On Keeping Up with the Bells and the Driscolls

Some time ago I read an interview with Rob Bell in Relevant magazine and, when asked about his thoughts on his critics, he replied essentially that he doesn't have much time to fret about them and, moreover, believes that they waste their time fretting about him and his ministry.


I think there's an important point here: we can get quite caught up in analysing the thinking and the decision-making of others so that we forget that we are ourselves responsible before God to act, to do something in service to the gospel of Christ. That thought can be a good kick in the rear for those who tend toward just esoteric intellectual pursuits!

However, Bell's comments didn't come to grips with a pressing issue for Christian pastors today: the restless machine of Christian media and its influence upon the congregation. Pastors always have been, always will be, and always should be concerned for the formation of Christian minds. And, since publishers, radio stations, conferences, and blogs incessantly churn out thoughts on the Christian faith and life, pastors are obliged critically to appraise works like Bell's Velvet Elvis or Sex God in order to shepherd the people into the truth and wisdom of God in an information-saturated, or at least opinion-saturated, milieu.

I wonder what life in the church would be like if pastoral leaders were more blunt toward their congregations about their (hopefully theologically rigorous) estimations of, say, the Left Behind series or a new song on Christian radio or Bell's usage of rabbinic materials or Mark Driscoll's view of gender roles in the home and the church. My sense is that we need open and critical discussion on such things that does not distract from active service but does instruct the average Christian so that he or she can navigate shrewdly that mixed bag of popular Christian resources on offer today.

More on Revelation

Michael Gorman (NT scholar known for, among other things, his explication of cruciformity in the life and theology of Paul) has been blogging regularly on theological interpretation of Scripture and is now discussing the nature and prospects of a "missional hermeneutic." A recent post considers the place of the book of Revelation in such a hermeneutic. See http://www.michaeljgorman.net/.

Divine Protection in the Book of Revelation

Convinced as I am that the church does not exit planet earth during that time of trial described (highly symbolically of course!) in the book of Revelation, I've been mercifully convicted and encouraged by the book's three interludes (7:1-17; 10:1-11:13; 12-14) that sketch the situation of the church in the midst of the time of trial. It is a mistake to argue that, because God's wrath is poured it out in judgment during this time, the church must take its leave. These interludes compellingly speak of God's sovereign care and protection over his people in the midst of the trial. In short, we don't face God's abandonment but rather receive his protection even if (and when) we face hostility from the unbelieving world.

In chapter 7 John writes that God "seals" us on our foreheads as a sign of divine ownership and protection. (Hence we are obliged to put off worrying about whether or not we Christians could somehow inadvertantly receive the "mark of the beast" on the forehead in chapter 13.) In chapter 11 we find the church (as the temple of God) measured off by God as another sign of his protection, though the rest of the chapter describes the real danger in proclaiming the gospel to a fallen world. In chapter 14 we envision the redeemed saints with the names of the Lamb and God the Father written on their foreheads and singing before the throne of God.

I confess that I've never really encountered deep suffering, much less deep suffering on account of being a Christian. But I hope that these passages will help equip all of us to remain faithful if that time should come.

Critical Doctrines for Pastoral Ministry

If done prayerfully, all theological reflection has bearing on our lives and ministerial labors. However, there are, in my mind, some doctrines to which pastors must pay special attention. Here are a few suggestions for now. Anything you would tweak or add to the list?

1) The Doctrine of Sanctification. Without a good understanding of how people grow in holiness, teaching, preaching, implementing spiritual disciplines, and so on will lack clarity and direction.

2) The Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Can Christians turn away from Christ and forfeit their salvific blessings? Do true Christians actually do this? Pastors need to be able to exegete what is happening with parishioners who are moving away from God and to give wisdom to their people who have loved ones and friends doing the same. See the post below for my thoughts on this doctrinal issue.

3) The Doctrine of Justification. The church needs to hear the doctrine of justification by faith expounded for the sake of their spiritual rest and humility before God and others. Furthermore, Christians need to hear a thick explanation of the relationship between faith and works. Without this, they can wallow in the muck of legalism or libertinism. (We must offer more than the common comments about how we should feel a gratitude toward God that produces good works.)

4) The Doctrine of God. There are many facets of the doctrine of God that are absolutely crucial for ministry, but I'll mention here only the question of classical theism and revisionist proposals on offer today. Does God change? Does God suffer? How do we balance divine transcendence and immanence? If these questions seem disconnected from pastoral ministry, consider whether or not you would tell someone who is suffering that God is suffering right along with them. Believe it or not, your response betrays your position in a vast debate in modern theology. (Suffice it to say, I resonate with those who are hesitant to discard classical theism. See esp. Thomas Weinandy's Does God Suffer?)

5) The Doctrine of Last Things. Will we ever be rid of books about how every detail of current Middle Eastern political happenings can be found in biblical prophecy? Will our preachers take a stand against silly eschatological speculation? Will we give exhortation in faithfulness through trials and hold out the great hope of the new heavens and the new earth over against the all too common eschatology that forgets that, while we go to heaven for a time (intermediate state), heaven ultimately comes to earth?

There Really Is Nothing New under the Sun

As I read through volume one of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics (a magisterial four-volume work only recently fully translated into English) I am reminded again of that comment in Ecclesiastes. In dealing with the epistemologies of Locke, Hume, Kant, and others, Bavinck ends up giving arguments that in many ways could have been written to respond to the controversies over postmodernism in the contemporary theological landscape. He does a remarkable job of holding together a mosaic of important epistemological commitments that are instructive for Christian thinkers today.

After reading some recent authors, one might get the impression that only with the advent of postmodernism were we made aware of the noetic effects of the fall or human inability wholly to discard bias as we study God. Bavinck's work prods us to sit at the feet of the Christian tradition to recover wisdom for addressing the theological problems of our day.

Theology and Christian Practice

I've finally had a chance to engage Ellen Charry's oft-referenced book By the Renewing of Your Minds: The Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine. The main thrust of the work is that Christian doctrine is designed to shape followers of Christ into wise and virtuous human beings.


In the opening chapter I was pleasantly surprised to read a defence of theological realism and the referential capacity of theological language as necessary grounds for the potency of doctrine to change lives. I appreciate the spirit of the book: let's not forget about the importance of truthfulness, but, having established that, let's get on to discussing how God wants theological truth to transform men and women in the likeness of Christ.

Another interesting piece of Charry's argument is her distinction between first order and second order doctrines. In her taxonomy, first order doctrines are the primary tenets of the faith and have direct practical payoff. Second order doctrines are meant to unpack and support first order doctrines and thus are indirectly practical. It seems to me that this would invite comparison with T. F. Torrance's distinction between "existence statements" (those which directly describe reality) and "coherence statements" (those which clarify the connections among theological existence statements).

Back to the big picture. Do evangelical churches put Christian doctrine to work for the renewal of minds and the formation of godliness? My sense is that some evangelical churches do try to walk the fine line of taking doctrine seriously while still heeding the call to lively Christian service. However, I do think that there are plenty of congregations infected by an anti-intellectual undercurrent. Perhaps their pastors didn't take seminary seriously, perhaps no one there has ever talked theology with any kind of interest or zeal.

Two questions, especially for anyone in the pastorate or preparing for it:

1) What is your take on the state of engagement with Christian doctrine in churches these days?

2) How can churches promote theologically wise (not necessarily "scholarly," for not all are called to scholarship) Christian practice aside from preaching with theological rigor?

Theology and Rationality

In his recent article "What Is Systematic Theology?" in the International Journal of Systematic Theology, A. N. Williams helps us come to grips with what it means for theology to be rational. One of his several emphases in the article is that God, himself rational, bestows upon humanity our rationality. Williams argues that because God is rational and because he purposes that his creatures come to know him, theology is a rational discipline even though we must acknowledge the limitations set in place by human finitude and fallenness. He goes on to say that with God as the source of their rationality all disciplines can operate rationally and seek out the rationality embedded in reality. However, lest this appear to rob theology of its uniqueness, Williams notes that theology, as the field of inquiry concerned with the Source of all rationality, remains unique and positioned to speak to other disciplines as an older sibling speaks to a younger. This simile is an intriguing illustration of how to coordinate theology and other areas of discourse without compromising the glory of the study of God.

I'm reminded again of Alister McGrath's Nature, volume 1 of his Scientific Theology. There McGrath judges that divine rationality, the rationality of the created order, and the rationality of human beings resonate together and thus launch the possibility of human knowledge. One of the beauties of this line of thinking is that it opens up space to affirm a qualified "universal rationality" that instead of aiming to undercut Christian belief is bound up with it!

Matthew Levering's Scripture and Metaphysics

Presently I'm reading through Scripture and Metaphysics by Matthew Levering, a thought-provoking book bringing St. Thomas Aquinas' utilization of metaphyics into dialogue with contemporary scepticism toward the place of metaphysical reflection in theology. Levering focuses on Aquinas' understanding of theology as the pursuit of contemplative wisdom. Contemplation, say Aquinas and Levering, leads into the transformation of the human person and his or her active life of serving God. Perhaps if theology were viewed more often in this light, it wouldn't seem impractical to so many Christians!

Here is something that caught my attention as a fledgling theologian:

"Indeed, it is only if our contemplative exercises are sustained by continual prayer and sacramental grace that the practices of contemplative wisdom may avoid the poison of pride, manifested in the careerism and ecclesial infidelity of the 'academic theologian.'"

There's nothing like a spiritual kick in the seat of the pants from someone who is no slouch when it comes to rigorous academic work! I'm deeply grateful for spiritual encouragement and exhortation from Christian scholars.

Church and Ethnicity

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups (Jews and Gentiles) into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it," writes St. Paul (Eph. 2:13-16).

If one of the thrusts of the gospel is to bring together ethnic groups in one body, what might be some of the implications for how we structure and even name our churches? Is it appropriate to have an English-speaking, predominantly caucasian congregation meeting upstairs in the sanctuary on Sundays while a Chinese-speaking congregation meets downstairs in the very same building? Is it appropriate for the two congregations to have different names? Is it appropriate for a church to name itself, e. g., "Korean Presbyterian Church." What might all of this mean for the messianic Judaism movement? Is it okay for a church body to self-identify as Jewish? How can church leaders honor the reconciling power of the gospel by facilitating ecclesial unity?

Thoughts?

Justification and N. T. Wright Pt. 2: Thoughts on Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision

I'm not sure that I plan on making the doctrine of justification a long-term focal point for theological study, but for now I'm glad to be interacting with the current debates. Having just finished Wright's new book, Justification, I'm impressed by certain of its features and find myself wanting more clarification and adjustments with respect to others.

A Few Positive Features:

1) Wright aims to move beyond the old/new perspective divide and incorporate insights of both camps; this he does with Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians.

2) He notes that some of the new perspectivists, in their eagerness to underscore Jew-Gentile dynamics in Paul's writings, have run the risk of downplaying viable Reformation commitments (p. 196).

3) He remains to the last a big picture thinker, constantly reminding readers of the scope of God's plans.

A Few Hang-Ups:

1) Wright certainly respects the Christian tradition, but sometimes one still gets the sense that, to him, those who disagree with his views do so only because their commitment to tradition renders them resistant to a fresh reading of Scripture. I don't believe he intends for this to be an easy way to win an argument, but it may sound that way to those who uphold a more traditional perspective on Paul for traditional and, more importantly, exegetical reasons.

2) While Wright's work rightly keeps in view the big picture of redemptive history, Justification can give the impression that his is the only exegetical tack committed to this.

3) Wright spends plenty of time upholding the covenantal contours of "righteousness" languge, but I'm still convinced by Deut. 6:25 (and Simon Gathercole) that when we receive a righteous status from God it is a matter of being counted as one who has done what God requires of people (not least in the covenant treaty), not merely one who just is a member of his people.

4) This last "hang-up" actually has to do with a blurb on the back cover recommending the book. Scot McKnight unfortunately calls some of the "old" perspective adherents "religious zealots." In my view, that is uncharitable and, at the risk of sounding uncharitable myself, a cheapshot. I'm not interested in following along with everything John Piper or others have to say, but the fact remains that the comment is out of place.

Any thoughts?