I'm still gnawing away at this 'redeeming culture' notion. In part it's a semantics issue but underlying the semantics is an important matter - what is the church's responsibility to society and what can it hope to achieve.
The Kuyperians (not a Star Trek race but followers of A. Kuyper a dutch calvinist) believe the task of the church is to transform the structures of society and through this advance the Kingdom of God cosmically. Some use language about 'redeeming' culture.
I have big problems with this. The first is a singular lack of emphasis on such a mission in Scripture. We read the epistles in vain for Christians to renew, redeem or rescue culture. Redemption in the 'already' of the Kingdom is emphatically of individuals. It is the church who are described as 'the redeemed' and no one (and nothing) else. In fact they are described as 'redeemed from the earth' (Rev 14:3).
Even for believers redemption is presently partial. For example, they await the 'redemption of the body'.
There is to be sure a 'day of redemption' still to come. It is a reference to the consummation of the Kingdom when God's people will be fully rescued from all that oppresses and the creation itself will be 'set free' from its bondage to corruption (Roms 8:21). However, Scripture carefully distinguishes between God's liberating of creation and his judging of culture.
Human culture in a fallen world is, in Scripture, the world in opposition to God. It cannot be redeemed nor does Scripture give any encouragement to try to redeem it. God does not intend to redeem it but judge it; it is Babylon that will 'fall in one day' (Rev 17,18). The best that Christians can do for culture is a kind of 'law-work'. Indeed, a law-work is all that God himself does. In common grace God institutes structures and authorities to limit evil and punish wrongdoing (Roms 13). Christians, acting as salt, can be part of this law-work. They can work for fairer structures in society and be involved in humanitarian causes. But these, we should never forget, are bandages not a cure.
We should never confuse these with 'redeeming society'. In fact what they do, with greater or lesser insight and effectiveness non-Christians do to and non-Christians are certainly not redeeming society.
God is not redeeming society or culture or the world. He is redeeming a people 'out of the world', 'ransomed from every tribe and tongue and people and nation' (Rev 5), to be his chosen 'peculiar' people, and he does so by the gospel.
It is important to use biblical concepts carefully. When we get too loose and cavalier we end up with a skewed theology and a church with a skewed agenda. It is not our job to christianize culture. Nor is there such things as a Christian economics policy; a Christian political policy; a Christian Social policy. There is only Christians active in culture seeking to stem evil and promote good according to their sanctified abilities.
Sometimes the myth is sold that if only Christians forgot doctrine and concentrated their energies on societal reform they would be united. But it is a myth. For, in practice, when Christians try to agree such policies they end up in much greater disagreement than they even do over matters of the gospel. The reason is simple; the Bible tells us what the gospel is (which at least limits disagreement) but it says nothing about political, economic or social theory at all (therefore grounds for difference are boundless).
Let biblical words bear their proper biblical weight and intention. God is presently redeeming for himself a people out of the world; he is not redeeming culture. Let the church preach the gospel of redemption and let redeemed Christians not forget as they evangelize to 'do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith'.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Sarx - Flesh or Sinful Nature?
I am neither a C1 Greek scholar, nor the son of a Greek scholar, so when it comes to NT bible translation issues, I completely at the mercy of the translators. One issue that has kept me awake at night is how different translations render the Greek word sarx (lit. flesh).
Now according to Doug Moo, in The Challenge of Bible Translation, sarx has a range of meanings depending on the context. I'm more interested in how to translate it in instances when the NIV renders it 'sinful nature'. Many Greek scholars are unhappy with this kind of rendering (including Moo himself). Moo, in the aforementioned publication, mentions James D.G. Dunn:
Now according to Doug Moo, in The Challenge of Bible Translation, sarx has a range of meanings depending on the context. I'm more interested in how to translate it in instances when the NIV renders it 'sinful nature'. Many Greek scholars are unhappy with this kind of rendering (including Moo himself). Moo, in the aforementioned publication, mentions James D.G. Dunn:
He [Dunn] argues that the meanings of sarx in Paul do not fall into separate, watertight categories but occupy a spectrum of meaning. In contrast to scholars who suggest that Paul may have derived his more neutral sense of sarx from the Old Testament and the Jewish world and the more negative sense from the Greek world, Dunn, along with many others before him, traces the spectrum o Paul's usage to the Hebrew basar, with its sense of "human mortality." One implication of this conclusion is that a certain negative nuance often clings to sarx, even when Paul uses it in apparently neutral senses. (p369)I am sympathetic to this view. One need only see what is lost to TNIV readers when they compare Romans 8:1-4 with the ESV/NRSV/NASB/HCSB in this regard. Nevertheless, more often than not, when I hear preachers teaching from a formal translation and they come to the word 'flesh' they end up explaining it using 'sinful nature' type language. For example, Hywel R. Jones in his article 'Justification by Faith Alone' in the magnificent 'Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry' says:
Most of the scholars who have protested against the NIV/TNIV rendering "sinful nature" would probably agree with James D.G. Dunn: "A much more satisfactory rule of translation would be to recognise that sarx is an important and technical linking term in Paul's letters and is therefore best translated consistently by the same term, 'flesh.'" (p374)
What is flesh? The term has more than a physical connotation in Scripture. It is more than a body....It is..associated with deeds and words of the body but also with its "desires," even strong ones (Gal. 5:16-17, 24). Flesh is therefore the unrenewed nature of the justified believer. (p303)So perhaps for readability and comprehension, "sinful nature" ain't too bad. Yet re-reading Jones' quote leaves one with the impression that perhaps the "sinful nature" language fails to encompass that sarx means much more than strong desire, but also includes the idea of a mortal body. Hmm.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Office Hours - The Law is Not of Faith
The latest podcast from the Westminster Seminary California 'Office Hours' team is a peach. RSC interviews J.V Fesko, David VanDrunen and Bryan Estelle on the work they edited 'The Law is Not of Faith.' They discuss the sheer Reformed-ness of the idea that the Mosaic law was a republication of the covenant of works. Gripping stuff and well worth your time.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
transforming culture
Some evangelicals believe that the task of the church is to transform culture. They believe the church is called to 'redeem culture'. Nature, they say, is restored by grace.
There are a number of mistakes in this analysis it seems to me. I want to focus only on one. I think the idea that nature is restored by grace is flawed. It implies that what the gospel ultimately achieves is merely a return to Eden. This is far too limited a perspective. The gospel is about 'new creation'. New creation is not simply the old restored it is the birth of a new plane of being and existence.
Nowhere is this distinction more clearly and succintly made than in 1 Cor 15
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The First Creation is energized by the 'soulish', the earthy the Second is energized by the 'spiritual', the heavenly. Adam, even in pre-fallen condition, was not the ultimate; the ultimate is Christ in resurrection, the Lord from Heaven.
Eschatology precedes everything. God's first plan was always the Second Man, the Last Adam. God's goal for humanity is not the reinstated image of the earthly Adam but the 'image of the man from heaven' His is the spiritually energized life that truly images God in righteousness and holiness.
This world in its unfallen state was transient, and in its fallen state is condemned. It is passing away. God's vision from before the beginning was a new creation and that vision gives to his people. They live here as pilgrims looking for a city built without hands whose builder and maker is God. They pant as aliens for a better country, that is an heavenly one. They look by faith to 'a new heavens and new earth' that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading. That is their vision, their goal, and their home.
Of course, this does not mean they selfishly neglect the world in which they live. Rather the opposite. They seek the welfare of the city in which they live as aliens. They seek to show compassion to its citizens. They help them where possible and more, strive to introduce its citizens to the world to come that will never pass away. But they are under no illusions. They know this world and the fashion of it is destined for destruction. Their primary and most urgent task is to call others to flee from the City of Destruction, Babylon the Great, and begin a pilgrimage to the Celestial City, the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, that comes, not by redeeming culture, but 'comes down out of heaven from God'.
God's plan is not that grace may restore nature but that grace will birth from the death of the old a new creation unspeakably more glorious and vibrant where the former things are no more. Grace does not restore nature, or transform nature, it transcends and eclipses nature in its vision of the future. A vision summed up by John in Revelation when he says,
'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away... the former things have passed away. And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."'
There are a number of mistakes in this analysis it seems to me. I want to focus only on one. I think the idea that nature is restored by grace is flawed. It implies that what the gospel ultimately achieves is merely a return to Eden. This is far too limited a perspective. The gospel is about 'new creation'. New creation is not simply the old restored it is the birth of a new plane of being and existence.
Nowhere is this distinction more clearly and succintly made than in 1 Cor 15
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The First Creation is energized by the 'soulish', the earthy the Second is energized by the 'spiritual', the heavenly. Adam, even in pre-fallen condition, was not the ultimate; the ultimate is Christ in resurrection, the Lord from Heaven.
Eschatology precedes everything. God's first plan was always the Second Man, the Last Adam. God's goal for humanity is not the reinstated image of the earthly Adam but the 'image of the man from heaven' His is the spiritually energized life that truly images God in righteousness and holiness.
This world in its unfallen state was transient, and in its fallen state is condemned. It is passing away. God's vision from before the beginning was a new creation and that vision gives to his people. They live here as pilgrims looking for a city built without hands whose builder and maker is God. They pant as aliens for a better country, that is an heavenly one. They look by faith to 'a new heavens and new earth' that is imperishable, undefiled and unfading. That is their vision, their goal, and their home.
Of course, this does not mean they selfishly neglect the world in which they live. Rather the opposite. They seek the welfare of the city in which they live as aliens. They seek to show compassion to its citizens. They help them where possible and more, strive to introduce its citizens to the world to come that will never pass away. But they are under no illusions. They know this world and the fashion of it is destined for destruction. Their primary and most urgent task is to call others to flee from the City of Destruction, Babylon the Great, and begin a pilgrimage to the Celestial City, the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, that comes, not by redeeming culture, but 'comes down out of heaven from God'.
God's plan is not that grace may restore nature but that grace will birth from the death of the old a new creation unspeakably more glorious and vibrant where the former things are no more. Grace does not restore nature, or transform nature, it transcends and eclipses nature in its vision of the future. A vision summed up by John in Revelation when he says,
'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away... the former things have passed away. And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."'
Monday, 16 November 2009
Should We Divide Over 1 Timothy 2:12?
You hear from time to time in conversation and from articles in the blogosphere that Christians need to unite around the 'essentials', whatever they may be (BTW in many cases you'll find that one man's essential doctrine is another's expendable inconvenience).
One issue that rears its ugly head as an 'expendable' is that of women's ordination/preaching/leadership. "There's a world out there that needs the gospel," goes one argument, "and it's tragic that Christians are divided over such trivialities as women in leadership." As such, churches that hold to opposing views on female ordination are encouraged to put aside their petty differences and work together in evangelistic rallies, political endeavours, social justice campaigns, etc, for the good of the gospel.
Here again, we see the twin headed beast of egalitarianism and modern tolerance trumping the text of Scripture. I believe that the biblical writers would affirm the contrary, that for the good of the gospel, churches should not work with others that are in error in this matter. One may ask, why this tight ass approach? Well, with long broom stick protruding from my bottom, I simply reply that female ordination betrays an attitude to the word of God that, given time, will spew it's unbelieving vomit all over even those 'essentials' we've united over.
Lig Duncan once remarked that if there was a text in Scripture which stated, "I do not permit you to baptise infants" then the whole paedobaptism argument would be settled. Yet we have such a text in 1 Tim. 2:12 regarding female ordination and many in the church still find ways around it. It's phenomenal to read the exegetical hoops some commentators jump through in order to make the text say, "I utterly affirm that women should teach and have authority over men. In fact, I think it's splendid."
If one can make black say white in 1 Tim. 2:12, why not do it elsewhere? Why not make 1 Cor. 6:9 say that "fornicators, gossips and homosexual offenders WILL inherit the kingdom of God"? Why not make Isaiah 53:5 say that "punishment wasn't necessary to bring us peace. There is no central motif in the Messiah's death"? Why not make Rev. 22:18 say, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: don't see these words as timeless truths. Try to hear what the Spirit is saying in your own faith community"? Why not make John 1:1 say, "the Word wasn't God"? Why not make 1 Cor. 15:14 say, "And if Christ has not been raised, it shouldn't effect whether you believe in God or not. Rob Bell says the Christian faith is a trampoline to enjoy, not a brick wall preserving doctrine"? Why not make Gal. 1:8 say "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, give him a fair hearing. Truth after all is plural and he's probably bringing a fresh perspective"? Why not make Rom. 4:5 say, "However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, that person should be more concerned about social justice"?
The hermeneutic which affirms female ordination in 1 Tim. 2:12 is a ravenous beast that is not content to let sacred truths abide unscathed. If we are to guard the gospel we must be willing to make hard choices regarding those individuals and denominations who affirm female ordination. We must not commune them, fellowship with them, share a platform with them, or work with them. And if this hurts their feelings so be it.
One issue that rears its ugly head as an 'expendable' is that of women's ordination/preaching/leadership. "There's a world out there that needs the gospel," goes one argument, "and it's tragic that Christians are divided over such trivialities as women in leadership." As such, churches that hold to opposing views on female ordination are encouraged to put aside their petty differences and work together in evangelistic rallies, political endeavours, social justice campaigns, etc, for the good of the gospel.
Here again, we see the twin headed beast of egalitarianism and modern tolerance trumping the text of Scripture. I believe that the biblical writers would affirm the contrary, that for the good of the gospel, churches should not work with others that are in error in this matter. One may ask, why this tight ass approach? Well, with long broom stick protruding from my bottom, I simply reply that female ordination betrays an attitude to the word of God that, given time, will spew it's unbelieving vomit all over even those 'essentials' we've united over.
Lig Duncan once remarked that if there was a text in Scripture which stated, "I do not permit you to baptise infants" then the whole paedobaptism argument would be settled. Yet we have such a text in 1 Tim. 2:12 regarding female ordination and many in the church still find ways around it. It's phenomenal to read the exegetical hoops some commentators jump through in order to make the text say, "I utterly affirm that women should teach and have authority over men. In fact, I think it's splendid."
If one can make black say white in 1 Tim. 2:12, why not do it elsewhere? Why not make 1 Cor. 6:9 say that "fornicators, gossips and homosexual offenders WILL inherit the kingdom of God"? Why not make Isaiah 53:5 say that "punishment wasn't necessary to bring us peace. There is no central motif in the Messiah's death"? Why not make Rev. 22:18 say, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: don't see these words as timeless truths. Try to hear what the Spirit is saying in your own faith community"? Why not make John 1:1 say, "the Word wasn't God"? Why not make 1 Cor. 15:14 say, "And if Christ has not been raised, it shouldn't effect whether you believe in God or not. Rob Bell says the Christian faith is a trampoline to enjoy, not a brick wall preserving doctrine"? Why not make Gal. 1:8 say "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, give him a fair hearing. Truth after all is plural and he's probably bringing a fresh perspective"? Why not make Rom. 4:5 say, "However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, that person should be more concerned about social justice"?
The hermeneutic which affirms female ordination in 1 Tim. 2:12 is a ravenous beast that is not content to let sacred truths abide unscathed. If we are to guard the gospel we must be willing to make hard choices regarding those individuals and denominations who affirm female ordination. We must not commune them, fellowship with them, share a platform with them, or work with them. And if this hurts their feelings so be it.
casino faith
Christians have a right standing with God by faith. Faith is both objective and subjective, that is, it is as much about what we believe as believing itself. Who and what we trust is as important as the fact that we trust. Sometimes the 'who and what we trust' is referred to as 'the faith'. Jude, the brother of Jesus, refers to it as 'the faith delivered once and for all to the saints'.
What I find remarkable is how many people seem to be willing to push the boundaries of this 'faith delivered to the saints'. Folks who call themselves Christians, even evangelical Christians, seem quite cavalier in what they dismiss or distort in the Bible. They boldly champion 'beliefs' that plainly conflict with clear statements of gospel faith revealed in the Bible.
For example, we find people claiming to be Christian who 'believe' that God is all love and has no wrath, despite the Bible's unequivocal and regular statements about God's wrath and judgement. Some claim there is no hell, others that all will be saved. Some suggest that there is saving truth in other religions, even in no religion. Some evangelicals believe and teach that homosexual stable partnerships are acceptable to God. All these 'beliefs' fly in the face of 'the faith' as revealed in the Bible.
The question is just how often can one 'believe' what is contrary to the Bible before these beliefs constitute 'unbelief' and make one an 'unbeliever'.
Many seem blithely prepared to believe and advocate what the Bible condemns and risk perdition. They seem willing to drive close to the edge and even with wheels spinning over the edge. Theirs is a foolhardy faith, a profligate faith. It is an irresponsible casino faith that gambles recklessly with the most expensive chips of all, their own souls.
Saving faith is not faith itself, not even faith in Christ since we are all too accomplished at creating Christs that suit us; it is faith that submits to the Christ revealed in the Bible and what God has revealed in Christ. It is faith in 'the faith delivered to the saints.'
Sunday, 15 November 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
