to all humanity (Romans 1:18-32, 2:14-15), while the church, belonging to the eternal kingdom is subject to Scripture. The Bible is not sufficient for the public arena, "We will not cure cancer …by reading Scripture, we will cure it by investigating molecular biology, organic chemistry and other related disciplines" (citing T. David Gordon). Second, Strange drew our attention to the "transformationist" model that seeks to bring biblical truth to bear upon the public square. In this view, the Bible must be allowed to supplement and inform the light of nature. Scripture is sufficient for public theology. So says John Frame,

When people are converted to believe in Christ, they bring their new faith and love into their daily work. They ask how Christ bears upon their work as historians, scientists, musicians, how this new passion of theirs affects art, entertainment, medicine, the care of the poor and sick, the justice of courts, the punishment of convicts, relations between nations.

Strange commended the second view, arguing that much of what passes for "the light of nature" is in fact the legacy of the impact of Christian moral teaching in the United Kingdom. The more post-Christian our country becomes, the more we will need to make the source of our values in the Bible explicit. We cannot have biblical ethics apart from the gospel revealed in Holy Scripture. Society is transformed as more and more people become Christians and then act as salt and light in their daily lives,

And when we are anxious that speaking ‘Christianly’ will threaten our place in the public square and our contribution to social transformation, we need to remember that real social transformation will only come about through conversion through encountering Jesus in the Word of God and by the regenerating and illuminating power of the Spirit. In summary, given our current context, our public theology is public apologetics.

The "transformationist" model is big enough to include a role for "the light of nature" in public theology, but it rightly insists that the Bible must be allowed to speak in the public arena. The relative value of the "two kingdoms" and "transformationist" visions and the practicalities of speaking Christianly in the public square stimulated a lot of discussion and debate in the break-out groups and plenary discussion session.

The final paper was given by Hywel Jones, entitled, Preaching the Word in the Power of the Holy Spirit. Jones  challenged the view that the Holy Spirit works invariably whenever the Word is preached. In keeping with the teaching of Scripture itself (1 Corinthians 2:1-5, 1 Thessalonians 1:5 etc) the speaker gave due emphasis to the importance of the preaching of the Word while also highlighting the need of the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit in preaching. This was his key proposal,

The Spirit and the Word are therefore not on the same plane of reality. The former is God; the latter is not seeing as it is the product of the Spirit (2 Tim. 3: 16 – 17). This means that the Spirit is as free and sovereign in his activity as is both the Father and the Son and that the Word that is his product is also his instrument. He remains the agent.

This needs to be said, as some, most notably John Woodhouse of Moore College, Sydney have been teaching a Lutheran conception of the relationship between Word and Spirit that virtually imprisons the Spirit in the Word. His views are influential among Evangelical Anglicans in the UK. Where such teaching holds sway, preachers will not be encouraged to seek the empowering presence of the Spirit in their ministries. All they need to do is preach and the Spirit can be relied upon do his work. The Reformed view is that the Holy Spirit works with his Word as he pleases. Jones quoted the words of John Stott's statement that Word and Spirit should never be divorced, and that the Spirit is needed to make the Word effective,

We must never divorce what God has married, namely his Word and his Spirit. The Word of God is the Spirit’s sword. The Spirit without the Word is weaponless; the Word without the Spirit is powerless . . . The truth of the Word, the conviction with which we speak it, and the power of its impact on others all come from the Holy Spirit. It is he who illumines our minds, so that we formulate our message with integrity and clarity. It is he whose inward witness assures us of its truth, so that we preach it with conviction. And it is he who carries it home with power, so that the hearers respond to it in penitence, faith and obedience.

Also note the words of John Owen,

When God shall be pleased to give unto the people who are called by his name, in a more abundant manner, “pastors after his own heart, to feed them with knowledge and understanding”, when he shall revive and increase a holy. humble, zealous, self-denying, powerful ministry, by a more plentiful effusion of his Spirit from above: then, and not until then, may we hope to see the pristine glory and beauty of our restored unto its primitive state and condition.

Hywel Jones' important paper was an attempt at sketching out a theology of Word and Spirit in preaching. But it was more than that. It was a passionate plea for preachers to seek a greater measure of the power of the Holy Spirit as they proclaim the Word of God. Such preaching is the crying need of the world and the church. The trouble with the Moore view is that it does not encourage preachers to seek more of the empowering presence of the Spirit so that they may preach the gospel "not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" (1 Thessalonians 1:5).

To Affinity and back

Greg Beale, Stephen Clark, Carl Trueman, Peter Milsom

The Affinity Theological Studies Conference does exactly what it says on the tin. It is given to theological study and it is a proper confer-ence. Papers are circulated beforehand for attendees to study. At the event the papers are introduced by their authors prior to small group and plenary discussion sessions. The theme this year was,  "The Truth Will Set You Free: The Doctrine and Function of Scripture in the 21st Century."

Ever since the Garden of Eden, one of the devil's master strategies has been to cast doubt on the word of God. Once we begin to wonder, "Has God said?", we are on the high road to ruin.  This has especially been borne out during the last 150 years or so, where the doctrine of Scripture has been a storm centre of controversy. There is no sign of the storm dying out, with various cross winds threatening to blow the church off course.

Now, you might be forgiven for thinking that Princeton theologians A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield had offered the definitive defence of the Bible as God's inspired and inerrant Word in their various writings on the subject, most notably their jointly-authored article Inspiration, published in The Presbyterian Review 6 (April 1881). But things ain't that simple. It is often claimed, even by some in the Evangelical camp that the Princeton view of the Bible was based on wrongheaded Enlightenment assumptions. Furthermore, it is argued  that the teaching set forth by Hodge and Warfield was out of kilter with the way the church had regarded the Scriptures over the centuries. Carl Trueman attempted to respond to these points in his paper, Is the Princeton View of Scripture an Enlightenment Innovation? Looking at the issue from a strictly historical point of view, Trueman set out the essential elements of the Princeton position on the Bible and demonstrated that there were precedents for this view in the history of the church, most notably in the writings of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, the Reformers and Reformed Orthodox scholars. He concluded his survey,

As a result, if the Princetonians are to be seen as innovators, it cannot be in terms of their articulation of the concept of inerrant autographs or in their concern for verbal inspiration and the connection of this to notions of truth. On these points, they stand within an established tradition of Christian discourse which goes back beyond the Reformation to the early church.

Next up for consideration was Peter Naylor's paper on Lost in the Old Testament? Literary Genres and Evangelical Hermeneutics. Naylor's brief was to respond to some of the challenges to the traditional Evangelical doctrine of Scripture from the world of Biblical Studies. He gave special attention to the issue of identifying literary genres found in the Bible. Should we regard Genesis 1-3 as mythological depiction of creation? Is the Book of Jonah to be read as historical narrative, or is it in fact an extended parable? Is Peter Enns right to say that the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, which often depict events found on the Bible, compromise the uniqueness of Scripture? Naylor argued that both Genesis 1-3 and Jonah should be read as historical narrative and gave some clear criterion for identifying biblical literary genres. Believing in the supernatural God of the Bible we should have no problem in regarding portions of Scripture that depict the miraculous as historical. While the Old Testament might overlap with Ancient Near Eastern documents, the differences between these texts and the Bible are highly signifigant. The Bible is monotheistic rather than polytheistic. There is no notion of creation ex nihilio in Babylonian literature and no account of the fall of man into sin. Naylor warned against Evangelicals embracing a demythologizing approach to the Bible,

The assured results of liberal criticism have been empty pews, closed churches, loss of confidence, inability to stand against the tide of moral corruption that has been sweeping aside all the waymarks that once guarded the British people.

Peter Enns was under fire once more in Greg Beale's paper on The Right Doctrine, Wrong Texts: Can We Follow the Apostles’ Doctrine But Not Their Hermeneutics? Enns has argued that the apostles employed a typical Jewish non-contexual approach to Old Testament exegesis. In effect they obtained the right doctrine concerning Christ from the wrong Old Testament  texts. Beale set out to challenge this view. He reflected on the relationship between ancient Jewish and apostolic exegesis and set out five presuppositions of the apostle's exegetical method,

1. the assumption of corporate solidarity or representation ;

2. that Christ is viewed as representing the true Israel of the OT and true Israel, the church, in the NT;

3. that History is unified by a wise and sovereign plan so that the earlier parts are designed to correspond and point to the latter parts (cf. Matt. 11:13f);

4. that the age of eschatological fulfilment has come in Christ;

5. as a consequence of (4), it may be deduced that the latter parts of biblical history function as the broader context to interpret earlier parts because they all have the same, ultimate divine author who inspires the various human authors, and one deduction from this premise is that Christ as the centre of history is the key to interpreting the earlier portions of the OT and its promises .

The paper then considered a case study, the use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15. By giving careful attention to Hosea, Beale showed that the prophet himself held the expectation of  a new, eschatological exodus, inaugurated by Israel's lion king (Hosea 11:10-11 cf. Numbers 23:24 & 24:9). Matthew was not being non-contextual in saying that this event was fulfilled in Christ. Beale assured us that "there is good reason and evidence that supports the notion that Jesus and the Apostles did interpret the Old Testament in line with the originally intended meaning of the Old Testament writers themselves."

Papers were followed my stimulating times of small group and plenary discussion. Watch this space for more reports.