The Soteriology of the Gospel of John

A major theme of John’s Gospel is that Jesus has come into the world from God. He is “the one who came from heaven” (3.13, 31); He has been sent by God the Father (many references!!); He is the light who “has come into the world” (3.19, 12.46), “the bread come down from heaven” (6.32-33, 38, 41-42, 50-51, 58), “the Messiah, the Son of God, who was to come into the world” (11.27) and many similar descriptions besides. Jesus’ origin is a significant point of discussion and dispute throughout the gospel. The Jews debate where he is from during the Feast of Tabernacles (7.27-29, 41-43, 52). It forms part of the dispute between Jesus and the Jews in chapter 8 (e.g. 8.14), and between the Pharisees and the blind man healed by Jesus (9.16, 29-33). Even Pilate asks, “where do you come from?” (19.9)

As the Gospel develops, it becomes increasingly clear that Jesus has not only come into the world from God, but he is also leaving the world and returning to God. (e.g. 13.1) Hinted at during the early parts of John (e.g. 6.62, 7.33-34, 12.35-36), His leaving becomes the backdrop to the urgent discussions during the meal on the night of his betrayal. (chs 13-17)

Jesus is the one who has come from heaven, sent by the Father into the world, to subsequently leave the world and return to the Father. The theme is so pervasive that there is no room to go through all the instances of its occurrence, but the questions that logically flows from it lead us easily into our discussion of soteriology. For what purpose did the Father send the Son into the world? Why did he come, and then leave?

Already in the Prologue, we are alerted to the fact that all is not well with Jesus’ coming into the world, and therefore that all is not well with the world. The world was made through Him but “the world did not recognise him” (1.10); “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive Him.” (1.11) The world is, in fact, in darkness (cf. 1.5), a darkness that hates the coming of light into the world, because of its evil (3.19-20; 8.12, 12.35-36, 46). The world stands in danger of judgment (3.18), slaves to sin (8.34; cf. 9.41 etc.) and held captive by the devil (8.44, cf 12.31).[1]

The world is in need of salvation. And so, clearly and wonderfully, the message of John’s gospel is that Jesus has indeed come to save the world!

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (3.17)

“For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” (12.47)

“We know that this man really is the Saviour of the world.” (4.42) (the testimony of the Samaritans)

If the Father sent the Son into the world to save it, we need to ask two further questions: (1) how, precisely, is this salvation achieved? and (2) to what, or for what, is the world saved?

Jesus came to reveal the Father (e.g. 14.9-11), but salvation is not merely revelation – a new knowledge or enlightenment.[2] John’s Gospel inexorably heads towards a climax in which salvation is definitively accomplished. That defining moment – Jesus’ ‘time’ (2.4; 7.8; 7.30 – is his death and resurrection. Several times, from 5.16 onwards, the Jews attempt to seize Jesus in order to kill him, but they are unable to because “his hour had not yet come.” But it is all heading towards his death.

As the third Passover of John’s Gospel draws nearer, the tension mounts until, having been prepared for His burial by Mary’s anointing Him with oil and having entered into Jerusalem as the king on the donkey[3], the arrival of some Greeks seeking to meet Him moves Jesus to declare that “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (12.23) and “now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” (12.31) Now is the time for Jesus to die (12.24, 33) and this is the reason why Jesus came (12.27).

What is the significance of Jesus’ death? The clues are scattered throughout the gospel: He is the Lamb of God (i.e. the sacrificial, passover lamb) who takes away the sin of the world. (1.29) He must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. (3.14-15) His flesh is the bread given for the life of the world. (6.51) He is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (10.11, 17-18). He is the one man who will die for the Jewish nation – “and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.” (11.50-52) He is to be lifted up from the earth, in order to draw all people to himself. (12.32-33)

Jesus’ death achieves salvation; perhaps the first epistle of John best expresses the significance of this truth:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (2.2)

This is how we know what love is: Jesus laid down his life for us (3.16)

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. (4.10)[4]

Because it is an atoning sacrifice that deals with sin, Jesus’ death brings life. The goal of salvation, or what we are saved into or for is life or eternal life. John’s gospel, like a coral reef or estuary, is teeming with life! In Him (the Word) was life (1.4). Whoever believes in Him has eternal life (3.15, 16, 36). Whoever drinks the water offered by Jesus “will become a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (4.13). The Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it (5.21). He is the bread of heaven that gives life to the world. (6.33) He has come that his sheep may have life, and have it to the full. (10.10) He is the resurrection and the life: anyone who believes in Him will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in him will never die. (11.25-26) And these represent only a selection of relevant texts.

In Jesus is life; He is life, and he offers life to whoever will believe in him. The offer of life is possible because Jesus lay down his life and took it up again. But what is this eternal life that is offered? On the one hand it is the hope of resurrection (e.g. 5.28-29; 6.39-40 etc.). It is, moreover, an ongoing-forever life (e.g. 5.51). It is a qualitatively different life - full life (10.10). It is life that, while with the fuller realisation to come, is entered into now (e.g. 5.24) Finally, “this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (17.3) Knowing God – in the language of 1 John, “fellowship with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1.3) – is ultimately what we are saved for, although not in a an individual beatific vision kind of way, since fellowship with (and love for) each other is included within that fellowship with God, both in John 17 and throughout 1 John.

To sum up, the Father sent the Son into the world to save the world. That salvation was accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus with the result that whoever believes in Him receives eternal life. That is the soteriology of John’s gospel. To conclude, I wish to offer a couple of reflections.

1. Jesus’ coming precipitates a crisis for the world – and therefore for each one of us. The world was already in darkness, humanity was already enslaved in sin and captive to the devil. But now, with the entrance of the Creator onto the world he has created, the issues are intensifed, the terms of debate subtly altered. Now that he has come, it is with Christ we must reckon. This is shown e.g. in 3.18 where condemnation is issued “because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” This should remind us of the vital importance (and glory) of Christ’s coming and give us confidence to keep on preaching Him first and foremost.

2. In examining the soteriology of (mainly) the gospel of John, I have tried to avoid moving too quickly to reading John merely with soteriological questions in view. i.e. I didn’t want to simply structure this paper, say, as (1) what is the problem, according to John? (2) what is the solution? (3) what is the result (or goal) of salvation? I thought it would be more helpful to try to wrestle with some of the themes that shape John itself, and from them draw out the soteriology. Hence me starting with discussing Jesus coming into, and going out of, the world. Whether this approach has worked or not I don’t know, but I certainly found the predominance of that particular theme very striking, and it was helpful for me to then follow through with the soteriological questions from that framework.

3. This study has also reaffirmed for me the centrality of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus’ death. According to Marshall, “there have been repeated attempts to deny the central and sacrificial character of the death of Jesus in this Gospel” but, as Marshall goes on to say, “they can be confidently rejected.”[5] Jesus’s “hour”, the defining moment of his mission, is his death and the clues are sufficient throughout the gospel, and made even clearer in the statements in 1 John quoted above. If Jesus had not died for our sins, there would be no salvation.

this was an assignment I wrote for NTI

References
Carson, D.A. (1991) The Gospel According to John (Leicester: IVP)
Kruse, C.G. (2000) The Letters of John (Leicester: Apollos)
Marshall, I.H. (2004) New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP)


[1] We could add here, the link between sin and the devil in 1 John 3.8-10: “the one who does what is sinful is of the devil” while “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.”
[2] cf. Marshall p.512-3, Carson p.94
[3] in contrast to the previous passover when the crowd tried to make Jesus king by force, not understanding that his kingship was to be exercised by giving his life for the world (ch. 6)
[4] According to Kruse (pp.35, 174-178) the references to blood in 1 John 5.6-7 also refer to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus’ death.
[5] Marshall p.519, fn 40

Book Review - Going the Distance by Peter Brain

Peter Brain (2004) Going the Distance (Matthias Media)

An enormously helpful book: the focus is on pastors, but it would also be very helpful for church members to understand better the pressures that pastors face and so be equipped to support them better.

Summary
The thesis of Going the Distance is that for effective long-term ministry, Christian ministers need to look after themselves. The implementation of good principles of self-care are crucial for the pastor to avoid burning-out in the face of the multitudinous and intense pressures of what Christian psychologist Dr Arch Hart describes as “a unique vocation and if undertaken seriously the most dangerous occupation around.” (quoted by Brain, p.12) This self-care needs to be intentional on the part of pastors, and should not be seen as in conflict with the call of Christ to self-denial, for the pastor’s efforts at looking after himself will both set an example to others and sustain his ministry in the long-term.

Areas covered in Going the Distance include burnout, stress, depression, anger, the pastor’s family, sexual temptation and friendship. Each issue is discussed with a view to understanding the dangers involved and suggesting principles & strategies in developing a healthy approach in each area. There are also significant chapters addressing church members, church leaders and denominational leaders as to how they can contribute to the health of their pastor’s ministry. The penultimate chapter emphasises the vital role that the doctrine of justification by faith plays in establishing the pastor’s identity and protecting him from many dangers.

Evaluation – what I found helpful
In chapter one, the author argues carefully and, I think, persuasively for the importance of self-care in Christian ministry. He writes from the perspective that pastors, because of their commitment to the Lord and the work He has called them to, are in general going to tend to overwork rather than laziness. But the choice, echoing a comment from Christmas Evans, is not between burning out and rusting out in the service of the Lord. Particularly helpful are his comments on self-care and self-denial. He refers to Dr Hart’s careful distinction where the “call to self-denial refers to our ‘motivational self’, whereas self-care deals with our ‘structural self’” (p.22) and concludes that “devoted service and obedience not only will flow out of a base of thoughtful self-care, but will be fuelled by it.” (p.23) – as long as self-care does not become an excuse for selfishness or cowardice.

The detailed discussion of the range of issues that pose dangers to the pastor is very helpful; here I will mention one or two areas by way of illustration.

Stress and demands are neither unavoidable nor necessarily problems in themselves – for they are the job! However, it is important to have a good attitude towards them to avoid the potentially destructive effects that can come from them. Pastoral ministry is by nature never-ending, the fruit is by default intangible & unmeasureable and there is always more to do. Demands can come from all kinds of directions and if not managed well, unhealthy stress can seriously distort the pastor’s work. In dealing with the demands of ministry, the author suggests (1) that pastors need to define and articulate their priorities carefully and clearly. What areas of ministry should the pastor be concentrating on? If those priorities can be worked through with others (e.g. church leaders) then all the better. (2) When other demands come along that do not fit into those priorities the pastor has the freedom to say ‘no’ and the opportunity to explain what those priorities are. (3) Indeed, when a pastor says ‘no’ to some demand, that ‘no’ gives value to his ‘yeses’. A pastor who is unable to say ‘no’ is in trouble.

Another area where Going the Distance offers very helpful advice is in that of relationships, particularly family and friendship, although I will only comment on the latter here. It is great, argues the author, when the pastor’s greatest support & companionship comes from his wife, but it would be unhealthy if this were the only significant deep relationship he had. A few deep friendships, whether with people in the congregation or from elsewhere, take a lot of time and effort to build, but are enormously beneficial because of the support and accountability they provide. Gordon MacDonald suggests a number of different kinds of friends that a pastor needs[1]:

(1) the sponsor – someone who will mentor, see the potential of, encourage and advise

(2) the affirmer – someone who encourages, shows appreciation, affirms the pastor in his ministry

(3) the rebuker – someone who will tell the truth, especially when it hurts

(4) the intercessor – someone who will pray for us

(5) the partner – someone to work alongside or share & sharpen

(6) the pastor – “the tender person, the person who comes alongside in the moment of exhaustion” (quoted by Brain, p.152).

Finally, let me mention the extremely helpful chapter entitled “a word for local church members”. Church members often do not understand what it is like to be a pastor nor how best to relate to and support him. Reading this chapter would surely be very helpful for many, as it has been for me. A particularly helpful section discusses attitudes to change. Churches can often be resistant to change, but often because of unhealthy attitudes. The author also emphasises the importance of thoughtfulness; when was the last time you deliberately thought about how you can bless and support your pastor and took the initiative to carry it out?

Questions
The author says nothing about illness. My experience is that I can handle being ill badly, particularly when I have a forthcoming responsibility (e.g. leading a Bible study) and I am relatively ill. Firstly, I do not know whether I will be better by the time of the Bible study. Secondly, I can make myself worse by worrying; should I cancel? should I wait and see if I improve? Sometimes I have gone ahead and done it (and set myself back healthwise). At other times I have cancelled (and sometimes felt bad about it).

I buy the author’s thesis about self-care, but do worry that I tend more to laziness and fear, and so need to beware of using the principle of self-care as a cover for selfishness. It is possible to go far in advocating self-care – although I certainly do not think the author is going too far. These words from the Together for the Gospel blog provide an appropriate conclusion:

At one point the conversation turned to our busy schedules. One person exhorted another about the importance of rest. It was then that John Piper quietly commented "I find productivity restful for my soul."
"Restful for my soul."
"Productivity."
Bodily rest is important. Rest for the soul is even more important.[2]

[1] clearly, there is much overlap between these categories and I think they are to be taken as suggestive not definitive
[2] http://blog.togetherforthegospel.org/2006/05/producing_rest.html

Spanish evangelicals and the General Election on 9 March

There are general elections in Spain this sunday, March 9th 2008. 4 years ago, the Madrid train bombings, occurring just 3 days before, was influential in a surprise victory for the Socialist Party (PSOE) over the conservative Partido Popular (PP). This year, Zapatero's Socialists are ahead in the opinion polls. Immigration, a relatively recent phenomenon in Spain, but one which presents significant challenges, is a big issue on the agenda, as is the economy.

The Spanish evangelical news website, protestante digital (page in English) has several items discussing the forthcoming elections from a christian point of view. The website has been running a on-line opinion poll, which gives some rough indication of likely evangelical voting tendencies. Of 597 votes (to date), 42% have indicated they will vote for the conservative PP, 25% for the socialist PSOE and 17% for other parties (including various regional nationalist parties).

As the article (in Spanish) analysing the results of this modest opinion poll notes, voting options for evangelicals are far from straightforward. The PP is in favour of strong links between the state and the Catholic Church, a position which makes evangelicals nervous given the long history of the suppression of religious minorities, including Protestants, throughout Spanish history. On the other hand the socialists have been pursuing quite an aggressive programme of liberalisation, often overtly antireligious, that has included the legalisation of homosexual marriages and adoptions, and the liberalisation of abortion. According to this article, across Europe evangelicals tend to be progressive in relation to questions of social justice and conservative on ethical issues:

If this is so for evangelicals in Spain, many will be unsure how to vote on sunday. Before marking their voting slip, every christian voter will have to decide, among other things, which of these two axes they should give more importance to: the biblical concern for equality and social justice or biblical values in relation to moral questions. Going for one or the other will have a big say in whether the vote will head left or right.

A booklet has been produced by the Independent Civic Observatory linked, I believe, to the Spanish Evangelical Alliance called Voting Wisely, advising Christians how to approach the issue of voting in the election. For a summary (in English) about the booklet go here

Let us pray for Spanish Christians as they vote, for Evangelical groups as they seek to have an influence for Christ on the political process & Spanish society in general, and for the increasing impact of the gospel in Spain whatever the outcome of this sunday's elections.

P.S. See also the links on the bbc website and here & wikipedia about the forthcoming elections

Book review: The Holy Spirit by Sinclair Ferguson

Ferguson, Sinclair (1996) The Holy Spirit (Leicester: IVP)

Summary

Chapters one to four trace the ‘history of the Spirit’ in the Bible, discussing in turn the Spirit in the Old Testament (1), the Spirit in the life of Christ (2) and the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost (3 & 4). Chapters five to eight examine the work of the Spirit in the individual believer under the themes of union with Christ (5), regeneration (6), sanctification (7) and communion with Christ (8). Chapters nine and ten look at more corporate dimensions of the Spirit’s work, focussing on baptism and the Lord’s supper (9) and spiritual gifts (particularly the nature of tongues and prophecy, with a defence of cessationism) (10). The final chapter discusses the extent of the work of the Spirit in the world, finishing on the eschatological role of the Spirit in resurrection and the new creation. (11)

Evaluation

It would be an enormous pity if this book were dismissed or ignored because of the author’s stance on the issue of the cessation of certain spiritual gifts, for there it is extremely stimulating and instructive.

At the heart of the book is the relationship between the Spirit and Christ. While the Spirit is present in the Old Testament (where the primary connotation is that of energy/power), it is in the ministry of Christ that He is more fully revealed. Jesus Christ is the Spirit-filled man; it is Christ who gives the Spirit to His Church and it is union with Christ that undergirds all other aspects of the individual believer’s salvation.

In terms of Christ’s own life, Ferguson presents a carefully-argued case that the work of the Holy Spirit in the conception and birth of Christ was vital to maintain his holiness/sinlessness and therefore essential to our salvation: “the work of the Spirit preserves both the reality of his union with us in genuine human nature, and his freedom from the guilt and curse of Adam’s fall” (because he was not born of Adamic stock) (p.42)

When later Jesus receives the Spirit at his baptism, he is being equipped for his public ministry which is in essence a “holy war” in which he, as the messianic figure, is driving back the powers of darkness. The Spirit “serves as the heavenly cartographer and divine strategist who maps out the battle terrain and directs the Warrior-King to the strategic points of conflict.” (p.50) The surprise is that the OT messianic prophecies of the Day of the Lord are being fulfilled at this point in time by Christ, in the power of the Spirit – not at the end of history (cf.Mt 8.29). Jesus as The Spirit-filled Man is also seen in him being the paradigm for human holiness.

Because of the close relationship between Jesus and the Spirit, which Ferguson also identifies in the crucifixion & resurrection, Christ, on His ascension, is able to send the Spirit. Ferguson here picks up on the amazing statement of 1 Cor 15.45 that “the last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit”: “Christ on his ascension came into such complete possession of the Spirit who had sustained him throughout his ministry that economically [although not ontologically] the resurrected Christ and the Spirit are one to us.” (p.54) Therefore the Spirit is another parakletos to us.

So, when Ferguson turns to the question of the Spirit’s work in the Christian, the foundation is that the Spirit unites us to Christ. All other aspects of our salvation make sense in the light of our union with Christ. It is not that Jesus Christ is ‘over there’ and passes the blessings of salvation to us from a distance, but that we are brought to Him and into Him and thus receive what He has. Indeed, we are saved by sharing in Christ’s own salvation. The section on pp.103ff that discusses “Christ as paradigm and source” is quite stunning. Ferguson talks about Christ’s resurrection as his salvation: “The resurrection is nothing if not his deliverance from the power and curse of death which was in force until the moment of being raised… it and no other event in his experience is the point of his transition from wrath to grace.” (104, quoting Gaffin Resurrection and Redemption, p.116). Christ’s resurrection is his vindication, his sanctification, his adoption, his glorification, and by being uniting to him, the believer also receives all those benefits.

Questions

There is actually very little about the corporate dimensions of the Spirit’s work. There is a lot about the Spirit’s work in the individual believer, and when Ferguson turns to the Spirit’s work in the church, he seems to move straight to areas which to my mind are slightly tangential, namely baptism and the Lord’s supper and tongues and prophecy. Is that all there is to the corporate dimensions of the Spirit’s work? What about other gifts of the Spirit, given for the building up of the body? What about more generally, the work of the Spirit in creating a community, a people of God where God dwells? And are not the themes of sanctification and communion with Christ also corporate themes? (he seems to discuss them mostly in individualistic terms). The book left me wanting much more on the Spirit’s work in the people of God.

Connections

There can be a certain nervousness within conservative, ‘non-charismatic’ circles about the Spirit – or, at least, the excesses of parts of the charismatic movement that seem to overemphasise the Spirit – and the emphasis of Scripture (as brought out by Ferguson) on the fact that the Spirit glorifies Christ can lead to a call to focus more on Christ: it can be seen as more biblical to downplay the Spirit since, it is argued, he downplays himself. But Ferguson will have none of this: “His task is to glorify Christ, not to speak or draw attention to himself. But to draw the conclusion from this that we should not focus our attention on the Spirit at all, or grow in personal knowledge of him, is a mistake. The fact that within the economy of the divine activity he does not draw attention to himself but to the Son and the Father is actually a reason for us to seek to know him better, to experience communion with him more intimately, not the reverse.” (p.186)

In conclusion, the main application of this book is to seek to know the Spirit better. This includes the kind of careful, penetrative study of the Scriptures exemplified by Ferguson that helps us to understand better what he does and who he is. It also includes a deeper desire to experience the work of the Spirit in my own life. Finally, I am left with a desire to understand better and experience that dimension which perhaps Ferguson neglects: the corporate work of the Spirit in the church.

Christianity as Historical and Experimental

How do the 2000-year old events surrounding the life & death of Jesus connect to our lives today? How is the chronological gap bridged? I have found John Stott's comments on Galatians 1.1-5 very helpful on this. To them should be added some discussion about the role of the Holy Spirit (He is not mentioned in the Galatians text):

What the apostle has in fact done in these introductory verses of the Epistle is to trace three stages of divine action for man's salvation. Stage 1 is the death of Christ for our sins to rescue us out of this present evil age. Stage 2 is the appointment of Paul as an apostle to bear witness to the Christ who thus died and rose again. Stage 3 is the gift to us who believe of the grace and peace which Christ won and Paul witnessed to.

At each of these three stages the Father and the Son have acted or continue to act together. The sin-bearing death of Jesus was both an act of self-sacrifice and according to the will of God the Father. The apostolic authority of Paul was 'through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead'. And the grace and peace which we enjoy as a result are also 'from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ'. How beautiful this is! Here is our God, the living God, the Father and the Son, at work in grace for our salvation. First, He achieved it in history at the cross. Next, He has announced it in Scripture through His chosen apostles. Thirdly, He bestows it in experience upon believers today. Each stage is indispensable. There could be no Christian experience today without the unique work of Christ on the cross, uniquely witnessed to by the apostles. Christianity is both a historical and an experimental religion. Indeed, one of its chief glories is this marriage between history and experience, between the past and the present. We must never attempt to divorce them. We cannot do without the work of Christ, nor can we do without the witness of Christ's apostles, if we want to enjoy Christ's grace and peace today.

Source: Stott, John (1968) The Message of Galatians (Leicester: IVP), p.19, here

Explaining the necessity of the atonement

From Tim Keller, notes from talks given at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary on preaching, here

Why is there need for atonement? Why does Christianity say that Jesus had to die in order for us to be re-united with God? Why can't God just forgive us? The answer is that no one can "just" forgive any serious wrong. If someone has betrayed you deeply and caused great harm - how do you forgive them? Forgiveness means refusing vengeful actions when you deeply want to make them pay for what they did. It means refusing to 'run them down' to others when you deeply want to slice up and ruin their reputation. It means even refusing thoughts of ill-will and rather turning your thoughts to pity and hope for their change. And as time goes on - if you stay the course, the anger will go away and the forgiveness is complete.

As anyone knows who has ever tried it - this is extremely painful, costly, and agonizing. If you do not forgive, you become hard and angry yourself, and a cycle of revenge and conflict goes on and on - so evil triumphs. On the other hand, if you do do the way of forgiveness, you will experience a great deal of pain and suffering yourself. There is no middle ground. Either you can make the perpetrator pay down the debt you feel (as you take it out of his hide in vengeance!) in which case evil wins - or you will absorb the debt yourself. It is the same in the economic realm as in the psychological realm. If someone knocks over your $100 lamp and says, "I'm so sorry" and you say "forget it!" you have forgiven them. But the $100 debt does not vanish into thin air. Either you make them pay it or absorb it yourself (by buying a new lamp or going without light in that corner.) So we see this principle - that when a serious wrong is committed, there is a "debt" that cannot be ignored or dismissed but must be dealt with, and that it must be dealt with through suffering.

Now, if we see this principle at our human level - that only way to defeat evil is through forgiveness that entails suffering - why are we surprised when we hear God telling us it is the same with him?... If when we are wronged we sense a debt cannot be just willed away, that must be paid for with suffering - how much more is God aware of the enormous debt of human beings' sin against one another and against the creation and against God himself. Either there must be judgment so that we suffer, or there must be forgiveness so God must suffer! There is no middle way. He cannot "just forgive" either. On the cross, God paid the debt himself. There we see at the spiritual and cosmic level what we know unavoidably at the psychological and relational level.

Two quotes on sin from Sinclair Ferguson

Two interesting quotes from The Holy Spirit by Sinclair Ferguson, both on sin.

On Psalm 51 - different perspectives on sin (words in italics are transliterated Hebrew, but without the accents)

The psalm begins (51.1-6) with a comprehensive analysis of the nature of sin as rebellion (pesa, transgression); as distortion (awon, iniquity); as failure (hattat, sin); as contrareity (against you, you only, have I sinned); as filth that needs to be cleansed (cleanse me... wash me); as falsehood and lack of authenticity and integrity (you desire truth [emet] in the inner parts) (p.137)

On 1 John 3.9; 5.18, that anyone born of God does not sin - here Ferguson offers a different view to that which I have been used to. Worth evaluating, I think.

Many commentators and versions understand John to be speaking here of sin as a prevailing habit. But the pointed language he uses (the Christian 'does not do sin') probably refers to the critical and radical deliverance from specific manifestations of the reign of sin which takes place at the point of union with Christ. Instead of remaining captive in concrete ways to the dominance of sin, the Christian becomes righteous precisely in those areas (cf. 1 Jn 2.29; 3.10). Thus the regenerate Saul seeks the fellowship, not the slaughter, of believers; the new man Zacchaeus gives money away rather than steals it; the transformed Philippian jailer cares for his prisoners rather than mistreats them; the runaway Onesimus, 'useless' in his old life, becomes a faithful servant and is 'useful' to Paul. (pp.129-130)

The Decalogue in Old Testament Missiology

I mentioned in a previous post that I am currently engaged in some part-time theological studies with the Northern Training Institute (director Tim Chester). This is an assignment I wrote in October:

The Decalogue in Old Testament Missiology

The thesis of this paper:
God’s election of Abraham, and therefore the people of Israel, was for the sake of blessing all peoples of the world. Along with the Abrahamic covenant, God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt and the establishment of the covenant are Sinai are formative in shaping Israel’s identity as distinctive among the nations. That distinctiveness is expressed in exclusive devotion to the one true God, righteous living and cultic structures (tabernacle, priesthood, sacrificial system) that allow a holy God to dwell among a sinful people. In turn, that distinctiveness is to be a witness, revealing to the nations something of the character of the God who has bound himself to Israel. The Decalogue plays a foundational role within the Sinai covenant, establishing in a seminal way that God alone is to be worshipped, and that Israel is to live righteously. The Decalogue provides a basis for the polemic against idolatry and wickedness which continues throughout the Old Testament, both of which are perennial threats to the mission of Israel as a means of blessing to the nations. Through Israel’s distinctive witness, the nations are expected to come to know that the LORD alone is God, and the Old Testament looks forward to the time when the nations will come to obey the God who has revealed himself in Israel.

Old Testament Missiology
My starting-point is to take as a given that the whole Old Testament, indeed the whole Bible, is missiological.[1] Mission is not a sub-theme that only a few key texts address, but the theme of the whole. The Bible is a product of God’s mission in the world; it exists because God is working out in history his plan to redeem humanity and restore the cosmos. The Bible as a whole, therefore, should be read with a missional hermeneutic. That is, each part should be interpreted within the unfolding ‘meta-narrative’ of the redemptive history revealed progressively in the Scriptures.

Foundational to Old Testament missiology, and therefore crucial in shaping the hermeneutic with which we come to the Decalogue, are the promises to Abraham and the patriarchs. Following the descent into disaster traced out in Genesis 1-11, which ends with the scattering of the nations, hope re-emerges with God’s calling of Abraham. Notice the dynamic of particularity and universality in Abraham’s call. God chooses Abraham (and therefore his descendants, Israel), not any of the other nations. He is the recipient of special blessings from God; he enters into a uniquely privileged relationship with God. Yet the purpose of this particular election is universal in scope: the big picture is that through Abraham “all peoples on earth will be blessed.” Abraham (and Israel’s) election is for the purpose of mission. God’s mission is to bless all nations (the gospel in advance, according to Paul), but that universal goal has a particular historical method, namely God’s work in the specific history of an individual (Abraham) and the nation that will come from Him, culminating in the coming of the Seed through whom the blessing will be fulfilled. This dynamic of particularity and universality is important for interpreting the rest of the Old Testament.

On this basis, Old Testament missiology could perhaps be summarised as God at work in Israel for the sake of all peoples. Many times in the Old Testament that concern for the nations is explicit; at all times the promise to Abraham to bless the nations through him is the backdrop for all God’s work in the history of His people. With that perspective, we turn to the Decalogue, asking how it functions within God’s mission for all peoples. As we do so, we need to be continually asking what is God doing with the people of Israel (the particular) and how does that function within God’s worldwide mission? (the universal).

The Sinai Covenant
The Decalogue forms part of the series of significant, seminal events in the book of Exodus whose purpose is to shape the identity of Israel as the people of God. The exodus itself establishes Israel’s identity as a redeemed people, a people who only exist as an independent nation because God has graciously chosen to bring them out of slavery. Here too, God’s deliverance of Israel (the particular) serves a wider purpose (the universal) that Pharoah may know the LORD, indeed that God’s name “may be proclaimed in all the earth” (Ex 9.16 cf. 7.17; 8.19, 22-23; 9.14-16; 9.20; 9.29; 18.10-11 etc.)

On leaving Egypt, God did not take the people directly to the land of Canaan, but to the desert, the mountain of God and, most significantly, to Himself (Exodus 19.4). At Sinai, God enters into a deeper covenant relationship with Israel. In a spectacular and terrifying encounter on the mountain, God speaks ‘ten words’ to the people. More detailed instructions are given as to how the people are to live (e.g. Ex 21-23); the tabernacle is constructed, the priesthood is instituted and the sacrificial system set up.

Before coming to the Decalogue itself, it is worth making some remarks about the Sinai Covenant in general, starting with the ‘prelude’ to the covenant in Exodus 19.4-6:

You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all the nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.

Notice the following points. Firstly, the covenant obligations given on Mount Sinai do not create the special relationship between God and Israel; that relationship already exists by virtue of the redemption from Egypt (v.4) (and that, in turn, is founded on the promises to Abraham).

Secondly, then, the Sinai covenant that is about to be enacted sets the terms by which that relationship is to be maintained and developed. God’s election and redemption of Israel was unconditional; their continuing relationship with God in covenant is in some sense conditional. If they keep the covenant, they will remain in that special relationship: “you will be my people and I will be your God.”

Thirdly, notice the particular-universal dynamic at work here. God is in a special relationship with Israel. They will be God’s treasured possession, among all the nations. The whole earth is God’s, but, uniquely, they will be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. What is to take place on Mount Sinai will shape the identity of the people of Israel in ways that will make them unique among the peoples of the world.

One might think that the unique privileging of Israel is the very opposite of God’s mission to bless all the nations. Why only Israel? However, we have already suggested that God’s special work in Israel is for the sake of the nations, and this dynamic is present here, hinted at in the key phrases of verse 6. Israel in covenant with God is to have the dual function of being “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[2] Israel’s national life is to be distinctive (a holy nation); they are to be different from the other nations (and, implicitly, seen to be different: ie. the holiness of Israel is to function as a witness to the nations.) And Israel is to play, in some sense, a mediatorial role between God and the other nations (a priestly kingdom).[3] Wright argues that

It is… richly significant that God confers on Israel as a whole people the role of being his priesthood in the midst of the nations. As the people of YHWH they would have the historical task of bringing the knowledge of God to the nations, and bringing the nations to the means of atonement with God. The Abrahamic task of being a blessing to the nations also put them in the role of priests in the midst of the nations… The priesthood of the people of God is thus a missional function that stands in continuity with their Abrahamic election, and it affects the nations.[4]

The function of the Sinai covenant, then, from the perspective of Old Testament missiology, is to constitute Israel as distinctive from the other nations, and therefore a witness to and instrument of blessing to the other nations. In turn, that distinctiveness has a number of intertwining threads. There is to be single-mindedness in their devotion to God: they are not to worship the gods of the other nations (e.g. Exodus 20.3-6, 22-23; 23.24,32-33). They are to be ethically distinctive and not follow the detestable practices of the other nations. (e.g. Leviticus 18.3, 24-28; 20.26)

Above all, it is the presence of God Himself with his people that will make Israel distinctive: (Exodus 33.15-16)
The Lord replied, ‘My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.’

The Moses said to him, ‘If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?

In fact, all the elements of the Sinai covenant can be understood as the terms by which God can and will be present with His people. They are the terms under which “they will be my people and I will be their God”. The tabernacle, priesthood and sacrificial system are all instituted to ‘protect’ that relationship – they control the double danger whereby the people’s sin would contaminate the holiness of God and the holiness of God would break out against the people’s sin. Likewise both idolatry and wickedness are warned against so severely since they would gravely endanger that relationship, as, for example, the incidents of the Golden Calf (Exodus 32-33) and Baal Peor (Numbers 25) show.

The Decalogue
Within the whole Sinai Covenant, the Decalogue plays a pivotal role. That there is something especially significant about the Ten Commandments is shown by a number of textual features. Firstly, these are the words spoken by God in the dramatic encounter on the mountain (Exodus 19.4-20.21), with its thunder, lightning, fire, and smoke. Moreover, it is these words that are written (twice) by the finger of God on tablets of stone (see Exodus 24.12; 31.18; 32.15-16,19; 34.1, 28; Deut 4.13; 5.22; 10.1-5). They are referred to as “the Ten Commandments” in several of these texts, and therefore treated as a distinct ‘thing’ in itself. Finally, the Decalogue is referred to simply as ‘the covenant’ (Deut 4.13; Exodus 31.18; 32.15; 34.28), which suggests that while the Sinai covenant can be understand to include all that took place on that mountain, in another sense, it is the Decalogue that is the key covenantal document.

In the giving of the Decalogue, then, God sets out the foundational obligations that the people of Israel are to keep. It begins with a declaration that reminds us again that the identity of Israel has already been established by God’s gracious deliverance out of Egypt. There then follow ten commands, four of which are primarily concerned with love for God, and six love for neighbour. Israel’s distinctiveness is to look like this: single-minded devotion to God and right living. And the Decalogue is important in Old Testament missiology for these two reasons: the polemic against idolatry and the imperative to righteous living. Those themes are of course found in many places in the Old Testament, but the Decalogue is foundational for those themes for a number of reasons. We have already seen the foundational function of the Decalogue within the Sinai covenant. Furthermore, many of the stipulations of the Decalogue are hinted at and anticipated before Sinai, but it is at the seminal event that they are formalised and emphasised so emphatically. In that way subsequent appearances of those two themes can be seen as the exposition and application of the Decalogue to the people of Israel. Israel are continually being called back to the original Sinai covenant.

The next step in my argument is to briefly trace through the Old Testament these two themes of idolatry and ethics as they are related to mission. In other words, I will be highlighting a number of instances where the polemic against idolatry and the ethical imperative set out so seminally in the Decalogue are applied by the Old Testament itself in the context of Israel’s mission in the world. What follows is illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Ethics and Old Testament Missiology
There are a number of instances where Israel’s ethical life and the witness to the nations are connected somewhat more explicitly. Here are a few examples:

1) Israel’s body of laws is meant to display to the nations that they are a people with “wisdom and understanding”, that they are great in comparison to the other nations both because God is near them when they pray and also because of the righteousness of their laws. (Deuteronomy 4.5-8)

2) Israel’s obedience to the commands of God will establish them as God’s holy people and “all the peoples on earth” will recognise that they are “called by the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 28.9-10)

3) Part of Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple: Obedience to the commands of God is an integral factor in God ‘s upholding the cause of Israel, which in turn is “so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.” (1 Kings 8.56-61)

4) There are many texts in the prophets along the lines of “if you, Israel, return to me, I will return to you.” Jeremiah 4.1-2 is remarkable in that, if Israel returns to the Lord – which includes the putting aside of idols and swearing “in a true, just and righteous way”, then “the nations will invoke blessings by him and in him they will boast.”

Leaving aside texts where the ethics-mission link is more explicit, the call for Israel to turn away from wickedness and live rightly is a constant refrain throughout the Old Testament, especially in the prophets. More often than not, the distinctiveness of Israel as God’s special people, in contrast to the other nations, is in view. But if we remember that God’s particular election of Israel serves God’s universal purposes for the nations, then we must conclude that whenever Israel is being called to turn back to God, God’s concern for His reputation among the nations is implicit as well.

Idolatry and Old Testament Missiology
The polemic against idolatry is an aspect of the ethical imperative, for it is wicked not to exclusively worship the one true God. Nevertheless, idolatry is a distinct (though inter-connected) category, and, again, the constant warnings to Israel against idolatry, with their seminal formulation in the Decalogue, are highly significant for the theme of mission in the Old Testament.

Israel are to have “no other gods” before the LORD; neither are they to make and worship any image. And that is not merely because the LORD is their God, but the God; that is, the God that Israel worships is the one true God. And the exclusivity of devotion demanded of Israel is to demonstrate both to Israel and to the nations that the LORD is God and there is no other. (Deuteronomy 4.34, 39)

This is too vast a theme to treat in any detail at this point, but by way of illustration, perhaps Isaiah provides one of the clearest examples of the intertwining of the themes of idolatry and mission. One example will suffice – Isaiah 45.22-24 – where “all the ends of the earth” are called to turn to God and be saved because “I am God, and there is no other.” This is a summons which is made in the context of a sustained polemic against idolatry and repeated declarations of the uniqueness of the LORD.

The polemic against idolatry is the consequence of the Bible’s monotheism. And, as Wright argues, “biblical monotheism is necessarily missional (because the one living God wills to be known and worshiped throughout the whole creation)” while “biblical mission is necessarily monotheistic (because we are to call all people to and to join all creation in the praise of this one living God.”[5]

The Response of the Nations
If Israel in its righteous living and exclusive devotion to God was to be distinctive from the other nations, giving witness to the character of the one true God who had chosen to work in them in this special way, what kind of response was anticipated on behalf of the nations?

At one level, the nations were expected to come to “know the LORD”, at least in the sense of recognising the unique nature of Israel’s God. Some of the texts mentioned earlier point to this. On the other hand, the Sinai covenant was probably not intended as a simple blueprint for the nations to copy: that would go against the unique relationship Israel had with God, and the unique role assigned to them (cf. Romans 3.1-2; 9.4-5) and also the limited nature of the Sinai covenant in relation to the progression of redemption history (cf. Galatians 3.15-22; Hebrews 10.1 etc.).

Nevertheless, there is hope in the Old Testament that the nations will do more than simply recognise from the outside that the LORD is God – they will be incorporated into the people of God, and in doing so will, in some sense, accept the law of God given to Israel. So Isaiah 2.3:

Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.’ The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem

But because of Israel’s failure to be what God called it to be, and the provisional nature of the Sinai covenant itself, the turning of the nations to God is something that is only anticipated in the Old Testament: as in Isaiah 2, it is a future hope. And so, only once Christ – the seed through whom blessing would come – had come and done his work, would the way for the nations to be fully incorporated into the people of God – through faith and obedience (Romans 1.5; 16.26)– be made open.

Bibliography
Alexander, T.Desmond (2002) (2nd ed.) From Paradise to Promised Land: An Introduction to the Pentateuch (Carlisle: Paternoster)
Motyer, Alec (2005) The Message of Exodus (Leicester: IVP)
Wright, Christopher (2006) The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Leicester: IVP)

[1] see Wright, Christopher The Mission of God chapter 2 etc. This paper has been influenced heavily by The Mission of God (see bibliography for full reference)
[2] Assuming that Israel fulfils its covenant obligations, which the covenant crisis of Exodus 32-34 puts in grave doubt straight away
[3] This interpretation of “kingdom of priests” is disputed. Motyer The Message of Exodus argues that it refers to the unique access that Israel has into the presence of God; Wright disputes this and argues for the interpretation advocated here. In other words, I’ve copied Wright on this point. See Wright Mission of God pp329-333
[4] Wright Mission of God p.331
[5] Wright Mission of God p.136

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