Anglican Evangelical

The Briefing Library: The pastor and the evangelical priority list

2010-08-21T15:03:00.000-07:00

Worth reading. I've heard of the "evangelical priority list" and sort of accepted it as gospel. Simon Flanders says otherwise.

Find the article here: The Briefing Library: The pastor and the evangelical priority list

Ashley Null on Cranmer, Perkins and Donne

2010-08-15T21:11:00.000-07:00

The ever interesting Dr. Ashley Null on the theology of justification, of head and heart, of Archbishop of Thomas Cranmer. The pastoral teaching on assurance by the Rev. William Perkins. The beauty of the unconditional love of God in the words of the Rev. John Donne.

This link will open a media player in a new window (or it should) from Christ Church New York City.

New BT Blog

2008-09-03T19:05:00.000-07:00

Very promising blog for Biblical Theology. What's so darn exciting about it is that the following chaps are the contributors: T. Desmond Alexander, Michael F. Bird, Stephen G. Dempster, James M. Hamilton Jr. Already there are some good topics covering the relationship between biblical theology and systematic theology, an important question being thought through right now in a number of places (not least their blog).

Still Deeper

2008-09-03T18:57:00.001-07:00

Interesting little site over in the UK run by Tyndale House PhD candidate Peter Sanlon. Still Deeper.

Dean Phillip Jensen interview at 9Marks

2008-05-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

A good interview. Phillip Jensen talks about Sydney Anglicanism, his role as Dean, some of his life history in ministry and other things.

HT:JT

Update: Gathercole interview on the 'New Perspective'

2007-10-31T16:05:00.000-07:00

Over at 9Marks there's an audio interview of Simon Gathercole and his thoughts on the 'New Perspective'. Worth listening to.

David Instone-Brewer and John Piper debate on divorce and remarriage

2007-10-23T17:15:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting debate going on between John Piper and David Instone-Brewer over the interpretation of biblical passages on divorce that's being covered by Christianity Today and some blogs. Here's some detail. It's somewhat pedantic reading, but worth the effort because the meaning of the texts matters greatly.

Instone-Brewer's original article in CT to which Piper responded to which Brewer responded.

The Next Twenty Years for Anglican Christians - Peter Jensen

2007-10-21T18:15:00.001-07:00

Abp. Peter Jensen weighed in on Oct 8 ( I know it's probably old news) stating that the time of uncertainty about the future of the Anglican Communion is now over.

Some excerpts:

[The Lambeth Conference] can no longer either unify Anglicanism or speak with authority.
The American House of Bishops response to the Primates makes it clear that "sexual rights are gospel."
American Episcopalians believe that homosexuality is both morally acceptable and "demanded by the gospel itself that we endorse this lifestyle as Christian"
"Anglican episcopacy now includes overlapping jurisdictions and personal rather than merely geographical oversight."
"Those who believe that the American development is wrong must also plan for the next decades, not the next few months. There is every reason to think that the Western view of sexuality will eventually permeate other parts of the world."

What now?
Thus the question before the biblically orthodox in the Communion is this: what new vision of the Anglican Communion should we embrace? Where should it be in the next twenty years? How can we ensure that the word of God rules our lives? How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism? What theological education must we have? How can we now best network with each other? Who is going to care for Episcopalians in other western provinces who are going to be objecting to the official acceptance of non-biblical practices? The need for high level discussion of these issues is urgent.

More Simeon Trust workshops - 2008 calendar online

2007-10-21T18:10:00.000-07:00

See more for details... Dallas, Chicago, Philly, Spokane and more!

C. F. D. Moule: An Obituary

2007-10-13T17:02:00.000-07:00

The Rev'd Prof. C. F. D. Moule passed away on Oct 2, aged 98.

From The Telegraph

An attractive personality allied to great erudition and exceptional gifts as a teacher made him a popular Cambridge figure for more than 40 years, and his influence in the field of New Testament studies was considerable.

Born into a distinguished evangelical family — his great uncle, Handley Moule, was a scholar Bishop of Durham in the early years of the 20th century — Moule was something of a missionary in the sense that his interpretations of the New Testament always suggested the inherent plausibility of the religious story it tells. For him this involved no compromise of scholarship, but he was a man of deep faith for whom the evidence concerning the origins of Christian religion never presented an insuperable problem.

From The Independent

Charles Francis Digby Moule, priest and theologian:
born Hangchow, China 3 December 1908; ordained deacon 1933, priest 1934; Curate, St Mark's, Cambridge 1933-34; Tutor, Ridley Hall, Cambridge 1933-34, Vice-Principal 1936-44, honorary member of staff 1976-80; Curate, St Andrew's, Rugby 1934-36; Curate, St Mary the Great, Cambridge 1936-40; Fellow, Clare College, Cambridge 1944-2007, Dean 1944-51; Faculty Assistant Lecturer in Divinity, Cambridge University 1944-47, University Lecturer 1947-51, Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity 1951-76; Canon Theologian (non-residentiary) of Leicester 1955-76; FBA 1966; CBE 1985; died Leigh, Dorset 30 September 2007.

Thank you, Lord, for your faithful servant and his great contributions to the study of the New Testament. May you raise up more faithful, Christ-centered scholars to continue the task.

Rob Bradshaw has some personal comments.

Ben Witherington: Sacred Texts in an Oral Culture

2007-10-13T16:53:00.001-07:00

Another great post by Dr. Witherington. He talks about the importance of understanding the rhetorical function of biblical texts that were transmitted orally to their original audiences. Helpful read.

One comment notes the work of Richard Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians, that attempts to overturn some long-held presuppositions about the assumed audience or "community" of the Gospel writers. These are interesting times for Gospel interpretation.

Ideas on how to read the Proverbs as Christians

2007-10-07T14:06:00.000-07:00

Why Proverbs?
I've been looking at the Proverbs with the church lately and thought that it might be worth my time to think through how we read the Proverbs as Christians. I'm not entirely convinced that Christians have a good grasp on what to do with the Proverbs, and even the Wisdom Books more generally.

My interest in the Wisdom Books began when I taught a class to 2nd year seminary students at Moffat College of Bible in Kijabe, Kenya one summer not long ago. As a burgeoning student of biblical theology, I was intensely aware of the difficulties surrounding teaching the Wisdom books to Christians. While my Kenyan students come from a culture where indigenous proverbs are still used, I wasn't so concerned about their ability to understand how to appreciate the Proverbs. Rather, I was interested to help them understand that the gospel has to shape the way that we read the Old Testament. And that especially in a context where so much prosperity preaching and "health-and-wealth" Pentecostalism abounded.

Over the years I've known Christians who have read the Proverbs in ways that are good and bad. Some people read the Proverbs like "rules for living" and almost strangely idolize them. Others think that we don't take the question of biblical wisdom seriously enough and should read them more. When was the last time you cracked open the Proverbs?

As evangelicals we talk a lot about reading the Bible, trusting what God has to say, and applying it to our lives. In all honestly, it's not always a fair thing to say because some parts of the Bible are very hard to understand. And getting training in how to study the Bible doesn't necessarily make it any easier. Rather it creates awareness of all the interpretive possibilities and where the pitfalls lie. I am convinced, however, that we can read the Bible better with thoughtfulness and effort. And good Biblical Theology must be central to that task, no matter what part of the Bible we are in. It's often my lifeline for understanding a text or passage and how it relates to the gospel. And the gospel has to inform how we read the whole Bible.

The extraordinary claim of the New Testament authors is that the person of Jesus, who was executed and raised from the dead by God, is the promised Messiah of Israel. Central to that claim is Jesus' divinity and power to transform the way that God deals with the world. You know, new wine for new wineskins. The apostles claim that in Jesus we find all sorts of fulfillment and transformation. Things like temple, priesthood, atonement, wisdom, creation and covenant all now find a new meaning in Jesus. And it's not so much a new meaning, as much as it is a fulfillment of what those things all originally meant, though now they are perceived of and appropriated by the church through Jesus. Perhaps Jesus as the Lamb of God is the most obvious and oft referenced fulfillment of an Old Testament practice in the New Testament. But there's another one that's extremely important as well.

Inauguration of New Creation
One of the other astonishing claims of the New Testament is that the eschatological promise of new creation has actually been inaugurated through Jesus' death and resurrection. As I am reading the Bible, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that where there is discontinuity with the Old Testament it's largely due to the fact that Jesus inaugurated new creation. By discontinuity I mean where things appear to be very different from the Old Testament. Take Sabbath for instance. Why the change from Saturday to Sunday? I (and others) would argue that because Sunday is the first day of the dawn of new creation, the dawning due to Jesus, the first to rise from the dead, to live everlastingly in the heavens that come to earth (new creation). As Saturday was the day honoring God's creative act, so too, Sunday now honors Jesus creative act. Consider the land promise. The land inheritance promise to the remnant gets written large on the eschatological stage by Isaiah and made not merely the land of Israel, but the whole world transformed, filled with the glory of God. It's the meek, says Jesus, who inherit that earth.

Might the concept of new creation be important for rightly reading Proverbs? I'm not entirely sure if it will be or not, but I have a theory.

The Opening of Proverbs and it's Old Testament Context
The Old Testament begins with the Torah which includes the election of Abraham and his progeny, the establishment of God's covenant with Israel, and all the "commandments, statutes and rules" given by Moses in Deuteronomy, all set within a grand narrative that begins in Eden and ends with Israel camped across the Jordan ready to take the promised land. It's a narrative encompassing a grand movement of people from one sacred place (Eden) to another (Canaan). It's an act of grace. Though Adam and Eve were driven from the presence of the Lord, Israel is being given the gift of the land. Moses provides reasons: (1) it's a place to enjoy the presence of God (Ex 25:8, 29:45-46; Duet 12), (2) it's a place to enjoy blessing from the Lord (Deut 8:7-10, 11:13 ff.; Deut 28:1-14) and (3) it's a place to show the Lord's wisdom in the sight of the nations (Ex 34:10 ff.; Duet 4:5-8, 14).

The Prophets and Wisdom books that follow must be read as two kinds of developments of, or reflections of, Torah. On the one hand, the Prophets show how Israel slowly slips into idolatry and why that's such a problem by making references back to the Torah, especially Deuteronomy. It's appears that the major prophets do this by bringing covenant lawsuits against Israel. The Wisdom books make their contribution as well. The Wisdom teachers use a cooler, calmer and more reflective approach to the questions about how one should live in the world that God has created, and perhaps more specifically, the land that God has given them.

The Wisdom books are replete with the Deuteronomic themes of land, covenant, blessing, cursing, righteousness, equity and justice. Consider these verses from the beginning of Proverbs:

Proverbs 2:21-22
For the upright will inhabit the land, and those with integrity will remain in it,
but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be rooted out of it.

Proverbs 3:3-4
Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you;
bind them around your neck;
write them on the tablet of your heart.
So you will find favor and good success in the sight of God and man.
(Cf. to Ex 34:6-7, Deut 6:4-9, 10:16)

Proverbs 3:9-10
Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce;
then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine.
(Cf. o Ex 23:16, 34:22; Lev 23:9 ff.; Deut 8:17-18)

Proverbs 3:33
The LORD's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous.
(Cf. Deut 28)

Proverbs 6:12-15
A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech...
therefore calamity will come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.

Proverbs 7 (Warning against adultery)
vv. 25-27 Let not your heart turn aside to her ways; do not stray into her paths,
for many a victim has she laid low, and all her slain are a mighty throng.
Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.
(Cf. Deut 5:18; 27:15 ff.)

These are only a few of course. They relate directly back to covenantal structure of Israel's life established by the Torah.

Deuteronomy 7:12ff
"And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers. He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock..."

Deuteronomy 28:1ff
"And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God..."

Deuteronomy 28:15ff
"But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you...The LORD will bring you and your king whom you set over you to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known. And there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone. And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples where the LORD will lead you away."

Under the Old Covenant God elected Israel to be his people among whom he would make his dwelling, to whom he would give blessing or cursing, and through whom he would make his wisdom known to the nations. It's natural, therefore, that reflection should arise among the wise concerning how Israel should love the Lord and obey him faithfully. That should be our first clue about how to read the Proverbs.

Reading the Proverbs as Christians
Can Christians seek God and gain wealth? If a Christian sins, and even lives prodigally for a time, is she beyond forgiveness or broken beyond healing? Can Christians make use of Prov 2:22-32 like an Israelite could? What of the sayings intended for kings and royal people (cf. Prov 20:2, 26, 28; 21:1; 23:1 ff.)? I would caution against answering in the affirmative without some interpretive clarity.

I would say, however, that we can read the Proverbs to discover the source of wisdom. The general thrust concerning the teaching of wisdom given in the Proverbs, and perhaps the Wisdom Books more generally, lies in the oft repeated phrase, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom." Wisdom, says the Proverbs, is a supernatural gift from God to those who seek it.

Proverbs 1:22-23
"How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?
If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you."

Moreover, the source of such Wisdom is God himself and is full of benefits.

Proverbs 2:1-15
My son, if you receive my words and treasure up my commandments with you, making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding;
yes, if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding,
if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures,
then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding; he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk in integrity, guarding the paths of justice and watching over the way of his saints.
Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path;
for wisdom will come into your heart, and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul;
discretion will watch over you, understanding will guard you,
delivering you from the way of evil, from men of perverted speech,
who forsake the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness,
who rejoice in doing evil and delight in the perverseness of evil,
men whose paths are crooked, and who are devious in their ways.

My View
Jesus must be the source of our wisdom, as the NT clearly directs us to understand. In other words, if we are to gain wisdom promised by Proverbs we must start with trusting Jesus and walking the way of the Cross. But equally importantly, we must understand how to apply the wise sayings in Proverbs somewhat differently than they would have been applied by the first readers , specifically
(1) because our place of life is different,
(2) the stipulations of the covenant are different and,
(3) Jesus has inaugurated new creation.

In other words, I don't think we preach Jesus from the opening of Proverbs and then go back to the rest of the Proverbs and allegorize them to our situation. Nor do we try to apply them in a very literalistic sense. Many of the sayings found in Proverbs would simply make no sense for us. And thus, I would argue, that they can serve only to instruct us as to what was wise for their original audience and give us clarity about Old Testament theology. If we are to use them effectively, we have to interpret them and apply them through the lens of Christ.

Our Place of Life
We live our lives between the first and second comings of Jesus. This has enormous consequences. We are essentially an international pilgrim people waiting for our Lord to return, while enjoying his presence among us by the Spirit as the fulfillment of the temple. We are no longer attached to any particular sacred place or land in this world, like Israel was, where blessing is delivered. Rather, we rightly belong to heaven, the world to come, the Kingdom of God, or the new creation. We're a people who have been prepared before hand for eternal life. And that's good news because God is expanding his reach, so to speak.

Moreover, it appears to me that the kinds of blessings given to Israel were largely blessings that could be delivered in tangible ways. Take for example the list of blessings from Deuteronomy above. They include food, family life, livestock, security in the land from enemies and those sorts of things (though not exclusively). Our covenant is not without tangible blessings, but our supernatural blessings are much more pronounced, it seems to me. Paul, in Ephesians will boldly state that God in Christ "has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Eph 1:3). God promised in Isaiah 40-66 that he would forgive sins in a new way (the Cross), pour out his Spirit in a new way (Pentecost), deliver a people to a restored world (new creation), and involve his people in the ministry of the Servant, thereby making them servants as well (Body of Christ).

Think of what Hebrews teaches. That Jesus has died and risen and acts as intercessor on our behalf before God, we have an intimacy with God that the saints of the Old Testament (with the exception of Moses?) couldn't have enjoyed. Jesus dwells in our midst, and in our hearts, through the power of the Holy Spirit. The church is pictured as a place of lampstands (a temple) where Jesus dwells (Rev 2:1). I could go on. But these blessings far outshine the blessings of the Old Covenant. Though Israel dwelt in the Land and had access to God, he was hidden and even dangerous to approach in the Temple.

The New Covenant
The stipulations of the Covenants are different as well. This is important. First, concerning the Old Covenant it is important to understand that blessing and cursing were tied into the fabric of the way that God would respond to his people's behavior. Obedience or disobedience did not determine if God would enter into or remain in Covenant with his people. No. He entered into Covenant with them because he chose them and had purposes for them. But depending upon their obedience or disobedience to the Torah (the commandments, statutes and rules given by Moses) they would receive blessings or curses. This is clear in Deuteronomy and made even more clear in the Prophets who show that God is going to punish Israel for her disobedience, but who will ultimately remain steadfastly faithful and restore Israel again, even despite their terrible idolatry and cruelty.

The New Covenant shares a lot in common with the Old Covenant, but I'm interested in looking at the discontinuity. In the case of blessings and curses things couldn't be more different. For one thing, Paul specifically states that Jesus has taken the curse of the Law on himself when he was nailed to a tree (Gal 3:13). There are no curses due Christians for sin under the New Covenant. But what of the blessings? There's a change here too, I believe. There are enormous blessings found in the New Covenant, perhaps the greatest of which is knowing God, having intimacy with him, and dwelling with him forever. That seems to be what the Apostles are emphasizing. And they go a step further. They emphasize that those blessings are not fully realized in until we dwell in the world to come, the new creation. There we will have bodies like Jesus, and see God face to face (1 Cor 15:12 ff; Rev 22:4).

Consider the way Peter puts it.

1 Peter 1:3-5
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

And he writes this to suffering Christians! I think Peter is trying to emphasize a perspective (wisdom) that recognizes that our Christian lives between the two comings of Jesus in a world that is not yet fully transformed requires that we look longingly, hopefully and expectantly to better things in the world to come. How often in our lives do we want God to remove suffering? And wouldn't we equate that with a blessing? And yet, Peter says that our God gifts us with a grace by calling us to suffer! (1 Pet 2:20-21).

The New Creation
I've said a lot about this above already. But it bears repeating. The land promises made to Israel find their eschatological fulfillment in the world to come. Hence, I would argue that it's necessary to interpret the statements of blessing and cursing, or promises like wealth and long life, or promises like death and destruction against the backdrop of the final judgment and the blessings of the new world that's coming with Jesus return.

So what I am arguing for is a re-appraisal of how we apply many of the individual Proverbs as Christians, and especially those that need more careful interpretation because they reflect the covenantal context of the OT. To be clear, those proverbs that deal with such things as blessing or cursing, or life in the land, or wealth and poverty, can't be appropriated by Christians without applying them through the lens of Christ and his transformative work.

To learn wisdom from Proverbs we must look to Christ and read them with the Christ event clearly in mind.

Thanks for reading.

New Theme

2007-09-15T10:37:00.001-07:00

Decided to give it a shot.

What's the Best Way to Read the Old Testament?

2007-09-08T12:46:00.001-07:00

Or to ask the question a different way, what's the right 'direction' to read the Old Testament? I love reading the Old Testament and get stuck in it from time to time. A great deal of my personal Bible reading lately has been in Exodus-Deuteronomy. I'm beginning to move into Joshua. One of the questions I have while I read Joshua is how it relates to the New Testament.

Like many parts of the Old Testament, Joshua is hard to read and get a lot out of because it is largely a historical narrative of Israel's conquest of the promised land. Some critical scholars think that Joshua is worthless for Christians because of the concept of Holy War it details. As an evangelical, I can't share that opinion. Moreover, I'm critical of the reasons. So I went looking for some info. I found a good article at the always trustworthy Biblical Theology Briefings website.

They've posted a good essay on Biblical Theology by Gordon McConville. I love his commentary on Deuteronomy in the Apollos/Pillar series by IVP. The link will take you to a PDF of a lecture he gave at the Finlayson Memorial Lecture in 2001, entitled, "Biblical Theology: Canon and Plain Sense."

Some excerpts...

What is Biblical Theology? At the simplest level, it is letting the Bible speak today... the issue at stake is how the Bible might be used in church and the world... Indeed, Biblical Theology is in essence an activity of the church. The spirit of it's recovery as a concept is precisely the conviction that the Bible belongs to the church, as its inheritance, and that the church may not be deprived of it by hegemonic academicism that effectively frustrates its use. The church's interpretation of the Bible, for itself and for the world, is not only its right, but its obligation. In this sense Biblical Theology has important parallels with that other primary activity of biblical interpretation, preaching. (Emphasis mine).

One of the more interesting questions he analyzes, and what is central to Biblical Theology, is how the Old Testament relates to the Christ and if the Old Testament, therefore, can be read in a "plain sense" way. This is a very important question. McConville puts it like this:

"Does the Old Testament, in its communicative intentions, help us understand the full range of the meaning of the Christ-event? Or are parts of the Old Testament's witness ruled out on the basis of a Christology derived from a method that gives priority to New Testament texts?"

To put it another way, does the OT stand on it's own in its "plain sense" or does it have to be read differently now that Christ has come? He takes as a test case the idea of Holy War in Joshua, a theme that underlies one of the imprecatory Psalms that says "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" (Ps 137:9).

The idea of a 'plain sense', in my view, faces a more immediate test where the Testaments appear to disagree. Pslam 137, and behind it, Joshua and the Holy War strand of the Old Testament, is such a case. Here is a test, sharper than most, of the capacity of Biblical Theology to sustain the witness of the Old Testament in its theological synthesizing.

He dismisses Brevard Childs' and James Barr's interpretive techniques that essentially state that the event is single and unreapeatlbe (Childs) or "the Bible is simply wrong on this" (Barr). McConville, as an evangelical, cannot agree with Barr on the basis of the Bible's authority and offers a much stronger theological method than Childs.

McConville interprets Joshua and Holy War within the context of the Old Testament which provides a good basis for understanding Holy War in the New Testament. In essence he displays his method of Biblical Theology - one I wholeheartedly agree with - and one that I think we should emulate.

"If the Book of Joshua is to participate in a canonical theology then it must be possible to say what its role is... We can ask whether this part of the two-testament canon teaches something in particular that the other parts do not, and how it does so in relation to Scripture's witness to Christ."

[We'll never get anywhere with the hard parts of the Bible unless we are willing to do some hard and clear thinking!]

McConville's Method

1) Consider Joshua's position in the canon, vis-a-vis the Pentatuech and the rest of the OT

It continues the narrative of Numbers-Deuteronomy.
It marks the end of the wilderness non-posession of the land and is a prelude to posessing it.

2) Look to how the theme of Holy War and conquest are developed by latter parts of the OT.

Reading Psalm 2 and Isaiah help us understand that God's rule through the messiah over his enemies, and the ultimate eschatological rule of YHWH, will know no bounds (Is 60-66). "[T]he element of victory continues to be represented by the language of conquest, and the pictures of salvation are shot through with those of subjugation."

3) The NT reflections on the victory of God are expressed in terms of the life, sufferings, and death of Jesus. "The victory of God is won in the heavenly places."

The victory of Jesus is a victory over the world and the powers that hold sway in it. "The coming of the kingdom is described in the language of violence at least twice in Jesus sayings (Matt 10:34; 11:12)."
The story of the church in Acts is a story of contention in which rulers like Felix, Agrippa and Caesar loom large.
Rome as Babylon in Revelation is the empire that is judged by God using Holy War language reminiscent of the Old Testament. Compare Rev 17:1-18:24 with Jer 50-51.

4) Summary

"What is the proper direction of canonical reading? That is, should a Christian read forward from the Old Testament to the New? If so, does one read the Old Testament first as if without knowledge of the New, as might be implied by a commitment to 'plain sense'." So asks McConville. His answer, in short, is yes and no.

Yes, we should read the OT towards the New! And importantly, a forward movement is structured into the Old Testament, and failing to understand that can lead to a misreading of the OT. What he's saying, I think is this. Read the OT in it's plain sense, which inevitably takes you forward to the NT. Furthermore, as his method illustrates, we have to read the OT in context and follow the development of themes. Too often, I'm afraid, we simply either radically allegorize the Old Testament or ignore its witness altogether. The main problem, though, is that we usually don't listen to the whole Bible, just parts of it. And the solution to that, I think, is to keep reading the Bible. And then read it some more.

I Love Hermeneutics

2007-08-22T10:11:00.000-07:00

Ben Witherington, a professor of New Testament over at Asbury Theological Seminary (Wesleyan), published a post today on his blog that talks about hermeneutics. It's a very good post that nails a couple of points firmly down that everyone needs to understand.

Here's a couple...

"1) ‘What it meant is what it means’."

The way I like to say it is, "It can't mean what it didn't meant (sic)" which is a negative way of saying what he's saying. I hear people interpret the Bible all the time in ways that have no bearing whatsoever on what the author intended it to mean (as best we can tell) or how the original target audience would have understood it. That's a big problem.

"2) ‘Context is king’. One of the great, great dangers in modern interpretation of the Bible is proof-texting. What this amounts to is the strip-mining of certain key terms and ideas, linking them together with similar or the same words in other texts and contexts, and coming up with a meaning which none of the original texts had. "

Enough said. He gives a couple of examples. You gotta read the to the end of the post to hear about his encounter with some Flat-Landers. What an experience that must have been.

For Further Reading

I refer to D.A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies about monthly after listening to sermons, reading articles online, and talking with others just to keep things in check. Very good book for reference.

If you want a comprehensive and accessible introduction to hermeneutics, I recommend The Hermeneutical Spiral.

We can't stop there though. As Anglican evangelicals we have to engage in good biblical theology that pays attention to the overall structure and thematic trajectory of Scripture.

Books like William Dumbrell's The Search for Order or Graeme Goldsworthy's Gospel and Kingdom are crucial, in my opinion, to get a good Christ-centered understanding of how to interpret Scripture. Newer books that I haven't read yet, but that are sure to be good are, Gospel Centered Hermeneutics and God's Big Picture.

For more detailed study, Jesus and the Old Testament or the more rare, The Israel of God in Prophecy are just outstanding.

Happy reading ... and interpreting.

David Peterson retires from Oak Hill

2007-08-11T18:45:00.000-07:00

I sure hope he keeps writing. Possessed by God in the NSBT (New Studies in Biblical Theology) is a favorite of mine. A great read on sanctification. See more of his works at IVP.

And if you have time, this is not to be missed, his online lectures at Oak Hill: "Creation to New Creation: An Introduction to Biblical Theology"

Anglicanism needs more and more biblical theologians of his ilk.

Best wishes for your next endeavors in Sydney.

Simon Gathercole on the New Perspective

2007-08-11T18:02:00.000-07:00

There's a lot of talk on various websites about the New Perspective. I've been waiting for something like this to be written to which I can point my friends who want an accessible overview in plain English. Until now I haven't seen anything like this written anywhere. It's very good. I recommend you read it if you are interested in understanding what the New Perspective says and how evangelicals respond to it.

Beale Reviews Hays' Conversion of the Imagination

2007-06-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

Beale Reviews Hays' Conversion of the Imagination

(From Matt Harmon's Biblical Theology blog)

In the latest issue of JETS (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; not available online to my knowledge), G.K. Beale reviews (190-94) Richard Hays book The Conversion of the Imagination. Hays' book is in large part of a collection of several previously published essays collected in one volume, with the addition of an introductory chapter of reflecting on his own work. Beale focuses his review on the methodological and hermeneutical issues in the book, some of which I will breifly highlight here.

First, Beale wonders why Hays feels the necessity to use the term "metalepsis" to refer to Paul's practice of citing or alluding to OT texts in such a way that he intends the original context of the OT citation/allusion to be accounted for as well. Beale notes that this claim goes back at least as far as C.H. Dodd.

Second, Beale questions the use of the term "imagination," noting that Paul wanted the conversion of the entire mind, not merely the imagination. He acknowledges that Hays probably includes this "broad" sense of the imagination, but rightly worries that the term "imagination" could be misunderstood in the sense of a "fanciful creation of images that is more in the realm of artful possibilities than of absolute redemptive-historical realities that should shape people's thinking" (191).

Third, Beale affirms Hays' claim that although Paul appears to creatively develop an OT text, it retains essential conceptual links to the original intent of the passage. Such developments are made in light of fulfillment in Christ and the notion of progressive revelation.

Fourth, Beale expresses appreciation for Hays' criteria for detecting scriptural allusions and echoes that have become somewhat of an "industry standard" in the study of the OT in the NT.

Fifth, Beale affirms Hays' contention that Paul's recipients were every bit as sophisticated readers of the Bible as contemporary ones (a claim disputed in NT studies). Beale goes on to qualify this by stating that one must at the same time acknowledge different levels of readers among the recipients; some would have caught the more subtle allusions and echoes on a first read that others may have missed. Beale also rightly recognizes that the repeated reading and teaching of the letters would have allowed even the least biblically literate to recognize the subtle appropriations of Scripture present in the letter.

Sixth, Beale affirms Hays' conclusion that Paul's exegetical practices are sufficiently distinct from his Jewish contemporaries to warrant special investigation. On this point they are in contrast to the conclusion of (among others) Richard Longenecker in his work Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period.

I agree with Beale that for those seeking to further understand how Paul interpreted the OT, Hays' book is a helpful window into that discussion. Like both Beale and me, you may not agree with all of the interpretive decisions he reaches, but your thinking will be stimulated. Who knows, not only your imagination but even your entire way of thinking might be changed.

Kingdom of God Part 3: The Purpose of the Parables (Mk 4:10-12)

2007-02-12T23:00:00.000-08:00

Matt Harmon posted the following on his blog.

In response to the question of why he teaches in parables, Jesus says "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN." (Mark 4:11-12)

Several questions arise from Jesus' answer:

1. Does Jesus use parables to intentionally prevent some from seeing, hearing, repenting, etc.?

2. What exactly does the phrase "mystery of the kingdom of God" mean?

3. How does the "citation" of Isa 6:9 fit with the larger context of Mark?

4. How does the larger context of Mark illuminate Jesus' statement here?

I think this is a great set of questions. I'm convinced that Jesus is undertaking an Isaiah-like ministry to the remnant who he is drawing into his kingdom. Isaiah's ministry was to deafen, blind and harden - to hasten the coming of Yahweh's judgment on idolatrous Israel. Jesus is now bringing Israel out of their exile, through a kind of New Exodus, the center of which is his work as king in establishing his kingdom through is life, cross and resurrection. Some will hear what Jesus has to say, obey, follow him, perceive, and believe in him. Others will go away hardened, troubled, angry or doubting. We might want a Jesus whose message is palatable and easy to receive. Though his yoke is light, the response he requires is repentance and humility, and the courage to follow him. And what is most striking of all, and which comes out clearly not only in the Synoptics but in John as well, is that these same disciples to whom he has given the "mystery of the Kingdom" are the same one's who fail to love him, fail to perceive, fail to really believe in him before and after his resurrection - some even remain doubting prior to his ascension. And yet this little band of spirit filled disciples become perhaps the greatest missionaries the church has ever seen. There is grace here. God reaches out to needy sinners in the gospel to save them through Jesus Christ, empowering a response of faith and obedience.

Richard Bewes

2006-12-06T16:05:00.001-08:00

I came across the website of the Rev. Prebendary Mr. Richard Bewes today. He's the former vicar of All Souls in London. He's got a nice little blog/website going on over there. You should check it out.

Biblical Theology 101

2006-11-25T22:05:00.000-08:00

What is Biblical Theology and why is everyone on about it?

1. Biblical Theology is a Theological Discipline
"Biblical theology is integral to the whole process of discerning the meaning of the biblical text and of applying this meaning to the contemporary scene. While we distinguish it from other theological disciplines, such as systematics, historical theology, apologetics and practical theology, its relationship to these disciplines is one of interdependence. Because biblical theology is the fruit of exegesis of the texts of the various biblical corpora it has a logical priority over systematics and the other specialized types of theologizing (NDBT)."

2. Biblical Theology Interprets the Bible Theologically
"Peter Stuhlmacher states the matter trenchantly: ‘A biblical theology … must attempt to interpret the Old and New Testament tradition as it wants to be interpreted. For this reason, it cannot read these texts only from a critical distance as historical sources but must, at the same time, take them seriously as testimonies of faith which belong to the Holy Scripture of early Christianity’ (*How To Do Biblical Theology, p. 1) (NDBT)."

3. Biblical Theology is Synthetic
"Biblical theology is characterized by two distinct but related activities which may be broadly described as analysis and synthesis. The first seeks to reconstruct the individual theologies of the writings or collections of writings of the Bible." The second presents "...the theology of particular themes across the whole Bible. This approach, called ‘pan-biblical theology’ by James Barr, is concerned ultimately to construct one single theology for the Bible in its entirety. It confronts the question: in what sense can the Old and New Testaments be read as a coherent whole (NDBT)."

4. Biblical Theology is Thematic
"Concepts rather than words are a surer footing on which to base thematic study such as that involved in biblical-theological synthesis (NDBT)."

5. Biblical Theology attempts to do "whole-Bible" theology
By undertaking the task of synthesis, the end goal is to present a whole-Bible theology. Biblical theologians try to find unifying themes, or a single unifying theme, for the OT and NT. Such a "center," as it is called, helps to understand the logic of the progressive nature of the Biblical revelation. "Even though the Bible is strictly speaking a collection of books written over hundreds of years with widely varying contents, it does tell a unified story; the tale of creation, fall, judgment and redemption culminates with the gospel concerning Jesus Christ, which the apostles regarded as attested to by all Scripture (NDBT)."

"Thus biblical theology explores the Bible’s rich and many-sided presentation of its unified message. It is committed to declaring ‘the whole counsel of God … [in order] to feed the church of God’ (NDBT)."

6. Biblical Theology is Christ-centered
"Finally, biblical theology maintains a conscious focus on Jesus Christ, not in some naive and implausible sense, where Christ is found in the most unlikely places, but in noting God’s faithfulness, wisdom and purpose in the progress of salvation history. It reads not only the NT, but also the OT, as a book about Jesus. Even if in the OT religion was focused on present relationship with God, based on his dealings with and for his people in the past, there is a firm and growing belief in the future coming of God on the day of the Lord for judgment and salvation. Christians believe that this hope culminates in Jesus and read the OT as a book which prepares for and prophesies his coming and the people of God he would renew and call into existence. The books of the NT connect Jesus with the OT in a variety of ways, seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy, the ideal to which individuals and institutions aspired, or the climax of God’s dealings revealed in various types.
Virtually every theme in biblical theology, as may be seen from the examples noted in the previous two sections, leads to Christ as the final and definitive installment (NDBT)."

Of the "themes" proposed by biblical theology, whether they be 'covenant', 'land', 'temple', 'sacrifice', 'kingdom', 'God', most biblical theologians will subsume these centers into the overall biblical storyline's emphasis upon the consummating work of Jesus Christ.

Summary
"What is biblical theology? To sum up, biblical theology may be defined as theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyse and synthesize the Bible’s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible’s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus (NDBT)."

Excerpted from "Biblical Theology" by Brian S. Rosner (Moore Theological College, Sydney).

B. S. Rosner, "Biblical Theology" in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. D. Alexander and B. S. Rosner. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 2000.

Annotated Old Testament Bibliography from the Denver Journal

2006-11-21T22:13:00.000-08:00

I'm always looking for good bibliography. This one is pretty complete from an evangelical point of view. Covers everything.

An Anglican Evangelical Definition?

2006-11-18T21:24:00.000-08:00

Archbishop Peter Jensen is perhaps the best known proponent of evangelicalism in the Anglican church today. In January of 2003, he addressed hundreds of evangelical clergy in the UK in a talk entitled, Anglicanism: Past, Present and Future. In the winter of 2005 he delivered the Boyer Lectures on "The Future of Jesus." In his best-known publication, The Revelation of God, he argues stongly that God's revelation occurs in the Gospel as it is unfolded in Scripture.

No doubt you may have noticed what I have, that throughout his talks and his publications, he is emphatically centered upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a Bible-based way. For evangelicals, though, he offers us some comfort in another way. He speaks, leads and acts as one of many great evangelical leaders in the Church today. And as such, he's one to speak when it comes to defining just what an Anglican Evangelical is.

Jensen stresses the following:

1. An Evangelical Christian first, an Anglican second
2. An Evangelical
(a) trusts the Bible as authoritative and infallable, the primary source of revelation that reveals the Gospel
(b) Christ-centered and Cross-centered
(c) is focussed on bringing the Gospel to the world
(d) is concerned about the seriousness of sin and God's coming wrath
(e) has an ecclesiology based upon a strong doctrine of local fellowship - not denominations or buildings
(f) highly values expository preaching
(g) highly values the Lord's Supper
(h) highly values the Reformation roots of Anglicanism, The Thrity-Nine Articles, and the Prayer Book.

I couldn't agree more.

Book Review: God's Big Picture, According to Plan, Gospel & Kingdom

2006-11-18T20:06:00.000-08:00

Three of my favorite books by Anglican Evangelicals are reviewed over at Nine Marks.

Grame Goldsworthy's Gospel and Kingdom and According to Plan.
Vaughn Robert's God's Big Picture, which is recommended on this blog.

I am totally convinced that the only way one can really learn to appreciate the message of Scripture and personally appropriate it in the most meaningful way is to grasp the overall sweep of the story of the Bible from Creation to New Creation, whereby God is bringing about the glory of his everlasting Kingdom through the Savior King Jesus.

Dr. Packer's 80th Year Celebrated at Beeson Divinity School

2006-11-18T20:05:00.000-08:00

Take a look here the recap of the recent conference at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, "J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future." Dr. Packer's address at the conference can be downloaded as mp3 here. A book with the papers from the conference is soon forthcoming from Baker Academic.

Speakers

Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist, Washington D.C. and founder of the Nine Marks ministry
David Neff, editor at Christianity Today
Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School and noted theologian
Richard John Neuhaus, editor-in-chief of First Things
and more

ESV Search bar for Firefox 2.0!

2006-11-11T00:16:00.000-08:00

This rocks. Add an ESV search to your toolbar in Firefox 2.0!

Kingdom of God Part 2: The Parables of the Kingdom

2006-11-10T21:51:00.000-08:00

I think that any discussion of the concept of the Kingdom of God has to begin where the terminology begins. While an interpretive description of the Old Testament may involve labeling episodes of God's redemptive history with "Kingdom" descriptors, in one sense or another, it has to be acknowledged that the first explicit use of Kingdom of God, "basilea tou theou," occurs in the New Testament. While I am not saying that the idea is not found in the OT (Ps 45; Dan 2:44), the concept as such is not fully developed and not used so widely and frequently as it is in the NT. So it is in the NT that we shall start. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I'm not going to argue whether or not the use in the Pauline literature predates it's use in the Synoptics and John. Rather, from a canonical perspective we'll start by examining the usage in the Synoptics and go from there. This also tends to mirror the way that the concept of the Kingdom of God is studied elsewhere (cf. Ladd; NIDOTTE and NIDNTTE; NDBT, Ed. T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Leicester: InterVarsity, 2000).

Donald Hagner, in his NDBT article, states that "The main theme of the Synoptic Gospels is found in Jesus’ announcement that the long-awaited promise concerning the kingdom of God is coming to fulfillment in and through his own ministry and mission (emphasis mine)." I agree. Once can hardly read the Synoptics without encountering and re-encountering the phrase, basilea tou theou, "kingdom of God." We only need look to John the Baptizer's announcement, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel" (Mk 1:15). This phrase occurs another 13 times in Mark and 32x in Luke. Mathew's "kingdom of heaven" term occurs 32x. Most are agreed that Matthew's phrase reflects a Jewish preference for substituting "heaven" for "God." Having been introduced by John, the usages in the Synoptics are carried on by Jesus and can be broken down into a couple of categories: (1) Deeds that manifest the kingdom and (2) Words that tell of the kingdom.

Words of Jesus
Beginning with Mark 1:15, the use of "...fulfilled..." (peplhrwtai - perf. passive) suggests the bringing to completion of a period of time (BDAG, 5981.2). From this point forward, Jesus is bringing to completion something that has already begun. As we follow the trajectory of the Synoptics we learn that Jesus message is the "good news of the kingdom" which he preaches (Matt 4:23; 9:35//Luke 4:43). Matthew is also quick to add that his preaching ministry is accompanied by healing . Some of the main elements of this teaching include:

the kingdom is taught in parables and isn't easily grasped (Mark 4:11//Luke 8:10//Matt 13:11)
there will be partakers in the kingdom - the poor, the meek, the merciful and so on (Matt 5:1 ff.)
there will be those persecuted for the kingdom (5:10)
some will be teachers in the kingdom (5:19)
some will be eunuchs or make themselves eunuchs (Matt 19:12)
the rich will have difficulty entering the kingdom (Matt 19:23)
some will be the least and the greatest in the kingdom (5:19)
a member of the kingdom is greater that John the Baptist (Luke 7:28)
...and the greatest is like a little child (Matt 18:1ff.)
one enters the kingdom by a righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees' (5:20)
tax collectors and prostitutes enter the kingdom before Pharisees because of their belief (21:31)
one can pray that the kingdom come (6:10)
the patriarchs and prophets will be in the kingdom, along with others from all over, reclining at table (Luke 13:28ff.)
the kingdom is like...a seed that grows and is harvested (Mark 4:26ff.)
the kingdom is like...a grain of mustard seed that grows into a tree that shades birds' nests (4:31ff.)
the kingdom is like...a farmer's field of wheat and weeds which when harvested, the first are gathered and the second burned (Matt 13:24)
the kingdom is like...a king who settled accounts with his debtors and showed mercy (18:23ff.)
the kingdom is like...a householder who pays the first and last the same wage (20:1ff.)
the kingdom is like...a king who held a wedding feast for his son and due to the indifference and cruel misdeeds of those invited, canceled their invitations and invited just anyone, and among those, only the ones with wedding garments are found worthy (Matt 22:1ff.)
the kingdom is like...ten virgins, five of whom were unprepared with their lamps to meet the bridegroom and were locked out of the wedding feast (Matt 25:1)
the message of the kingdom is spread and announced by the disciples (Matt 10:7//Luke 9:2)
contemporaries of Jesus will be witnesses to the kingdom of God (Mark 9:1//Luke 9:27)
the kingdom should be sought as a source of blessing (Matt 6:33)

As I have compiled these references to the kingdom of God (which aren't intended to be exhaustive), it appears clear that the authors of the gospels have arranged the material on the kingdom of God in an organized way.

The exhortation at the beginning of the Synoptics, especially in Luke and Matthew, is to seek the kingdom of God. And it's not something entirely new, because as the authors state, it is coming to it's fulfillment in Jesus. As the story progresses we learn that the kingdom of God is a wonderful thing indeed.

It is a place of blessing where there is justice, forgiveness, mercy, truth and righteousness. And it is equally a place where those who value and practice those virtues suffer. And we can't also ignore that, perhaps in a most difficult parable, the kingdom will involve people who will be judged. It will be big and encompassing of all people, regardless of ethnicity. Amazingly, the righteousness that the kingdom demands is the same righteousness that the King Jesus provides, for those who believe in him.

The Kingdom is also somehow an activity. It's like a field or a farmer or a seed or king or virgins who do things.

And so that's why it's incongruent for those who claim to be followers of the King not to be those who truly believe in the King. It's as odd for someone to be invited into the kingdom and fail to really get on board with the program as it is for a wedding guest to show up at a wedding without a garment. Thinking canonically, we have here the notion that conversion must be a reality for anyone to really be part of the kingdom of God. One can't sort of just show up and expect to be "in."

We also have the basis of the theme of suffering, articulated by the apostles, that Jesus models. For Jesus will enter into the kingdom only through the suffering of the cross, and the apostles will drink such a cup as well.

Up next: The Kingdom of God Part 3: The Purpose of the Parables

The Nativity Story

2006-11-01T17:57:00.000-08:00

While preparing to watch Flags of our Fathers the other night, I saw the preview for the upcoming Christmas film, The Nativity Story. This looks promising and certainly should do well over the holiday. There's a great piece over at Christianity Today about the filmmakers, Wyck Godfrey and Marty Bowen, and how their relationship and film came to be. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Jensen Addresses Sydney Synod

2006-10-24T16:13:00.000-07:00

Jensen's talk at the recent Sydney Diocesan Synod

Excerpt...

Already we are being called upon by brethren elsewhere who do not enjoy our freedoms and our resources to stand with them and offer them protection and support. Thus, if a parish church, such as St John’s Shaughnessy in Vancouver, where David Short is the Rector, sees the need to withdraw at some level from its Diocese as it has, who can it form an association with? Some may be scandalised at such a question because of the high value they put on ecclesiastical unity and the need to keep boundaries intact. So do we. Disorder often opens the door to evil. That is why we must be sure of the significance of this issue and we should avoid inflammatory speech. But I have to say that I remain convinced that we are dealing here with something of that order of significance, and one can also say with some justice that those who have innovated. By introducing new practices, are the ones who have initiated the disorder which they are now seeking to contain by institutional means.

Calls for help are likely to intensify in the years ahead. We may even see a giant shift in loyalties and a new world-wide fellowship emerge. I think that we would be fooling ourselves to think that we will have a major role in such a seismic shift; but we would be equally foolish to think that we will not be involved at all. Only today I have received another anguished letter from an evangelical minister overseas seeking to bring his church into the membership of this Diocese. It is not the first I have received. My response has always been that the difficulties are best met at as local a level as is possible. The closer to the problem, the better the solution.

Why us? Because Sydney is one of the few places in the Anglican world with a concentration of evangelicals and a concentration of theological scholarship. There are numerically more evangelicals in the UK than there are here, but they are scattered and frequently embattled. It is difficult for them to combine; difficult for them to think that they amount to much. Typically, also, they have been so pastorally involved that they have not been as active as they should have been at the level of Diocese and General Synod. In fact their political successes are few and far between. They lack confidence and they lack organisation. The same is more so in New Zealand, far more so in the South Africa (in CPSA), more so again in Canada and far more so in the USA. The fact that we exist and can speak up brings comfort to thousands of people around the world.

The motion we will pass tonight will go around the world and will be a beacon of hope to many.

The two areas which I see us making our contribution in are helping to call people together and networking them when they are in minority and threatened positions, and in offering Biblical Theology, especially as the basis of theological education.

To the readers of this Blog: do you know what Biblical Theology is?

Accessible Owen

2006-10-10T18:18:00.000-07:00

Though many a reformed Christian would place Owen outside the historical folds of Anglicanism (he's a Nonconformist afterall), I like to think of him as one of the fathers of English evangelicalism who certainly influenced later Anglican evangelicals.

Having lived in Wheaton, Ill. just a stone's throw from the headquarters of Good News Publishers, and, if I may say so (ahem), having been affirmed in my opinion by J.I. Packer himslef at lunch one day, that Crossway Books just might be the best source of good Christian reading, I'd like to recommend one of their new titles:

Overcoming Sin and Temptation

Do Christians know and practice (anymore) the mortification of sin? Should it be every Christian's experience to grow in grace and holiness through the power of the Holy Spirit? Is it really possible to overcome certain sins and temptations - even ones that we struggle with for years? And when we feel so burdened by sin, do we practice fleeing to the Cross of Christ where true comfort and pardon is found? In this rewriting of Owen's classic works, The Mortification of Sin in Beleivers, Of Temptation, and Indwelling Sin, a Christian today can access perhaps Owen's best and most pastoral treatisies on a subject that many a Christian may struggle with.

For more on John Owen please see...

The Christian Classics Ethereal Library (Calvin College)
God's Statesman: Life and Work of John Owen by Peter Toon
A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life by J. I. Packer
Reflections on the Life and Thought of John Owen by John Piper

A Dubious Messianic text in Genesis 3?

2006-08-28T16:33:00.000-07:00

Finally someone said it. It's about Genesis 3:15 and the "Serpent Crusher" text. I've long heard that this is one of the first Messianic predictions in the OT. To be honest, however, I've always somewhat doubted it, because I could never find any other textual evidence or contextual evidence that supported this proposition.

Take a look at this recent article on Beginning with Moses by Simon Finders down in Sydney, the Anglican Evangelical stronghold. He's got a good briefing on preaching Genesis 3. Here's an exerpt.

After discussing how to read Genesis 3 in the context of the whole Bible (aka Biblical Theology) which (1) exposes the wickedness of the human heart, and (2) exalts the work of Christ...

Excursus: A False “Biblical Theology” Trail?

Whilst there is no doubt that Genesis 3 points in both these directions, I have long been intrigued by the way in which Biblical Theologians have articulated the latter. It is one thing to say that Genesis 3 exalts the work of Christ. But it is another thing altogether to show exactly how Christ’s work is honoured by our Biblical Theological understanding of Genesis 3. Moreover, in my experience there is a very popular and common Biblical Theological step taken from Genesis 3 that I’m simply not convinced of.

I’m referring to the idea (first articulated by Luther I believe) that Genesis 3:15 is the first explicit statement of Messianic expectation in the Old Testament. From that moment on, so people say, the narrative invites us to await the appearance of the Serpent Crusher- the one who will crush Satan under his feet and thus reverse the effects of the fall. This verse, cast as it is in the chilling context of God’s condemnation of all humanity, offers humanity some hope. For here we see the Christ. As Christian readers of the Old Testament (and especially as well-trained Biblical Theologians) we are taught to see in this verse what we see at every turn in the Old Testament narrative- that God plans to send his Anointed One to deliver humanity from themselves. Jesus is the Serpent Crusher of Genesis 3:15. Or so the story goes . . .

Up to a point, I agree with that interpretation of the verse. Verse 15 certainly jumps out of the otherwise bleak picture of Genesis 3 and shines its hopeful ray of future anticipation upon the reader. I think the narrative does invite us to expect the Serpent Crusher (or Crushers?) to come and to put right that which has been messed up by human sin. But my question is about whether or not this is to be seen as a Messianic expectation. Is this really a foreshadowing of our Saviour Jesus? Certainly as we read on in Genesis we are disappointed to discover that none of the immediate descendants of Eve are “crushing the serpent”- bringing evil to an end. We even reach the end of Genesis feeling frustrated by the continuing spiral of sinfulness which has yet to be reversed. We are left asking the question, ‘Who will crush the serpent’s head?’, ‘When will the effects of the fall be reversed?’, ‘When will we see this promised deliverance?’

I presume that if Biblical Theology has taught us anything, we will find ourselves turning to the New Testament’s articulation of the gospel for our answers. And surely one of our sacrosanct principles of Biblical Theological interpretation (and rightly so) is that we should inquire of the inspired Apostles to see what they make of this part of the Old Testament? So what does the New Testament say about Genesis 3:15?

One of the interesting things about that question is that there is only one place anywhere else in the Bible where deliberate reference is clearly made to Genesis 3:15 (I’m not convinced that either Psalm 110 or Galatians 3 have Genesis 3 in mind). That in itself is unusual in my opinion if Genesis 3:15 is really the fundamental building-block of Messianic expectation that people say it is. Why don’t the Old Testament prophets remind us of the coming Messiah in those terms? Why doesn’t Jesus ever speak of himself as the Serpent Crusher? Why is the New Testament strangely quiet when it comes to unpacking the work of Christ with respect to Genesis 3:15?

Nevertheless, we are not left in the dark to sketch the trajectories of Genesis 3:15 into the New Covenant by ourselves. The Apostle Paul offers us at least one inspired (in the theological sense of the word) thought. I’m speaking of course of Romans 16:20. At the conclusion of his epistle, Paul encourages the Roman Christians with these words: ‘And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet’.

What do we learn, then, about how Paul would answer the questions raised for us by Genesis 3:15 and the unfolding plot of the Biblical narrative between Genesis and Romans? (a) Who is the Serpent Crusher? And, (b) When will the serpent be crushed?

Unless I’m very much mistaken, Paul’s answers seem to be- (a) the Roman Christians, and (b) ‘soon’. It appears to me that Paul’s answer to the “who” question interprets Genesis 3:15 as pointing not to a singular fulfilment in a messianic man, but to a plural (or corporate) fulfilment in the followers of the Messiah. It also seems to me that Paul’s answer to the “when” question points to an eschatological moment the world is yet to see.

As I read Romans 16:20, the Spirit casts my mind back to Genesis 3 and encourages me that I myself, as one of God’s New Covenant people, am a Serpent Crusher. I am a part of that great company of Jesus’ followers who will one day enjoy the overthrow of the curse as I dance on Satan’s head. But the Spirit also cautions me not to strap on my dancing shoes just yet. I’m not a Serpent Crusher right now. However, I will be ‘soon’, says Paul, and so I rejoice in that beautiful ‘soon’ of eschatological anticipation so common to the New Testament’s call for patience and endurance.

Of course, when I dance on Satan’s head and the curse is reversed it will be for no other reason than that my Lord Jesus defeated and disarmed Satan in his death and resurrection (Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15). In that more muted sense, Jesus is anticipated in Genesis 3:15. But as far as Paul is concerned, Genesis 3:15 is not a prediction about Jesus and it’s not a prediction about when Jesus came the first time. It’s a prediction about the very end of time when God will finally and perfectly make everything right, when the effects of the curse will no longer be felt, and when God’s own people will enjoy the spoils of Christ’s victory themselves.

This is my question: Is it possible that the populist Christological interpretation of Genesis 3:15 has seen people exalt their debt to Luther and the Biblical Theological meta-narrative over and above sensible exegesis and sound hermeneutical principles?

I’m well aware that I’m taking a shot at a pretty “sacred cow”. But it’s important that we ask: Have we got it wrong? Should we speak of a “Serpent-Crusher” at all? Or should we prefer to speak of ourselves as “Serpent Crushers” even whilst we acknowledge our debt to Christ in making us one of that number?

In my sermon on Genesis 3 I deliberately resisted the lure of heading down this popular Biblical Theological track. I tried instead to be guided by the emphases of Genesis 3 and the New Testament in how I concluded and applied the passage.

What to know before reading the Gospel of Matthew

2006-08-22T18:47:00.000-07:00

Check out Spooh's blog. It's good.

Sexual Immorality in the Church: An Exposition of 1 Cor 5

2006-08-20T11:55:00.000-07:00

David Short's sermon at evening prayer at the ACN meeting in Pittsburgh. Not only a good exposition of the great encouragement of Paul's message to the church of Corinth, but a wonderful example of good expository preaching. This is the kind of preaching I long for. He tells it like it is. He gets down to the core, that sexual immorality imperils the holiness, gospel witness and unity of the church. These are important things!!! Therefore, says Paul, expel the immoral person from among you. Well done, David!

A New Beginning: An Exposition of Nehemiah 8

2006-08-20T11:48:00.000-07:00

David Short, a fine expository preacher and teacher of preachers, gave this exposition of Nehemiah 8 while meeting with the ACN in Pittsburgh.

Simeon Trust Preaching Workshop Nov 1-3 in Upland, IN

2006-08-20T11:23:00.000-07:00

Workshop on Biblical Exposition
November 1-3, 2006 | Upland, Indiana
A Workshop for Men Engaged in Fulltime Ministry of the Word

About the Instructors:

Dick Lucas is Rector Emeritus of St. Helen's Bishopsgate in London, England. His formal education was at Camrbridge University and he served in the Royal Navy as a youth. Though retired from the pulpit at St. Helen's, he is an author and frequent lecturer both in London and here in the United States. Rev. Lucas is also well-known as the first chairman and a founding Trustee of the
Proclamation Trust in London. His work with
the Proclamation Trust has included the development
of the EMA conferences as well as the Cornhill
Training Course and the distribution of a variety of
Gospel Resources through the Audio Partnership.

David Helm is Sr. Pastor of Holy Trinity Church, a multi-site church plant in the city of Chicago. He was ordained in the PCA after graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1988. He authored the Big Picture Story Bible and coauthored the Genesis Factor. David also serves as the Executive Director of the Charles Simeon Trust.

Intro: Kingdom of God

2006-08-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

Introduction to the Kingdom of God

As Christians we should be nominally familiar with the phrase, the kingdom of God. We’ve heard it everywhere. We might pray, “your kingdom come, your will be done.” Or we might remember Jesus making reference to the kingdom of heaven in Matthew’s gospel. Perhaps we’ve heard pastors or writers using language like, spreading the kingdom or kingdom preaching or bringing people into the kingdom of God. Ring’s a bell, doesn’t it? But do we know what it means? I’m not sure I always did. My experience isn’t probably very significant, but I’m not sure I ever really paid much attention to the phrase. I heard it used and it sounded important and authoritative, but I guess I didn’t give much more thought to it. I probably assumed it had to do with God and his people, the church. But I really didn’t know how.

More recently, however, my ears are tuned into the phrase, the kingdom of God. It started with a careful reading and teaching of Mark’s gospel. At the beginning, Mark records John the Baptist saying, “The time has come, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news!” (Mk 1:15 // Matt 3:2). It wasn’t until I began to read Mark along with Deuteronomy, the Psalms and Isaiah that I really began to grasp hold of an incredibly important and far reaching theological theme under-girding the entirety of biblical revelation. That God is establishing his everlasting, glorious and righteous kingdom is perhaps the most central - and important - message of the Bible. What that means, in simple terms, is that the kingdom of God is really important to the message of the gospel.

George Ladd, a prominent evangelical of a former generation, specially studied and wrote about the kingdom of God. He stresses the importance of God’s kingdom in this way:

The kingdom of God is the redemptive reign of God dynamically active to establish his rule among men, and that this Kingdom, which will appear as an apocalyptic act at the end of the age, has already come into human history in the person and mission of Jesus to overcome evil, to deliver men from its power, and to bring them into the blessings of God's reign. The Kingdom involves two great moments: fulfillment within history, and consummation at the end of history.
Ladd, NT Theology (italics mine).

As Ladd states, the kingdom of God is best understood to be both a reign and a realm. It is a dynamic act of God centered upon the person and work of Jesus the Messiah. It has both a present and future aspect. So understanding the intricacies of the biblical message is absolutely crucial.

This series on the kingdom of God will talk about how this theme is clearly taught in the New Testament. From there, we will spring-board back to the Old Testament, to which the NT writers refer us. We’ll then have the opportunity to grasp a biblically-broad picture of the whole idea of the kingdom of God. Following this foundation, I’d like to talk about texts in both the OT and NT that have a forward looking perspective, especially in the prophets, gospels and epistles. My reading has lead me to believe that a good deal of instruction for Christian living is directed towards God’s people that has it’s framework or context or logical grounding in a kingdom of God theology. As we will see, the message of the kingdom of God is intended to give people hope, confidence in God and motivation for Christian mission on the grounds of God’s momentous work of sending his king into the world.

TheBlueFish

2006-08-19T15:35:00.000-07:00

I'm listed on this dude's blog! I feel honored.

Piper, Justification and a Response to Wright

2006-08-14T18:38:00.000-07:00

John Piper has returned from his Sabbatical at Tyndale House, Cambridge where he spent time researching the topic of Justification and the New Perspective. See Desiring God here for an exciting recount of his sabbatical. Makes me want to take a sabbatical. Here's an excerpt:

Which brings me to the labor side of the sabbatical. I was able to finish writing the main body of two books. One is called What Jesus Demands from the World, which will be published by Crossway Books in late September (Lord willing). It is a 365-page book on the commands of Jesus, in an attempt to obey Matthew 28:19, “Teach them to observe everything I commanded you.” Not just to know everything, but to observe (obey!) everything. How do you handle the Gospels in such a way that the teaching results in obedience? That was my goal. The other book is a response to N. T. Wright on the doctrine of justification. I have no immediate plan to publish it until I get the feedback from critical readers. My motivation in writing it is that I think his understanding of Paul is wrong and his view of justification is harmful to the church and to the human soul. Few things are more precious than the truth of justification by faith alone because of Christ alone. As a shepherd of a flock of God’s blood-bought church, I feel responsible to lead the sheep to life-giving pastures. That is not what the sheep find in Wright’s view of Paul on justification. He is an eloquent and influential writer and is, I believe, misleading many people on the doctrine of justification. I will keep you posted on what becomes of this manuscript.

I can't wait to read what he has to say. Piper's logic is always tight and I find that helpful and difficult at the same time. I think that's good because Piper makes me think.

Many people have chimed in regarding Wright and his views on Paul and the Law and Pual on Justification. You can read D.A. Carson and P.T. O'Brein's work, Justification and Variegated Nomism, if you are ambitious and fully aware of the questions under consideration. You can read something more accessible from helpful theologian like Mark Siefried; Christ Our Righteousness. There is a good review of his book on Beginning with Moses.org. He has an address available here.

ReformedAnglican

2006-08-11T17:10:00.000-07:00

Check it out...another great Anglcian blog out there. Good stuff. Take a look at their music page that outlines what music is used in worship. There are some cool things starting to take place in the Carolinas...

NT Wright on 'Evil'

2006-08-05T16:13:00.000-07:00

Evil is Still a Four-letter Word

Take a look at this article on the Anglican Media Sydney Website. As Christians, how should we think about evil in the world? Is the world. "basically a good place"? Despite WWI and the change in thinking in the West about the problem of evil, why do we only really think about it when it hits us in the face? Wright's answer is simple in this excerpt. For more, see Wright's Evil and the Justice of God.

Garver on NT Wright

2006-08-01T17:50:00.000-07:00

As one who has studied NT Theology and read Wright, I don't always get what he's trying to say. But, if you want a good breakdown of his thought, like I do...go here.

(Hat Tip: Sacra Docrina)

A Chappo's Guide to Holiness

2006-08-01T17:27:00.000-07:00

How could I have failed to talk about John Chapman, or "Chappo" to his friends, on the Anglican Evangelical blog? I beg your forgiveness. For those of you who have never heard of him, he is a compelling and energetic evangelist from Sydney, Australia. And he's a really fun and generous guy too!

See the Confessing Evangelical's blog entry here. He's got a .mov file link to an interview on Chappo's recent book, A Sinner's Guide to Holiness.

From Matthias Media

What is holiness? Why do I need it? And why is it such a struggle for me to achieve holiness in my everyday life?

In A Sinner’s Guide to Holiness, well-known evangelist John Chapman explores what the Bible has to say about holiness—where it begins, how it makes progress in our lives, and its ultimate fulfilment as we are changed into Christ’s glorious likeness on the Last Day.

This book is a timely publication in this day and age, when we have often lost sight of the holiness of God. And when we do, it seems like an impossible task to achieve our own holiness. But ‘Chappo’ tells us that becoming holy is a vital, worthwhile goal for every Christian—even though the first 60 years may be the hardest!

This is the first title in a new series from Matthias Media: Guidebooks for Life. As the series unfolds, it will deal with the important nuts-and-bolts topics that Christians need to know about as we walk each day with our Master.

Read the first book in this new series, and rediscover the joy of being a sinner on the path of holiness.

Leon Morris: An Obituary

2006-07-30T18:33:00.000-07:00

Leon Lamb Morris

1914-2006

New Testament scholar Leon Morris died on Monday afternoon in Melbourne after hip surgery, aged 92. His funeral will be at Holy Trinity Doncaster, Melbourne, on July 31 at 10.30 am.

"Leon Morris (1914—2006) was a New Testament scholar. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England on the subject which became his first major book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. He served as Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge (1960-64); Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia (where they have named a library in his honour); and Visiting Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

"He has published several theological works and commentaries on the Bible, notable among which are The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance, New Testament Theology, and The Gospel According to John (part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament series)." (Wikipedia) His Apostolic Preaching of the Cross became seminal for modern evangelical theology of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.

"He served on the boards of a number of Christian organizations including the Evangelical Alliance, Scripture Union, Church Missionary Society, Bible Society, and he chaired the 1968 Billy Graham Crusade Committee. As President of the Evangelical Alliance, he established TEAR Fund, a significant Christian aid and development agency in Australia. He was a translator for the New International Version of the New Testament. In 1974, on his sixtieth birthday, he was presented with a Festschrift from eminent biblical scholars from around the world." (Anglican Media Melbourne)

I can't help but mourn the passing of such a great scholar, Christian minister and saint who worked so tirelessly for the Gospel. We need more such Anglican evangelical leaders.

Thank you, God, for your faithful servant and for the way in which he has helped the church to understand your Word and to glory in the cross of Jesus Christ.

(Hat Tip: Between Two Worlds)

Readings for The Kingdom of God

2006-07-23T18:01:00.000-07:00

My bibliography of works that influence my understanding of the Kingdom of God in the Bible.

Bibliography

Oscar Cullman. Christ and Time. London, 1952.
- Salvation and History. London, 1967.

William J. Dumbrell. The Search for Order. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001.

E. Earle Ellis. Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

R. T. France. Jesus and the Old Testament. Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 1992.

Graeme Goldsworthy. According to Plan. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1991.

Richard Hiers. The Kingodom of God in the Synoptic Tradition. Gainesville, Fla.: Univ. of Florida Press, 1970.

G. W. Kummel. Promise and Fulfillment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. SCM, 1957.

George E. Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
- "The Kingdom of God - Reign or Realm?" JBL 31 (1962), 230-38.

Hans K. LaRondelle. The Israel of God in Prophecy. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Univ. Press, 1983.

Gosta Lundstrom. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Oliver and Boyd, 1963.

R. Otto. The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man. Lutterworth Press, 1951.

David Peterson. Engaging with God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1992.
- Posessed by God, NSBT. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995.

Archicald Robertson. Regnum Dei. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004.

Haddon. W. Robinson. Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel. Philadelpia, 1964.

Aldolph Schlatter. History of the Christ.

Charles H. H. Scobie. The Ways of Our God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Geerhardus Vos. Teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church. Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1999.

N. T. Wright. The New Testament and The People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
- Jesus and The Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Series on The Kingdom of God

2006-07-23T17:47:00.000-07:00

I'm starting a series of posts covering the topic of the Kingdom of God from the Old and New Testaments. I want to discuss the language, theme and biblical development of the idea of the Kingdom of God. I also want to talk about the relationship of the Church to the Kingdom of God and how it should inform Christian living today. I'll start by posting a brief bibliography of resources on the subject.

Scott

The Way Forward for Evangelicals

2006-07-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

Dear friends and all who may visit this Blog. May I invite you to seriously take to heart what Bishop Jensen has to say. His ideas are fresh, relevant, sound and, should they be heeded, may well reform the Anglican church in the West and guarantee a strong future around the world.

Communion in Crisis Part 1 & Part 2

THE PROBLEM

The present crisis in the Communion is only the presenting issue of a set of deeper and more significant problems revolving around authority and mission.

The crisis in the Anglican communion is really a crisis of Christianity in the West, about faith and different ways of handling that... [and] Homosexuality is the presenting issue for this wider issue.

To sum up: the crisis in the Communion is about the relation between culture and revelation, liberalism and the Bible. It may show itself in the area of human sexuality, but it really goes back to the authority of Scripture and our willingness to be subservient to its teaching despite the unpopularity which this may bring in the world and in the church. In order to be obedient under pressure we are going to have to attend more that we have done up until now to the issue of depth in theological education in parishes and in the denomination. Especially we are going to have to care for each other, to encourage and strengthen each other and to support each other in unpopular stands, if these need to be taken. And remember, ‘Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage – with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears will want them to hear… But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.’ (2 Timothy 4:2-5).

THE PLAN

A New Reformation?

In effect the church in the west is being strained by significantly different theologies: the question is, will it be strained to breaking point? Will there be a new Reformation? Furthermore, although we can all see that this is an international problem, it plays itself out at the national and local arenas even more sharply. In due course, many of us are going to have to face quite painful questions arising from our fellowship with those with whom we differ profoundly.

There is a Limit to Diversity in Christian Fellowship

It is often said that one of the glories of Anglicism is its comprehensiveness and, inclusiveness and tolerance. There is some truth, in this although I fear that much of it is also romantic wishful thinking, or the dream-world of a majority which fails to see how they are treating the minority. Certainly, however, in the twentieth century in a number of places we learned to get on with each and to recognise the valid existence of other points of view within the church. It helped to have a poor historical memory. We learned to live with a fair degree of pluriformity. But comprehensiveness has never included every available option. The idea that a church has truth-commitments which it will ignore in the interests of inclusion is likewise a dream. To state the obvious such a ‘structure’ could not survive. I state the obvious, but I sometimes wonder how obvious this is....when is the limit of comprehensiveness reached? I think that you can see that I would be troubled by a development which...

Forced me to do what I believe to be unscriptural,
Involved a matter of salvation,
So involved me in the actions of others so that it appears that I agree with the development because I do not protest or take withdraw.

Homosexuality

Here indeed is a salvation matter. This life-style is spiritually very perilous. Encouraging it or allowing it is endangering the lives of those involved and is inconsistent with the duties of being a minister of God’s word. It is a matter of a different nature to such issues as infant baptism or the ordination of women. It is no wonder that it created for St John’s (and the other parishes involved) an immense crisis of conscience. To remain silent and inactive would have been to say that they were complicit in an activity of such significance that the eternal salvation of souls was at stake in a direct way. The whole culture is heading the wrong way – of which this is a symptom. It is anti-human and de-humanising.

Networking

Nonetheless, if I still wish to be called ‘Anglican’ with some degree of authenticity, something must be done to make sure that scripture is honoured, conscience satisfied and it cannot be said that I am passively acquiescing in something that I regard as spiritually devastating behaviour at an official level of the church. I believe that, faced with such a challenge, we need to reform and renew our networks. These will help us to see who we are in fellowship with – and who not. The Anglican church world-wide has already entered into a period of fractured relationships across networks, although it is not true of the church in Australia, I am glad to say.

Let us create new structures of fellowship where necessary. We have been too slack, too individualistic, too touchy about the issues that divide, too parish-focused. Evangelical people everywhere need to unite around the issues which are at the heart of what we believe and make us what we are. At the same time, if and when necessary, and with a heavy heart, they must clearly and corporately dissociate from developments which are unscriptural and spiritually dangerous. An evangelical network can do the following:

Speak for a large number, so that protests cannot be dismissed as isolated and unimportant.
Agree to defend and support any individual or church being disadvantaged because of a principled stand on an issue of the magnitude of homosexuality.
Enter coalitions with like-minded groups without creating compromise on other subjects.
Speak for and with similar networks elsewhere in the communion.
Agree on a strategy by which it will be clear that the network is dissenting from an official but blatantly unscriptural policy.
Adopt polices for joint action where necessary.

Overarching all, however, must be a commitment to the gospel, and hence to mission worldwide and in the secular West. An example of the last in some parts of the world would be for a network to agree not to baptise persons living in a same-sex relationship and to support those who operate on that principle.

Leadership

Leadership within the evangelical movement is not ever easy; we do not like papal figures with good reason. But for anyone to offer leadership today is triply difficult. The movement has been seriously divided for a generation over other issues. We have not produced well-thought out theologians who can also be statesmen and prophets. Furthermore, the level of vilification of leaders within the community, within the church and within the movement is horrendous. Few will want to be involved at any more than parish level. Unfortunately, without leadership which has widespread support and recognition it will be extremely difficult for evangelicalism to retain a significant place in any modern denomination which is not evangelical itself. Pray for courageous, biblical, recognisable leadership. When it comes, honour it and don’t undermine it.

We will need to be very flexible in how we are Christian and how we 'do' church. It may be that we are going to have to do church on different days of the week, without buildings, without regular clergy: there are all sorts of ways in which the church of the future is going to be experienced.

Let me now turn to one last major issue: theological education...[Liberal Christians in the West] understand the crucial role played by theological education in the health of the church...Western ideas of sexuality [have] come from an understanding of the Bible [regarded] as pre-modern. [Global South churches] are determined to make sure that the next generation of ordinands in the Global South churches are taught what they would regard as better ways of interpreting and applying Scripture. The irony of this is that the theological education of the West has, speaking very generally, enfeebled the churches, taken away the Bible and been the major source of the cultural captivity of the church.

AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
NETWORKS
LEADERSHIP
MISSION
EDUCATION

Let's get to it!

An Evangelical Understanding of Holy Communion (with a little Biblical Theology to boot)

2006-07-06T19:44:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to write about Holy Communion for some time. I hope you enjoy and appreciate this post. The Anglican church has an evangelical understanding of Holy Communion that took time, thought and effort to produce for the benefit of Christians. It's a gem. And it's what I'm sticking with.

There are two main parts: 1) Holy Communion is communion with Christ and 2) Holy Communion is communion with the church.

The Anglican doctrine affirms that we participate in the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion:

BCP (1662):

Then shall the Priest, kneeling down at the Lord's Table, say in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion this Prayer following.
WE do not presume to come to this thy Table, 0 merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html

Book of Homilies:

But thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent (Matthew 26:26): But (as the Scripture says) the table of the Lord, the bread and cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of his death, yes, the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, in a marvelous incorporation, which by the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our conjunction with Christ) is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live to eternal life, but they surely trust to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The true understanding of this fruition and union, which is between the body and the head between the true believers and Christ, the ancient catholic fathers, both perceiving themselves, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this supper, some of them, the salve of immortality and sovereign preservative against death. Others, a divine communion. Others, the sweet delicacies of our Savior, the pledge of eternal health, the defense of faith, the hope of the resurrection. Others, the food of immortality, the healthful grace, and the conservatory to everlasting life. All which sayings both of the Holy Scripture and godly men, truly attributed to this celestial banquet and feast, if we would often call to mind. Oh how would they inflame our hearts to desire the participation of these mysteries, and oftentimes to covet after this bread, continually to thirst for this food?

http://www.geocities.com/curtis_caldwell/bk2hom15_mod.htm

Articles:

XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper.
THE Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but rather it is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#28

My emphases in italics and bold font indicate that the classic reformed Anglican doctrine of Holy Communion emphasizes the union between Christ and the Body of Christ, the Church, of which he is the Head, through partaking of his Body and Blood, truly signified by the sacramental bread and wine, of Holy Communion. The emphasis is the gospel truth that God and man have been intimately reconciled to loving, everlasting communion, on the grounnds of Christ's death on the cross, by the means of faith, through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the beautiful mystery of the gospel.

But that's not all. There is emphasis on the unity of the church too.

As Article XXVIII affirms, Holy Communion is a sign of the love that Christians have with one another. Perhaps it's better to say that it is a sign of the unity of the Body of Christ. Recall the apostle's words in 1 Corithians 10. He speaks at pretty great length regarding the divided Corinthian's practices around the Lord's Supper. Paul argues strongly against any idea that suggests that the Lord's Supper is a pagan feast and argues strongly against any idea that one can participate in the Lord's Supper and other pagan feasts and claim exclusive identity among the Body of Christ. Moreover, he urges the Corinthians to exercise caution when eating foods that may cause other Christians consternation. At the heart of his argument lies these statements,

1 Corinthians 10:16-24 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? 23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

Paul then picks up on the truth of unity again in Ch.11,

1 Corinthians 11:20-29 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Here Paul criticizes the Corinthian "supper," which sounds more like an "eat-and-run" kind of free for all, with beer on tap, by saying, "You're not eating the Lord's Supper." Notice the problems: disunity (21a), inequitable distribution (22b), drunkenness (21b). These all demonstrate a lack of discernment of the body(29). Now here is where I want us to pause and think for a minute. What "body" is Paul talking about? I strongly believe that the context must make us understand "body" here to mean the Body of Christ, the church. Some have read this to mean the sacramental bread, such that one should discern something special about it. Given that Paul's corrective instructions for the Corinthians have focussed on healing their disunity all throughout this letter, and especially in these passages, Paul's emphasis must be on appreciating and understanding the church is the united people of God, brought about by the death of Jesus Christ. And what's more, Christians must examine themselves, together as a body and individually to determine what sins may cause disunity in the community of the saints.

Here's how the classic Anglican Book of Common Prayer assists the Church to this end:

BCP (1662):

DEARLY beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come to the holy Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, must consider how Saint Paul exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us;) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html

BCP (1662):

I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and devoutly disposed the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; to be by them received in remembrance of his meritorious Cross and Passion; whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins, and are make partakers of the Kingdom of heaven. Wherefore it is our duty to render most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God our heavenly Father, for that he hath given his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament.

http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/communion/index.html

Biblical Theology footnote

God delights in eating and drinking with his covenant people. Consider the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai. After Israel receives the covenant from Moses,

Exodus 24:8-11 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." 9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. 11 And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank.

Consider, of course, the last supper that Jesus spends with his disciples,

Luke 22:15-16 15 And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Consider all the times that Jesus ate and drank with people in their homes (so much so he was accused of being a drunk!),

Luke 14:7-15 7 Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the places of honor, saying to them, 8 "When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, 9 and he who invited you both will come and say to you, 'Give your place to this person,' and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. 10 But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." 12 He said also to the man who had invited him, "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just." 15 When one of those who reclined at table with him heard these things, he said to him, "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!"

And finally consider the promise of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb,

Revelation 19:7-9 7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; 8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure" - for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. 9 And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."

I suggest that since we find instances throughout the Bible of banqueting with God, whether in this world or in the world to come, in some sense, Holy Communion should be understood to be part of that great tradition of feasts with God. Moreover, as Passover, which remembered God's deliverance of Israel from the house of salvery, is now endued with new meaning in the Lord's Supper (the deliverance of God's people from slavery to sin and death through the cross), it points us toward the consummation of God's plans for his people in the Kingdom of God in the world to come. Thus, Holy Communion leads us to look in two directions: (1) we look back to the cross of Christ remembering his death; and (2) we look forward to the consummation of the Kingdom of God and the great marriage supper of the Lamb in which the members of Christ's Body get to participate. We get the whole sense of the Gospel; namely, Christ's work on our behalf in the past, present and future. Christ's work, to which the Lord's Supper points, links the people of God, who now enjoy the eschatological in-breaking of God's Kingdom into this age in the person of Jesus Christ (our communion with Christ), with the promise of the ultimate feast, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, in the world to come.

Could there be any greater meal for God's people? Could there be any greater enactment of the Gospel that Christians could participate in? Could any evangelical doctrine of Holy Communion be more thorough or biblical? How we need to teach this to Anglicans in the US today.

Recommended Resource: Books on Biblical Authority

2006-07-03T13:09:00.000-07:00

Since the crisis in the Church in the West is rooted in a disdain for or replacement of the authority of the Bible, what resources can Christians turn to for discussions about the authority of Scripture? The following is an annotated bibliography of sources.

John Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Tyndale Press, 1972 [UK]; IVP, 1973 [US]).

Wenham’s book makes the simple point that our trust in Scripture is to be a part of our following Christ, because that is the way that He treated Scripture—as true, and therefore authoritative. Wenham had first put these ideas in print with a little Tyndale pamphlet in 1953 called "Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament." In Christ and the Bible, Wenham, who taught Greek for many years at Oxford, an Anglican evangelical, has done us all a great service in providing us with a book which understands that we do not come by our adherence to Scripture fundamentally from through inductive reasoning, but from the teaching of the Lord Jesus. Only because of the Living Word may we finally know to trust the Written Word.

D.A. Carson, Scripture and Truth (Baker, 1992).

This book is a collection of essays on the authority of the OT and the NT for Christians. It deals with all the major questions and controversies that arise when talking about the authority of the Bible. Truly outstanding.

J.I. Packer, Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (IVP, 1999).

The freedom found in the Gospel is only found through submitting to the Authority of Jesus through is Word.

Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God (IVP, 2000).

Peter Jensen argues that it is better to follow the biblical categories of the knowledge of God and the gospel than to start from "revelation" as an abstract concept.First, Jensen focuses on revelation, whether special or general, from the viewpoint of the knowledge of God through the gospel. Next, he examines the nature and authority of Scripture and our approach to reading it. Finally, he turns to the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit through illumination. The result is a creative and compelling exposition of the evangelical understanding of revelation for the contemporary scene.

Trinity (Dallas) Statement of the Rector and Vestry

2006-07-03T10:54:00.000-07:00

Trinity Episcopal Church
Statement of the Rector and Vestry
June 29, 2006

We, the Rector and Vestry of Trinity Episcopal Church, Dallas, Texas, are committed to the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ in our community and around the world. We accept God's word, the Holy Scriptures, as the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice. Under Christ, we desire to live and minister as evangelical Christians within the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas and the world-wide Anglican Communion. We gratefully acknowledge the Rt. Rev. James Stanton as our Bishop and apostolic leader.

Like many others, we have been deeply distressed by the actions of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church. Continuing a course begun years ago and reaffirmed in 2003, the General Convention has once again sent clear indications that, in crucial matters of theology and morality, the Episcopal Church intends to walk apart from the Anglican Communion, the rest of the Christian Church, and the clear teaching of the Scriptures. While further reflection is necessary, we at Trinity feel obliged to respond on this interim basis:

(1) We stand with our brothers and sisters of Christ Church, Plano, and other gospel-minded parishes, in announcing our intention to disassociate from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church as soon as possible, in consultation with our Bishop.

(2) We stand with our brothers and sisters in the Dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Springfield, and Central Florida, and all others of like mind, in requesting pastoral protection and ecclesiastical accountability by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, and the Panel of Reference.

(3) We stand with evangelically minded clergy, parishes, and church members, in Dioceses all across the US and Canada, in seeking what Archbishop Williams has called an "ordered and mutually respectful separation."

(4) We urge our Bishop and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Dallas to explore with all haste every possible means of disassociation from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and to identify opportunities for re-association in due course with like-minded Anglicans under strong Biblical leadership.

(5) We call on every member of Trinity, Dallas, to join us in earnest prayer to Almighty God on behalf of our parish, our Diocese, our denomination, and our Communion.

(6) We want to assure all those concerned, that we at Trinity are loyal to our Bishop, to our Diocese, and to the Anglican Communion; and that we remain absolutely confident of God's faithful provision and direction to us as individuals and as a parish.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

The Rev. William Lovell, Rector

The Rev. Jacob Muiruri, Assistant Rector

Warren Dodson, Chancellor

Cathy Cavendish

Russ Crawford

Greg Duesing

Will Grover

Robert Guzak

Dan Hill, Junior Warden

Mark Jenkins

Brendan Kimbrough, Senior Warden

Bill Shep

The Future is Now

2006-07-02T08:17:00.000-07:00

Observations

In just the past few weeks...

Pittsburgh - South Carolina - San Joaquin - Ft. Worth - Springfield - Central Florida appeal for new bishop
Christ Church Plano exists the Episcopal Church USA
Trinity Church expresses their wish to exit the Episcopal Church USA
Martyn Minns of Truro Church (VA) is consecrated a bishop by African leaders

Churches are seeking new episcopal leadership, an evangelical priest is consecrated a bishop, two evangelical churches are out. All of this comes on the heels of the consecration of a new liberal Presiding Bishop in the Episcopal Church and a General Convention that failed (unsurprisingly) to heed the call for repentance and regret from the larger Anglican Communion over the consecration and ordination of gays.

Many years ago when I reconsidered reaffirming my membership in the Episcopal Church, following my evangelical conversion, I came across an article on the web about Bishop Stanton's (Dallas) Presentment against clergy and bishops who had ordained a gay priest. A Presentment is a formal charge among the House of Bishops for an action that is deemed wrong on canonical and scriptural grounds. The article went on to say that nothing came of it, which means that the liberal bishops in the majority didn't care. That was 1998.

In the ensuing months and years the impasse between the conservatives and liberals has grown insurmountable based upon fundamentally different hermeneutical presuppositions and worldviews regarding Scripture, the gospel and the purpose of the Church. Things went from being bad to worse. Most on the conservative side have said, "Enough is enough!"

In the meantime, groups like Anglican Mainstream in the UK, the Anglican Communion Network in the US (and UK?), the American Anglican Council and other groups, clergy, and lay people have networked, convened, written letters, debated, prayed and grieved about what the future must hold. For many of us the future now looks foreseeable. It appears that the structures are in place for us to merge into a new community of faithful Anglican Christians. It appears that the de facto opinion of Canterbury and other global bishops would authorize US conservatives going their own way. The one thing holding us back, it appears, has been caution and careful proceeding so that we would give the "other side" every conceivable opportunity of playing fair, changing their minds and acknowledging their sinful actions. It appears very clearly to us now that they will not. Enough is really enough.

I think it's time for all faithful Episcopalians to exit ECUSA, link up with our like-minded brothers and sisters in the AMIA, the REC, and other Anglican churches that want to join. I think we should hold a national convocation as soon as possible to express our intentions to more forward for the Gospel together. Obviously, much more would need to happen in the following months and years to focus our vision, define our theology, establish our ecclesiastic ties with the rest of Anglicanism, iron out various trouble spots, etc. But it must unquestionably be time to act.

The future is now.

Evangelicals must network

2006-06-17T16:18:00.000-07:00

Bishop Benn:

“It is very important for evangelicals to network, to share fellowship and to encourage each other in their faith [in order to] strengthen evangelical roots and ties."

How do we do this better in the US?

The Tonsured Flower

2006-06-03T20:23:00.000-07:00

Check out my freind Danny Gabelman's blog, The Tonsured Flower. He's soon off to St. Andrews to study and write about the intersection between Christianity and Literature.

Godspeed, Danny!

Dr. Carrell asks, "Anglican Evangelicals: Mainstream or Taliban?"

2006-06-01T18:52:00.000-07:00

The Rev. Dr. Peter Carrell addressed the Latimer Fellowship of New Zealand in a talk entitled, "Anglican Evangelicals: Mainstream or Taliban?"

Alongside the orthodox beliefs of Christian faith enshrined in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds, our theological commitments as evangelicals probably include the following beliefs at their core:

the death of Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2);
the supreme authority of Scripture on all matters of faith and practice (though such a statement cannot be found in those words in either the Book of Common Prayer or in A New Zealand Prayer Book, they are implied by Articles 6, 7, 8, 17, 20, and 21 of the Thirty-Nine Articles);
the necessity of each believer being in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

As far as being Anglican is concerned I must be slightly more speculative in second guessing what we value! My hunch is that as Anglican evangelicals we particularly value the following:

the reformed heritage of the Church of England, expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and in the Book of Common Prayer, both of which are formularies of our Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia;
a covenantal theology of baptism which is inclusive of our children;
an understanding of communion which is not restricted to one interpretation;
episcopal leadership;
freedom to explore dimensions of faith and practice (1) unbound by specific schools of evangelical theology (Calvinist, Lutheran, Arminian, etc), and (2) open to useful truth and insight from all Christian churches and movements.

Very interesting indeed. Emphasis on doctrine, the cross, the Bible, and an openness to Protestant theology. I especially like the note on covenant baptism.

Recommended Resource: The Story of a Kingdom

2006-05-27T10:22:00.000-07:00

I just learned of another great biblical theology resource!

The niche of this particular site is its orientation towards a simple and understandable presentation of the Gospel geared towards those who speak English as a second language. Available on the site are three resources available for pdf download: (1) The Story of a Kingdom, a study guide that walks through the Biblical story including questions, diagrams, etc. useful for group of personal study; (2) The Story of a Kingdom book, a shortened version of the study guide written to read more like a book; and (3) a Powerpoint presentation that overviews the entire curriculum.

The author is Jonathan Gibson, one of the editors of the Beginning with Moses website I have previously mentioned.

More from those at Moore...Moore Theological College, that is.

Hat tip to Matt Harmon at Biblical Theology.

What's In a Vestment?

2006-04-25T18:48:00.000-07:00

"MAN'S nature is such that he needs external helps to assist him in fixing his attention on sacred things. We are all impressed to a remarkable degree by "pomp and circumstance." A king on his throne, clad in his royal robes, holding his scepter and wearing his jeweled crown, is an imposing sight; all these accessories indicate his dignity and help us to realize his greatness. The same king without these trappings of royalty would possibly be a very insignificant object.

For this reason it has been customary in every age and country to invest those holding any position of dignity or practicing certain avocations with some uniform or badge, by which their rank and duties are designated. The soldier wears his uniform, by which he is distinguished from the ordinary citizen. The policeman, the fireman... wear special garb, marking him as set apart for some definite work.

This is done for a twofold purpose -- that others may respect and obey him as far as is necessary, and that he may respect himself and be more conscious of his duties and more attentive to them, on account of the uniform he wears. This is even more true of the religious garb. The priest wears it that he may be thereby distinguished from other men, and that he himself may be always reminded by it that he is "taken from among men to offer sacrifices and holocausts for them "-- to be a mediator between the Almighty and His creatures."

--- Rev. John F. Sullivan. The Externals of the Catholic Church. P.J. Kenedy & Sons: 1918.

Really? Priests need to be distinguished from other men? He needs to be reminded that he acts as a mediator between God and his creatures?

As an heir of the Protestant Reformation, the question of the use, value and function of liturgical vestments has been a question that I have posed for a long time. In just about any Episcopal or Anglican church in the US, on any given Sunday, the pastor who leads the congregation in worship is found vested in various styles. Some wear the alb with a combination of a liturgically colored stole. Some wear a cassock and surplice with a stole or tippet. Some vest in the chasuble prior to celebrating Holy Communion. For most of the 20th c. this practice has been seen to be quite ordinary and something "traditional" about the way that the Episcopal/Anglican Church worships. Moreover, Methodists do it, Presbyterians do it, Lutherans do it, and so on - so it's certainly not out of the ordinary. As we embark upon the 21st c., as a "global realignment" takes place in world Anglicanism and as new AMIA and independent Anglican churches are established in the USA, I think it is proper to ask the question, "What's in a Vestment?"

Perhaps one of the most striking differences between the worship styles of our brothers and sisters in Baptist churches, Bible churches, Pentecostal churches, non-denominational churches and other "free" churches lies in the style of the worship service. Among other things, the pastors of such churches do not wear vestments. Moreover, as we cast our gaze upon the larger Christian world across the globe, it's not uncommon for one to find that in Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and other "liturgical churches" meeting in, say, Kijabe, Kenya or Arequipa, Peru, that the use of vestments is uncommon. Is there something different in their thinking?

When we look to the historical home of Anglicanism, the UK, a bit of a different picture emerges. Unlike her US counterpart, it is actually quite common for one to find that in an evangelically minded Anglican church, the use of vestments is actually quite limited or simply non existent. Among those who are committed to a more catholic expression of Christianity, it's actually quite common to find the use of vestments - and the more elaborate the better. Is there something different in the thinking of the Anglo-Catholics?

I haven't been alone in my search for answers to these questions. As I have been thinking about this question over the past few years, I've posed some of my thoughts to my colleagues. One colleague of mine attends an AMIA church here in Wheaton. This church chooses to identify itself as a blending of three elements: evangelical - catholic - charismatic. Without digressing into other matters, my personal opinion, based upon the few times that I have visited, based upon my discussions with the Rector and based upon the reading material they make available, the catholic and charismatic elements tend to be their primary focus. The priests vest in the alb, stole and chasuble (to the left).

Another colleague of mine attends a different AMIA church in Glen Ellyn. Their focus, from what I've experienced, is on the evangelical and charismatic. The priest there vests in the cassock, surplice and stole, foregoing the use of the chasuble. In this church, the rector looks a lot like the fellow to the right.

Another colleague of mine attends an evangelical Anglican church in Oxford, UK. They describe themselves as evangelical. The priest there chooses not to wear vestments. "He just wears normal clothes."

So what's in a vestment? The answer to this questions lies, I believe, partly in understanding the history of the use of vestments in the Anglican church and partly in understanding the theological value, or lack thereof, placed upon the use and function of vestments in worship.

A History of Vesture in The Patristic Church
The use of vestments began in the patristic church. What most historians agree upon is that they are derived from a primarily secular origin, drawn from the kind of clothing that was common among the people of the classical world. The Church before the age of Constantine knew no distinction between secular and religious dress, although drawings in the catacombs show that the latter was dignified and rich. But the growth of the authority of the clergy both within and without the Church, the increasing esteem for the liturgy and its progressive development, and, not least, the continuous specialization of official dress, all combined to favor the use of richer and more varied materials and the marking of differences of rank among the clergy as was done among secular officials; still, there was no question of a class distinction. Thus, cultural factors, as much as theological factors, influenced the choice of religious clothing. Central to the theological factors is the Roman doctrine that the deaconate, priesthood and episcopacy are separate classes of ministering individuals. The Church, through the priesthood, acts as mediator between God and men. Hence, to distinguish the priesthood from the laity, special vestiture was established and worn.

Victor Schultze, "Vestments." New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950.

The Anglican Reformation and the Vestments Controversy
During the Anglican reformation, a controversy arose concerning the question of vestments (along with questions concerning liturgy, images in worship, the use of the Prayer Book, kneeling to take Holy Communion, and other things). The chief concerns of the reformers were to establish the English Protestant identity, a normative doctrine and common church practice. The vestarian crisis or edification crisis concerned whether or not vesture was adiaphora (something to be indifferent about) or edifying.

In the Miles Coverdale translation:

"How is it then brethren? Whan ye come together, euery one hath a psalme, hath doctryne, hath a tunge, hath a reuelacion, hath an interpretacion. Let all be done to edifyenge".
1 Cor 14:26

And not only was this a theological question among the reformers, but it was a question for the monarch too. In section 13 of the Act of Uniformity, the monarch had the authority "to ordeyne and publishe suche further Ceremonies or rites as maye bee most meet for the advancement of Goddess Glorye, the edifieing of his church and the due Reverance of Christes holye mistries and Sacramentes".

The mindset among the reformers was diverse. One reformer, Bp. Hooper, spoke against the 1549 ordinal whose oath mentioned "all saints" and required newly elected bishops and those attending the ordination ceremony to wear a cope and surplice. In Hooper's view, these requirements were vestiges of Judaism and Roman Catholicism, which had no biblical warrant for Christians since they were not used in the early Christian church. Through a series of circumstances involving Bp. Ridley, Archbishop Cranmer, the King and the Privy Council, a debate ensued. It has been suggested that Henrician exiles like Hooper, who had experienced some of the more radically reformed churches on the continent, were at odds with English clergy who had accepted and never left the established church.

The Hooper-Ridley Debates
In 1550 Hooper and Ridley held a debate concerning the question of vestments. Hooper cites Romans 14:23 (whatever is not faith is sin), Romans 10:17 (faith comes from hearing the word of God), and Matthew 15:13 (everything not "planted" by God will be "rooted up") to argue that indifferent things must be done in faith, and since what cannot be proved from scripture is not of faith, indifferent things must be proved from scripture, which is both necessary and sufficient authority, as opposed to tradition. Hooper maintains that priestly garb distinguishing clergy from laity is not indicated by scripture; there is no mention of it in the New Testament as being in use in the early church, and the use of priestly clothing in the Old Testament is a Hebrew practice, a type or foreshadowing that finds its antitype in Christ, who abolishes the old order and recognises the spiritual equality, or priesthood, of all Christians. The historicity of these claims is further supported by Hooper with a reference to Polydore Vergil's De Inventoribus Rerum.

In response, Ridley rejected Hooper's insistence on biblical origins and countered Hooper's interpretations of his chosen biblical texts. He points out that many non-controversial practices are not mentioned or implied in scripture. Ridley denies that early church practices are normative for the present situation, and he links such primitivist arguments with the Anabaptists. Joking that Hooper's reference to Christ's nakedness on the cross is as insignificant as the clothing King Herod put Christ in, and "a jolly argument" for the Adamites, Ridley does not dispute Hooper's main typological argument, but neither does he accept that vestments are necessarily or exclusively identified with Israel and the Roman church. On Hooper's point about the priesthood of all believers, Ridley says it does not follow from this doctrine that all Christians must wear the same clothes.

Hooper went on to argue...

An indifferent thing must be left to individual discretion; if required, it is no longer indifferent.

An indifferent thing's usefulness must be demonstrated and not introduced arbitrarily.

Indifferent things must be introduced into the church with apostolic and evangelical lenity, not violent tyranny.

For Ridley, on matters of indifference, one must defer conscience to the authorities of the church, or else "thou showest thyself a disordered person, disobedient, as [a] contemner of lawful authority, and a wounder of thy weak brother his conscience". For him, the debate was finally about legitimate authority, not the merits and demerits of vestments themselves. He contended that it is only accidental that the compulsory ceases to be indifferent; the degeneration of a practice into non-indifference can be corrected without throwing out the practice. Things are not, "because they have been abused, to be taken away, but to be reformed and amended, and so kept still".

In the end, Hooper was ordained wearing vestments. He had few supporters for his position, but it is significant that the 1552 revised Prayer Book omitted the vestments rubrics that had been the occasion for the controversy.

Vestments among the Marian Exiles: A Movement Away from Vestments
In the controversy among the Marian exiles, principally those in Frankfurt, church order and liturgy were the main issues of contention, though vestments were related and debated in their own right. There was no direct correlation between one's views on church order and one's views on clerical dress. Nevertheless, there is a general pattern wherein the members of the "prayer book party"(those who favored retaining Cranmer's book without more radical reforms) were favored for high appointments in the church under Elizabeth I that required conformity on vestments, as opposed to the exiles who departed from the order of the English national church in favor of the more international, continental, reformed order. Occupying many lower positions in the Elizabethan church, this latter group grew during the exile period and produced many of the leaders of the Elizabethan anti-vestments faction. As deans, prebends, and parish priests they were freer to openly disobey, en masse, the requirements for clerical dress. By 1558, even the supporters of the prayer book had abandoned the Edwardian regulations on clerical dress. All the Marian exiles – even the leading promoters of the English prayer book like Richard Cox – had given up the use of vestments by the time of their return to England under Elizabeth I, according to John Strype's Annals of the Reformation (1.1.263-54).

Vestments under Elizabeth 1
With the ascension of the new queen, many Marian exiles hoped for further reform upon their return to England and for the final removal of vestments from mandatory church use. The new queen, however, sought unity with her first Parliament in 1559 and did not want to encourage nonconformity. Under her Act of Uniformity, backed by the Act of Supremacy, the 1552 Prayer Book was to be the model for ecclesiastical use but with an even more conservative stance on vestments that went back to the second year of Edward VI's reign. The alb, cope, and chasuble were all to be brought back into use, while the exiles had abandoned even the surplice. The queen assumed direct control over these rules and all ceremonies or rites. There was a great deal of diversity of opinion. Some agreed with the queen in practice but encouraged preaching against vestments. Others were in favor of vestments altogether. And even others, like Miles Coverdale, were anti-vestment altogether.

The debate continued among the more conformist clergy and the nonconformist clergy. In 1563 an appeal was made to ecclesiastical commissioners to exempt the petitioners from wearing vestments. It was approved by all the commissioners except for Archbishop Matthew Parker. Parker then went on, in 1566, to draw a line in the sand against the nonconformity. This brought about a general protest and established one of the thorns in the sides of the soon to be non-conformists and Puritans.

One of those, Robert Crowley, vicar of St Giles-without-Cripplegate, instigated the first open protest. Though he was suspended on March 28 for his nonconformity, he was among many who ignored their suspension. On April 23 Crowley confronted six lay men (some sources say choristers) of St Giles, who had come to the church in surplices for a funeral. According to John Stow's Memoranda, Crowley stopped the funeral party at the door. Stow says Crowley declared "the church was his, and the queen had given it him during his life and made him vicar thereof, wherefore he would rule that place and would not suffer any such superstitious rags of Rome there to enter." Crowley was later arrested by Archbishop Parker (to the left) and imprisoned. While under arrest, Crowley published three editions (including one in Emden) of A Briefe Discourse Against the Outwarde Apparel of the Popishe Church (1566). Patrick Collinson has called this "the earliest puritan manifesto". The title page quotes from Psalm 31; intriguingly it is closest to the English of the Bishops' Bible (1568): "I have hated all those that holde of superstitious vanities".

In the summer and fall of 1566, conformists and nonconformists exchanged letters with continental reformers. The nonconformists looked to Geneva for support, but no real opportunity for change was coming, and the anti-vestments faction of the emerging Puritan element split into separatist and anti-separate wings.

In the end, those who remained in the conformist camp retained the use of vestments out of conformity to the authority of the Church. This included two "parties": those who disliked vestments but wore the surplice, feeling that the arguments made against the use of vestments had been firmly established; and those who liked vestments.

Those who did not conform (Puritans/Presbyterians), did so on the following grounds:

The corrupt nature of traditions and the primacy of scripture.
The equality of clergy (with laity)
The non-exclusive power of the bishops to ordain ministers
The limited scope of the authority of civil magistrates
The sole headship of Christ in the church - a re-emphasis of the second point.

Summary
Edwardian Prayer Book (1552): Stole, chasuble, cope banned. Only surplice permitted.

Elizabethan Prayer Book (1559): the surplice for parish clergy is permitted. And, 'such ornaments...as were in use...in the second year of K.Edward VI'. This was to be the basis of claims in the 19th. century that vestments such as chasubles, albs and stoles were legal.

1662 Prayer Book: No revision

The 19th c.: Tractarianism, Ritualism and Anglo-Catholicism
Once we get into the 19th c. things change. Some Low-Churchmen and High-Churchmen prefer to wear classic Anglican vesture while others prefer to omit it. The evangelical Charles Simeon, for instance, often simply wore the clothes of an English gentlemen. Note in the silhouettes of Charles Simeon below, preaching in the church, he's wearing ordinary clothing.But a number of Anglicans wanted to move in another direction. The nineteenth century Oxford Movement within the Church of England strove against the erosion of the Church of England's traditionally-privileged and legally-entrenched role in English society (vis-à-vis the strength of nonconformist Protestants, Methodists, and the growth of Enlightenment secularism). The leading light of the Oxford Movement was John Henry Cardinal Newman. Another influential leader was the Rev. Edward Bouverie Pusey, who remained the spiritual father of the Oxford Movement. Perhaps one of the best known Anglo-catholics on the parish level was the Rev. Charles Lowder. Fr. Lowder, as he was affectionately known, was instrumental in reviving a high degree of ritualism in worship, inspiring a renewed depth of spirituality among high-church clergy, and was the primary founder of the Society of the Holy Cross.

Under the Anglo-Catholics, many elements that had been removed from the Church during the Reformation were returned. With respect to vesture, the Anglo-Catholics argued for the widest possible lenience under the Elizabethan rubric. They brought back the wearing of the alb, stole, chasuble, and cope. This was not simply for show. Rather, the use of these vestments coincided with their theology of the priesthood and Holy Communion. They moved in a much more Roman direction, elevating themselves to a sacerdotal priesthood and elevating their altar practices to sacrifice. Hence, a theology of the priesthood that separates the priest from the laity, as he engages in sacerdotal worship, which mediates for the laity, means that he must vest himself in a unique and distinguished way - as one who stands as mediator between God and man.

From the 19th c. to the present day, Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals differ strongly over the use of vestments. Anglo-Catholics are happy with the introduction of "catholic" vestments while the evangelicals are either happy with traditional Anglican vesture or none at all.

So What's in a Vestment?
What appears clear is that the wearing of vestments is a practice that began in the Constantinian church parallel to the development of liturgical practices. In the Anglican Reformation, the use of vestments was a considerable issue for debate and an issue that is partly responsible for the emergence of Puritanism and Presbyterianism. As Anglican Evangelicals, if we are to hold to the primacy and authority of Scripture, shouldn't what best reflects the Gospel be normative practice?

On the basic grounds of the priesthood of all of God's people (1 Pet 2:5-9) and the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Hebrews), there must not be an official separation between a priest and the laity on the basis of a Catholic doctrine of the Mass. Jesus is the Priest of the Church, his bodily temple, that in turn is made up of priests (servants). Such a congregation of holy people fulfills God's design, one begun at Sinai in the Old Testament, of a universal Israelite priestly kingdom that serves the LORD exclusively and makes his ways known to the world. Such a people find their role renewed by Jesus in the Gospel, and find it continuing into the world to come (Exod 19:6; Isa 66:21; Rev 21:1-7). I think this biblical-theological reasoning is exactly what Hooper was striving for. On the basis of the Gospel, there is a fundamental change in the idea of temple and priesthood. Jesus alone is our mediatorial priest in the heavenly temple.

What appears clear from the history of the use of vestments is that primarily clergy have debated this issue among themselves. And clergy know that symbols have meanings. I'm afraid that often an uncritical eye is cast at the Catholic vestments without considering the sacerdotal symbolism that they intend to reflect - and the obscurity to the Gospel that entails. The Gospel is obscured because (as the reformers insisted) a sinner can respond to Christ's summons, wherein he mediates and forgives the sinner on the grounds of his death and resurrection, without the need for any alternative or secondary priestly class. Hence, it obscures the doctrine of justification by faith and the the glory of the Father. Catholic vestments do not speak an evangelical Gospel.

"But what's the big deal," some ask. The question of vesture is an important one because it relates directly to the clarity of the Gospel. I'm concerned with what the symbolism symbolizes. There are a number of free-church Christians who begin attending Anglican churches every year - especially the AMIA. They tend to like the Catholic vesture worn by the priest. The reasons, however, are not because they adhere to Catholic theology, but because it suits their style and taste. They prefer looking at a minister who is wearing vestments more than looking at a minister who is wearing a suit. Or they might say that it makes them feel like they are part of something rooted in tradition, which they never felt like they were a part of in their non-denominational American evangelical church. My thinking is that if the priest were wearing a surplice instead of alb and stole, and they were told it was traditional, they would accept it just the same! Therefore, for the uniformed, it does not speak to them theologically at all - which is the whole purpose of the introduction of Catholic vesture by the Tractarians in the first place.

Moreover, in these post-modern times, it appears that more and more churches are simply picking and choosing what they might use for symbols as part of "Ancient - Future" Christianity. If anything needs to happen, it has to be a robust discussion on a theology of symbolism and a theology of art in the Church. The Gospel must inform what we choose to do, speak and wear. And only insofar as any symbol serves to clarify and speak the Gospel will it have proper evangelical usage. And to this point, a number of Anglican Evangelicals reply that we do have symbols given to the Church: The Lord's Supper and Baptism.

So in the end, what I'm arguing for is Gospel clarity and consistency. If you are an Anglo-Catholic, then wear your Catholic vestments because it conforms to your theology of transubstantiation, a sacerdotal priesthood and the Mass. If you don't hold to such doctrines, then why wear the Catholic vestments? And for Evangelicals who choose to wear classic vesture or not to wear any vestments at all, your consistency is commendable.

So, "What's in a Vestment?" What you want to communicate.

Sources

Wikipedia
John Hooper "Ex libro D. Hoperi, Reg. Consiliarijs ab ipso. exhibiti. 3. octobr. 1550. contra vsum vestium quibis in sacro Ministerio vitur Ecclesia Anglicana. quem librum sic orditur". Text printed in C. Hopf, "Bishop Hooper's 'Notes' to the King's Council",Journal of Theological Studies 44 (January–April, 1943): 194–99.
Nicholas Ridley "Reply of Bishop Ridley to Bishop Hooper on the Vestment Controversy, 1550", in John Bradford Writings, ed. A. Townsend for the Parker Society (Cambridge, 1848, 1853): 2.373–95.
Horton Davies, Worship of the English Puritans (Westminster and London: Dacre Press, 1948; Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, 1997)
Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, vol. 1, From Cranmer to Hooker, 1534-1603 (Princeton University Press, 1970; Eerdmans, 1996)
M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (University of Chicago Press, 1939)
J. H. Primus The Vestments Controversy (J.H. Kok N. V. Kampen, 1960)
Bernard Verkamp, The Indiffferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554 (Ohio University Press, 1977)
Ronald J. Vander Molen, "Anglican Against Puritan: Ideological Origins during the Marian Exile," Church History 42.1 (1973): 45-57.
Brett Usher, "The Deanery of Bocking and the Demise of the Vestiarian Controversy," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 52.3 (2001): 434-55.
Norman L. Jones, "Elizabeth, Edification, and the Latin Prayer Book of 1560," Church History 53 (1984): 174-86.

Expository Preaching & Biblical Theology: The Simeon Trust

2006-04-24T17:35:00.000-07:00

Friends of mine have recently launched thier new website for The Simeon Trust. Modelled somewhat after The Proclamation Trust in the UK, the Trust exists to train young men to be pastors and equip pastors to be better expository preachers. Named after Charles Simeon, one of the "fathers" of Anglican Evangelicalism, the Trust is off to a great start. Located in Chicago, IL, preaching conferences are held all over the US and Canada.

Dick Lucas, David Short, and David Helm and others are regularly involved which is always seen as a great benefit to those who attend.

I highly recommend it!

Bishop Ray Smith to visit Dallas

2006-04-24T14:18:00.000-07:00

Bishop Smith is a great Anglican Evangelical. I had the opportunity to meet him a few years ago and talk about the proper omission of the epiclesis in the Elizabethan BCP. As evangelicals, and heirs of the Reformation, our Archbishop Thomas Cranmer came to the almost identical conclusions that Calvin did concerning a doctrine of the Lord's Supper (likely, no doubt, due to the influence of Martin Bucer!). I feel that it is important to show the Anglo-Catholics and others that a Reformed doctrine of the Supper is particularly theologically robust including a non sacerdotal understanding of it as a means of grace. More on this later.

Anyway, Smith will be in Dallas in May, likely in time for the Diocesan Evangelism Conference.

Rev. Dr. Michael Green to speak at Dallas Evangelism Conference

2006-04-24T14:11:00.000-07:00

Good News for the 21st Century: An Evangleism Conference for Today's Church

The American Episcopal Church needs a LOT more of this.

Bishop's News from Peru

2006-04-21T20:40:00.000-07:00

For information on the growth of the Anglican Church in Peru, see the Bishop's Blog.

At one point in my life, I had the wonderful opportunity to visit the Diocese of Peru on two different occaisions. Once I went on a missionary fact-finding trip that allowed for the ground work to be laid for a strong relationship between Christ Church and the Diocese of Peru. On a second trip I worked on various construction projects in the Diocese. Plus, I also met the Bishop, who is a wonderful Christian man.

Would you beleive that I worked very hard on this church to mix and lay a cement foundation, when all that was there was a huge lot full of sand?

And now it looks like this!

See the Bishop's News from Peru

Gordon Wenham talk on the Psalms

2006-04-21T17:55:00.001-07:00

Prof. Gordon Wenham, of the University of Glouchestershire, addressed the students and faculty of Southern Seminary last month in a talk entitled, "Praying the Psalms." He's an outstanding OT theologian, whose work on Genesis ranks among my favorite works.

You can visit the site here.
You can download the MP3 here.

Andreas Kostenberger's Biblical Foundations

2006-04-21T17:36:00.000-07:00

Although not an Anglican, Kosterberger is a great Biblical Theologian. Pretty soon I'll post another, Books Worth Reading, and reference Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission, written with Peter T. O'Brien.

But my question, for Anglican Evangelicals, is this: do Anglican Evangelicals have a developed theology on the question of gender issues and theological anthropology? Kostenerger is a voice in the mix as you will find here.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

Books Worth Reading: God's Big Picture

2006-04-21T16:13:00.001-07:00

In God's Big Picture Vaughan Roberts helps us to see the Bible as one book, with one author and one consistent theme: God's kingdom as God's people, living in God's place, under God's rule and blessing. In taking this approach, Roberts is consciously indebted to Graeme Goldsworthy.

God's Big Picture

Tracing the Story-line of the Bible

IVP
By Vaughan Roberts

Length: 160 pages
Size: 5 x 7 3/4 inches
Binding: paper
Published: October 2003
ISBN: 0-8308-5364-2

As a short book that's well worth the time it takes to read, there are eight main chapters:

The pattern of the kingdom - Adam and Eve in Eden
The perished kingdom - the fall
The promised kingdom - God's promises to the fathers of the nation of Israel - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
The partial kingdom
The prophesied kingdom - the prophets in the Old Testament
The Present Kingdom - the kingdom of God comes in reality in the person of Jesus Christ
The proclaimed kingdom - the worldwide spread of the Good News of Jesus Christ
The Perfected kingdom - God's kingdom will finally come in visible power and glory.

So does it work?

I think it works only in a partial way. A central question of Biblical Theology is whether or not there is a centering theme or a cluster of themes that can be used to understand the OT and the NT, whether independently or together. His endebtedness to Graeme Goldsworthy is obvious, because in According to Plan Goldsworthy indetifies that his centering theme is the Kingdom of God. I'm not convinced that this theme should be the centering theme for the Bible, but it certainly is one of the main themes. I'm still inclined to see that there are a cluster of themes that are brought together in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In any event, it's a Book Worth Reading

Biblical Theology

2006-04-21T16:09:00.000-07:00

Take a minute and read a great blog concerned with Biblical Theology. If you are as interested as I am in how the OT and NT are read as a whole, you will enjoy this blog.

Biblical Theology

Trinity Conference on the Bible

2006-04-21T15:25:00.000-07:00

Trinity Conference on the Bible

THE CROSS OF CHRIST IN HIS LIFE…AND OURS

STUDIES IN MARK

Trinity Episcopal Church, Dallas, Texas
June 12-14, 2006

Registration is $85. To register, click here.

Guest Preacher: Dick Lucas

For over thirty years, Dick Lucas served as Rector of St. Helen’s Bishopsgate in the City of London. His Tuesday lunches regularly drew hundreds of the City’s business and professional leaders. Twenty years ago, Dick did groundbreaking work in the first half of Mark’s Gospel. He returns in June 2006 to challenge us with Mark’s powerful conclusion.