Updated for academia.edu entry on July 18, 2022
Photo 1: Bangor University, official
Photo 2: Bangor University, official, 2016
Photo 3: Bangor University, official, 2021
Through this University, I completed part one of my PhD project with my MPhil, although never attending this apparently beautiful campus.
PhD questionnaire graphs below.
The PhD version: Saturday, July 11, 2009 PhD questionnaire graphs (the problem of evil) finale
The PhD version: Saturday, July 11, 2009 PhD questionnaire graphs (the problem of evil) finale
---
From
2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University
Also presented here with the complete thesis:
My interviewees were:
Rvd. David Adams, Anglican Church of Canada
Rvd. Daniel Clark, Curate, Holy Trinity Anglican Church Manchester, England
Rvd. Stephen W. Felkner, All Saints Anglican Church, Fountain Valley, California
Dr. Wayne Mouritzen, Retired, Former Presbyterian Minister, now a Lay Anglican
Rvd. Tony Roache, Priest-in-charge, Parish of Ringley with Prestolee in the Diocese of Manchester, Church of England
Dr. Kenton C. Anderson, Dean, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, British Columbia
William Badke, Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Langley, British Columbia
Dr. Sydney Page, Professor of New Testament, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Dr. Larry Perkins, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia
Dr. Brian Rapske, Professor of New Testament. Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia
Question A
A person within your denomination comes to you with a serious problem, for example the death of his/her small child.
What would be one key Christian concept to mention that you would see as vital?
With this question, I was looking for a pragmatic use of the Christian faith in times of crisis, in other words, a Christian concept offered to effect real hope in a time of tragedy.
Rvd. David Adams mentioned: " The resurrection. Without it, we have no hope." Adams (2002).
Dr. Wayne Mouritzen stated: "I would refer to Paul’s teachings of the resurrection from 1st Corinthians 15. However, I believe sympathy is most needed." Mouritzen (2002).
I agree that the concept of resurrection is vital at a time of tragic death because this alone is God’s ultimate remedy and reversal of the tragedy. It is not immediate but promised in Scripture.
The Rvd. Daniel Clark stated: The Incarnation. Through that we understand that God himself has felt and experienced our human pain–he has known isolation, grief, betrayal, mocking, torture, false accusations and illegal trial, death. He has been a refugee and known taunting at his ‘dubious’ parentage, etc. It is because God knows our pain, knows what life is like, that we can draw comfort from him in times of distress. Clark (2002).
This would be another important concept at a time of tragedy. Through Christ’s resurrection, humanity will be resurrected, but through Christ’s Incarnation, Christ experienced the human experience, and thus is a suitable high priest to be sought by sufferers. He is relatable to human beings because he took suffering upon himself.
Dr. Kenton Anderson stressed that God was in control. He stated: "I would emphasize the sovereignty and the grace of God. While there is mystery in this, God can be trusted to act according to his character and his word, and in ways that are good for his people." Anderson (2002).
William Badke mentioned the sovereignty of God as well. He stated: I would work on the concept of the sovereignty of God, along these lines – If God is sovereign, we feel we can blame him for what has happened. That may be the case, but the alternative is that what happened came about by chance. While the alternative may be more comforting than believing that God actually allowed the problem and could have stopped it, in fact we are left with a universe in which there is no one to help us, no one in control. We thus abandon the only God who can give us the strength to carry on. The dark side (if you want to see it as such) of acknowledging that God is sovereign, is that you have to allow him to work in ways that seem disastrous to you, that seem cruel and unfair. It’s here that we have to balance God’s sovereignty with his love, his justice and his knowledge which is vastly superior to us. We may never know why certain things happen, but God calls on us to trust his working in our lives, regardless of how things look to us. The alternative is to have a universe in which there are no explanations and only chaos rules. Badke (2002).
Mr. Badke makes an interesting point. Because God is sovereign, Christians must take comfort in that, even in times of personal suffering and devastation because the alternative, a creation without God, is one without meaning. With a faith in a sovereign God who wills suffering, at least we know that tragedy has a purpose and it is not just part of a chaotic meaningless existence.
Dr. Sydney Page stated: "I would try to encourage them not to see this as God punishing them, but as a consequence of living in a fallen world (i.e., I would not play down the evil character of what had happened, but affirm the rightness of being angry that such things happen)." Page (2002).
He also notes the importance of showing God’s love and compassion, and that this type of discussion should not take place immediately in the wake of a tragedy. This is good advice, as people do need time to adjust to their new situation, and I think a healthy anger with suffering and tragedy can at times assist in healing. The suppression of hurt and anger is not healthy. It is better to be honest in anger with God and to seek his understanding in times of great turmoil.
Dr. Larry Perkins noted that: "I think that one concept to share would be our confidence in the goodness of God." Perkins (2002).
Dr. Brian Rapske stated that he "would gently and confidently assert the greatness of God based upon Scriptures, and resist the temptation to ‘redefine’ greatness to something less (which is idolatry)." Rapske (2002).
Both comments are valid. God is still good; he has demonstrated saving goodwill to humanity through Christ. Also, he is still great, and not unable or totally unwilling to prevent tragedy. Instead, at times, he uses human tragedy and suffering for his own good purposes.
Rvd. Stephen Felkner stated concerning this question and this type of suffering: "The context is eternity. The extreme pain of this world makes no sense outside of this context." Felkner (2002).
God’s plans indeed do not make sense unless everlasting life, and the healing that will take place within it are considered when dealing with pain and suffering.
Question B
Is it still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection, and culminated Kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering?
Dr. Perkins stated: In my view, yes. Human suffering has a variety of ‘causes’, some of which are cosmic (i.e. the result of the Fall), and some of which are due to human ignorance or foolishness. When we enter into relationship with God through Jesus Christ, the cosmic causes of suffering hold promise of eternal reversal and the immediate issues of ignorance and foolishness have some remedy in the presence of the Holy Spirit. Suffering for the sake of our testimony for Jesus will continue in this world as part of the spiritual struggle between God and Satan. Perkins (2002).
This is very much in line with concepts in my thesis. Jesus Christ and his work, and the culminated Kingdom of God is the only hope of recapitulation for creation.
Rvd. Tony Roache stated concerning this question: The question begs another, has it ever been valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection and culminated kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering? If the answer is yes or no then it is still yes or no because nothing has changed in the last two thousand years to change that. The key word has got to be ultimate. Whatever human remedies we may devise will pass away and be made useless by the creativity of those wanting to perpetrate evil. The remedy once again has got to be our security in the knowledge of God’s justice. We must be able to trust God to do what is right and just with those who behave inhumanly. Yes, I think that it is still valid to claim that Christ’s death, resurrection and culminated kingdom of God are the only ultimate practical remedies for human suffering. Roache (2002).
This is good reasoning, since if Christ’s work was ever effective, this would not change over time. Christ was either God incarnate, and capable of completing the work required to save souls, or he was not. A Theology which tries to keep in touch with modern thinking by denying the exclusivity of Christ’s saving work for humanity will find that it cannot deal with "the creativity of those wanting to perpetrate evil". Christ is the ultimate remedy to the problem of evil and suffering because he is ultimate God.
Dr. Rapske states the salvation provided by Christ is holistic, designed to save the entire human being. Yes! Peter’s response to the Sanhedrin continues to be right: "Salvation is found in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12; cf. 3:11-16) Remember, however, that Peter said, "what I have I give you"—this is a compassionate Christian response to the whole man in all of his need. The "remedy" is both "practical" (the crippled man was healed) and "ultimate" (it had interest in his salvation)—the healing and the salvation are conjoined. Rapske (2002).
A problem for humanity is that the wait for this complete healing within a culminated Kingdom of God is very painful. Every person on this planet suffers and dies, and this can lead to bitterness against God as this temporal life can be full of disappointments. An everlasting perspective is thus vital.
Rvd. Felkner stated: " The ‘Rub’ is that eternal perspective. God’s way’s are not our ways. His timing is not our timing. And the more we recreate him in our own image, as this age loves to do, the less comfort we shall receive." Felkner (2002).
Question C
Is the Christian Church, in light of its many denominations and churches, significantly impacting western society with evil and suffering?
Rvd. Tony Roache stated: No, as a body corporate the Christian Church cannot have a significant impact on society in anything. Its role is to introduce individual people to God and nurture the growing relationship. This relationship will change lives and perspectives, thus changing that person as a member of society. The more changed persons there are in society the more society will be changed. Roache (2002).
Dr. Page stated: "Although it gives hope to countless individuals, I do not see a significant impact on the larger society." Page (2002).
Dr. Anderson stated: "Probably not. We have a bad reputation in the world at large around these kind of issues. People within and without the church have a hard time with theodicy." Anderson (2002).
Dr. Perkins stated: I think this is very difficult to estimate. As individuals are included within a church family some help, both conceptual and practical becomes available to help people understand evil and its relationship to suffering and thereby to confront it and cope with it. Further, as the Holy Spirit indwells a person and schools them in the ways of God, the individual becomes more able to recognize evil and resist its insidious ways. I believe this does happen by and large through the local church. Perkins (2002).
My thinking with this question is that there likely has been limited impact from the church on western society. The lack of unity with all the denominations in one purpose is perhaps a difficulty in reaching the world for Christ. A definite problem is that the Gospel message has been challenged in some denominations and churches by liberal theology. I do agree with Dr. Perkins though that the local church today is still used by the Holy Spirit to battle all kinds of evil. Perhaps we as Christian should not be too discouraged when society does not seem to be changing for the better. I think it must be remembered that the message of Christ is not popular to a world that loves darkness. The Christian Church is always going to be unpopular and this is because it offers the light of Christ for a world that loves darkness. The world can always use the sin and lack of unity within the Church for a reason not to become a disciple of Christ, but this is wrong reasoning. Christianity is a faith which claims that people need grace to know God. It is not a faith that claims to have representatives beyond a fault.
However, from a human perspective, if the claims of Christ are true then the sins of his followers are not valid reasons to keep nonbelievers from becoming interested in following Jesus. It must be added that love is crucial for the Christian Church to have impact by demonstrating understanding for suffering people in society.
Dr. Mouritzen stated that: "Many denominations have little meaning. Look for a common thread." Mouritzen (2002).
People within the Christian Church must show love and understanding to those outside in order to be given the opportunity to have an impact with the Gospel message.
Question D
What could be done to make Christian Churches more effective and relevant in regards to dealing with evil in society?
Rvd. David Adams stated that it was important for the church to reclaim its heritage. "Once we know our heritage that is in Christ we are children of God, we are winners. It is harder to participate in the losing strategies of the world around us." Adams (2002).
In other words, once we who are in Christ realize what we have, and who we are in Christ, following many of the ideas of the world seems useless. By claiming the great heritage believers have in Christ, they can become a more effective help for a world that has no real remedy to the problem of evil.
The Rvd. Daniel Clark stated: We should be unafraid to condemn evil when we see it. Often that will mean simply being committed to biblical truth, and proclaiming biblical truth boldly, without compromise. That can operate on a variety of levels. As we do that, the Spirit will convict us as individual Christians where we are guilty of evil actions and thoughts (let's not pretend we're not part of the problem!). We will also be emboldened to challenge evil where we see it - the parents who see their children acting wrongly; the employee who sees books being fiddled at work or false claims being put in; the board member or chief exec etc who sees some injustice in their workplace policy or practice; the voter who writes to their MP or PM or President about national policies which discriminate or act for injustice etc. We all have voices we can use to challenge - to be the 'prophetic word' in our society, calling it back to following God's laws. Those who are Christians whose voices can be heard at higher levels (eg people high up in large companies, in politics, high up in church hierarchies etc) especially need the support and encouragement to take a stand. Clark (2002).
This is a good point and connects to the previous one. Not only should Christians know who and what they are in Christ and live accordingly in their private lives, but they should take positive steps with this knowledge. This would include standing up for truth in the world, and standing up against evil. If the Christian Church would like to be more effective in dealing with evil and suffering in our society, then individual Christians and Christian groups must be willing to take positions which may at times be controversial, but are the right position to take based on Biblical standards and reason. As
Rvd. Tony Roache stated: What would help in bringing about a changed society is the developing of a mindset in our congregations that encouraged determination in speaking out against wrongdoing. Today we seem to be fairly apathetic in most areas of life that don’t threaten our own personal security. Our own personal call within the kingdom of God is a call to love each other. That must include looking out for the welfare of our neighbour whether local or global. Roache (2002).
As well, as the need for Christians to stand up against evil in society, the idea was also given that those in the Church must be willing to share their suffering with those in the world, for the sake of witness. Rvd. Stephen Felkner stated that: "We don’t want to suffer. We don’t want to offer up our suffering as ‘a sweet smelling savor’." Felkner (2002).
When the Christian Church, corporately and individually, can be seen as a participant in suffering, it will be a more effective witness to the world. Yes, the Church is to stand up for Biblical standards and denounce evil, and be separate from the world philosophically, but it can relate in that Christian individuals do suffer under evil. This sharing of suffering can provide a positive Christian witness.
Interviews
ADAMS, D. Rvd. (2002) Anglican Church of Canada.
ANDERSON, K.C. Dr. (2002) Dean, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, Langley, British Columbia.
BADKE, W. (2002) Associate Professor, Associate Librarian, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Langley, British Columbia.
CLARK, D. Rvd. (2002) Curate, Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Manchester England.
FELKNER, S.W. Rvd. (2002) All Saints Anglican Church, Fountain Valley, California.
MOURITZEN, W. Dr. (2002) Retired, Former Presbyterian Minister, now an Anglican presbyter.
PAGE, S. Dr. (2002) Professor of New Testament, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta.
PERKINS, L. Dr. (2002) Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia.
RAPSKE, B. Dr. (2002) Professor of New Testament, Associated Canadian Theological Schools, Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia.
ROACHE, T. Rvd. (2002) Priest-in-charge, Parish of Ringley with Prestolee in the Diocese of Manchester, Church of England.
AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, New Advent Catholic Website.
BLACKBURN, S. (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CALVIN, J. (1509-1564), The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), Beveridge, Henry (Translator), R Public Domain.
CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html
CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.
CALVIN, J. (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html
CALVIN, J. (1543)(1998) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
CARSON, D.A. (1981) Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, Atlanta, John Knox Press.
CARSON, D.A. (1990) How Long, O Lord?, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, J.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977) Evil and Omnipotence, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
PLANTINGA, A.C. (1977) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
POJMAN, L.P. (1995)(1996) Atheism, in Robert Audi (gen.ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ReplyDeleteAs a Muslim mother who never saw a niqab when I was growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, I am astonished to see Canada’s judiciary caving in to Islamists who have nothing but contempt for Canada’s values of gender equality.
I write this as a Muslim Canadian who does not have any specific political leanings.
But in the 25 years I have called Canada home, I have seen a steady rise of Muslim women being strangled in the pernicious black tent that is passed off to naïve and guilt-ridden white, mainstream Canadians as an essential Islamic practice.
The niqab and burka have nothing to do with Islam.
They’re the political flags of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qaida and Saudi Arabia.
Now I learn I have not only to fight the medieval, theocratic adherents of my faith for a safe space for myself, I have to battle the Federal Court of Canada as well, which has come out on the side of these facemasks.
The ruling concerns the case of Zunera Ishaq, a 29-year-old woman who emigrated to Canada from Pakistan in 2008.
After previously showing her face to an immigration official in 2013 when taking her citizenship test, she refused to take part in the citizenship ceremony because she would have to show her face while taking the oath of citizenship.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government rightly banned face masks at such ceremonies, but this was found to be unlawful by the Federal Court.
With all due respect, let me introduce our Canadian judges to their Pakistani colleague in the jihadi badlands of Peshawar.
In November 2004, the Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court (PHC), Tariq Pervaiz Khan, ordered female lawyers not to wear face veils in courtrooms, saying they couldn’t be identified, nor assist the court properly while wearing veils.
He scolded the niqabi women saying,“You are professionals".
Covering the face is not a religious requirement for Muslim women.
The injunction in the Qur’an is for modesty (for men and women).
Some Muslim women interpret this as covering their head with a scarf or chador.
A scholar of Islamic history, Prof. Mohammad Qadeer of Queen’s University, Kingston, wrote in the Globe and Mail in March 2006:
“The argument about concealing one’s face as a religious obligation, is contentious and is not backed by the evidence.”
He added, “in Western societies, the niqab also is a symbol of distrust for fellow citizens and a statement of self-segregation.The wearer of a face veil is conveying: ‘I am violated if you look at me.’
It is a barrier in civic discourse. It also subverts public trust.”
The federal Liberals and NDP are treating Canada’s niqabis as a latter day Rosa Parks, fighting for justice.
This is vote-bank politics that is, as my friend Tarek Fatah calls it, “sharia Bolshevism”.
There is just one way forward: The next government must legislate the complete ban on wearing face masks in public, not just to expose the hypocrisy of the Islamists but for the sake of our security as well.
-- Raza is President of The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, author of Their Jihad … Not my Jihad and an international activist for women's righ
Yes, there are plenty of things I cannot gain knowledge of...
ReplyDeleteNote, I do not stalk, but investigate. No interest means I always back off.
Someone at church talked to me today and just by knowing the first name only by end of today I know last name, and likely maiden name based on family. So, she is likely separated or divorced but without ring...
Good guess is the classic married a non-Christian. I am not going to divulge all my deductions.
My academic friend was impressed and I was just at the current last name part...
FYI
ReplyDeleteThe sound went on my fairly new Toshiba flat screen. Went to Toshiba site, followed directions with television and unplugged. No fix. Went to Shaw site, followed directions, unplugged the Shaw receiver (all that was needed), plugged back in and fixed.
I was thinking a new television was sadly on the way...
Hello my family member! I wish to say that this article
ReplyDeleteis awesome, great written and include approximately all vital infos.
I'd like to peer more posts like this .
my web blog :: websute - -
A priest dies and is waiting in line at the Pearly Gates. Ahead of him is a guy who's dressed in sunglasses, a loud shirt, leather jacket, and jeans.
ReplyDeleteSaint Peter addresses this cool guy, “Who are you, so that I may know whether or not to admit you to the Kingdom of Heaven ?”
The guy replies, “I'm Jack, retired airline pilot from Houston .”
Saint Peter consults his list. He smiles and says to the pilot, “Take this silken robe and golden staff and enter the Kingdom.”
The pilot goes into Heaven with his robe and staff.
Next, it's the priest's turn. He stands erect and booms out, “I am Father Bob, pastor of Saint Mary's for the last 43 years.”
Saint Peter consults his list. He says to the priest, “Take this cotton robe and wooden staff and enter the Kingdom.”
'Just a minute,' says the good father. 'That man was a pilot and he gets a silken robe and golden staff and I get only cotton and wood. How can this be?
“Up here - we go by results,” says Saint Peter. “When you preached - people slept. When he flew - people prayed.”
Still More about Jesus Would I Know
ReplyDelete‘God is still on his throne almighty God is He’—really? When 60 million abortions are taken for granted, when the church rapidly ages, when Christians don’t seem to care about much of anything? But Jesus Christ is risen indeed, we have the Holy Spirit, we have all we need for life and godliness. Still, we know from God’s word and our own experience how hard our lives are. Oscar Cullmann’s analogy fits: in WW2 the successful Normandy landings meant the war was effectively over while another year of combat and suffering was still ahead; Christ is risen but his return is yet to come. As we wait and yearn we walk in pain, by faith not by sight.
Making that waiting time especially complex is the fact that the increasing transformation of our hearts by the Spirit’s work enables us to see our sinfulness ever more clearly—though at the same time we are more aware of our Father’s patience and persistent kindness to us! Tensions between our slow to obey hearts and the persistence of the Holy Spirit become sharper and harder.
ReplyDeleteAs that happens, the way we put together our justification and our sanctification becomes more and more important. ‘Trust and obey, that’s the only way to be happy in Jesus,’ isn’t that right? We come to Jesus as our Savior and as our Lord, trusting in his kind forgiveness and committing to whole-hearted obedience to him—what more is there to say? But how does that work together with our life-long battle with our sin? In our justification isn’t the victory all over and our everlasting forgiveness totally certain? While at the same time our sanctification, our personal holiness, has so many ups and downs?
ReplyDeleteAnswering those questions is very much a work in progress, starting centuries ago. What have we already received from lo, what not yet? At the time of the Reformation the justification/forgiveness aspect became more clearly defined. Roman Catholics saw it as God’s initiation of our personal holiness not yet finished, while Protestants saw it as the imputation to us of the perfect righteousness of Christ and so joyfully received by us already. Catholics taught that claiming you were sure of your salvation was heretical, while Protestants saw it as their hearts’ desire—another already/not yet difference.
ReplyDeleteReformed thinking was practical and pastoral in working with our already forgiveness and our ongoing not yet moral transformation. Puritan theology and preaching was committed to practical counsel for our battle, while building upon the foundation of justification by faith. Lutheran Pietism built upon Puritan insights, but because without Reformed theological balance could focus too narrowly upon our struggles and move into an unbiblical experientialism.
ReplyDeleteMethodism went beyond Pauline justification and sanctification categories with its emphasis upon John’s ‘born again,’ that tended to see everything as an already.
ReplyDeleteProtestant experience could indicate that growth in personal holiness was almost impossible, an uphill struggle doomed to failure, as evidenced by the Westminster Confession’s discussion of the assurance of salvation, concluding only that believers are kept from ‘utter despair.’ Regrettably by the 19th century it seemed that while we are assured of our justification since it rests upon the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ, nevertheless when it comes to the character of our lives that depends all upon our miserable efforts. No wonder that increasingly the good news came to be defined almost exclusively as ‘if you die tonight you won’t go to hell,’ leaving out the challenges in getting up again tomorrow morning. The answer to a theology with so little relevance to daily life came to be known as Higher Life or Keswick whose theme was, learn to ‘let go and let God.’ Move away from relying on yourself, instead trust the Lord for your sanctification just as you did for your justification.
This could be wonderfully helpful, restoring ‘the Christian’s secret to a happy life.’ But it could be confusing too. If even this new trust of mine doesn’t really work, could there be some flaw in my faith? The Reformation view of faith had been, avoid ‘extraspective’ faith that looks to itself instead of Christ—but how could that work now when it must be my faith that is failing? Or should I believe that since I know that I really have trusted Jesus, the junk still in my life isn’t really sin since now I must be free from that? All this was a step forward but not really enough.
ReplyDeleteTrue progress flourished at my Westminster Seminary when John Murray showed us how in the Romans 8 ordo salutis list of the Lord’s blessings to us, that our ‘union with Christ’ wasn’t lurking out there in a mystical future but instead was the heart of all we have from him already. That brought justification and sanctification, forgiveness and change, already and not yet, all together! Murray taught us also not to think of ’the death and resurrection of Christ’ but instead of his ‘death-and-resurrection,’ bringing his accomplished victory more closely into our lives right now. Colleague Dick Gaffin has worked diligently with both these crucial biblical emphases, making them more accessible and useful for us all. Murray could speak also of a ‘definitive’ side to our sanctification where gospel transformation has already happened. Do you see why overjoyed I am with all this, a more biblical and encouraging ‘higher life?’ (Similar to this was Jack Miller’s fresh look at the ordo and its ‘adoption.’ While that is forensic (legally innocent) like justification, it certainly is very experiential too. Another bridge?)
ReplyDeleteIn all this the many aspects of the Lord’s kind and loving salvation come together. The older search of the believer for what he thought missing in salvation is increasingly dated. This is not just a tidier ordo, it is in our loving worship of our Father who gives and gives to us just everything. As when your spouse surprises you with yet another sweet note and your heart is stirred with joy from her love. more than your dissection of her grammar, so also we aren’t satisfied with reflecting on the many meanings of union—it is the overwhelming reality of with Christ that touches and enlarges our hearts! That was also the core of Jack Miller’s preaching, to see all the theology through the lens of the gospels, looking at the Lord Jesus with those people there. Have we thought too much about the incompleteness of what our Father gives us, and so very little about the friendship we have with Jesus as we suffer with him?
ReplyDeleteI think of our 7 year discussion with Norman Shepherd. He showed us how necessary it was to express our relationship with Jesus Christ as both ‘trust and obey,’ as obedient faith. Of course, but how should we turn back to him in our lives of disobedient mistrust? As we fail to persevere? Why did he pray for traitor Peter, why does Christ the Mediator pray for us? We came to see finally that our only hope is Jesus himself to whom we turn again in repentant faith, real in repentance and joyful in faith.
ReplyDeleteSam Logan is God’s blessing to me in so many ways. Theologically, he reminds me of the wisdom of Jonathan Edwards, who worked to keep our attention on the Lord himself. Why, he asked, are we so preoccupied with getting from God, so little concerned with giving him the worship fitting his worthiness? Sam points me to these passages from Religious Affections:
ReplyDeleteNow the divine excellency and glory of God and Jesus Christ the word of God, the works of God, and the ways of God, &c., is the primary reason why a true saint loves these things; and not any supposed interest that he has in them, or any conceived benefit that he has received from them, or shall receive from them, or any such imagined relation which they bear to his interest, that self-love can properly be said to be the first foundation of his love to these things.
ReplyDeleteThey whose affection to God is founded first on his profitableness to them, their affection begins at the wrong end; they regard God only for the utmost limit of the stream of divine good, where it touches them, and reaches their interest; and have no respect to that infinite
glory of God's nature, which is the original good, and the true fountain of all good, the first fountain of all loveliness of every kind, and so the first foundation of all true love.
The exercises of true and holy love in the saints arise in another way. They do not first see that God loves them, and then see that he is lovely, but they first see that God is lovely, and that Christ is excellent and glorious, and their hearts are first captivated with this view, and the exercises of their love are wont from time to time to begin here, and to arise primarily from these views; and then, consequentially, they see God's love, and great favor to them. The saint's affections begin with God; and self-love has a hand in these affections consequentially, and secondarily only.
ReplyDeleteMurray, Miller, and before them Edwards, all vigorously pointing us ever more deeply to Jesus Christ, giver of all our good gifts, laying a solid foundation for more and more.
All these theological breakthroughs in applying Scripture to our lives came through the rise of Romanticism in the 19th century. Is there a better way to look at life than through the static categories of the older Rationalism? Try change, development, history! But doesn’t that lead inevitably to meaningless fluctuation, as in ‘evolution?’ What of the path of Johann Gabler who saw his ‘biblical theology’ as only descriptive of the changing biblical story? Is working with biblical story inevitably relativistic and meaningless? It can seem that way and I can empathize with those who are not comfortable considering the changing and differing perspectives in Holy Writ. But it can and has been done by many who hold to biblical authority. Ernst Hengstenberg, the subject of my doctoral work, did it well. Geerhardus Vos developed it richly in his biblical theology. John Frame is very skilled indeed at doing just that.
ReplyDelete(Discussion of the current direction of Westminster is not profitable but I believe still instructive. Not only are OT professors eager to examine the original understandings of Scripture encouraged to leave, but the missions cross-cultural program no longer exists and CCEF counseling has come to recognize that its vision is no longer the same as WTS’s. All that is hardly coincidental).
ReplyDeleteSo many biblical insights are now ours, but the church finds it hard to identify and to express its gospel message as both already and not yet. As I hear its preaching, it seems almost universally to conclude startlingly abruptly: ‘This is the truth, amen.” Most of the time I don’t hear the life-changing pastoral gospel: “Praise the Lord for his deep love to us as we just saw in his word. It is so kind of the Lord to tell us that. Now you all can work more deeply and hopefully with what the Lord gives you when this meets you in your marriage or when you’re passed over again at work. What if you see this in the word but get no sense out of it? What should you do then? How should you pray? I know this is hard and you know I’m here to help you. Right now you can take this passage we just looked at and do something with it like this . . .”
That needs to be in your mind and heart, doesn’t it? The gospel that makes a difference, not out there lonesome but very much in touch with where we are right now, coming from a preacher whose Hebrew is still functional but whose life is in caring for the Lord’s people. Awakening must begin with God’s people and this is how, how our God answers us as we cry out to him. This is not just what preachers do but how they model for us all how we learn again the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. What is then Awakening after all? Isn’t it that when the gospel is functionally lost, there it is again in the powerful application of God’s word, as what seems to be a far-off not yet comes to our hearts as we remember all the Lord’s kind and conclusive alreadys.
ReplyDeleteThere comes to us the accomplished work of Jesus Christ, in his union with us yielding up our forgiveness in justification, our heart-change in sanctification, our family belonging in adoption—and then the next astonishing reality the Lord is about to show us. We come to know our Jesus way beyond a far-off description of him, but as the one who in his prayers for us and through his word applied to us where we are opens our hearts to see him in his glory!
ReplyDeleteThat is never easy, we are called to take up our crosses daily, to share Christ’s sufferings. That is, to be always thankful for him, to worship him first of all; to pray that we might understand our lives, resting on the sure foundation of his love for us; to ourselves work with the word to bring it into our lives where we hurt the most. My life experience pushes me to add to that, that the Lord would raise up for us teachers mighty in the word, eager to understand its cultural setting and ours and how God himself brings them together for us. May we all pray now especially for Doug Green and Mike Kelly that the Lord will bless them mightily as they bring much-needed leadership to Christ’s church in these strategic ways.
D. Clair Davis