Review of Peter Jensen (2002) The Revelation of God

The Revelation of God by Peter Jensen was published in 2002 in IVP's Contours of Christian Theology series. It has recently been translated into Spanish by CEEB/Andamio in the new Biblioteca José M. Martínez.

In this work, Jensen seeks to formulate a fresh approach to the question of revelation. The Enlightenment critique of the Christian claim to a unique revelation of God remains strong today, and many Christian attempts to answer it have failed. In this review, I will outline the main line of argument Jensen pursues (taking up chapters 1-4 of the book), before briefly mentioning the other areas covered in chapters 5-11 and finishing with some personal response.

Review
The place we must start, Jensen argues, is with the central claim of the Bible that it is through responding to the message of the gospel that people attain to a true knowledge of God. Rather than discussing revelation as a general concept, and then asking if the Christian scriptures fit that concept, a surer approach is to begin with the gospel as that supreme locus of the knowledge of God and take it as the paradigm for revelation.

“The achievement of the gospel is that people come to know God through informative and hortatory words about him.” (35) We come to be friends with God through hearing and responding to the message of the gospel. In this sense, it is not helpful to talk about Christ himself as the supreme paradigm of revelation (e.g. Barth) for, while the centrality of Christ to the gospel is obvious, Christ comes to us through the words of the gospel, proclaimed by human messengers.

The gospel word – fundamentally, the declaration that Jesus is Lord – commends itself to us as the Word of God through three arguments, 1) the claim that Jesus is the Christ, fulfilling the Old Testament Scriptures, 2) the historical testimony of the first witnesses and evangelists and 3) its power to interpret human experience.

The gospel comes to us as a Word from God, with promises and demands. The specific nature of this gospel word gives a definite shape to the type of relationship we can have with God through responding to this gospel. In the gospel, God speaks. That speaking shows us a God who creates, judges and saves. He stands over and against a rebellious humanity with a word of warning about coming judgment. But this word specifically centres on Jesus Christ as Lord through his death, resurrection and exaltation. It is therefore simultaneously a warning of judgment and a word of promise about God’s love and mercy. Finally, this gospel word comes to us with a demand for repentance and faith that we may receive that promise of mercy.

How does the nature of the gospel shape the knowledge of God that can be attained through it? By default, we do not know God, we are in rebellious ignorance of Him. The good news of the gospel is that we can be reconciled to God and know him as his friends. In that friendship, as in any friendship, words play a central role: “language creates that personal union that incorporates without assimiliting.” (67) We talk to God through prayer, but how does God speak to us? In the Old Testament we see God identifying Himself through His deeds and through words about His deeds. In particular, “it his ability to do what he says he will do that identifies the Lord and shows that he is God indeed” (69), in other words, God makes himself known through words of promise and fulfilment.

Next, we see that God often formalises His promises in covenants, defined by Jensen as “a promise given under oath, accompanied by stipulations and sealed with a sign.” (75) We can then trace these ideas of promise/fulfilment and covenant through to Christ Himself and, significantly, the Bible. Scripture is nothing less than ‘the book of the covenant’ “for in it the covenant of God is recorded, expounded and applied.” (81) By this argument, Jensen arrives at the conclusion that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God for us today. It is that which structures and regulates our covenant relationship with God, it is the means through which God speaks to us, and all this flows out of the first point about the gospel message itself being the paradigm of revelation.
Many questions remain to be treated, and Jensen concludes the first part of the book by outlining four fundamental axioms, derived from this key insight that the gospel is the paradigm for revelation, for addressing the issue of revelation more generally. These are:

1) “The gospel is the key element in coming to a saving knowledge of God” (85)
2) “Christian revelation is basically verbal” (87)
3) “Revelation conveys both information and relationship” (90)
4) “Scripture is revelation” (92)

Thus Jensen’s central argument is that “God’s central revelation of himself… is evangelical at heart, covenantal by nature and scriptural in form.” Following from this, Jensen goes on to ask how the gospel helps us to interpret human experience and specifically religious experience, especially whether there are ways to attain true knowledge of God that do not pass through the gospel. (chapters 5-6) He then discusses at length some thorny questions about the authority, nature and reading of Scripture (chapters 7-9). He concludes by examining the work of the Spirit in revelation and whether we can speak of contemporary special revelation today (e.g. prophecy) (chapters 10 and 11).

Response
This is a book to be read and digested slowly. The argument is sometimes dense, but it is worth taking the trouble, because Jensen has fresh things to say on many topics. Often his choice of words is striking and very helpful, and helps us to see things in a new way. Using the categories of knowledge of God, gospel and covenant in relation to revelation do exactly that, and seeing the Bible as the Book of the Covenant is especially helpful, because it reminds us of the centrality of (and nature of) our relationship with God as well as giving fresh meaning to its authority.
Remembering that the Bible is a covenental book should also remind us that God speaks to us as his covenant people. Our tendency to read the bible individualistically ought to be challenged by understanding that Christ rules his church through the Word. (cf.p.223)

Seeing the Gospel as that which enables us to rightly interpret our experience is also important. In Jensen’s words:
“Human thought characteristically moves from what is known to what is unknown. When the gospel is preached, it invariably uses the language and concepts that refer to human experience in order to explicate itself. The gospel speaks of love, wrath, forgiveness, faith, repentance, sin and death. These are all common human experiences: in each case the gospel takes our inadequate understanding of the experience and gives us new and powerful wisdom about it. The reinterpretation is often so intense that it constitutes a revolution, a conversion of thought and practice…” (110)

Using the gospel as that which explains our experience has a lot to say to our evangelism and apologetics. Evangelism is helping others see who they really are! Jensen’s thoughts here coincide nicely with what Andrew Walls writes about conversion not being about substituting something totally new but transforming, turning what is already there. (see my previous post) Brilliant!

Book review - The Temple and the Church's Mission by Greg Beale

Book review of Beale, Greg (2004) The Temple & the Church’s Mission: a biblical theology of the dwelling-place of God (Leicester:IVP)

This is a marvellous book! Here is a review I wrote for NTI.

Summary
Why is it, Beale asks, that in the climatic vision of the final state, John sees “‘a new heaven and a new earth’ in Revelation 21.1 and yet in 21.2-3, 10-22.3 he sees a city that is garden-like, in the shape of a temple?” (23) Where are the mountains and the trees? The answer, which he develops in great detail through nearly 400 pages, is key to comprehending the meaning of the Bible and hence the church’s mission. In John’s vision, the new creation and the garden-city temple are the same thing, the significance of which is to indicate that in the final state, God’s presence will fill the whole cosmos. This is the end to which the whole Bible story has been heading and which the whole tabernacle/temple theme has been pointing and it is the purpose of God’s original creation. Here are some of Beale’s principle lines of argument:

1. The structure of the temple in the Old Testament represents the cosmos, as in the following table.

outer court - habitable world where humanity dwelt
holy place - visible heavens and its light sources
holy of holies - invisible dimension of the cosmos, where God and his heavenly hosts dwelt

2. Israel’s tabernacle and temple recapitulate the original temple in the Garden of Eden.

3. God’s intention was that the garden-temple of Eden was to expand to fill the earth through the rule of its priest-king, Adam

4. This purpose of expanding the temple to fill the earth was passed on to Israel, who failed, and placed in the eschatological future by the prophets, e.g. Hab 2.14 “For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea:”

5. Israel’s temple therefore was not an end in itself an “architect’s model” whose purpose was to point to a greater fulfilment, “the great goal of spreading the light of God’s presence throughout the earth until the entire world was under God’s tabernacling presence.” (170)

6. Christ and his people are seen in the New Testament as the beginning of that end-time temple, inaugurated at Christ’s first coming and to be consummated at his second.

7. In other words, the eschatological cosmos-wide temple is the new creation – “eschatology not only recapitulates the protology of Eden but escalates it” (368)

The conclusion is that “the temple in Revelation 21-22 symbolically represents the entire new cosmos because that was the goal of God’s temple-building process throughout sacred history.” (369)

This then, bears, on the church’s mission, which is no less than, “expanding the sacred sphere of God’s presence in order that others would experience it and come into the sacred temple themselves.” (399)

Evaluation
This is the kind of deep theological reflection that, if assimilated, provides powerful fuel for mission. There is a richness in Beale’s treatment of the intertwining themes of temple, presence, creation & new creation, kingdom of God etc. that brings you into the symbolic thought-world of the bible that excites the imagination. Indeed, it evokes praise to God and longing for the consummation of that final day. I find Beale’s thesis totally compelling.

Having said that, some of Beale’s specific arguments and exegesis is at first glance rather weak; many times he builds his case on plausible or possible interpretations or allusions. Beale himself recognises this and asserts that the arguments work cumulatively, so that the weaker lines of argument support the broader cumulative case or, alternatively, if dismissed, by no means undermine the overall thesis.

This book is also very helpful as a model of biblical theology and how to interpret scripture. I found some of his concluding hermeneutical reflections particularly striking. For example, in Hebrews it is the heavenly temple that is literal while the earthly temple is the figurative one, thus overturning a common view of what ‘literal’ means. The physical temples were meant to be models of the true, eternal one. Therefore, “to see Christ and the church as the true end-time temple is neither an allegorical spiritualization of the Old Testament temple nor of prophecies of an eschatological temple, but is an identification of the temple’s real meaning.” (374)

Questions and Connections
My main question is to do with how to bring this rich theology through into the practice of ministry and mission. Beale himself limits such reflection to an 8-page final chapter. Here are my own brief reflections.

The importance of understanding biblical theology: Having a grasp of the kinds of themes that Beale develops a) provides a framework for understanding individual parts of Scripture b) clarifies what God’s big plan is and thus helps us to understand ourselves and our mission. These will then play out in the very practical level of Christian life and witness. I am convinced that christians would benefit enormously in the long-term from having a firm grounding in this kind of biblical theology. This does not mean getting everyone to read The Temple and the Church’s Mission (it's too big!), but at least to grasp some of the themes at a simple level.

Finally, understanding God’s final purpose as filling the cosmos with his presence helps us to

a) give proper value to the material, created order

b) value the anticipatory presence of God we experience now as Christians through the Spirit, in prayer etc.

c) value, in particular, the community of God’s people as the locus of His presence

d) praise God for Christ, the true temple, who has made God’s big purpose reality etc.

Review of When the Kings Came Marching In - Mouw

Review

The Kings Came Marching In draws together two themes: eschatology and a Christian view of culture. To what degree ought Christians work towards the transformation of culture? What will happen to the human culture at the return of Christ? How much continuity will there be between the development of culture in history and the new heavens and earth?

Richard Mouw addresses these questions by considering one specific text: Isaiah chapter 60. In Isaiah 60 we find an eschatological vision of the holy city. Mouw’s thesis is that “it is extremely significant that when Isaiah looks to the fulfillment of God's promises, he envisions a community into which technological artifacts, political rulers, and people from many nations are gathered.” (xvi) The significance of this is that (1) the engagement of Christians in the transformation of culture is legitimated and (2) we can expect continuity (as well as discontinuity) between culture now and the Holy City which is to come.

Mouw develops his thesis in four points, derived from Isaiah 60.

Firstly, the wealth of the nations is gathered into the city. The Holy City is a place of commerce: camels of Midian & Ephah, flocks of Kedar, rams of Nebaioth, the ships of Tarshish etc. are brought in to serve the Lord and his people. This points to the transformation of human culture. Significantly, the same ships of Tarshish appear in Isaiah 2 where they are objects of judgment. God’s attitude to the instruments of human culture is ambivalent: they can be tools of rebellion and idolatry, but it is the rebellion that is judged, not the things in themselves. God reclaims “that which humans have used against him.” The original cultural mandate is fulfilled in God’s turning the objects of culture to His service: “the Holy City is the Garden-plus-the-‘filling’”

Secondly, the kings of the earth march into the city. Mouw sees these references as suggesting that there will be a settling of political accounts, a reckoning in which the kings of the earth give account for their misuse of power.

Thirdly, people from many nations are drawn to the city. People of all nations, without distinction, are converted and gathered in to the city.

Fourthly, light pervades the city. Moving to Revelation 21, which picks up the same holy city imagery, we see that the Lamb is the light of the city. There are cultural dimensions to Christ’s atoning work: "As the Lamb of God he will draw all of the goods, artifacts, and instruments of culture to himself; the kings of the earth will return their authority and power to the Lamb who sits upon the throne; Jesus is the one whose blood has purchased a multi-national community, composed of people from every tribe and tongue and nation. His redemptive ministry, as the ministry of the Lamb, is cosmic in scope." (63)

Mouw concludes by asking how we ought to live in the light of this. We can affirm that Christ will transform culture, someday, but are we ourselves to transform culture? Mouw argues 'perhaps', but culture-transformation is not explicitly mandated in scripture. So, we are to wait for the transformation that is to come. But this is an active waiting: “we must seek the city that is to come.” And we do so by pouring ourselves out in service.

Evaluation

One of the key questions is a hermeneutical one. What is the function of the ‘holy city’ language that Isaiah uses in his eschatological vision? That the new creation is in view is in no doubt. The question is what status does the city metaphor (and attendance cultural wealth metaphors) have in relation to the new creation. In what ways is the new creation like a city?

Contrast Alec Motyer (Prophecy of Isaiah), who argues that the ‘city’ language is no more than part of an elobarate metaphor:

Since Isaiah is thinking of the future in city terms, the gathering of the world into the embrace of the people of God is naturally seen in pilgrimage and tribute motifs. The reality is the winning of the nations by the gospel and the gathering of all into the heavenly Zion when the Lord Jesus returns. [on 60.5]

in this verse, as in all similar verses, Isaiah is stating the truth within the political terms dictated by the metaphor of the city. [on 60.14]

So while for Mouw, Isaiah “envisions a community into which technological artifacts, political rulers, and people from many nations are gathered”, Motyer envisions a community into which people from many nations are gathered, but the technological artifacts and political rulers are incidental, merely part of the metaphor.

Mouw suggests that Isaiah (and John in Revelation) saw (in vision) a real city i.e. what the future new world will actually be like. That may be so, but it is not necessary to carry the point that the city and cultural language has significance beyond being merely a metaphor. Perhaps that point cannot be established for certain, as so much hinges on your overall hermeneutical approach. However, I am very much attracted to Mouw’s view and I would say that Mouw’s basic thesis holds good. It fits with broader biblical theological themes such as the renewal of the cosmos and the resurrection of Jesus vindicating the created order (cf. O’Donovan). It also correlates well to the Holy City language in Revelation 21-22.

Connections

Thinking of my own context of working with students, what help does When the Kings Come Marching In offer?

- I would want to help students to appreciate the inherent value of culture as fulfilment of God’s creation mandate, along with understanding the idolatrous and rebellious uses to which culture, that Christ’s redemptive work is cosmic in scope and that we can look forward to a new heaven and new earth (not a disembodied heaven) which will include some kind of transformation of culture. Isaiah 60 could be a useful chapter for working through some of these issues, although I would maybe go to Revelation 21-22 and other passages first.

- This has pastoral implications in relation to issues of guidance and vocation. Simply, we can see that all kinds of jobs, that engage in all kinds of aspects of human culture (including, for example, commerce and politics) are legitimate vocations for Christians. We can glorify Christ in all kinds of work, not just so-called ‘spiritual work’. Students can be helped to think through their own future in this way. A book such as Glory Days by Julian Hardyman is helpful here. (and probably a better starting point than When the Kings)

- Finally, a caution from Mouw’s conclusion about following the clear mandates we do have in scripture. Some discussion about the transformation of culture is mysterious and perhaps even speculative. And it can certainly be easy to get carried away with a new understanding of something so that you ignore or even disparage other areas that are equally important and which the new teaching was intended to balance not replace. So, for example, an emphasis on the cosmic implications of Christ’s atonement should never replace the personal implications of substitution & forgiveness for the individual sinner. So it is helpful to remember that the transformation of culture awaits the return of Christ and therefore, whatever our engagement with culture now, it ought never to replace the business of loving our neighbour, proclaiming the gospel message etc – tasks that many brothers and sisters with a less adequate view of culture (as we would see it) get on with, with great commitment and faithfulness and with God’s blessing.

Review of Newbigin - The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

Newbigin, Lesslie (1989) The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (London: SPCK)

Summary

In The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Lesslie Newbigin addresses the question of how Christianity can survive in a culture that is radically pluralistic, (contemporary Britain is particularly in view) a society in which religion is relegated to the sphere of opinion or value (as opposed to ‘facts’), claims to ultimate truth or that one religion is true where others are false are treated with suspicion and hostility and doubt is lauded as far superior to belief.


The first move is to undermine several ‘myths’ of contemporary secular society which are deeply ingrained but decidedly shaky. For example, the fact-value dichotomy is false, since ‘facts’ are always interpreted. What is treated as fact is only known because of its embeddedness in a way of seeing – a plausibility structure. The modern mindset asserts the superiority of its scientific methods because it appeals to reason over and against revelation or tradition. But this, too, is a wrong move. The Christian and the modern pluralist both use reason in interpreting the data of experience, but the former’s framework of thought includes certain things (such as that God has made himself known in Christ) that the latter denies. Moreover, reason always operates out of a tradition – the modern scientific method being no exception – such that we should talk about competing traditions of rationality rather than reason vs tradition.

Newbigin argues that Christianity provides an alternative plausibility structure to pluralism (or indeed to any other dominant worldview), it does not sit comfortably with the way modern society thinks, but that is not something to be ashamed or nervous about since the modern way of thinking has cracks in its roots. The Christian worldview is rooted in the conviction that God has acted decisively in human history (“it is the story of actions by which the human situation is irreversibly changed”) and chosen a community to bear witness to those decisive events. History has a meaning, and the clue is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Christian congregation is the means by which the gospel impacts society; the living out of the Christian faith – as a ‘hermeneutic of the gospel’ – will demonstrate the truth of the Christian message.

Evaluation and Questions

The Gospel in a Pluralist Society is a powerful apologetic for the Christian gospel. Its dissection of the pluralist worldview is brilliant, and its presentation of the Christian alternative of gospel-lived-out communities attractive. I like the emphasis on the events of the gospel giving us the meaning of history and therefore that our own lives in our day fit into an overarching story. There is a strong emphasis on community and on Christians living out the gospel in their secular places of work. Particularly helpful is the confidence that Newbigin gives the Church to be what we are meant to be and to not be intimidated by a hostile pluralistic culture.

However, there are also questions that arise. For example, it is not clear to me precisely how Newbigin is defining either ‘Church’ or ‘gospel’. There are many versions of Christianity: can they all be described as true manifestations of the Church, or are there limits? Given that a true church must embody and teach the gospel, the question then becomes whether there are ‘false gospels’ which in essence disqualify a group from being a true Church. Newbigin’s definition of ‘Church’ would seem to be pretty broad and ecumenical, which perhaps raises the question of how the gospel is being defined. It is something to do with the incarnation, cross, resurrection and return of Christ, but these can be understood in different ways.

A second question is whether Newbigin’s argument actually succeeds in answering the problem of choosing between alternative worldviews (plausibility structures). If the Christian and the modern pluralist worldviews provide competing visions, how is one to adjudicate between them? There is no neutral point of view from which they can be compared. Commitment to one plausibility structure, which, in turn, provides the framework for interpreting the world (and, therefore, evaluating other plausibility structures), is inevitable. How can one know which plausibility structure is true? Newbigin’s answer takes a number of angles. Firstly, we will only know the answer at the end of history. Secondly, it is possible (and, indeed vital for the Christian) to live in two worldviews. That is, it is possible to some extent to enter into the thought patterns of another worldview and hence to be able to critique it from within. Thirdly, Newbigin appeals several times to an argument from Polanyi, namely that subjectivism is avoided when we hold our beliefs (as personally committed subjects) with “universal intent” and “we express that intent by publishing them and inviting all people to consider and accept them” (126) Fourthly, the radical gospel life of the Christian congregation authenticates the message proclaimed. There are knotty epistemological and apologetical issues here, and I don’t know the answers! I wonder whether this view would be sufficient, say, to argue against the Mormon view of the world on this basis.

Thirdly, Newbigin’s views on certain issues are very different to views I have long-thought to be biblical. In particular, I have in mind election (the emphasis on the purpose of election being for mission is superb, but the polemic against the view that God chooses some and not others, I’m not sure that (a) he deals with the biblical evidence sufficiently or (b) that this point is strictly necessary for his main argument anyway) and the status of people of other faiths (basically, the Christian gospel is unique but we cannot say who will be saved in the end). It is beyond the scope of this review to explore these areas any further.

Connections

The importance of analysing and deconstructing our society’s plausibility structures. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society provides a useful starting point. As does Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands in its getting its hands dirty in the dredging up the idolatries and evil desires of the human heart. Perhaps the former helps on the corporate, social level, and the latter on the individual, heart level. The two books therefore complement each other brilliantly.

The importance of understanding the overarching story of the Bible, and one’s place in it. In other words, having a Christian interpretation of history and the world. This understanding is rooted in the gospel. This story (in the words of Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands) gives us our identity, purpose and sense of direction.

The importance of living out the gospel in the world. The following quotes are brilliant, in relation to the Christian in his day-to-day and the role of the Christian minister: “the major impact of such congregations on the life of society as a whole is through the daily work of the members in their secular vocations…” (234-5) “The priestly people [in secular vocations] needs a ministering priesthood to sustain and nourish it… we set apart a man or woman to a ministerial priesthood not in order to take away the priesthood of the whole body but to enable it.” (235)

The need for courage in the Christian minister. There is a particularly powerful picture painted at the end of chapter 19 (in relation to Christian teaching) of Jesus “going ahead of his disciples, like a commander leading troops into battle. The words he speaks are thrown back over his shoulder at fearful and faltering followers. He is not like a general who sits at headquarters and sends his troops into battle. He goes at their head and takes the brunt of the enemy attack. He enables and encourages them by leading them, not just by telling them. In this picture, the words of Jesus have a quite different force. They all find their meaning in their central keyword, ‘Follow me’.” (240)

Review - Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands

Tripp, Paul David (2002) Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change (P & R: Phillipsburg, New Jersey)

Summary
In Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands (IRH), Paul David Tripp seeks to set forth a biblical model for pastoral counselling. According to Tripp, the task of helping Christians to change is not to be left to trained professionals, but is something to which all Christians are called.
The book can be neatly divided into two. Chapters 1-6 lay down foundations and principles and chapters 7-14 expound Tripp’s model for “serving as an instrument of change.”

[1]

- The gospel teaches us that change is possible – it really is good news! – and that change comes through a person not a system. (chapter 1)
- God changes people as people bring His Word to others, which means not dipping into the Bible randomly, but seeing how our lives fit into the overarching story of redemption. “Lasting change begins when our identity, purpose, and sense of direction are defined by God’s story.” (chapter 2)
- Our status as people in need of help is established by both creation and fall. (chapter 3)
- The central focus is the heart. Not addressing the heart will lead to only superficial change, and indeed can serve to fuel heart-idolatry. (chapters 4-5)
- Christ is our model for being instruments of change. We are called to be ambassadors for God in serving each other in the process of change (chapter 6)

Chapters 7-14 then develop four aspects of a personal ministry relationship that focuses on heart change. We are to love by entering the other person’s world, incarnating the love of Christ to them, identifying with their suffering and accepting them while looking for change. (chapters 7-8) It is vital to get to know the other person, by asking questions and not making assumptions (chapters 9-10). Speaking the truth in love through honest, godly confrontation is vital to helping the other see where their hearts need to change (chapters 11-12). But change hasn’t happened until change has happened, and the goal is to help the other do what is necessary to change, through establishing your own personal ministry agenfa, clarifying responsibility, instilling identity in Christ and providing accountability. (chapters 13-14)

Evaluation
Don Carson commends Mark Dever’s The Deliberate Church for giving an ecclesiology that is both thoroughly biblical and practical.

[2] Something similar could be said of Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands. The great strengths of IRH are its rootedness in the gospel, biblical theology and a biblical perspective on human nature. The consistent emphasis on the heart as where counselling must focus, with concomitant discussion of themes of idolatry and desire etc. is very helpful, particularly as this fits with an emphasis on the gospel as the means of real change. For the gospel does indeed deal with the human heart – it is the only thing that can! Likewise, Tripp’s approach to the use of Scripture in counselling is helpful. The Bible is not an encylopedia whereby we turn to isolated verses to address issues such as television, schizophrenia or teenagers. Rather, the Bible gives a framework for interpreting life through an overarching story and grand themes that run through the whole.

And on those key foundations, IRH builds a model of personal relationship ministry that is detailed in its practicality. It is one thing to emphasise the gospel, the right use of Scriptures and the importance of the heart, but another thing to apply those truths in ways that will actually practically help people to change! And the second half of IRH achieves that by (a) setting out a biblical approach to particular issues (such as confrontation, the importance of knowing people well) (b) suggesting practical ways to do it (e.g. example questions that could be used to get to know somebody) (c) giving real-life examples of counselling situations that help to see how the principles work out in practice.

[NB. I will address possible weaknesses in the next section, questions]

Questions
IRH emphasises that pastoral counselling is something for all Christians to be involved in. The focus of the book is very much on one-to-one relationships, which leaves me with questions regarding the role of the church in helping each other to grow and change. Is it in the one-to-one relationships that real change takes place? What then of the small group or large congregation gathering, the sermon or bible study? How do these different aspects complement each other? If the focus is on individual change, what about corporate change? Is there a place for an individual’s struggles to be shared in a group wider than a one-to-one relationship (e.g. a homegroup)?

Secondly, in the examples that are given of pastoral problems there does seem to me an abundance of examples of more openly conflictual type problems, such as anger, and less examples of more ‘passive’ issues such as cowardice, depression and indifference etc. – issues which I see more frequently in my own life at least. It would have been good to have given more examples of this kind too.

Connections
Some points that have impressed me:

- “Sinners tend to respond sinfully to being sinned against” (11) People on the receiving end of terrible acts also need to be helped to repent. This can be hard when someone has suffered unjustly, but must be sensitively done. First, though, what is my own response to ‘unfair treatment’ – do I take advantage of the idea of being a victim?

- “Why do we spend hours preparing to teach while we offer important personal direction without a second thought?” (22) People need God’s Word not off-the-cuff personal advice. Will I love others enough to think through prayerfully and biblically what best to say?

- “All of life is counseling or personal ministry” (45) God has made us to be interpreters of ourselves and of the world around us. In addition, the fall means we are susceptible to believing and living on the basis of false interpretations. “We were created with the need for truth outside ourselves to live life properly.” (55) And for this we need each other. Will I strive to be continually seeking to bring God’s interpretation to bear in conversations with others?

- “If we fail to examine the heart and the areas where it needs to change, our ministry efforts will only result in people who are more committed and successful idolaters… We will even use the principles of God’s Word to serve our idols!” (69) Whoah!!

- The challenge of genuine love: “We want ministry that doesn’t demand love that is, well, so demanding! We don’t want to serve others in a way that requires so much personal sacrifice. We would prefer to lob grenades of truth into people’s lives rather than lay down our lives for them.” (118)

- “Asking good questions is doing the work of change.” (173) because it helps people to examine areas of their hearts and lives, it helps them to see themselves in a new light. But it is important not only to ask good questions but also to have someone ask you those questions too.

- “Biblical personal ministry is more about perspective, identity and calling than about fixing what is broken” (185)

- “Our failure to confront one another biblically must be seen for what it is: something rooted in our tendency to run after god-replacements… we fail to confront, not because we love others to much, but because we love ourselves too much.” (201-202) This is a challenge to my unwillingness to challenge and confront where that is the loving thing to do.

[1] There are also 5 appendices, which I haven’t read!
[2] Carson, Don “Foreword” in Dever, Mark & Alexander, Paul (2005) The Deliberate Church: Building your Ministry on the Gospel (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway) p.p.13-14

Review: Greidanus - The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text

Note: I have been doing some part-time theological study with the Northern Training Institute since September. It is fantastic. I hope to publish some of the fruits of my studies

Greidanus, Sidney (1988) The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans)

Summary
The stated purpose of MPAT is “to set forth a responsible, contemporary method of biblical interpretation and preaching.” (xii) Greidanus’ method is to interact heavily with recent biblical scholarship with the aim of drawing out that which is useful for preaching; in other words, he seeks to bridge the gap between hermeneutics and homiletics. (xi) This method is, in turn, rooted in the author’s convictions about what preaching is. (chapter 1) Preaching itself bridges a gap: “the preacher stands at the intersection of the ancient Scriptures and the contemporary congregation and has a responsibility to both.” (341) Preaching is God speaking and acting: it is through preaching that God’s Word in the past (the Scriptures) becomes God’s Word in the present and is applied to church and world. But “since the Bible is the normative source of revelation for contemporary preachers, they must bind themselves to the Scriptures if they would preach the word of God.” (9) And in order to do that, it is essential that the Bible be interpreted responsibly. MPAT therefore is something of a detailed handbook of hermeneutical and homiletical principles that sets out to help the preacher apply the Word of God properly to his congregation.

This approach is developed through the following stages:

• the construction of a “holistic historical-critical method” against a “naturalistic historical-critical method” which destroys confidence in the historical reliability of the Bible, with devastating effects on preaching (chapter 2)


• the development of a holistic framework for interpretation, drawing together literary, historical and theological aspects (chapters 3-5)


• a definition of good preaching as “textual-thematic preaching”, that is, preaching that “is based on a biblical text and expounds the message of that text”, doing so by focussing on the theme of that text. (chapter 6)


• discussion of the relative merits of the narrative and didactic sermon forms and how the gap between form ancient text and modern congregation can successfully be bridged (chapters 7-8)


• focussing all the preceding discussion onto preaching from four specific biblical genres, namely Hebrew narrative, prophecy, gospel and epistle. (chapters 9-12)[1]

Evaluation
The main strength of MPAT is in its strong commitment to preaching as the proper goal of biblical study. Of course preaching merely in itself is not the ultimate goal, but given that it is a, if not the, principle means for God’s work in church and world, it is vital that that means be constructed soundly. And good preaching – preaching that does responsibly bridge the gap between ancient text and modern world – is constantly in view for Greidanus. Thus he not only argues that good preaching is an exposition of a text, and is based on the theme of that text, but he also shows how that can be done. He shows, using a range of hermeneutical tools, how an appropriate text can be selected, how the text’s theme can be discerned, and how a sermon that is both responsible and relevant can be shaped.

A second significant feature of MPAT is Greidanus’ substantial engagement with recent biblical scholarship (although not so recent now, given it was published nearly 20 years ago), while retaining a high view of Scripture. Two of the potential dangers of biblical scholarship are those of (a) creating a chasm between academy and church and (b) allowing the academy to dictate to the church. I think that through his commitment to preaching, Greidanus helpfully brings some of the fruits of biblical scholarship in service to the preacher. A book on preaching or hermeneutics by no means needs to engage all the scholarly issues Greidanus does but it is useful to have at least one book that does.

Questions
One set of questions related to the status of other forms of communicating or ministering God’s Word besides preaching, which are not discussed at all in MPAT.[2] How do the hermeneutical & homilitical principles elucidated in MPAT apply in small group Bible study, one-to-one discipleship, personal witness, personal bible study etc.? Does God speak today through preaching in ways in which he doesn’t through these other forms?

It is also suggestive to set MPAT alongside a book such as Dig Deeper (Beynon & Sach) whose aim is to make available for the ordinary Christian a range of tools for interpreting the Bible, many of which are simplified versions of those found in MPAT. But if the aim of a book like Dig Deeper is to demistify interpretation and enable the ordinary Christian to do what the preacher can do, what is the role of a book like MPAT which seeks to provide a preacher with a deeper, more technical set of tools, beyond the reach of the average Christian? What is the value of the expertise of the preacher?

These issues lead to questions about spiritual gifts, the priesthood of all believers and the role of pastor in the church etc. which are beyond the scope of this review, other than to comment that both the responsibility of each believer to understand and obey the Scriptures and the higher responsibility of the pastor/preacher to teach the church must be affirmed.

Connections
Here are a few points that have impressed me as being important in my own preaching:

• the huge responsibility that comes from the conviction that “God speaks through contemporary preachers” with the concomitant responsibility to work extremely hard to interpret and apply the Bible rightly


• the importance of working hard at the form of the sermon, not just the content. The form can vary, and should be an appropriate vehicle, rather than a hindrance, to the effective communication of the message of the text.


• that it is crucial to discover the theme of the text, but the theme of the sermon is not always identical to the theme of the text, although it is derived from it. E.g. “When the preaching text is from the Old Testament, the theme of the text must be traced through God’s progressive revelation from the Old Testament to the New Testament.” (138)[3]


• The importance of being responsible in deriving application from a text. Greidanus critiques “improper ways of bridging the gap” (159), namely allegorising, spiritualising, moralising and imitating Bible characters, and helpfully shows how application can properly be made. So, for instance, the hermeneutical principle of authorial intent can be used to discern when we are meant to identify ourselves with certain biblical characters. Likewise, rather than comparing Bible characters with people today, we should be asking “how did the original recipients understand this passage?” (171) We can then draw lines to ourselves because of the continuity of God’s covenant people (recognising discontinuity too)
  

In conclusion, MPAT is a helpful resource for aspiring preachers. Its principles are to be appropriated and worked into one’s preaching over a period of time. As a book on preaching it is valuable, but also as limited as any other book on preaching, because one can only truly learn to preach through practice.


[1] NB I had not read these chapters at the time of writing this assignment.
[2] Apart from this brief comment: “Although the Spirit’s speaking is by no means limited to preachers (think of parents, teachers, friends, and neighbours through whom the Spirit speaks today), contemporary preachers have a special responsibility to proclaim the word of the Lord.” (8)
[3] This point seems to be a little different from Mark Dever’s definition of expositional preaching: “taking as the point of the message the point of the passage”

The moral goodness of business

I have just read Business for the Glory of God by Wayne Grudem. It is short and packs a single, simple punch. Business is a dirty word, associated with all kinds of greed and corruption. Yet, Grudem argues, as Christians we can, and must, affirm that business activities are neither inherently evil not merely morally neutral, but morally good. Good not just for the opportunities that are provided for advancing the gospel, but good in themselves, for through them we can glorify God.

Grudem’s simple thesis is that business activities are fundamentally good and provide many opportunities for glorifying God, although they also provide many opportunities to sin. Of course there are many sinful distortions, but activities such as buying and selling, employing others, competition and making are profit are good.

I found this book very helpful, and would like to respond with two thoughts: firstly, Grudem has encouraged me to view those business-type activities that I am involved with as opportunities to glorify God and love my neighbour. Secondly, Grudem has persuaded me to encourage Christians who work in business or who are thinking of going into business.

In my own attitudes, I want to do what Grudem suggests is rarely done:

“when people ask how their lives can ‘glorify God’ they aren’t usually told ‘go into business’”
“When someone explains to a new acquaintance, ‘I work in such-and-such a business” he doesn’t usually hear the response, ‘what a great way to glorify God!’”

If you’re not convinced by my “review” then perhaps you need to read the book!

Was Evangelicalism created by the Enlightenment?

In his 2002 article of this name[1], Garry Williams offers a critique of historian David Bebbington’s thesis that evangelicalism is essentially a product of the Enlightenment. As I have read little of Bebbington’s work, I am not in a position to evaluate the debate, or indeed to present the counter-arguments from Bebbington’s side. I will therefore limit myself to summarising Williams’ argument and (in a second piece) offering a few meagre comments.

Bebbington’s definition of evangelicalism, as a historical movement, focuses on four key characteristics, a “quadrilateral of priorities”:

• “conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed;
• activism, the expression of the gospel in effort;
• biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called
• crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross”[2]

Bebbington’s thesis is that evangelicalism thus defined was born in the early 18th century and was chiefly distinguished from what went before by the second characteristic, activism. The earlier Reformers and Puritans also placed great emphasis on conversion, the Bible and the Cross but lacked that activism that has been a hallmark of evangelicalism. That is, evangelicalism is a continuation of the Reformation and the Puritan movement, with a new intensification of activity in missions, evangelism and social action.

What caused this change is, according to Bebbington, a change in the theology of assurance which in turn was created by the absorption of certain aspects of Enlightenment philosophy into the thinking of the likes of John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. According to Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, certainty could be obtained empirically, through the senses. This was, according to Bebbington, translated into Evangelicalism by the positing of a special ‘spiritual sense’ by which one could gain certain, early knowledge – assurance – of one’s salvation. While previous generations had expended much energy on ascertaining whether one was truly saved or not, now the question of the evangelical’s assurance could be quickly settled, and he was thus freed from self-examination to spend himself in godly activity.

This is the heart of Bebbington’s thesis and Williams critiques it in two ways. Firstly, he questions whether there was a new doctrine of assurance by examining the thought of Edwards, Wesley and John Newton; secondly, he briefly questions whether there was indeed a new activism.

In response, Williams argues:

(1) John Wesley does argue that the Holy Spirit gives an immediate sense of assurance upon conversion. However, post-conversion, Wesley urges the believer to examine himself for evidence of the Spirit’s work in his life to provide a second witness in addition to the immediate sense.[3]

(2) Wesley speaks of a ‘spiritual sense’ in language somewhat similar to that used by Enlightenment philosophers to speak of the physical senses. However,
a. The spiritual sense is only similar to the physical senses in the degree of certainty given by it
b. The spiritual sense is fundamentally different because the certainty obtained through the spiritual sense is given by the Spirit of God, not obtained through human reflection as with the physical senses.
c. Wesley draws his idea of a spiritual sense from pre-Enlightenment sources, while using language amenable to the times. “A shared vocabulary is not sufficient to demonstrate an intellectual origin.”[4]

(3) When Jonathan Edwards speaks of a spiritual sense, an immediate sense of assurance,
a. he is speaking about being certain of the objective truth of the gospel, not the certainty that the individual is saved.
b. although the language Edwards employs sounds Lockean, his conception of spiritual sense was not borrowed from Locke but was firmly rooted in the Augustinian-Reformed theological heritage. Many of the Puritans (Williams cites John Owen, Thomas Goodwin and John Flavel) spoke of spiritual sense in ways similar to Edwards. Williams suggests that Edwards “was engaged in an apologetic project in which he used the language and concepts of his opponents to his own theological ends.”[5]

(4) As regards assurance of salvation, Edwards in fact consistently and strongly rejected any kind of assurance based on a special, immediate ‘spiritual sense’ (contra Wesley).

(5) For Edwards, the route to assurance lies through the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit in the believer’s life. He therefore called for the same rigorous self-examination as the Puritans.
a. Furthermore, “where we would expect from Bebbington to find the earlier, possibly more confident theology fuelling evangelical activism, we find that Edwards’s activism [namely his mission work among the Indians in Stockbridge] followed his attack on the idea of a direct witness.”[6]

(6) John Newton also does not fit Bebbington’s description, as he held, for example, that assurance was rare and difficult to obtain.

(7) Finally, leaving aside assurance, Williams disputes Bebbington’s claim that Evangelicalism was characterised by a new activism. “The dating of Evangelicalism to the 1730s will only work if we say that preaching, pastoring, evangelism and social concern do not count as examples of Evangelical activism”[7], for all those activities were practised by both the Reformers and the Puritans. Only in the case of foreign missions could such a case possibly be made, but then ‘activism’ would have by far too narrow a definition.

On the basis of these arguments, Williams disputes Bebbington’s dating of the origins of evangelicalism and seeks to reopen for consideration “the case for the Reformation and Puritanism being authentically Evangelical movements.”[8]

Williams concludes by suggesting that one implication of renewing the stress on the continuity of Evangelicalism with the Reformation and the Puritans rather than its (supposed) newness is to do with the doctrine of election. On the view that evangelicalism originated in the early 18th century, both Edwards and Wesley are seen as foundational figures, and hence the divide between Arminian and Reformed theology is present from the beginning. On the other hand, tracing evangelicalism’s roots back through the Puritans to the Reformers is to show that the Reformed doctrine of election is original, and the Arminian version an aberration. “With such an historical perspective, Reformed theology becomes the authentic Evangelical mainstream of three centuries, and the historical case for the foundational status of Arminianism is undermined.”[9]

This is post is quite long enough, so my own comments will wait until the next post.

Footnotes
[1] Williams, Garry (2002) "Was Evangelicalism Created by the Enlightenment?", Tyndale Bulletin 53, 2, 283-312
[2] Bebbington, David (1992) Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids: Baker), 2-3, quoted in Carson, D.A. (1996) The Gagging of God (Leicester: Apollos), 449
[3] “This is not to deny that assurance was more widely experienced among Wesleyans, but it is to counter Bebbington’s argument that the Methodists were freed for activism by leaving the self-examination of the Puritans behind them.” Williams p.291
[4] Williams p.293
[5] Williams p.298
[6] Williams p.306, emphasis added
[7] Williams p.311
[8] Williams p.311
[9] Williams p.312

Garry Williams on hostile history

I am inspired by Rosemary's post God loves maths. And arts. And science... to post some notes from a seminar given by Garry Williams on a Christian view of history or, more precisely on historiography, the writing of history. Williams argues that we are intrinsically historical as human beings. History is not a peripheral subject of interest to a few (out-of-date?) people, but something that shapes our understanding of the world we live in and our own identity. Consciously or not, we are all historians - we all have a view on/ an understanding of the past - and if we're not conscious of it, that probably indicates that we have by default adopted the version presented to us by our culture. As Christians, therefore, we must work to develop a Christian interpretation of history; if not we will unwittingly imbibe a non-Christian version, a version which will operate by principles that are profoundly hostile to the Lordship of Christ.

I hope to write more on history in future posts, but for now here are the said notes:

Hostile History
Garry Williams

22nd Evangelical Ministry Assembly 2005. Faith Facing Hostility.


Hostility towards Christ in the telling of history.

How we tell history is not neutral, but an arena of conflict

1) because of the extent of human depravity into all areas of human activity

history cannot properly be understood without the context of the progress of the gospel.

Pascal: “how fine it is to see with the eyes of faith, Darius and Cyrus, Alexander, the Romans, Pompei and Herod, working without knowing it for the glory of the gospel.”

history is Christian or anti-Christian history.
no facts outside of an interpretative framework
Van Til: “it is a Satanic falsehood to say that a fact is a fact to everybody alike.”

2) everybody is a historian

Despite anti-historical tendencies, “no culture can possibly continue for a moment without an articulated history.”
By telling history we define our world, and our place within the world. History is fundamental to our identity; telling history is an inalienable human activity.

all people are historians because all people are religious.
innate desire to worship, but channelled into history.


Responding to hostile history, engaging in Christian counter-history.

1) The Bible commits us to being historical creatures.
The Bible gives us an authoritative interpretation of history.

What about history beyond Acts, post-biblical history?
But the Bible embraces all of history – not in an ‘detailed end-times map’/rapture-index sense

“There is plenty of more mainstream evidence, is there not, for the reach of Scripture beyond the Acts of the Apostles in its discussion of human history. Think of the visions of Daniel, of that rock growing into a great mountain. Think of the mustard seed growing into a tree that shelters the birds, the nations, that come to nest in its branches. Think of the lump being leavened as the yeast leavens the whole. Think even of the Great Commission – making disciples of all nations. All of these are Biblical pictures of post-biblical history.”

“How we view the last 2000 years is determined by the teaching of Scripture.”

2) The Lord Jesus Christ claims total Lorship over all the earth

“The Christian religion must become the universal religion because Jesus is the universal Lord.”

3) If we don’t, we will by default pick up a non-Christian history of the world


In practice

1) self-scrutiny. What kind of history have we imbibed?
2) forming our own historical understanding. Take small steps.
3) teach historically

The full seminar can be bought from the Proclamation trust here.
You can read about Garry Williams, a lecturer at Oak Hill theological college, here.

PS. I also found the following article by Garry Williams very helpful:
Cross Purpose: replying to Steve Chalke on penal substitution.