The Pensees of a Wesleyan Theologian

Articles of Faith: Scripture and Authority

2011-08-09T15:05:00.002-04:00

"I AM A BIBLE BIGOT. I FOLLOW ALL things, both great and small" (John Wesley, Works, BC XXII.42)

The authority and prominence of Scripture has fallen on hard times in the Holiness movement although there are signs of its recovery. On one hand, the general trend in the broader movement is away from the traditional, evangelical view of Scripture's authority particularly as it regards inerrancy. For example, in a recent publication on Wesleyans and Scripture, a criticism is issued against those of us who are concerned about the harmony of the Gospels and "what really happened." We need to get over that concern, suggests the author, and get to the "inner, spiritual meaning" of the text. I believe in Spirit-illumination that goes beyond the mere facts of the text, but I find it difficult to uphold biblical authority while dismissing the coherency of what the Bible actually says and the veracity of its report.

On the other hand, for some time there was a popular trend among conservatives that based the validity of one's experience or beliefs on an atmosphere of ebullience. This is quickly revealed when one reviews accounts of revivals and campmeetings which read something like the following:

"The church is enjoying a spirit of revival. We had several services with no preaching" (Taken from a real account from a holiness periodical in 1989).

For those of us who are well-acquainted with the liturgy in most holiness churches, we know that Scripture is usually only read in preparation for the sermon. The implication in these accounts, then, is that revival is occurring apart from the prominence of Scripture. This is as dangerous and undesirable and reminds me of when Willow Creek removed Bibles from the pew because they were offensive to seekers.

The Bible has taken a beating, indeed, from both liberals and conservatives. But though I cannot say whether or not the former trend is losing steam or not, but I belief the latter one has waned as conservatives are realizing the need to restore biblical authority into our lives in a practical way.

Increasingly the Conservative Holiness Movement is becoming unique among holiness groups for its continued stance on biblical authority. This may not appear so much in differences between formal statements as much as in the interpretation and application of Scripture to our daily lives. I don't know how conscious the founding fathers of the CHM were of the theological differences between the "conservatives" and "liberals," but it seems to me from reading various accounts from these men on why holiness people should act/look a certain way, that the conservative views were based on a fundamentally different view of biblical authority and how Scripture should be interpreted and applied. Some may recall the groundswell of cultural conservatism in the 1940s that came to a head in the Church of the Nazarene, for example, in 1952 and 1956. It was during these years that the CHM came to be formed largely, I believe, because of differences in the interpretation and applicability of Scripture. While battles over Biblical authority were explicit in the Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy that plagued the American church in the early 20th century, the Bible was subject to a much more subtle conflict within the Holiness movement. Often, both fronts produced the same result--separation and antagonism.

So where does the CHM stand currently?

General Comments
1. The influence of Wesley and Anglicanism pervades our doctrinal statement on Scripture. For the most part, nothing substantial has been formally lost after the turmoil of the 20th century. However, our statements on Scripture may be the most vaguely understood statements of all the articles.

2. A statement on Scripture is a statement on authority. What/who has authority in our lives? Where do we derive our rules for living? Whose interpretation of Scripture is correct? For the most part, this collection of formal declarations do not give a full-orbed philosophy of authority. As it is seen in the 39 Articles as well as in Wesley's 25 Articles (MEC), the discussion of Scripture and authority included a statement on the creeds as authoritative statements on the proper interpretation of Scripture. In the CHM statements, the role of the creeds or any other authority is not specified. As a result, as one hears the call to be "biblical," we don't always know what we mean. Whose idea of "biblical"? Do we mean "textual"? To what extent does the text answer some critical questions apart from systematic concerns such as culture, reason, tradition, experience, or the personal direction of the Holy Spirit?

3. There is a high view of the Old Testament and its usefulness for Christian living today, although a clear method of interpretation and application is lacking. One would not know from the articles themselves how we should read the Old Testament in regard to Christian ethics especially. What is clear is that the Old Testament is relevant for Christian ethics; once we have affirmed that we can work out the rest elsewhere.

4. Our statements have a decidedly democratic influence. Somewhere in the 20th century, holiness people began inserting an article on "relative duties" immediately after the article on Scripture. I suppose we are to read them as relative to the statement on Scripture. (If not, relative to what?) In this article we appeal to human rights and knowledge. What remains unclear is how we should relate natural rights and knowledge to Scripture.

5. Contrary to popular historiography, Wesleyans have never been exempt from the inerrancy wars. For most of the 20th century, the historical Wesleyan position on Scripture was understood to include inerrancy despite contemporary efforts to say otherwise. Here I think I have found another piece of evidence of this truth. Several statements do not explicitly use the word "inerrant" but intend it nevertheless. I'm not sure that any of our conservative leaders would be able to recall a time when any of them or their elders did not affirm inerrancy. The firm commitment to inerrancy in the CHM is a great example of why Donald Dayton, et. al. are wrong in their telling of the story of inerrancy and the Wesleyan tradition.

The Statements
1. The 39 Articles
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary for salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The First Book of Esdras, The Second Book of Esdras, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the greater, Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other books (as Hierome sayeth) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following: The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees, The Second Book of Maccabees.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account the Canonical.

VII. Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, not the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

VIII. Of the Creeds (1801 version)
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

Earlier editions of the 39 Articles included the Athanasian Creed.

2. MEC 25 Articles
Same as 39 Articles but omits the Apocrypha and Article VIII. Also the word "faith" in the second line of Article VI in the phrase "believed as an article of Faith" has been changed to the lower case "faith." This change may not be significant, but I wonder if the intention of the capitalization was to denote Christian faith in general and not the Anglican faith in particular. Although the point is to determine what is required for one to be a believer, I wonder how this might affect the general and special rules in our manuals today. Since we acknowledge the salvation of some who do not follow our rules, the difference between "faith" and "Faith" may not matter, but it does raise some questions for us. Should we have explicit Scriptural grounds for any rule that is placed in our manual and to what extent should the biblical support be explained in order for understanding to be achieved? Are tradition and cultural norms adequate grounds for a rule, or must there be an explicit mandate from Scripture?

3. The Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1959)
V. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
It is significant that the WMC added to the title "Full Authority" which is a reflection, no doubt, of the debates over biblical authority in the 20th century. I'm not sure when this addition was made, but it was not part of the original statement. Since the MEC article on the Creeds was never included by the WMC, the addition of "full authority" is not related to the absence of an article on creedal authority here. "Full" authority could and probably does mean multiple things: (a) all of Scripture is authoritative; (b) Scripture is the final authority; and (c) Scripture is the authority for all parts of life. It is significant as well that the WMC made this change as opposed to the Pilgrim Holiness Church which retained the MEC reading. Someone in the WMC was engaged in theological discussion and was able to incorporate thought from broader evangelicalism.

The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scriptures, we do understand the books of the Old and New Testaments. These Scriptures we do hold to be the inspired and infallibly written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscript and superior to all human authority.

Missing from this statement is the little phrase from the 39 Articles "whose authority was never any doubt in the Church." Instead, the events of the late 19th and early 20th centuries called for a revision at this point of the kind of authority Scripture has, namely, it is inspired, infallible and inerrant in the original manuscripts. This change teaches us three things about our statements of faith: (a) yesterday's theological statements may be insufficient for today because of the lack of specificity, (b) the words we use today may take on a different meaning down the road, but (c) even if different words are used, the same spirit and meaning can be retained.

The canonical books of the Old Testament are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

The canonical books of the New Testament are: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts, The Epistle to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

Psalms 19:7; Luke 24:27; John 17:17; Acts 17:2, 11; Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; Gal. 1:8; I Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12; James 1:21; 1 Peter 1:23; 2 Peter 1:19-21; Rev. 22:14, 19.

VI. The Old Testament
Same as 39 Articles with the addition of these Scripture references:
Matt. 5:17-19; 22:37-40; Luke 24:27, 44; John 1:45; 5:46; Rom. 15:8; 2 Cor. 1:20; Eph. 2:15, 16; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 10:1; 11:39; 1 John 2:3-7.

VII. Relative Duties
These two great commandments which require us to love the Lord our God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, contain the sum of the divine law as it is revealed in the Scriptures: they are the measure and perfect rule of human duty, as well for the ordering and directing of families and nations, and all other social bodies, as for individual acts, by which we are required to acknowledge God as our only Supreme Ruler, and all men as created by Him, equal in all natural rights. Wherefore all men are bound so to order all their individual and social and political acts as to render to God entire and absolute obedience, and to secure to all men the enjoyment of every natural right, as well as to promote the greatest happiness of each in the possession and exercise of such rights.
Lev. 19:18, 34; Deut. 1:15, 17; 2 Sam. 23:3; Job 29:16; 31:13, 14; Jer. 21:12; 22:13; Matt. 5:44-47; 7:12; Luke 6:27-29, 35; John 13:34, 35; Acts 10:34, 35; 17:26; Rom. 12:9; 13:1, 7, 8, 10; Gal. 5:14; 6:10; Titus 3:1; James 2:8; 1 Peter 2:17; 1 John 2:5; 4:12, 13; 2 John 6.

Article VII on Relative Duties is an addition that is not found in Wesley's 25 Articles. This article has a noticeable American flavor to it, the final lines in particular. American history could be written around the question, "What are our natural rights and how do they apply in various situations?" Does the equality of natural rights cross all boundaries including gender? What about childhood and adulthood and old age? What about born and unborn? What about sexual orientation, particularly in the rare case of hermaphroditism? What about employee and employer?

4. The Allegheny Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1986)

VI. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

Same as the WMC (1959)

VII. The Old Testament

Same as the WMC (1959)

VII. Relative Duties

Same as the WMC (1959)

5. The Bible Methodist Connection (2000)
V. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
Same as the WMC (1959)

VI. The Old Testament
Same as the WMC (1959)

VII. Relative Duties
Same as the WMC (1959)

6.The Wesleyan Church (2008)
5. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
We believe that the books of the Old and New Testaments constitute the Holy Scriptures. They are the inspired and infallible written Word of God, fully inerrant in their original manuscripts and superior to all human authority, and have been transmitted to the present without corruption of any essential doctrine. We believe that they contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man or woman that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. Both in the Old and New Testaments life is offered ultimately through Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and humanity. The New Testament teaches Christians how to fulfill the moral principles of the Old Testament, calling for loving obedience to God made possible by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

The Wesleyan statement rearranges the sentences of the WMC (1959) statement with only slight changes in the wording.The addition of the transmission clause is good though it begs the question, "What is an essential doctrine and on what authority can this be determined?" Interestingly, there is no statement on the Creeds to which one could be appeal to determine what the "essential" doctrines of Scripture. They have added gender-specific language as well in an effort to fit contemporary preferences. The Wesleyan-Methodist article on the Old Testament has been merged into a single statement and makes up the final sentences of the Wesleyan article.

In the second half of the article it is clear that Wesleyans affirm a single plan of salvation from the beginning of time as opposed to various dispensations. This is not to ignore differences in time, but to affirm the essential continuity that exists between the Testaments.

The Wesleyans have abbreviated the longer WMC (1959) article on the OT, by specifying that it is the "moral principles of the Old Testament" that are still binding upon Christians. How we are to determine what those moral principles are is for subsequent discussion. In any case, there is widespread agreement that the Old Testament remains significant for how we conduct our lives today.

The canonical books of the Old Testament are: [same as The Wesleyan-Methodist Church]
The canonical books of the New Testament are: [same as The Wesleyan-Methodist Church]
Psalm 19:7; Matt. 5:17-19; 22:37-40; Luke 24:27,44; John 1:45; 5:46; 17:17; Acts 17:2, 11; Rom. 1:2; 15:4, 8; 16:26; 2 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 1:8; Eph. 2:15-16; 1 Tim. 2:5; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12; 10:1; 11;39; James 1:21; 1 Peter 1:23; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 1 John 2:3-7; Rev. 22:18-19.

6. God's Purpose for Humanity
We believe that the two great commandments which require us to love the Lord our God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, summarize the divine law as it is revealed in the Scriptures. They are the perfect measure and norm of human duty, both for the ordering and directing of families and nations, and all other social bodies, and for individual acts, by which we are required to acknowledge God as our only Supreme Ruler, and all persons as created by Him, equal in all natural rights. Therefore all persons should so order all their individual, social and political acts as to give to God entire and absolute obedience, and to assure to all the enjoyment of every natural right, as well as to promote the fulfillment of each in the possession and exercise of such rights

Lev. 19:18, 34; Deut. 1:15, 17; Job 29:16; 31:13, 14; Jer. 21:12; 22:13; Micah 6:8; Matt. 5:44-47; 7:12; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 6:27-29, 35; John 13:34, 35; Acts 10:34, 35; 17:26; Rom. 12:9; 13:1, 7, 8, 10; Gal. 5:14; 6:10; Titus 3:1; James 2:8; 1 Peter 2:17; 1 John 2:5; 4:12, 13; 2 John 6.

There are slight changes in the Scripture reference list from the WMC (1959) as well as the use of more modern language in article 6. Overall, it is virtually the same as WMC (1959).

7. The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1958)
Article 4. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation
The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation (John 15:3; 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:15-17), so that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary for salvation (Eph. 5:6; 1 Tim. 6:3, 4). By the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, commonly received and known as the Bible.

There is no major difference between this statement and the initial paragraph of the 39 Articles. The closing phrase "commonly received and known as the Bible" is the only difference in wording. The Scripture references have been placed in the text. It should be noted that the Bible was not so commonly understood prior to the Reformation although a distinction between the canonical books and the Apocrypha has always been made. Nonetheless, even Luther included the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible. The the elimination of the Apocrypha has not proven to be to our detriment.

The Pilgrims do not have articles on the Old Testament and Relative Duties.

8. Midwest Pilgrim Holiness Church (2000)
9. Sufficiency of Scripture
Same as the PHC (1958) except for the wording of the article title. The reasoning behind the title is not clear from the article itself. Perhaps the minutes of the MWPHC contain the reasoning or someone well-acquainted with the proceedings of the church would know. Since the opening line of the statement clarifies, the reason is probably nothing other than abbreviating the title in order to fit it onto a single line. Who says theology can't be practical? This is the first deviation by the Midwest Pilgrims from the PHC (1958) manual.

9. New York Pilgrim Holiness Church (2006-2007)
2.5 Sufficiency and Inerrancy of Scripture
The use of "inerrancy" is reflective of a particular era in history when the term became critical for our understanding of biblical authority. Today the term is understood in various ways that renders the simple appearance of the word vague. The WMC (1959) which states the "full authority" of Scripture is preferable because it is more comprehensive than "inerrancy."

The Holy Scriptures (that is, the 66 books of the Protestant Canon of the Bible) are the only written Word of God. Every part of the Bible, as originally written, was inspired by God and was and is without error. The Bible contains all things necessary to salvation and is the only totally authoritative and infallible rule of faith and conduct (John 15:3; 20:31; II Tim. 3:15-17). Therefore, whatever is not written therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be accepted as an article of faith nor be though as essential to salvation (Eph. 5:6; 1 Tim.6:3,4).

The opening statement is likewise unique though not opposed to any of the other statements. The use of the past and present tense to describe inerrancy is interesting. I take it to mean something like "insofar as our current Bible versions reflect the original they too are inerrant." This is an affirmation that needs to be heard more than it is so that lay people don't lose faith in our English translations and think they have to know Greek and Hebrew to really get the Word of God. Insofar as we understand just a few technicalities, we can stand behind the pulpit and hold our English Bible in the air and declare, "This is the Word of God." The day we can no longer do that with confidence will be a sad one.

I suppose by "totally authoritative" the NY Pilgrims mean something like what I described above in my comments on the WMC (1959) and their use of "full authority".

2.5.1 Foundational Doctrines.
The Scripture has long been an unfailing source of wisdom and guidance for Christian, non-Christian, church, society, government, education and all walks of life. It is the definitive source for matters of morality, character, values, right and wrong, sacredness of life, marriage, family, business, finance, conduct, etc.

Instead of "Relative Duties," this manual contains an article with two sub-points under the heading "Foundational Doctrines." The key point here is how closely the doctrine of Scripture is tied to ethics. So many times Scripture and ethics are separated by several intermediaries including tradition, culture, personal experience, rationalization, etc., etc. This is not to say that these "intermediaries" are not pertinent to ethics, but sometimes they keep us from working our way back all the way to Scripture. By placing the following statements in this context, I understand the NY Pilgrims to be saying that the first and primary purpose for this ethic is Scripture.

a) Sacredness of Life.
Life is a sacred gift bestowed by God (Isa. 43:7). Human life is made in God's image and is imparted by God (Gen. 1:27). Human life uniquely transcends all other creation. Only it is God-breathed (Gen. 2:7). Human nature passes to a new life at conception (Psa. 51:5). God acknowledges us as persons long before birth. "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..." (Jer. 1:5). God is the giver and taker of life, from womb to aged (Ex. 20:13)/ A human becomes a spiritual being at conception (Gen. 2:7). The Scriptures forbid euthanasia, infanticide, genocide, or abortion.

Is only human life sacred? Are there levels of sacredness? Does Scripture forbid human enhancements, alterations, replacements? To what extent should we engage and accept post-human thought and technology. At what point does the philosophy of "live at all costs" become detrimental? How is death essential to the sacredness of life? This are simply questions that come up as I read this article. Articles are not meant to answer all the questions, but they are meant to be usable for life. So, these questions really get to the overall question, "How does this article affect me practically?"

b) Sacredness of Marriage. Marriage is a sacred union, ordained by God, life-long and sexually exclusive. Marriage is between one man and one woman and excludes same-sex unions, group unions and cohabiting. Divorce is not a part of God's plan for marriage. The God-designed differences of a man and women complement each other physically, emotionally and spiritually. Each gender brings vitally important and unique elements to the other and to the maturing and developing of children. The child receives essential training in three key relationships required for good development: husband/wife, mother/father, and male/female. History shows that, without exception., whenever a civilization strays from the God-ordained ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.
Marriage is the first institution established by God. "it is not good for man to live alone" (Gen. 2:18). Jesus emphasized the importance and sacredness of marriage in His own teachings (Matt. 5:31-32, 19:4-8, Mark 10:11-12). Paul taught that marriage is a picture of the relationship of Christ and His church (Eph. 5:24-33). Extramarital or homosexual behavior is sinful (Lev. 18:6-22, Rom. 1:26-28, Heb. 13:4).

Who can argue with this statement? It is no doubt the result of some time and thought as it comprehends several aspects of sexuality and marriage relationship. The wording of the last sentence is a bit awkward: does it mean extramarital sexual behavior...is sinful? This is merely a matter of grammar; I think the meaning is clear.

10.The Church of the Nazarene (2005-2009)
IV. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.
Luke 24:44-47; John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

This statement is probably the most simple, but not necessarily the most straightforward. In fact, an entire book could be written on the history of interpretation of this article alone, not because it is so vastly different from other statements in the Holiness movement but because many Nazarene theologians have accepted the historiography of Donald Dayton, et. al., who downplay the significance of inerrancy for Holiness theology. The critical issue is that many have adopted the liberal view that the historical accuracy and harmony of the Gospels, for instance, is not necessary for our salvation, that faith and history ought to be separated.

The CHM continues to be committed to the harmony of faith and history, contrary to many of their Holiness counterparts. "What actually happened" manners to us. On this point, we have more in common with many Calvinists, Lutherans and Baptists than we do with some Holiness brothers.

11. The International Conservative Holiness Association
15. The Holy Scriptures
We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we mean the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, to be given by divine inspiration. These Scriptures we hold to be the infallible written Word of God, superior to all human authority, containing all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be considered an article of faith. The Authorized King James Version 1611 shall be the official version of the ICHA. While we feel that other versions have some value, confusion arises when a church embraces many varied versions which plainly do not say the same thing.
Psa. 19:7; Luke 24:27; John 17:17; Acts 17:2; Rom. 1:2; 15:4; 16:26; I Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 4:12; I Peter 1:23; II Peter 1:19-21; Rev. 22:14, 19.

This statement is probably the most interesting of all, so interesting, in fact, that I wrote an entire paper just on this article for my doctoral studies. It begins with the Nazarene statement, but leaves off the phrase "inerrantly revealing the will of God." In my investigation I have discovered that this exception was intentional as some of the framers did not desire to affirm inerrancy. It should be noted that this is a carry-over from the Articles of the Church of the Bible Covenant and has not been changed at this point. In speaking with the current leaders of the ICHA, inerrancy is affirmed and understood to be included in what is stated. I never doubted that such was the case since I know this group quite well. If you were present in the proceedings of the Church of the Bible Covenant and can recall any information that might pertain to this article, please contact me. This article is a curious example of where two movements within the Holiness tradition collide.

What has been added since the formation of the ICHA is the statement on the King James Version. Although the statement seems to say that only the 1611 edition of the King James Version is the official version, I assume they mean that a later edition based on the 1611 KJV is the official Bible since I've never heard anyone preach from the 1611 edition. While I would not be in favor of this statement if it ever came up in my church (and it has), it does raise a pertinent question: given the plethora of Bible translations, is it wise to adopt an official version for uniformity? In my family we have adopted a particular version for family devotions and everyone who can read has their own personal copy of it (four of us so far!). The rationale in this article is that confusion arises with a conglomeration of translations--indeed, it does at times. But can the confusion be cleared by a simple explanation of the nature of translations or do we need uniformity?

12. God's Missionary Church
12. By the Holy Scriptures we understand the sixty-six canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, given by divine inspiration (II Tim. 3:16); containing all things necessary for salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man; that it should be believed as an article of faith, or necessary to salvation (II Peter 1:20,21).

This statement summarizes the basic language of the Wesleyan tradition. There is one small grammatical change that should be made in keeping with the tradition--the semi-colon before "that it should be believed as an article of faith" should be changed to a comma in order to clarify what is not required. As it stands, it creates a separate clause and renders the "it" vague (that Holy Scripture should be believed as an article of faith or that whatsoever is not read therein should not be required and believed as an article of faith).

13. Church of God (Holiness)
Article IV. [No title]
We emphatically affirm the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, infallibly true as originally inspired, constituting our only divinely authorized rule of faith and practice (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:21).

At one time "infallible" included the concept of inerrancy, but not in today's nomenclature. Nonetheless, I suppose the term includes the concept here.

A significant matter is raised in the last phrase, "constituting our only divinely authorized rule of faith and practice." This brings me back to one of my opening remarks concerning the relationship of Scripture to our faith and conduct (see comments under the MEC 25 Articles). Do we really believe that only Scripture authorizes faith and practice? Are there not reasons for believing or doing things that are beyond what is explicitly spelled out in Scripture? Furthermore, are there not general principles in Scripture that vary in their application from place to place or time to time or context to context? Albert Outler argued in the 1960s that the Wesleyan method of doing theology included the so-called "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" of Scripture, tradition, experience and reason. Is there room for this method in this statement?

A preferable way of stating the Wesleyan view of biblical authority is partially described (in my words) by Thomas Langford in Doctrine and Theology in the United Methodist Church that the primacy of Scripture often begins a process but does not always conclude an argument. In other words, there are times when Scripture provides a general principle such as how men and women are to dress distinctively to their gender, but Scripture does not conclude what that must look like at all times in all places. In such cases, there are other criteria (such as our conscience which Scripture also addresses) that must come into play and inform authoritatively our faith and practice. This does not mean they have more authority than Scripture, but that their authority is derived from Scripture. In any case, Scripture is the final authority, but not our only authority.

Furthermore, heretics could agree with the assertion that Scripture is our only authority because history has proven again and again that words can be defined in various ways, some of them with heretical implications. While simple is usually preferable, it is not always sufficient. In this case, I think sufficiency is sacrificed for simplicity. Fortunately for the COGH, the articles here are merely guidelines that are not official statements of any of the individual churches themselves.

Finally, is it even possible for Scripture to be our only authority? Does Scripture itself support this? What about the very nature of language itself and the a priori of human reason to understand language? What about the role of the Holy Spirit to contribute to a proper understanding of Scripture?

14. The Aldersgate Forum
Holy Scripture
That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God written, inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant in the original writings. They contain all that is necessary to our salvation and are of supreme authority for faith and practice.

The final sentence of this statement is a good alternative in reference to the previous point (see Church of God, Holiness). It avoids the implication that there are no other forms of authority other than Scripture, yet affirms that Scripture is the supreme authority. This statement is pretty straightforward and balances simplicity with sufficiency though there is more that could be affirmed. I am particularly interested in knowing how a group or church handles the diversity of translations issue raised by the ICHA and also addressed by the transmission clause in The Wesleyan Church, but is lacking here and elsewhere. I think this is an important issue that we may want to consider addressing in future statements.

15. Union Bible College
We believe that the Bible is God's written revelation to the human family and is "given by inspiration of God," thus making it His infallible and inerrant Word which is the final authority regarding the doctrines we believe and the duties we practice.

Most of the statements specify what they mean by "Scripture" by either listing the names of the books or stating the Old and New Testaments in particular. Here we are supposed to know what "Bible" means, and most of us do. But Christians in some parts of the world who are accustomed to Bible versions that include the Apocrypha may not know. I don't suppose any of the CHM Bible colleges have too many Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox students.

16. Hobe Sound Bible Church
That the Bible is the inspired and only infallible and authoritative written Word of God (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:21).

Notice the difference between the wording here and the wording of the COGH article--they are significantly different. Indeed, the Bible is the only authoritative written Word of God, which is not the same as saying it is the only divinely authorized rule of faith and practice. Despite what is lacking in this statement, it comprehends the primary point in the CHM's doctrine of Scripture. From this, everything else follows.

Next Article: Sin, Original and Personal

Other articles in this series:
1. Discovering the Theological Spectrum of the CHM
2. An Overview of the Articles
3. The Triune God
4. God the Son
5. God the Holy Spirit

Articles of Faith: The Holy Spirit

2011-05-27T10:13:00.001-04:00

"CHRIST NEVER IS WHERE HIS SPIRIT IS
not" (John Calvin, Selections, 91).

The Holy Spirit has always held a prominent place in the theology of the Holiness movement. Despite our distant relation to the Pentecostal Movement we have not shied away from a "hermeneutic" of the Spirit. By this I mean that the Spirit's presence, manifestation and blessing is a priority in our method of determining what is true and right. Although our emphasis on the Spirit at times has been so radical that even Scripture itself has taken a backseat. we should not be ashamed of our eagerness for the Spirit's presence.

In the broader, holiness movement, however, the accepted historiography is that we are not "fundamentalist" in our understanding of the authority of Scripture--namely, how it is that Scripture is authoritative and how its authority should be understood. But is all for a later discussion. The point here is that the Conservative Holiness Movement has found itself between the two theological traditions--the Pentecostal tradition and its hermeneutics of the Spirit, and the liberalized holiness theology of Scripture which rejects the inerrancy of Scripture. As a result the position of the CHM has created a real tension between the objective and subjective interpretation of Scripture and experience of the Spirit.

Several interesting discussion continue to be heard around the CHM. An especially lively topic is the witness of the Spirit (Is a subjective witness necessary for salvation?). This import of this issue can hardly be overstated.

Another matter is the role of the Spirit in interpretation of Scripture (Must a person be filled with the Spirit to interpret Scripture accurately?) which is less discussed but is nonetheless a critical issue.

In more recent years the incessant call for a "Holy-Spirit Revival" has been called into question theologically as we have found our revival theology heavily influenced by a Calvinistic doctrine of the church and salvation.

A perennial discussion within Wesleyan circles has been the relation of the Spirit's outpouring in Acts with our order of salvation. The main point of this discussion concerns our biblical theology of holiness and how Pentecost relates to our doctrine of entire sanctification.

I will not attempt to elaborate on any of these discussions now. So, I will proceed to some general observations of our statements on the Holy Spirit and perhaps later will relate them more specifically to various discussions that have yet to produce formalized statements.

Comments
1. Some are weak on the ontology of the Spirit (see comments below). Interestingly, the Anglican statement is void of any reference to the activity of the Spirit, quite the opposite of the later focus of the Holiness movement.

2. Is "Ghost" just an antiquated word or are do we avoid it for other reasons? I've heard some say we avoid it because of the Charismatic emphasis on it. I'm not sure.

3. Despite the first point above, there is more direct connection with the Anglican statement in this article than anywhere else in the articles of faith. The Presbyterians have their Westminster Confession, the Lutheran's have Augsburg, but the Methodists have often been accused of not having a formalized confession. The critics are wrong--we have The 39 Articles. Well, at least 25 of them, most of which we have freely amended, altered and/or abbreviated, and we've added a few of our own. So, I guess we are less formalized than our Christian brothers. So, how important are formal statements to us?

4. What is the highlight of the Christian calendar? Christmas? Easter? Who would say Pentecost Sunday? I have several tubs full of Christmas decorations, a tub or two of Easter stuff, but not a single thing for the day we celebrate the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Just a thought, having nothing to do with the statements below.)

The Statements
1. The 39 Articles (source)
"V. Of the Holy Ghost
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God."

2. MEC 25 Articles
Same as The 39 Articles

3. The Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1959)
Same as The 39 Articles with the addition of Scripture:
Job 33:4; Matt 28:19; John 4:24-26; Acts 5:3; 4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6

4. The Wesleyan Church (2008)
"4. The Holy Spirit
We believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and is of the same essential nature, majesty, and glory, as the Father and the Son, truly and eternally God. He is the Administrator of grace to all, and is particularly the effective Agent in conviction for sin, in regeneration, in sanctification, and in glorification. He is ever present, assuring, preserving, guiding, and enabling the believer."

I like this statement for two reasons: first, it changed "very" to "truly" (synonyms but the latter is a modern term), and second, it has expanded the article in a way that reflects the Holiness tradition in several ways. It emphasizes the universality of God's grace dispensed by the Spirit and it emphasizes the continuous role of the Spirit in the way of salvation. There is really only one question that comes to mind: is the Spirit "ever...assuring" the believer? I understanding the word "ever" to be modifying the whole phrase, if it is not then my question is irrelevant to the statement but still relevant for discussion. If "ever" means continuously (without cessation) then I doubt that this is true in everyone's experience. But I suppose one could say, "The Spirit is always assuring but we are not always hearing." Fine. The point is, should we emphasize Christian assurance in such a way that if a person has doubts about his or her faith, we automatically place them in the category of the unsaved? I don't think so because I'm not sure where Scripture speaks about a continuous witness. It does talk about the trying of faith (James 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3-7) which, I suppose, may entail some level of doubt, else how is it a trial of faith.

5. Allegheny Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1986)
Same as The 39 Articles with WMC Scriptures.

6. The Bible Methodist Connection (2000)
Same as The 39 Articles with WMC Scriptures.

7. The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1958)
Same as The 39 Articles with the addition Scripture in the text:

"3. The Holy Ghost
The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son (John 15:26; Acts 2:33; John 16:7), is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God (1 John 5:7; Acts 5:3,4)."

1 John 5:7 appears here again as in the first article on the Triune God. Its inclusion should be discussed once again and along with a new determination on the benefits of keeping it or not.

8. Midwest Pilgrim Holiness Church (2000)
Same as PHC (1958).

9. New York Pilgrim Holiness Church (2006-2007)
Same as PHC (1958).

10. The Church of the Nazarene (2005-2009)
"III. The Holy Spirit
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune Godhead, that He is ever present and effectively active in and with the Church of Christ, convincing the world of sin, regenerating those who repent and believe, sanctifying believers, and guiding into all truth as it is in Jesus. (John 7:39; 14:15-18, 26; 16:7-15; Acts 2:33; 15:8-9; Rom. 8:1-27; Gal. 3:1-14; 4:6; Eph. 3:14-21; 1 Thess. 4:7-8; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 3:24; 4:13)."

Is the Spirit's ministry limited to the Church? Does the Spirit operate beyond the bounds of the Church? If not, then how can we affirm universal grace since there are those who have never been reached with the Gospel through an explicit presentation of it? I recognize that this statement does not necessarily limit the Spirit to the Church, but it simply fails to acknowledge the broader role of the Spirit. I guess one's interpretation of this statement hinges on whether the participle "convincing" is part of a list of what the Spirit does or if it is specifically modifying the Spirit's effective action in and with the Church. It is vague. If the latter is true, I disagree; if the former, then I am satisfied. One thing is certain: it can't mean both. So which is it? The list seems begin with "convincing" rather than "is ever present" so I read it as "the Spirit is ever present and effectively active in and with the Church of Christ in these ways: convincing...regenerating...sanctifying...and guiding...." Am I mistaken? If not, I disagree with the statement's limiting the Spirit's role to the Church. Did the Spirit not have a role prior to the Church? Why would he not have a role now outside the Church? How can God desire that people should come to the knowledge of truth (1 Tim. 2:4) or how can the light of Christ enlighten every person if the Spirit only operates through the Church? This produces a conflict between human free will and responsibility and the work of the Holy Spirit.

11. International Conservative Holiness Association
Mixture of the 39 Articles and the Nazarene statement:

"10 The Holy Spirit
We believe the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God. He is ever present and efficiently active in and with the Church of Christ, convincing the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, regenerating those who repent and believe, sanctifying believers and guiding into all truth.
(Matt. 28:19; John 4:24-26; Acts 5:3-4; Romans 8:9; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 4:6)."

See comments on the Nazarene statement.

12. God's Missionary Church
"The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as the true and eternal God, of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son (Matt 28:19; Acts 5:3,4; Romans 8:9-11). His office work is to (a) Convince the world of sin (John 16:8); (b) Regenerate those that repent (John 3:5-9); (c) Sanctify believers (Acts 15:8, 9); (d) Guide into all truth (John 16:13)."

13. Church of God (Holiness)
"III. There is one Holy Spirit, the third person of the Holy Trinity, who is now the representative of the Godhead on earth, who came from the Father and the Son, to convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26). God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons, united and inseparable, of one substance and eternal (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14)."

This statement places the Trinity at the end of the first three articles (God, Jesus Christ, and now the Holy Spirit) as a kind of summary rather than an add-on.

14. The Aldersgate Forum (source)
"Holy Spirit
That the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Godhead, is Lord and Giver of life, who continually glorifies Our Lord Jesus Christ, convicts men and women of sin, and regenerates all who repent and trust in Christ for salvation. It is by the Holy Spirit that believers are sanctified, indwelt, and guided into all truth; and it is also by Him that Christ lives in the church, the gospel is proclaimed, and the Kingdom of God is advanced in the world."

It is always refreshing to read the Aldersgate statements because it is the most recent of the statements here and is well-thought-out. It draws on language from the Nicene Creed ("Lord and Giver of Life"). Interestingly, it omits any reference to the procession of the Spirit and, consequently, any statement as to how the Spirit relates ontologically to the Godhead. On what basis is the Spirit the "third," distinctive person? The statement is heavy on the activity of the Spirit and light on the person of the Spirit.

I like that it distinguishes the Spirit's general activity, the Spirit's personal activity in the believer, and the Spirit's activity through the church. I'm not sure what the intent was in the framing of the statement, but at this point I think it should be a model for other statements.

15. Union Bible College (source)
"4. We believe that the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Godhead, proceeds from the Father and the Son and is Christ's 'other Self.' He is the Paraclete, the Comforter, the One who reproves 'the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.' He is 'the Spirit of truth;' and guides God's children 'into all truth.' He also takes the things of the Father and the Son and reveals them unto us. His ministry does not involve the glorification of Himself but rather the exaltation of Jesus Christ. We believe that the Triune God is actively involved in the work of salvation. God the Father planned our redemption. God the Son is the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.' God the Spirit applies the atoning blood to the seeker who meets God's conditions."

This is the most lengthy of all the statements. It specifies the ontological relation of the Spirit in the Godhead, it names the Spirit, and it describes his activity. It could be more specific in some places. For instance, in the sentence "He also takes the things of the Father and the Son and reveals them to us," what "things" and to whom (who is the "us"?).

16. Hobe Sound Bible Church (source)
"That there is one Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Who came from the Father and the Son, to convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; to regenerate the believing sinner, and to indwell, guide, instruct, cleanse and empower the believer for godly living and service (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14)."

In what way did the Spirit come from the Father? Is His coming a reference in time or eternity? Is this a reference to his relation in the Godhead or his economic activity? I like the focus on empowerment in the phrase that refers to the sanctification of the believer--empowerment for godly living and service preceded by indwelling, guiding, instructing and cleansing (is the order significant?).

Next Article: Holy Scripture

Previous articles in this series:
1. Discovering the Theological Spectrum of the CHM
2. An Overview of the Articles
3. The Triune God
4. God the Son

Articles of Faith: The Son of God

2011-05-24T12:34:00.002-04:00

"THE LORD, WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO show the Father, said, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. He that would alter this is an antichrist, he that would deny it is a Jew, he that is ignorant a Pagan" (Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate VII.38).

The fourth article in this series is on Jesus Christ. The earliest debates among Christians concerned the nature of Christ. The church fought against and overcame the heresies of Arianism (Christ is a created being), Nestorianism (denied the divine nature of Christ), Eutychianism (denied the real humanity of Christ), and Docetism (Christ only appeared to be human but was not really). Later, Pelagianism also posed a threat to the doctrine of Christ. Its condemnation was assisted by its association with Nestorianism. Today, these heresies are alive in the Church of the Latter-Day Saints and in the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). I suggest that every heresy that the church has ever faced or ever will face has implications for the doctrine of Christ.

The evangelical and orthodox doctrine of Christ is being tested not only by the resurgence of old heresies, but by the impulse of pluralism and relativism. Somehow it has become possible to be a "Christian" without affirming Christ. We must be clear in our doctrine of the person and work of Christ, producing a well-rounded account of why Christ is worthy of our faith and worship. .

Some of the documents have more than one article on the Son; I have combined them into a single survey. I first have offered some general comments and have then scattered specific comments within the presentation of the articles themselves. If the formatting is confusing please let me know. I would like for this survey to be user-friendly.

Comments
1. The Nicene Creed has made its mark on our statements.

2. An Augustinian Calvinist would love the statements that affirm our inheritance of original guilt, which is what I understand the 39 Articles and the derived statements to mean when it says that Christ died for both original guilt and actual sins. The Wesleyan Church has made a positive change in their article at this point, changing original guilt to original sin--there is a world of difference. More will be said as we get to the doctrines of man, sin, grace and salvation. I anticipate some contradictions to appear.

3. The question of subordination within the Trinity is a live issue and one that has implications for orthodoxy and, some would argue, for the use of women in ministry.

4. If the Trinity was given prominence in the first article (On the Triune God), in some cases it is taken away here especially when worship is specified to the Father but not to the Son or the Spirit (see below).

5. None besides the Anglican Church affirm Christ's descent into Hell.

6. Christology has always been a hotbed of controversy because of the delicate line of affirming two natures in Christ and equality within the Godhead while distinguishing Christ's divinity from his deity and one person of the Trinity from another. It is possible to maintain ambiguity without contradiction. However, if affirming an ambiguous article is a matter of membership or ordination, we must be specific enough that a heretic who uses the same language with different concepts would be quickly spotted.

7. My research here leads me to think that there is some theological engagement that needs to take place on the matter of Christology. I would encourage a forum of friendly discussion on the subordination issue and whether or not it has real implications on women in ministry, a discussion of the relation of Christ's atonement and original sin, and our general attitude toward the person of Christ as God and man.

8. Having said that, the CHM's evangelical fervor comes through its emphasis on the work of Christ. If our weakness on this article is ontology, our strength is certainly in affirming both the historical work of Christ and its purpose for mankind.

The Statements:
1. The 39 Articles (source)
"II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."

"III. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed,that he went down into Hell."

"IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day."

2. MEC Articles of Religion

"II. Of the Word, or Son of God, Who was Made Very Man

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."

"III. Of the Resurrection of Christ

Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day."

I am not certain why "begotten from everlasting of the Father" was omitted. There are several commentaries on the Methodist articles of faith, I should consult with one of those. The obvious omission of the article on the descent into hell is evident of the uncertainty that exists on this issue. The omission of "with flesh, bones" simplifies the article.

The statement on original guilt is indicative of Augustinian and Reformed influence in both the Anglican Church and in early Methodism. The Methodist stance on this changed in the 19th century. Wesley himself equivocated on the issue by using the term "guilt" in reference to original sin but denying responsibility or culpability. Later Methodists, particular John Miley, called him on his sincere inconsistency.

3. The Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1959)
"II. The only begotten Son of God was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried--to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of men, and to reconcile us to God.
Mark 15; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 17; Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:10, 18; 1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 4:4, 5; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 2:17; 7:27; 9:28; 10:12; 1 Peter 2:14; 1 John 2:2; 4:14."

"III. The Resurrection of Christ.
Same as MEC with the addition of Scriptures:
Psalms 16:8-10; Matt. 27:62-66; 28:5-9, 16, 17; Mark 16:6, 7, 12; Luke 24:4-8, 23; John 20:26-29; 21; Acts 1:2; 2:24-31; 10:40; Rom. 8:34; 14:9, 10; 1 Cor. 15:6, 14; Heb. 13:20.

The first part of article II. is obviously derived from the Nicene Creed and the latter part from the MEC statement. I was surprised to find that original guilt was still part of the article. It appeared in the earliest manual of the WMC (1842), well before Miley wrote his systematic dismantling of the doctrine. The 1959 article is stream-lined from the previous article which was a copy of the MEC. I'm not sure when the change took place.

4. The Wesleyan Church (2008)
"II. The Father
We believe the Father is the Source of all that exists, whether of matter or spirit. With the Son and the Holy Spirit, He made man, male and female, in His image. By intention He relates to people as Father, thereby forever declaring His goodwill toward them. In love, He both seeks and receives penitent sinners."
Psalm 68:5; Isa. 64:8; Matt. 7:11; John 3:17; Rom. 8:15; 1 Peter 1:17

"III. The Son of God
We believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, truly God and truly man. He died on the cross and was buried, to be a sacrifice both for original sin and for all human transgressions, and to reconcile us to God. Christ rose bodily from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and there intercedes for us at the Father's right hand until He returns to judge all humanity at the last day.
Psalm 16:8-10; Matt. 1:21, 23; 11:27, 16:28; 27:62-66; 28:5-9, 16-17; Mark 10:45; 15; 16:6-7; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; 24:4-8, 23; John 1:1, 14, 18; 3:16-17; 20:26-29; 21; Acts 1:2-3; 2:24-31; 4:12; 10:40; Rom. 5:10, 18; 8:34; 14:9; 1 Cor. 5:18-19; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; 4:4-5; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb 2:17; 7:27; 9:14, 28; 10:12; 13:20; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2."

The Wesleyans have added quite a bit more Scripture to their articles as well as the article on the Father.
Should the phrase "Source of all that exists" be taken to include the Son and the Spirit? There is nothing here that would exclude them. This raises the difficult issue of whether or not the distinction of the Father and Son is a unilateral action on the part of the Father or if there is a bi-lateral activity that is essential to the nature of both. The danger here is to insert a monarchy of the Father over the Son and Spirit in the ontology of the Godhead (or the immanent Trinity as Rahner called it) or to violate all distinction of the persons. In other words, is it appropriate to specify the Father as "the Source of all that exists" versus the Godhead as a whole? What about John 1:1-3? The problem is not that the statement is wrong, rather it's that an Arian can affirm it too. An Arian could not affirm article III. though.

"Guilt" was taken out by the Wesleyans in favor of a more generalized statement on the relation of original sin and the atonement.

5. Allegheny Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1986)
Same as WMC (1959)

6. Bible Methodist Connection (2000)
Same as WMC (1959)

7. International Conservative Holiness Association (2002)
"5. Jesus Christ
We believe the only begotten Son of God was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried to be a sacrifice, not only for original sin, but also for the actual sins of men, and to reconcile us to God. In resurrection He came forth from the dead, took again His body, together with all things appertaining to the perfection of man;s nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us.
Matt. 27:62-66; 28:5-9, 16-18; Mark 15, 16:6, 7, 12; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; 24:4-8, 23; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 17; 20:26-29; 21; Acts 1:2; 4:12; 10:40; Rom. 5:10; 8:34; 14:9; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Gal. 1:4; 4:4, 5; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 9:28; 10:12; 13:20; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2."

It has merged what formerly appeared in two articles in the MEC and WMC statements. It has also changed "original guilt" to "original sin," a change that stems from the Church of the Bible Covenant articles of faith written by Marvin Powers and committee. There is slight change in the word order, but the wording clearly reflects the Nicene Creed at the beginning. The clause on intercession has been added at the end and is derived from the Nazarene influence in the CBC.

8. The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1958)
"2. Jesus Christ
The Son, who is the Word of the Fahter (John 1:1-3), is the very eternal God, of one substance with the Father, who took man's nature (John 1:14; 3:31; Heb. 2:14), in the womb of the Virgin, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is One Christ, very God and very man. He truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried (1 Cor. 15:3-6), to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the actual sins of man (Heb. 13:12; 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:18). Christ did truly rise again from the dead and took again his body (Matt 28:6, 7; Acts 1:3; Like 24:39-43), with all things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature (Eph. 4:11-13; 1 John 3:2, 3, wherewith he ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9; Eph. 1:20; 4:8; 1 Tim. 3:16)."

This statement is derived from the MEC with little exception. Mary is no longer called "blessed," an obvious attempt to avoid Roman mariology. Also missing is any reference to Christ's return for judgment which is included in a later article. Once again, original guilt is affirmed.

9. The Midwest Pilgrim Holiness Church (2000)
Same as Pilgrim Holiness Church (1958)

10. The New York Pilgrim Holiness Church (2006-2007)
Same as Pilgrim Holiness Church (1958)

11. The Church of the Nazarene (2005-2009)
"II. Jesus Christ
We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead; that He was eternally one with the Father; that He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, are thus united in one Person very God and very man, the God-man.
We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly arose from the dead and took again His body, together with all things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us."

As gender conscience as the broader Holiness movement has become, I'm somewhat surprised that "man's nature" has not been changed to "human nature."

12. God's Missionary Church
"II. God the Father

The Father is the supreme Person in the Godhead, to Whom the Son and the Holy Ghost, though equal in essence, are subordinate in office. The Father sent the Son into the world; He also sends the Holy Ghost. To the Father, the Son reconciles the penitent sinner; and to the Father pertains the worship of every believer."

"III. God the Son

The only begotten Son of God was eternally with the Father; was conceived by the Holy Ghost; was born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, died, and buried; a sacrifice, not only for original sin, but also for actual sins, and to reconcile us unto God. He truly arose from the dead, took again His body, ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us (Luke 1:27-35; John 1:14; 3:16; Acts 4:12; Romans 5:10; Hebrews 7:25)."

What does it mean for the Father to be the "supreme" Person in the Godhead? Is this ontological subordinationism? It sounds like it. The following phrase "subordinate in office" seems to indicate that the hierarchy that is clearly affirmed is economical rather than ontological, but this is a discussion that needs to be had in order to avoid heresy. This is the second time this has appeared within these statements and this is certainly the strongest of the two (the other being The Wesleyan Church article on the Father). I would like to know the history of this article.

The strong statement on the Father seems to discount Trinitarian worship and reconciliation. While these things are true about the Father, we should be explicit that they are true to the entire Godhead--for instance, we worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

13. Church of God (Holiness)

"There is one Saviour, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who is the Supreme Head of the Church, which He redeemed unto God by His own blood (Matt. 3:16,17)."

The brief statement is straightforward and orthodox if properly interpreted. Its lack of specification, however, allows even a modern-day Arian, such as a Mormon, to affirm it.

14. The Aldersgate Forum

"That Our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal and only begotten Son of God, became man without ever ceasing to be God; that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, and lived a sinless life. He died on the cross, making a full and satisfactory atonement for the sins of the whole human race, then rose bodily from the grace and ascended into Heaven, where He is enthroned at God's right hand as our intercessor."

This is the first statement that shows evidence of Chalcedonian influence (451), the most authoritative Christian statement on the nature of Christ (even if its meaning at some points is still debated). I have in mind specifically the sinlessness of Christ. I imagine this will appear more frequently when we get to the articles on the atonement, but it is nonetheless central to the human nature of Christ, and these articles are supposed to be statements of ontology.

15. Union Bible College

"We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. Without laying aside His deity, He took upon Himself flesh and blood that He might provide an atonement for sin through His death upon the cross. Having arisen from the dead, Jesus ascended into heaven and is now at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for us as our great High Priest. We also believe that Jesus will return again to rapture His bride, the saints of God, from the earth. The fact of His return is certain, but the time of His coming is uncertain. Therefore, we are admonished to be ready, 'for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.'"

This article covers a large amount of ground and will be referred to later. It lacks any elaboration on the nature of Christ and, after briefly stating the fact of his personhood as the "eternal Son of God," the remaining part deals exclusively with the work of Christ. This should raise our awareness to the balance between emphasizing the person and work of Christ.

16. Hobe Sound Bible Church

"In the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His miracles, His vicarious and atoning death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and His personal future return to this earth in power and glory (Matthew 3:16,17)."

This list of fundamentals is refreshingly simply even if it is heavy on the work of Christ as opposed to His person. In doing so, it avoids a lot of issues. I suppose if the issues never rise it's a good thing.

Next Article: The Holy Spirit

Articles of Faith: The Triune God

2011-05-23T10:12:00.008-04:00

"THE PERCEPTION OF THE HUMAN MIND
cannot attain to the knowledge of the divine: but neither can a reverent faith doubt the works of God" (Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate X.69).

After a several-month hiatus, my series on the Articles of Faith within the Methodist tradition continues with Article I. My focus and goal is to survey and offer brief commentary on the theological statements that appear within the Conservative Holiness Movement in order to create a clear picture of the theological spectrum. This study is especially pertinent in light of several recent moves to re-write or significantly update our church manuals. I am presently involved in one such endeavor.

The first article that appears in our church manuals is on the Triune God.

When I look at an article on the Godhead, the first thing I look for is the prominence of the Trinitarian nature of God. In one case, the Trinity is entirely left out of the first article. This recalls to mind what one professor said, "If the Trinity doesn't come first it is usually is relegated to a secondary role or an afterthought" (my paraphrase). With the revival of Unitarianism (the persons of the Trinity are all one person), it is especially crucial that we understand the significance of Trinitarian theology and its implications for everyday life.

In keeping with the Anglican tradition and the OT (perhaps not in that order), the Methodist/Holiness tradition begins its theology by emphasizing the oneness of God. It is important, however, that there is always a clear description of the community that is in God's being. The CHM is clearly monotheistic and Trinitarian in its theology. With the resurgence of paganism and the blurry line between good and evil caused by Harry Potter-like fiction, the importance of being clear on the theological implications of monotheism and Trinitarianism is vital. The implications include (to name just a few):

God is not the world; the world is not God.
Only God is omni-anything.
Good and evil are not equal entities; evil is only a perversion of good.
Persons are made for community; our individual identities must be tempered by a healthy view of community.

The second thing I look for is how well-balanced the statement is in its description of the nature of God . For instance, which is emphasized--divine sovereignty or divine providence? transcendence or immanence? being or doing? For the most part, the Methodist/Holiness tradition has emphasized the providence and grace of God and therefore the immanence of God and what he does. The most obvious exception is the current Nazarene statement which seems to do the opposite. Of course, the best statement is to describe the tension between each point. Therefore, I conclude that the CHM leans significantly to the side of emphasizing the graciousness of God as opposed to the Reformed tradition's emphasis on divine sovereignty (this neat little bifurcation is, of course, not so neat as it sounds). This will be discussed further when we get to the article on mankind. The strength of our emphasis is/should be reflected in our preaching and evangelism. A weakness may be in our inability to answer tough questions concerning the sovereignty of God in saving, healing, providing, guiding, etc.

A third theological point that stood out to me is the omission of "without body, parts, or passions" in our statements. As you can see, this phrase appears in the Anglican faith and in the Methodist tradition, but has been omitted by most of the Holiness churches. The purpose of the phrase is to defend to theological points that arose especially in medieval theology, namely, the simplicity of God and His impassibility. Both of these doctrines are consistently called into question in contemporary theology. Divine simplicity, some say, is contradictory to the doctrine of the Trinity. In truth, there are all kinds of ways to affirm simplicity in perfect accord with the Trinitarian nature of Scripture which is why I am not defining "simplicity" here. Concerning divine impassibility (God does not have passion), it is especially bothersome to consider a God who is unaffected by us or by the happenings of the world. Does God really not feel sad, happy, angry, hurt, etc., etc.? Can our understanding of the world, esp. human freedom, be reconciled with an impassionate God? It is a difficult issue and one that the Holiness tradition has chosen to avoid. But, lest we think it's purely a matter of academic discussion, perhaps there are some serious pastoral implications here. (For further reading on these two matters I recommend John Feinberg's discussion in No One Like Him)

One final note: Many of the articles use 1 John 5:7 to support the Trinity. I would encourage more study on this point so that our people can be prepared for some tough questions if we keep it.

The Statements

1. 39 Articles (source)

"Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

2. MEC Articles of Religion (source)
Same as the 39 Articles

3. The Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1959)

Same as 39 Articles but omits "without body, parts, or passions." Adds in parentheses "the Word" after "the Son" so it reads: "the Father, the Son (the Word), and the Holy Ghost."

Also, the addition of the following Scriptures:
Gen 1:1; 17:1; Ex 3:13-15; 33:20; Dt 6:4; Ps 90:2; 104:24; Is 9:6; Jer 10:10; John 1:1-2; 4:24-5:18; 10:30;16:13; 17:3; Acts 5:3-4; Rom 16:27; 1Co 8:4,6; 2Co 13:14; Eph 2:18; Phil 2:6; Col 1:16; 1Ti 1:17; 1 John 5:7, 20; Rev 19:13

4. The Wesleyan Church (2008)
"We believe in the one living and true God, both holy and loving, eternal, unlimited in power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things. Within this unity there are three persons of one essential nature, power and eternity--the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

There are two changes here: (a) the addition of "both holy and loving" which comes out of the debate within the holiness movement about whether God is first holy or first loving (it seems to be a mute point now); (b) a couple of word changes have occurred, "infinite" has been changed to "unlimited" in reference to God's power and "Maker" has been changed to "Creator."

5. Allegheny Wesleyan-Methodist (1986)

Same as the Wesleyan-Methodist (1959).

6. Bible Methodist Connection (2000)

Same as the Wesleyan-Methodist (1959).

7. International Conservative Holiness Association (2002)
Same as the Wesleyan-Methodist (1959) with the addition of:

The Father is specially related to God's work in creation; the Son by incarnation is specially related to God's work in redemption; and the Holy Spirit by His indwelling is specially related to God's work in sanctification.

The added sentence is puzzling. First, why was there a need to add anything to the article? Second, why the ambiguous language of "specially related"? What does that mean? Surely it doesn't mean that only the Father works in creation, only the Son in redemption, and only the Spirit in sanctification. I'm a bit puzzled about what exactly is the advantage of this addendum.

8. The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1959)

"God
There is but one living and true God (Deut. 4:35; 1 Cor. 8:4; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kings 8:23, 60; Isa. 43:10, 11; Mark 12:32; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5); everlasting (Gen. 21:33; Rom. 16:26); without body or parts (John 4:24); of infinite power, wisdom and goodness (Gen. 17:1; Matt. 19:26; Psa. 147:5; 34:8); the maker and preserver of all things visible and invisible (Psa. 19:1; John 1:3; Col. 1:16). In this Godhead there are three persons of one substance, power, and eternity--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (1 John 5:7; 1 Tim. 1:17; 3:16; Matt. 28:19)."

This is the same as The 39 Articles with the addition of Scripture passages.

9. The Midwest Pilgrim (2000)

Same as The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1959).

10. The NY Pilgrim (2006-2007)
Same as The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1959).

11. The Church of the Nazarene (2005-2009)

"The Triune God
We believe in one eternally existent, infinite God, Sovereign of the universe; that He only is God, creative and administrative, holy in nature, attributes and purpose; that He, as God, is Triune in essential being, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(Genesis 1; Leviticus 19:2; Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Isaiah 5:16; 6:1-7; 40:18-31; Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19-20; John 14:6-27; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Galatians 4:4-6; Ephesians 2:13-18)"

This most significant change in the holiness movement definite occurs here. In the aforementioned debate between the love and holiness of God, the latter clearly wins out. Also, there is a definite emphasis on the sovereignty of God in such terms as "Sovereign of the universe" and "creative and administrative." There is no mention of the essential goodness of God or providence of God, unless we are to understand "holy in nature" as a divine beneficence (but how are we to tell?).

12. God's Missionary

"There is but one true and living God, everlasting, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things visible and invisible (Isa. 45:21, 22; Deut. 6:4; Ps. 90:2), and in the unity of this Godhead there are three persons, equal in power and eternity--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (I John 5:7; II Cor. 14:14; John 1:1, 15:26)."

The same as The Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1959) with the exception of the Scripture and the omission of "substance" in describing the equality of the persons. Is this a copyist's error or was the word deliberately left out? If the latter, for what reason?

13. Church of God (Holiness)
"There is one God over all, the same yesterday, today, and forever; the Creator of all things, and in whom all things consist (Deut. 6:4; Heb. 11:3)."

Simple and straightforward enough, but lacking of any statement on the Trinity. Is the Trinity foundational to theology? Interestingly, the Trinity does not appear until Article III which is on the Holy Spirit, but contains an additional paragraph that ought to be included in Article I. It reads:

"God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are three persons, united and inseparable, of one substance and eternal (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14)."

14. Aldersgate Forum (God's Bible School & College Ministerial Faculty) (source)
"God
[We believe...] That there is one God, self-existent and eternal, the creator, sustainer, and ruler of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their glory is equal, their majesty co-eternal."

This is the newest statement to be published within the CHM as far as I can tell. There is obvious continuity between it and the other statements within the Holiness tradition. It continues the emphasis on monotheistic conviction, it offers the clearest statement on the aseity of God (God has no source for His being; he is self-existent and self-sufficient). There is a good balance in the list of names (creator, sustainer, ruler) between control and providence. It employs both perfect-being ontology and infinite being ontology, the latter being the most popular in contemporary philosophical theology. I do not take the term "eternal" as time-specific insofar as it regards the debate about the relation of God and time; in other words, it could read either "eternal" or "everlasting" depending on your view of God's relation to time.

The statement also introduces the term "glory" in reference to the Trinity. This is a theologically rich word and is especially relevant in light of recent emphasis on the glory of God by Piper and others with little regard to the Trinitarian life. By specifying Trinitarian glory it counters any hint of divine megalomania (of which Piper has been accused).

15. Union Bible College (source)
"We believe that God subsists from everlasting to everlasting, manifesting Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being equal in essence, but different in office and personhood."

This statement is brief but contains a couple of complexities. First, the verb "subsists" is an ancient term in Christian theology (ancient as in "old", not ancient as in "out-dated"). It is conceptually like the word "hypostasis" which is usually used in reference to the personal distinction within the Godhead. Since the two words are derived from different languages (Latin and Greek) there is a history of some confusion as to the precise definition of the words. Here it appears to mean God's existence as a personal being. In this way, it is also a theologically-rich term versus the simple "God exists from everlasting...."

The mystery here is what the difference of "office" is. What is a divine "office"? I would have to do some more research on the formation of this statement to discover what is meant here.

16. Hobe Sound Bible Church (source)
"There is one God, eternally existent in three persons--God, the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Ghost (Deuteronomy 6:4; Hebrews 11:3)."

I'm not sure which phrase Hebrews 11:3 refers to: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." There is nothing in this article that refers to God as Creator which seems to be the point of the verse. The verse certainly belongs with an article on God nonetheless.

Other articles in this series:
1. Discovering the Theological Spectrum of the CHM
2. An Overview of the Articles

The Right To Free Speech After Twitter, Facebook and Texting

2011-05-10T11:41:00.008-04:00

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, NO,
millions of men and women have died for our right and freedom to be a continuous fount of uninhibited stupidity. And there are two groups of people who most notoriously exercise this right: athletes and Christians.

Have you ever seen a professional athlete interviewed? Somehow professional sports interviews have convinced us that it is a rare occasion to be both athletic and intelligent. Have you read about Rashard Mendenhall's tweets about Osama Bin Laden's death?1

"Welcome to Hell, Bin Laden."2

O, wait a second. That was clergyman and political figure Mike Huckabee's comment. I hope this doesn't mean that we can't be religious and intelligent.

I don't know either one of these men, so perhaps these are momentary lapses in judgment rather than my caricatured "continuous fount". In any case, momentary lapses in judgment can make an everlasting impression. And there is a big difference between our expectations of professional athletes and Christians (especially ministers).

There are more ways than ever for intelligent people to share their intelligence, and there are more ways than ever for foolish people to spread their foolishness. Is it possible that we are so technologically advanced that we can no longer distinguish between wisdom and foolishness? (How ironic that would be.)

Until this one, my policy for posting has been to write a post and let it sit for several days, even a week or two. What are your policies?

Keep the Hymnal (and the screen, but especially the hymnal)

2011-05-09T10:38:00.002-04:00

"WORSHIP HAS CHANGED in my church." When you hear a person say that, think, "Music has changed in my church," because in all likelihood that is what they mean. Worship has changed in my church, and, yes, mostly the music. The kind of songs that people sing, the way they sing them, the instruments used to accompany them--it has all changed in the typical conservative, evangelical church, not entirely but increasingly. We have new hymnbooks with contemporary choruses or no hymnals at all, more upbeat instrumentation, soundtracks are commonplace, praise bands, screens, etc., etc.

The change in worship style is not a new phenomenon. The church world has been undergoing the infamous worship war for decades and often conservative churches have reaped some benefits. But the conservative, hymn-singing churches that were accustomed to piano and organ and an occasional trumpet or violin are now changing. With little exception, worship has changed in the past ten or fifteen in these conservative churches.The hymns are still sung, the piano and organ are still in place, but bass guitars and drums and soundtracks and contemporary songs or renditions of old ones have introduced a new sound--close enough to the old to be acceptable in most cases but different enough to be noticeable.

For some the worship shift has been drastic, even over-night on occasion. For others, the shift has been more subtle. But unless we think that change itself is bad, it's not the change that matters but what has changed and why and whether or not the new methods and styles and forms are glorifying to God. There are good reasons for change and there are bad ones.

One of the welcomed changes, in my view, is the use of a projector and screen to post the lyrics of a song for all to see and even to be used in other ways that enhance our worship experience. One of the things about change, however, is that the introduction of new elements does not always necessitate getting rid of the old. Sometimes old and new work perfectly well together, even better than one or the other on their own.

I have recently been contemplating the place of hymn books in worship. I like to sing. To me it is often the most enjoyable part of a worship service wherever I am. I don't like just sitting back and listening to others sing. I'm not a great singer, I've never claimed to be, I know better. But I like to sing. I go to concerts to hear other people sing; I go to a worship service to sing with others. (I can hear it already: "Are you saying that a concert isn't a worship service?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. But that doesn't mean that worship can't happen at a concert; that's just not its purpose. But that is for another post.)

So when I go to a worship service and I find that I'm merely a spectator in a concert atmosphere, I don't like it. One of the quickest ways for me to tell whether or not I'm a spectator or a participant is to reach down for a hymnal. If it's there, that's a good sign; if it's not....

One thing about the change is that conservative churches still use a hymnal along with a screen. This is nice. I actually like to sing a familiar song without the hymnal so the screen is nice because I don't need the music. The screen can be used to display the words to Scripture, songs, the sermon, etc. But in some cases, a church has eliminated the hymn book altogether and simply displays the lyrics on the screen. I can only think of two reasons for doing this: (a) it is assumed that the congregation will be familiar enough with the tune to sing without the music, or (b) the song is simple enough that it can be learned rather quickly without the music (perhaps with the help of a praise team). But, in my experience, these are very bad assumptions because they are very likely untrue, especially for visitors. What happened to being sensitive to outsiders?

So, I offer the following reasons for keeping hymnals within reach:

1. The music can't be displayed on a screen (in most cases).
If you have a screen and you display the words to a song, you better have a CCLI license. (A word to the wise.) But often having a copyright license does not automatically cover the music itself, only the lyrics. So the first reason to keep the hymnal is to avoid possible legal trouble.

If the first reason is not practical enough for you, just try squeezing all of the music notations onto a screen along with the lyrics and see how it turns out for you. I have never seen it done, but that's not to say that it's never been tried. Simply put, it would be very difficult for everyone or anyone who cared to see the music on a screen. It makes more sense to keep it just a few inches from your eyes.

2. Music education begins at church.
According to my father-in-law who has taught music education for over thirty years, music education begins at church--not in the classroom, not at home on your ipod, and not at a concert. That is to say, music education should begin at church. In a world where anything goes for music, what better place is there for a person to learn what is actually sacred about music itself? And how can a healthy appreciation of music take place when the only thing we ever see is the lyrics to songs we don't know how to sing properly?

3. The hymnal keeps the hymns within reach.
Literally, three to four hundred hymns are within our reach if we have a hymn book in the pew or under the seat. If we get rid of the hymnals, many of those songs will never be sung again. There have been many times I have just browsed through the hymnal and thought, "We haven't sung that one for a while. I think I'll lead it next time." You know the music leaders have hymnals and songbooks at home or online even if they only use a screen during worship. If they can use it to choose the songs, why can't we have one to see what they didn't choose? Maybe there's a bit of accountability to this as well.

4. Holding a hymnal promotes corporate worship.
As I mentioned already, I don't go to church to be a spectator. I go because it is one of a couple of times in my week when the opportunity for corporate worship is offered. As long as we sing only the songs with which I am familiar, a screen is satisfactory. But not so if we decide to branch out a little or if a visitor comes in or if I've been singing the song wrong the whole time, and so on. By having a hymnal in our hands we are all literally and experientially on the same page. A screen is great, but a screen without a hymnal often creates disunity.

The Case for Home-school Education

2011-05-06T12:54:00.001-04:00

OVER 2 MILLION STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES
are educated at home at a fraction of the cost it takes to educate a student at public school and yet studies indicate that children who study at home consistently outperform their public counterparts on standardized tests.1

When a teenager or an adult is looking for higher education, more often than not he or she will at least consider online studies from home. What is it about being home that is so conducive to learning?

Home-schooling is not a recent trend--Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Edison and Woodrow Wilson were all educated at home. And lest you think the list is limited to presidents and inventors, some of America's most well-known people learned at home.2

The choice to home-school is personal and usually requires more thought than simply sending your child to public school or to a church school. It is not merely a choice for the student, but a family choice. A family may choose home-schooling because of socialization issues, learning needs, religious purposes, and, increasingly, a lack of confidence in other systems. With a growing number of students being tagged with a learning disability (statistics in the U.S. vary from 10% to 20%), parents are increasingly growing leery of these tags being used as excuses by incompetent teachers. In a sense, every home-schooler receives a special education. So what is so special about home-schooling and why should I home-school my children?

1. A parent is ultimately responsible for their children's education.
Our family has memorized Deuteronomy 6:4-7 which is the Biblical foundation for home-schooling. Even if a family is not home-schooling all the time, Christian families are expected to home-school some of the time, specifically when you sit in your house (mealtime), when you walk by the way (family time), when you lie down and when you rise up. Too often a child is turned loose at five or six years old and the parents are only occasionally involved in their education, perhaps a couple of times a year at parent-teacher conference, or perhaps they attend a sporting event or a school fundraiser (in my experience as a teacher, often only one parent shows up). Simply put, many Christian parents are not observing Deuteronomy 6:7 at all. While this passage may not forbid other schooling options, it certainly is admonishing us to do more than is typically done.

Yet seldom do schedule allow the kind of focused attention on training children that Deuteronomy 6:7 prescribes: dad leaves for work early, the kids get up and rush to school, perhaps a couple of times a week the family eats a meal together, occasionally the family joins together in a single activity, and almost always everyone goes to bed at different times. What better way to fix part of this problem than keeping the kids home. Mom (or occasionally, dad) rises with them, eats with them, plays with them, educates them, takes them out, brings them in, and tucks them in. This kind of family is more likely to eat together, to play together, and to have time together in the evenings or weekends because it is a way of life that is foreign to many. If this were the only reason for home-schooling, it is sufficient in itself.

2. A child's parent is her best educator.

One of the most frequent criticisms of home-schooling is that parents are not educated enough to be the best teacher for their children, after all, public schools require a college degree and certification. This is impressive for sure. But what's more impressive is that three-fourths of home-school parents have some college education and nearly 50% have a college or graduate degree. But regardless of that, there is no evidence that other students from other kinds of schools perform higher in testing than home-schoolers. This means two things: first, that a parent doesn't have to have vast amount of formal education to be a good teacher, and, second, the idea that a home-school parent must be certified is ludicrous, especially if it's certification by a educational system that opposes our values.

If a child's learning ability is a factor, the focused attention that is available from a parent is exponentially greater than the attention he or she would get elsewhere. The parent can gain an education in the child's particular disability and become a specialist for her child. No one else in this world is even interested in this kind of special, focused education. Whereas other school systems have to generalize, home is where real specialization takes place, and every child is special.

3. The home is the best environment for learning.
If a hospitable home environment is so critical for a pre-school toddler's development, what magically changes when the child turns five or six? Compound this when examining the facts of the public school environment. Author Michael Wilder writes that one out every four children in public school will be offered drugs or bullied. While your local public school may be less than the average, what are the chances of this happening at home? Socialization, that is, avoiding the wrong kind of socialization is a very good reason to avoid places where the wrong kind of socialization takes place, and this includes some supposedly Christian schools.

But socialization is not all there is to a learning environment. What about the curriculum itself? By home-schooling the parent is in control of the curriculum and there is a plethora of good options for Christian home-schooling. If you can't find good material on a given subject (which is hard to imagine), make up your own. It doesn't take a Ph.D. or even a college degree to learn enough about plants to teach a child botany. As they get older, let them seek out the information themselves and become more self-driven in their interest in botany. This approach creates a...well, creative environment.

4. Homeschooling provides more opportunities for creativity.
If there is one thing that online studies have proven to adult learners, it is that there are opportunities for creative learning. The largest adult-education programs in the country are home-based. Parents who home-school their children are not bound by a board of directors who tell them what they can or cannot do, a large class that requires a school bus or special provisions, permission slips from parents, or logistical gymnastics to schedule a special field trip for your kids. Yes, there are attendance requirements for your children, but most states are not concerned with what you actually do during that time. Why should they be? It's not like you chose to home-school because its cheaper, more convenient, more relaxing, and so on. You chose to home-school because you care. If you don't care, don't home-school; send them to someone who does care.

Back to the point...homeschooling gives the parent the flexibility to think outside the box, to make decisions on a whim ("Let's go to the dairy farm today!"), or to adjust the daily schedule based on the needs or desires of the family ("Dad has the day off. Let's go to the park together for a picnic!"). If you sense that your child needs a "break" or a change of scenery, you can make it happen. If your child is bored with your lesson on botany, improvise. At home great ideas don't become the logistical nightmares like they do in other systems, neither do the bogged down in committee. This is not to say that home-school is a laissez-faire environment; rather, it is (should be, can be) a time to learn and explore with your family and to train them to see the world through your value system. There is nowhere else in the world for them to get this kind of an education.

What IHC Is To Me

2011-05-04T10:44:00.002-04:00

FOR THOSE OF US WHO IDENTIFY with the Conservative Holiness Movement (CHM), the Interchurch Holiness Convention (IHC) is one of our annual highlights. I have attended the convention most years since I was a child, missing only a couple while I was in seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, and another during my coursework at TEDS in Chicago.

IHC is many things to many people. Here is a list of what IHC is to me.

1. A time to see a lot of my old friends. There are so many it's hard to have the substantial time to really catch up with everyone. But this year, even the brief conversations were meaningful, warm, cordial and heart-felt.

2. A time to make new friends. Making new friends is very important to me. I want to know who else is out there that may share my point of view or perhaps not, who has a skill or knowledge in an area that would help me to learn something new, and I'm always looking for new people to challenge my thinking and help me grow intellectually and spiritually.

3. A time to get a sampling of holiness preaching from around the CHM. I especially look forward to the Holiness Rally and the Revival Rally. The sermons this year were very stimulating.

4. A time to get acquainted with the spectrum of ministries, business enterprises, and miscellany that are taking place within the CHM, mainly in the exhibit area. I spent less time in the exhibits area this year than ever before and I'm not sure why. I did make it into the area two or three times, but I never did get to the last row of booths. I'm sure I missed some good stuff.

5. A time to keep an ear open for current trends, grass root initiatives, visions, proposals, concerns, etc., etc. Unfortunately, there were two people with whom I was not able to complete our discussions on some proposed projects.

6. A time just to visibly see how wide or narrow the spectrum of the CHM is growing.

7. A time to ride up and down the escalators as if I have somewhere to go in the middle of the day.

8. Okay, the last one was just to see if you were still reading. But how many of us have hit a lull in the middle of the day and we just need to get out and about? I felt it coming, but I went to the International service anyway...and I'm glad I did.

9. A time to feel like I'm a part of something big. This year it was big worship. Whatever else the Conservative Holiness Movement may be...conservative, holiness, etc., etc...we are worshipers first and foremost.

Little-known Facts about the King James Bible

2011-05-02T17:06:00.007-04:00

TODAY, ON MAY 2, 20011, THE KING JAMES BIBLE is 400 years old. In preparation for all of the hoopla surrounding this extraordinary accomplishment, I have been reading several books about the KJV--books about its translation, books about its place in literary history, books about its effect on culture and politics, and books about the English Bible in general. From this reading here are just a few little snippets or little-known facts about the KJV. Perhaps I'll share more later.

1. By some estimates, approximately 80% of William Tyndale's English translation is retained in the KJV. Of course, Tyndale only translated about half of the Bible.

2. The KJV translation committee included forty-seven scholars, all but one were clerics in the Church of England.

3. The KJV contains an excessive amount of punctuation because it was intended to be read aloud.

Photo Credit

4. Between the years 1611 and 1614, 182 editions--yes, 182!--of the KJV were produced. Between 1660 and 1710, 237 editions were produced.

5. The KJV was never "authorized" by King James or by any other king; it was "authorized" only in its popularity.

6. Although the translators were scholars in the original languages, the KJV is more of a revision of the previous English translations than a new "version." In the original preface, the translators credit the previous translations as part of their sources.

7. Some of the language of the KJV was archaic when it first appeared.

8. If the accuracy of a translation is based on its word-for-word correlation with the original languages, even though many scholars consider the textual basis of the KJV to be inferior to modern versions, it's a word-for-word translation and is more accurate than the "dynamic equivalent" translations.

9. In 1953, the year of Queen Elizabeth's coronation, she mandated that every child born that year should be given a King James Bible.

10. There are three modern versions that attempt to follow the King James tradition: the Revised Standard Version (1952), the New King James Bible (1983), and the English Standard Version (2001).

I would die, but would it do any good?

2011-04-22T14:00:00.005-04:00

WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT JESUS DYING? WHY IS HIS

death so important? Why is death so important? Couldn't God have simply spoke the word and, presto, the world is saved? Couldn't God have saved the world some other way? Why did it have to include suffering? Why not a natural death? Why not a more humane death? Why not the death of someone else? Why did he have to die at the prime of his life? Why is it that our own inevitable death is insufficient?

There are things that I would die for. I can think of eight of the top of my head. I may or may not be prepared to die right now for all of them, but if put in such a place where I had to make a decision, there are things I would die for. There aren't many, as one of my facebook friends said, "There are very, very few things in this world worth dying for...... Whew, thank God!" (Steve Blakemore).

Nonetheless,

I would die to save my family's lives.

I would die to obtain the freedom of my country.

I would die to keep a very important secret safe.

I would die to rid the world of a deadly disease.

I would die to save the life of the weak, injured, or disabled.

I would die to make the truth known.

I would die to preserve my reputation or the reputation of someone I loved very much.

I would die to obtain the joy of heaven (Heb. 12:2).

But there's one problem (actually there are many problems) with all of these. How can I be sure that by dying I would obtain any of the desired outcomes?
How could I be sure that my family would be saved?
How could I be sure that my country would be free, or a very important secret wouldn't be told by someone else, or that a new deadly disease wouldn't take this one's place?
How would I know that the person I saved from getting hit by a bus wouldn't die tomorrow with cancer? How would I know that people would care about knowing the truth?
How would I know that my reputation wouldn't be tarnished later?
And, how would I know that my death could bring eternal life?
I don't know how I could know any of these things, but I would die if I thought they were true and that they depended upon my death.

One thing is obvious--in any of these cases, death would be the last resort; not the first, not the second, not the third--dead last!

But even if death was the last option standing, how would I know that it would actually work, that my purpose for dying would be fulfilled? What if nothing worked? I wouldn't know. I would be casting all of my dice, betting my life, crossing the line. It's one thing for me to write a blog stating what I would die for if I was guaranteed 100% that my purpose would be fulfilled, and it's quite another if the chance of success was lower.

I would die it was 90% likely that my family would be saved.
Even 80% or, perhaps, 50% (I'm guessing now).
For my country to be free? What freedoms are we talking about?
To keep a secret safe? It depends on the secret.
To preserve my reputation? There are probably other good options besides death.
You get the point.
Everything depends on the likelihood that my sacrifice will actually affect the outcome.

Now let's change the scenario. Would I die if the outcome was made possible by my death, but depended upon someone else for my desire to be fulfilled? In philosophical terms, what if my death was necessary but not sufficient?

In simple scenarios where my death is all that is needed to guarantee the outcome--where it is both necessary and sufficient--it is quite easy to say, "Yes, I would die." But when my death does not control the outcome...that's a different question.

In real life there is a difference between dying intentionally to achieve a purpose and dying unintentionally to achieve a purpose. For the former, my "death list" is quite a bit shorter. I would die for my family member if I knew there was a chance they would be saved. In other cases, I would want to know very close to 100% that the desired outcome would come to fruition.

If I required 100% certainty, it would take someone with omniscience to let me know that the outcome requires this particular sacrifice. It would take someone who I trusted very, very, very much. Someone who had demonstrated that he or she has the power to tell the future with certainty. Someone who has the power to make the end result come about just as I desired. It would require someone who had the ability to make my sacrifice effective and to be sure my purpose was served.

In choosing death, there is utter helplessness; it's so final; there are no second chances, no time to second guess, or reevaluate, or conduct studies, or ask questions.

Nonetheless, people die all the time for good causes. We're so accustomed to war and death and suffering and violence and political causes and social causes and religious persecution, etc., etc., that just dying is hardly news anymore.

When we read or sing or preach about Jesus' death...so what? Other people die for good causes too.

So what is true about Jesus' death?

Lest my musings about what I would die for seem irrelevant, Jesus basically posed the same matter before his Father, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me."

Was Jesus asking a question? Did he have to be 100% certain before he could go through with it?

He knew the answer. And there is a little phrase in Hebrews 12:2 that indicates that Jesus, the man who suffered on the cross, died, and was buried, that he knew what the result would be of his death.

"...who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross"

But think about it. He had the joy of heaven before, so why would he come to die just to regain the joy he had already? What's different about this joy? It is the joy of sharing his joy with us.

And that's the difference. As much good as my death might bring in certain circumstances, in no circumstance could my death bring eternal life and joy to all people.

Though all Christians have been instructed to sacrifice, none of us have not been asked to offer this kind of a sacrifice, the kind whose death is salvific for the sins of the world, nor could we. My death might save a person's flesh, or free a slave, or make possible a cure for a disease, but it will never be effective in itself for the salvation of a person's soul because this circumstance requires not only a death, but a special death.

Consider.

When Jesus died...

The possibility of eternal life was given to all people.

The possibility of living without suffering and pain and death became a future reality.

The possibility of never experiencing loneliness, separation, divorce, and broken relationships was given.

The possibility of experiencing wholeness and happiness in this life was granted.

AND

The victory of truth over all falsehood, deception, and perversion was guaranteed.

The restoration of world peace was promised.

The final judgment was handed down over Satan and his imps.

And reservations were made for righteousness and justice and mercy and love and joy to reign forever and ever.

And, in all of this, the amazing thing is that Jesus died knowing that many of the very people for whom he died would reject it.

Jesus died. You should not only ask, "What good can it do for me?" But also, "What good does it do for me?" It creates certainties and it creates possibilities. All are incomparable.

The Case for Covenantal Education

2011-04-20T16:40:00.004-04:00

COVENANTAL CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS ARE POPULAR
among conservative holiness and fundamental baptist people. The idea of a convenantal school is to give our children a highly-protected atmosphere in which they are catechized in our particular theology and worldview. It goes along with the mindset that the world is the enemy and our children must spend a significant number of years preparing to engage the world. Schools of this kind are often closely affiliated with a local church or perhaps a small number of churches which are like-minded on the important issues. The Accelerated Christian Education is one example of a covenantal school although the same curriculum could be used for homeschooling or even for an open-admission school.

Here are reasons why I would use if I preferred a covenantal school for my children's education. Once again, I am trying to place myself into the mind of a supporter of this kind of education. Such a supporter may reject some of these or may have additional reasons.

1. Our kids are not confused by the plethora of views that they would encounter at other schools.
It usually takes years for a child to build up the fortitude she will need to survive in a world of ideas. A covenantal school is an extension of the home in its continued reinforcement of the principles my kids learn at home. Since the school is (in most cases) operated by the church we attend, I can trust the teachers with whom I am also personal friends. As it has been said by bankers, it is more important for my children to know the true than to be well-versed in counterfeit. My children don't need to be exposed to lots of viewpoints. They just need to learn in a Bible-based environment.

2. Our kids get the advantages of socialization while staying closely connected to the home.
Drugs, alcohol, foul language, immodest dress styles, violence, sexual oppression--these social disadvantages take place in public school and to a lesser extent open-admission schools. But in a covenantal school all of the students are accustomed to a Christian environment and such things rarely, if ever, happen. On the other hand, a covenantal school is superior to homeschooling because of the socialization factor. Yes, homeschoolers may socialize together periodically, but in a covenantal school the students are together for several hours a day every day and learn how to adapt to society more quickly than homeschoolers.

3. A smaller student body usually means more personal attention.
Covenantal schools are typically quite a bit smaller than open-admission schools which is actually an advantage when it comes to student-teacher ratio. Many covenantal curricula are individualized which allows students to study at their own pace. This is especially important for students with learning disabilities. Furthermore, even though our school does not offer as many programs or advanced electives, our students are able to gain a better grasp of what they do learn because it is individualized.

4. The government doesn't bother us.

As a school associated closely to the church, the government wants little to do with us. There is virtually no "checking up" on us from the local superintendent's office. We don't have to submit to the state requirements for the curriculum (which usually requires sex education among other things). We have an immense amount of freedom to meet each student's individual needs without being concerned with state standards. Yet, we set our own standard high (or our curriculum HQ sets it high).

5 Although we may not have state-of-the-art facilities, we are able to focus more on what matters most.
What matters most is a thorough-going Christian education. Learning the Christian worldview is more important than taking advanced Math courses or Science courses (which our school may not offer). After all, what is more important, our children's faith or their ability to solve mathematical equations?

Table Discussion for IHC

2011-04-18T13:53:00.002-04:00

Stimulated by Keith Drury's recent Facebook post on "CHM's fork in the road," and with Interchurch Holiness Convention coming up April 26-28, here are some of my thoughts on possible discussions within the Conservative Holiness Movement, or at least points that I would be interested in discussing. I offer the following ten points in no particular order of importance.

1. What is distinct theologically about the CHM?

2. What will the next wave of church manuals look like, especially as they deal with the membership issue?

3. How should the CHM relate to other church movements?

4. How has technology altered our stance on certain issues?

5. What are some new issues that face us culturally?

6. What are the latest ministry trends that affect us?

7. Does the CHM needs its own seminary? If so, should it be a collaborative enterprise?

8. What are the big issues that may be divisive in the CHM?

9. What is going on in the CHM that is making it most effective?

10. What has the CHM produced in the past year by way of publication?

The Case for Open-Admission Christian Education

2011-04-18T10:49:00.001-04:00

What is an open-admission Christian school?
On the spectrum of kinds of schools, open-admission schools are somewhere between public schools and what is often called a "church-school." Open-admission schools may be a ministry of a church or it may be a stand-alone entity. In any case, it is a Christian school run by Christians with Christian teachers and mostly Christian students. However, it is "open-admission" which means that it admits on a case-by-case basis students who are from a different theological persuasion or non-believers. In any case, a judgment is made by the administration that each of these students do not detract from the Christian atmosphere or from the goals of the school. One of the fundamental differences between open-admission and covenantal schools is that for the latter a Christian school is all about in-house training whereas the former views the school, in part, as an outreach. In this kind of school there may be students who do not attend church or make any profession of faith, but they are admitted because the administration believes that they can be positively impacted by the Christian influences at the school. If I was a proponent of this kind of education, I would probably employ something like the following arguments (at least these are arguments that are commonly used).

1. Open-admission schools allow my kids opportunities to share their faith with unbelievers and to clarify their faith by studying with kids from different theological backgrounds.

Experience has shown us that children are not ready to be sent to the "wolves" at a young age. To send a child to public school is just that. The desire to provide my child with an opportunity to share her faith is satisfied in a Christian environment where the school administration and her teachers are on her side, where the peer-pressure is positive, and yet there are unbelievers who need to be influenced toward the Christian faith. An open-admission school gives my child that opportunity without me worrying that she will be spiritually paralyzed by the social pressure she would be under at public school. If I sense there is a student who is having a negative influence I can voice my concern to the administration because they care about the spiritual environment first.

Open-admission also means that my children will be exposed to other Christians who do not interpret Scripture the same way my church does. Open-admission means open-mindedness, something that is out of hand in the public school and not allowed in covenantal schools or homeschools. But being exposed to other points of view, my children will learn how important it is to follow what Scripture says and not some theological tradition. They will learn that there are other Christians who look and act differently from us that will be going to heaven with us which leads to the next point.

2. Open-admission keep us from the "huddle" mentality.

By attending a school that allows "outsiders" my children are learning to avoid the "huddle" mentality which seeks to always shelter our children from the world. But since our children will one day be working with the world, have doctors from the world, bankers and financial advisers from the world, auto mechanics from the world, and so on, its important that my children learn how to open up to the world and treat them as human beings just like us.

They will also learn that the body of Christ is larger than our church since there are multiple churches and theologies represented in the school. They will learn to value diversity and yet be unified around the core doctrine of the Christian faith.

In some cases, if the school is large enough, my children may even be able to compete in sports or other activities against public schools and other large private schools which dispels the huddle mentality even farther.

3. My children are exposed to other ideas in a controlled environment.
Not to repeat the previous arguments, the point here is the controlled environment. There is balance between being open-minded and having a safe, controlled environment in which our children can learn the Christian worldview. Because there are unbelievers in my children's classes, the teacher will have to answer questions that come from a non-Christian worldview. My daughter or son does not have to bear the whole burden of being a Christian witness alone and yet they can engage the other students who believe differently on many things. In science class the teacher will talk about both creation and evolution. In social science classes we can talk about abortion, homosexual marriage, the dangers of teenage promiscuity and many other things from a Christian perspective. And we can read Christian books on these topics and discuss them with kids who come from families who experience these things as normal life. The perspectives that are available are simply not available in covenantal schools or at home and the controlled environment is lacking in public schools.

4. By allowing non-Christians to attend, the school brings in more revenue which means better opportunities for my children.
This is the least important of the arguments but is nonetheless a factor. Covenantal schools are usually quite small and limited in the quality of education they are able to offer either because of finances or because they are unwilling to hire a teacher that is qualified but does not see eye-to-eye with them. This is not necessarily the case in open-admission schools. By nature these schools may also consider diversity in their staff, hiring people from various theological backgrounds but all solidly Christian. By drawing from a wider church community and from the public itself, it is far more likely that this school will be able to afford to provide a better education. The education is superior to covenantal schools because the administration can afford to demand college-educated staff, most of whom will be teaching in their area of study. They also offer a better infrastructure including labs, practice facilities, art programs, and more. In some cases, it will even be competitive with the public school's infrastructure, but better because it can openly and unabashedly proclaim its faith in Christ.

The Case for Public Education

2011-04-15T12:06:00.001-04:00

I have never attended public school. Who am I then to make a case for public education? Well, to begin, I'm the sole author of this blog. But more importantly, I am a parent and an educator, and therefore I am interested in the best education which may or may not be public education. In this post I am attempting to make the case for public education regardless of my personal preferences.

Please Note: For the sake of clarity I am writing the following arguments as if I am in support of public education. The argument itself is no indication of my personal thoughts on whether or not public education is the best choice for me or for you. I will also attempt to make a case for other forms of education in later posts. So, with that said...

I send my kid to public school because...

1. It's Free!
Let's go ahead and get this one out of the way even though it's actually not true. You pay for it, I pay for it, my parents pay for it and so do my grandparents. My dog probably even pays for it.

In any case, money is a very big issue. If you're on a budget like we are (and like you should be) some sacrifices have to be made. In 2000 the average cost for private education was $3,267 per child per year. 41% of private schools though were under $2,500.1 More recent numbers place the average much higher.2 The Christian school where I currently teach part-time would probably be under the average but not below the $2500. Since most people have multiple children in school the amount becomes overwhelming very quickly. These numbers suggest that it would not be unusual for a family to pay from $5,000 to $10,000 for two or three children to attend a non-public school.

So if a family has to choose between the mortgage on their house, their car payment, gas for two or three vehicles, health insurance, groceries, and...did I mention gas? It seems like a family would have to have significant income to make it happen. It is a legitimate question to ask, "What do I give up? My family's health insurance?" We have to have a place to live, clothes to wear, food to eat, and even gas to get to work or school. At some point free education takes precedence over high cost education. After all, don't discount the possibility that some kids actually do go to public school and remain believers.

2. Public schools offer the best education.
I teach biology, physical science, chemistry and physics--all without a lab. Instead, my students watch DVDs or online lab reports where they watch someone else performing the projects described in their books. We have a very limited sports program. The majority of private schools do not have an outdoor or indoor track so by necessity the kind of sporting events a child may be perform well in are not options. This is just one example of many where a vast number of the 4 million-plus private schools are inferior in what they can actually offer a child. There are some private schools that do compete with public schools in these things, but they also are the ones that are on the "above-average" side of the average cost of private education (see above). Simply put, the more programs a school has the more expensive it is. Consequently, most non-public schools simply cannot compete when it comes to facilities and infrastructure.

Furthermore, public education has an accountability structure in place that is superior to the non-public school options (including homeschooling). The science teacher is trained in science, the English teacher is trained in English, and so on. These are the requirements for public school teachers. In non-public schools it is very likely that many of the teachers are "generalists," people who generally know something about Math, English, History, Science, etc., etc. And in many cases, they do not even have a college degree.

To summarize, the education at public schools is more holistic--arts, sciences, sports--, it provides better facilities for learning and has superior infrastructure in place to support learning, it follows a high-level of accountability and its teachers are more highly educated in their field.

3. Public schools give my child the opportunity to survive in the world of ideas.
Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where our neighbors on either side of us will have vastly different ideas from us (and probably from each other as well). In a globalized culture where ideas abound, we are on information overload. Our children need to know how to sift through the plethora of ideas in order to survive. Public education offers the best opportunity to do this.

At some point in my children's lives they will have to learn how to cope in the world even though they are different. Since I am a hands-on parent I will give them the Christian education they need at home in the evenings and on weekends when we are together. We have family devotions every evening in which we have "conversational catechism" which is form of catechizing in which the children ask the questions and the parents give the answers. The idea is to go beyond rote memory (that's included as we memorize Scripture and songs) and make sure they understand Christian concepts. They will, in turn, use this to sift through what they hear and read at school. Rather than avoiding bad teaching, we hit it head-on. The teacher is teaching evolution in science? We talk about it at the dinner table and I tell them why evolution is not true. The school says my daughters have to start sex education in third grade? I let them know that I have legal rights and my daughters will not be attending that class. My son is being bullied? That happens in non-public schools too.

Public education works for Christians if the parents don't surrender control of their children. This means quality time every day, training at home, staying up-to-date on the textbooks and assignments, knowing the teachers, engaging in parent meetings and conferences, and voicing my concerns publicly when they arise. All of this is teaching my children how to make a difference in their community and in their world.

Child psychologists agree that the pre-school years are the most impressionable on children, the time in which a child's mind is shaped and the course of his life is determined. If this is true, and if I take parenting seriously on day #1 (the day my child is born), then I have a five- or six-year head start on everyone else--a good enough start that they will trust me to be telling them the truth and to come to me for any question that is raised in their mind by something said at school.

The best way to know that something is true it to test it against other ideas. There is no better place than public school for this to happen.

4. My child is a missionary in her public school.

Public school is a mission field. Jesus commanded us to take the Gospel to the world and he didn't say that children are excluded. If I have trained my child well in the first five or six years then they should be prepared to minister to other kids their age. It's not like I'm sending them to be missionaries to high-schoolers. Since we go to a healthy church with lots of other kids, many of which go to public school, my child is able to socialize with believers and non-believers. She is well-rounded socially, and is better equipped to conduct herself around non-believers and is not afraid to engage in religious talk.

Also, if the teacher is not allowed to talk about religion, who will? Someone has to and it's up to some students to do it, so why not my student?

(Coming up: The Case for Open-Admission Christian Education)

Book Review: Love Wins by Rob Bell

2011-04-14T12:03:00.001-04:00

Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (HarperOne), 2011, 202 pages.

Rob Bell's latest book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell and the Fate of every person who ever lived, was released last month. Even before its release, controversy was already in the air as reviewers were appalled at the implication of Bell's title with its "universalism" connotations. Nonetheless, the book is currently #2 on the New York Times bestseller list for hardcover advice.

The book itself is written in a very conversational manner--short paragraphs, chic phraseology including one word sentences, no footnotes and wide use of ellipses. It is obviously pastoral, and despite hints of occasional sarcasm, it seems to be sincere. And, despite being written for a wide audience, Bell has raised numerous questions that have been the subject of scholarly debate for centuries.

Before I begin my detailed review, I need to make a couple of things clear. Number one, I am not a close follower of Rob Bell. I'd heard of him beforehand, but had never read any of his books, heard any of his sermons, or read anything else about him. Everything I know about him is from this single work. Consequently, my praises and my criticisms are necessarily limited to the context of this book.

The second thing is that I am reviewing this book as an inclusivist as opposed to most of the reviews you'll read which are written by exclusivists. An inclusivist is by nature a kind of universalist but not in the way Bell is accused of being (and may be). For the sake of clarity, a universalist, as it is commonly understood, is one who believes that in the end all people will be saved. I will explain this more later. I have read several different ways in which people who espouse this view think this will occur, but they are all the same in the end. However, while so many are concerned about his brand of universalism, in this review I conclude that the greater question is how he avoids being a pluralist. I will not claim that he is a pluralist, but his rhetoric certainly begs the question. But before we get to that, let's start with the title of the book itself.

THE TITLE
The main title is simply Love Wins. No problem, right? But who's love wins? God's? Ours? The non-believer's? Obviously you have to read the book to find out. In the end, it's just love--everybody's love. I expected the answer to come in chapter four entitled "Does God Get What God Wants?" And, yes, I expected to see a definite "yes," but it never came. Instead, the chapter ends, "It we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours. That's how love works. It can't be forced, manipulated, or coerced. It always leaves room for the other to decide. God says yes, we can have what we want, because love wins." And that's it! No explanation of how love wins, what love wins, who love wins, or when love wins--love just wins. Love, everybody's love, wins! Everybody wins. Life is a win-win.

So, why not Faith Wins or Human Freedom Wins or God's Grace Wins or something else? In the end, the title is abstract and don't expect any further explanation than I've just given you. But lest I would lead you to think that abstract is a bad thing, it's no so bad as it is unhelpful. But it's the subtitle that is cause for us to squirm.

What question would you expect a title such as "A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived" to answer? Exactly. What is the fate of every person who ever lived, Rob? ~~"Uh! I dunno. I just know Love Wins" is probably a summation of 200 of the 202 pages.~~ (Okay, that last sentence should be edited out for the sake of professionalism). But beyond the question which the subtitle appears to pose is the obvious audacity of the title itself--does Rob Bell actually think that he knows the fate of every person who ever lived? Ironically, this is what he accuses one person of at the beginning of chapter 1 (see below). Nonetheless, back to the subtitle. The title would have us believe that he is going to provide the answer to the question, "Are some people going to heaven and others to hell, or is everyone going to heaven?" But this is not the question he actually answers or even addresses. Rather, it's the question: "Does God allow everyone to determine their own destiny?" To which the answer is "yes." I think the subtitle is more for marketing than anything else. Nonetheless, the big issue raised by the title is whether or not Rob Bell is a universalist.

IS ROB BELL A UNIVERSALIST?
Bell is smart enough to avoid the term. I don't recall seeing it anywhere and I was looking hard for it. Nonetheless, here are some passages where universalism could be inferred:

(preface viii) "A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better....This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus's message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear."

His description is true, there are people who believe this. But what part is "misguided and toxic" and subversive? If the whole statement is untrue then the most I can conclude is that Rob rejects the existence of hell, but this doesn't mean that everyone goes to heaven as a universalist would assert (he may be an annihilationist).

(chapter 1) He tells a story about an art exhibit at his church. Someone posted a quote from Mahatma Gandhi under which a prankster places a sticky note saying, "Reality check: He's in hell," to which Bell responds: "Really? Gandhi's in hell? He is? We have confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know?"

These are legitimate questions. Perhaps Gandhi is in hell, perhaps not. Here he is simply attacking the arrogant claim to knowledge we can know that that person is in hell versus simply that people are in hell.

(chapter 1) Bells asks a series of questions: "Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number 'make it to a better place' and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? Has God created millions of people over tens of thousands of years who are going to spend eternity in anguish? Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving God? Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life? This doesn't just raise disturbing questions about God; it raises questions about the beliefs themselves. Why them? Why you? Why me? Why not him or her or them?

As intellectually honest as scholars like to appear, these questions touch a nerve (especially for predestinarians). But again, where is the inference of universalism?

(chapter 3) "Sin refuse to repent, harden your heart, reject Jesus, and when you die, it's over. Or actually, the torture and anguish and eternal torment will have just begun. That's how it is--because that's what God is like, correct? God is loving and kind and full of grace and mercy--unless there isn't confession and repentance and salvation in this lifetime, at which point God punishes forever. That's the Christian story, right? Is that what Jesus taught?"

His rhetoric indicates that he at least doesn't like the notion of hell as a place of eternal torment. So it may be that he is a universalist in the sense that those who do not ultimately accept God's love are simply exterminated rather than punished eternally. This is more properly called annihilationism, or kinda-like-a-universalist-except-all-people-aren't-saved.

The most troubling passage comes at the end of chapter three. Here I will quote the pertinent discussion that takes place in several pages. I think you'll get the idea.

(chapter 3) "In Paul's first letter to Timothy he mentions Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he has 'handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme'....What is clear is that Paul has great confidence that this handing over will be for good, as inconceivable as that appears at first. His confidence is that these two will be taught something. They will learn. They will grow. They will become better....The result, Paul is convinced, is that the wrongdoers will become right doers. We see the same impulse in the story Jesus tells in Matthew 25 about sheep and goats being judged and separated....The goats are sent, in the Greek language, to an aion of kolazo. Aion, we know, has several meanings. One is 'age' or 'period of time'; another refers to intensity of experience. The word kolazo is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so it can flourish. An aion of kolazo...the phrase can mean 'a period of pruning' or 'a time of trimming,' or an intense experience of correction. In a good number of English translations of the Bible, the phrase 'aion of kolazo' gets translated as 'eternal punishment,' which many read to mean 'punishment forever,' as in never going to end. But 'forever' is not really a category the biblical writers used. The closest the Hebrew writers come to a word for 'forever' is the word olam....When olam refers to God...it's much closer to the word 'forever' as we think of it, time without beginning or end. But then in other passages, when it's not describing God, it has very different meanings, as when Jonah prays to God, who let him go down into the belly of a fish 'forever' (olam)....So when we read 'eternal punishment,' it's important that we don't read categories and concepts into a phrase that aren't there. Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think forever.

The argument seems to be that God, in his love, will allow people to suffer "hell" either now or later until they are motivated to accept God's love. This is universalism. He even acknowledges this view later in chapter 4 "Does God Get What God Wants?" as one of many views and describes universalism has "a long tradition of Christians" who affirm it and he names Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius. For good measure, he adds Jerome who held the possibility that "most people" and Basil the "mass of men" will be saved. How ironic, he even mentions that Augustine said that "very many" will be reconciled. Finally, the clincher, "an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years" have affirmed it.

In the end, however, Bell adds: "So will those who have said no to God's love continue to say no in the next? Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that possibility. People take that option now, and we can assume it will be taken in the future" (114). The key for Bell is that heaven will never be shut even to those who die without Christ. In the end, we all get what we want. Heaven if we want it. Hell if we want it. Because love wins. (And those three sentences are Bell-esque).

ROB BELL'S SELF-DESCRIBED EXCLUSIVISM
One of the questions posed to Bell in a television interview is whether or not there are several paths to God. In the interview he was made to look like a fool. In the book he explicitly says that it is faith in Christ alone that saves (154-155). This is the only exclusive claim he makes. He embraces what he calls "exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity," by which I understand him to mean that a person doesn't have to be a Christian--part of the visible body of Christ--in order to be saved even though salvation is only through Christ. He is willing to allow that "Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland" are all possibly saved.

But his meaning is ambiguous: Does he mean that God can save such people without ever being reached by a missionary or preacher? Okay, no problem. The Holy Spirit works in the world through prevenient grace. Or does he mean that a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, and a Buddhist as a Buddhist, and a Baptist as a Christian are saved through Christ? This is a contradiction and cannot be possible. How can a person have faith in a religion that includes rejecting Jesus Christ as Savior of the world and at the same time be saved by faith in Jesus Christ? In the best case, Bell is ambiguous and, I'm guessing, confused. In the worst case, Bell sounds like a pluralist which is worse than a universalist.

MY TAKE ON BELL'S UNIVERSALISM
Bell cannot deny that he is a universalist in some sense. He can deny, however, that he is a universalist in the strict sense that all people will be saved in the end. Although he indicates that there is a real hell that follows this life, he is very optimistic about the possibility that it is not eternal although he never states so conclusively. Consequently, he is very optimistic about the possibility that all people will be saved.

But big deal! I too am optimistic about the possibility that all people could be saved--at least initially. Given my understanding of the relationship between divine grace and human freedom, I believe that God has not predestined anyone to reprobation and, therefore, it is not necessary for anyone to go to hell. Consequently, it is possible for all to be saved. But I don't think that's what Bell is thinking. Rather, he likes the idea that people will be saved after going to hell. Now, let me point out an important distinction.

There is a difference between saying that it is possible for a person who goes to hell to be saved and saying that people who go to hell will in fact be saved. The former is simply affirming that we will continue to have free will after this life. But the latter dismisses the possibility that people who go to hell actually want to be there; they are their because they never will want to serve God. They have hardened themselves against God so that even though God's is always loving and gracious, they would never accept his grace. Maybe this is the way hell (and heaven) is or maybe it's not--but it is possible. (In the case of heaven, the scenario would be the same--who would want to leave?)

So what this means is that Bell too quickly dismisses (by employing his metaphorical reading of the "hell" passages) the idea that hell may actually be physical and everlasting. (Think, Pascal's Wager.) But despite that, even though I am a literalist in my view of hell (e.g., hell is physical and everlasting), there are other views that are accepted as orthodox. See Four Views on Hell by Zondervan or Across the Spectrum.

THE MORE CRUCIAL QUESTION

To me the more critical question (not that the previous is not critical), is how Bell avoids pluralism? Sure, he affirms that salvation is only through Christ, but how does this actually happen? How can he attempt to be so indiscriminate with people of other faiths and yet exclusive in his view of Christ? As I asked previously, how can a Muslim as a Muslim or a Buddhist as a Buddhist be saved by faith in Christ and yet adhere to a religion that rejects the very basis of one's faith in Christ? In short, he doesn't answer the question here. But if the book has done anything, whether he intended it or not, it has raised this question and he will continue to be faced by it until he provides an answer. To avoid the implication that he is entertaining pluralism, he needs to provide a solution, and the solution, I suspect, will either require that he affirms explicitly his strict universalism in such a way that Muslims will be converted to Christianity and only as Christians will be saved, or he will have to back off his rhetoric.

IS BELL'S VIEW AFFIRMED BY CHRISTIAN TRADITION?

This is another question that is raised and needs to be addressed. Of those whom he names as early representatives of his view, only Origen is widely believed to have affirmed universalism. Arguably, the others affirm nothing beyond what I affirm above regarding the possibility that all may be saved. There are multiple places to go to read more on this topic. Here is one helpful article that addresses Clement of Alexandria.

Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, "Origen, Bardaisan, and the Origin of Universal Salvation," Harvard Theological Review 102.2 (2009):135-168.

In short, his assertions about a Christian "tradition" which he is following is not as neat and widespread as he portrays it. If he would reference his comments then perhaps it would be more believable.

CONCLUSION
My overall impression is that Bell is attempting to portray the Gospel in the light of optimism. This is a noble and worthy desire. Secondly, it appears that the views with which he finds himself disenchanted are largely exclusivist, Calvinistic-leaning ideas. If the resurgence of Calvinism has been the highlight of Christian evangelicals in the past few years, we should get accustomed to this kind of reaction because the idea of unconditional and limited election is still not widely acceptable, even if alternatives like Bell's are equally unacceptable.

Book Review: The Development of Augustine's Doctrine of Operative Grace by J. Patout Burns

2011-04-13T11:51:00.000-04:00

Although this is an older book (1980), it has retained significance in Augustinian studies. The author J. Patout Burns is familiar to anyone who has studied the history of Christian thought and should be immediately recognized as a heavy hitter. This being said, heavy hitters hit foul balls on occasion, and this may be one such occasion. Of course, this is coming from someone who is not a specialist in Augustinian thought so this review.

Summary
In six chapters (188 pages), Burns argues that Augustine's view of the relation between divine sovereignty and human freedom changed fundamentally in 418 and coincides with his battle with the Pelagians although the first vestiges of this change occur in the earlier debates with the Donatists. In short, in this author's view, Augustine's view of human autonomy diminished as he became more settled with a compatibilist view of free will. (Burns does not us the term "compatibilist" but it is understood so, particularly by Eleonore Stump in her criticism of Burns in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine.) Augustine's later views on conversion, inherited guilt, divine election and human freedom are notably different and new in Burns' view.

There are several points of the argument that interest me. First, is Burns' description of inherited guilt as a relatively late development in Augustine's theology. The second point is the assertion that Augustine ultimately "abandoned the defense of freedom" in his controversy with the Pelagians (p.126). Related to this is Augustine's supposed abandonment of the famous line at the beginning of his Confessions regarding our natural desire for God (pp.140, 184).

Evaluation
In an area of study where the mass of literature is overwhelming, Burns refreshingly appeals predominately to Augustine's own writings including frequent use of Latin (untranslated). References to secondary sources are scarce and when they occur they are usually in German or French.

Also, he is forthright and clear in the intentions of his argument. In each chapter he clearly states a thesis or goal and then pursues it relentlessly while offering detailed descriptions of the historical details of Augustine's life.

Burns is correct in my estimation when he states at various points that Augustine's position is unstable, especially including his view of human autonomy.

Although I've only read some 4,000 pages or so of Augustine's writings, I'm not yet convinced that there is as much movement in his understanding of human freedom as Burns proposes, particularly to the point of affirming a compatibilist view. On the other hand, I'm also not yet convinced on Stumps' version either. It seems to me that Augustine simply leaves the question open, recognizing real human freedom but incapable of relinquishing or explaining his view of divine control.

As with any theologian who writes over a long period of time, there is development. However, it is a major thesis when one declares that a person's theology can be divided in to "old" and "new." Since we charitably assume that a person is coherent, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one who would have us believe otherwise. Such is the case here. There is no question that Augustine's views on significant points developed, but the question is whether or not they changed fundamentally; that is, whether or not Augustine actually turned about-face so that what he once affirmed he now denied. We see in his Retractions that on some points he actually did reject his earlier positions. But to make the matter clear, Burns is arguing that an issue with which Augustine struggled his entire life--sin and its effect on freedom--experienced a fundamental change.

It seems that if Augustine made the moves that Burns argues, that Augustine made some glaringly bold moves (i.e., inherited guilt) that created issues as problematic (i.e., the origin of the soul) as the ones he supposedly resolved (i.e., the necessity of baptism). While this may be true, to argue that fundamental changes took place in his view of freedom and sovereignty primarily on the basis of his reading of Paul entails the assumption that fundamental changes also took place in the way Augustine viewed the relation of Scripture and reason; that is, rather than constructing a more textually-coherent doctrine of freedom, Augustine discounted the use of reason in interpretation (see my statement on mystery and logic). Even if the latter statement is not entailed in Burns' thesis, it at least raises the question and begs for an explanation.

The final point that brings Burns' thesis into question is how to reconcile his final description of Augustine with Augustine's earlier rejection of Manicheanism which was deterministic in its view of man. I'm not well-versed in Manicheanism, but from what little I have studied this is a question that was raised in my mind.

The Huddle

2011-04-09T00:03:00.007-04:00

Last year at the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia, I picked up a 125-page book by B&H Academic Press called Perspectives on Your Child's Education, written by four different authors who all take a different perspective. As a Christian educator and a parent with school-age children, I paid the $5 or so for the book and have been slowly digesting it since November 2010. The back of the book asks,

Where should I send my child to school?

In summary, the four views are:
1. Every parent should consider public schooling.

2. Open-admission Christian schools are preferable.

3. Covenantal Christian schools are preferable.

4. Homeschooling is preferable.

For clarification on what each view is, the first and fourth are obvious. The second, open-admission schools, are those Christian schools that allow for unbelievers to attend and may have any number of criteria for determining which unbelievers are permitted. In this view, the school is partially an outreach (my word, not theirs). The covenantal school is a Christian school in which only believers are permitted who attend a church that is conducive to the belief system taught at the school; unbelievers are strictly forbidden.

I would place the school where I currently teach (part-time) somewhere between the second and third, but probably closer to the covenantal school.

For the most part, although my mother taught in public school for 20 years or so, public education, I was told, is the school of the Egyptians. You will have to read the book yourself to see the full arguments for and against each view, but let me offer my own comments on some issues that have come to mind. Specifically, the impetus of this blog note is the analogy one author gives in arguing against the covenantal concept of Christian education. It goes something like this (in my own words):

Before each play (except the Indianapolis Colts), the team huddles and the quarterback calls a play. Within a certain amount of time, the team must break the huddle and get to the line to execute the play. At the line, the players face-off, player to player, helmet to helmet, face to face, waiting for the moment for the attack to begin. As crucial as the next moments will be, the first step towards being an effective football player was when the team got the call and broke the huddle. Staying in the huddle will only net penalty yards and an eventual surrender of the football. Play never happens until after the huddle.

So, this analogy is offered to illustrate the mindset of a Christian school that tries to "huddle" its children without ever giving them an opportunity to serve and minister to others.

Now I think there is some validity to the analogy. I've seen it; I've lived it; I've done it. And at the end of the day, I've concluded that I would like the huddle to last about the first 18 years or so of my children's lives so that I can be sure they understand the program, how to execute the plan about where they're supposed to be when they're supposed to be and why they're supposed to be.

I heard a remarkable point made by Bill Polian, the President of the Indianapolis Colts. He said (as I recall), "I tell my players that the media always has the advantage of hindsight and so they can nitpick at everything. Our responsibility is simple: preparation and execution."

Just like Polian prepares his Colts players, if I can help my kids spend the first 18 years or so of their lives planning, it becomes largely their responsibility to execute that plan in the last 60 or more years. I would say that's pretty much proportional to real-time football huddles.

So, all of that is to say, although Mr. Temple meant the analogy as a reason not to limit our child's education by sending them to a Christian school, I think I'm more convinced.

But lest you're not, let me offer further rationale. My parenting philosophy is this: As their parent (quarterback and coach) I have the responsibility and the privilege to call the play, explain the play, practice the play, etc., etc., etc., until I'm convinced they know it well enough to execute the play. THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD I am going to send my children to the line where the Church meets the World without that kind of preparation. My kids will be leaders, not followers of the world. When the world tries to push them back--we're prepared for that, we've practiced--we push back. When they want us to go left, we go right; when they push us down, we get up. We are not the world's whipping boy; my kids will not be the world's test cases, exhibits, or anything else. No, I want my kids to be the ones posing the probing questions that the world can't answer; I want my kids understanding the world in a coherent way so that they can spot the world's incoherency from a mile away; I want my kids being confident that the knowledge they've gained is the most important knowledge in the whole world, because it is--it's Christian knowledge. I want them to compete in the world of ideas, but with a distinctly Christian worldview. I am preparing them to not feel embarrassed or ashamed when they don't know certain things that the world thinks is important to know. What they know is the game plan--to overcome the world--and they are prepared to overlook the distractions, to avoid the defensive traps of the other team, and to run down the middle or the sideline or wherever it is that exposes the weaknesses of the world. MY team (family) will impose OUR will on the world; not the other way around.

How is this going to happen? It is true that in the practice field of childhood there has to be some real tests, but all of these are in controlled situations where I call off the dogs when the hitting is heavier than they are prepared for. I'll be with my kids when they work in the science labs at Indy's Children's Museum and sit side by side with people with vastly different worldviews. I or my wife will be with them when they go to reading time at the public library and encounter books that are inconsistent with a Christian worldview (and we point it out). I will be with my kids in the malls when they see advertisements that are provocative and sleazy--and we won't ignore them (who would I be fooling if I thought the kids didn't notice?), but I address them. "Kayla, what's wrong with that picture?" And she'll answer, and then I tell her what kind of woman that is in the picture and it's not so glamorous.

I'm a young parent, my children are not yet teenagers, and it's very possible that I will never feel like it's time for the huddle to end. But I suspect that time and nature has a way of making it happen. At least if I take the huddle seriously now, and, just like the coach who helps his team prepare, if I will train them according to the Playbook, the bell will ring, the huddle will break, the timer will wind down, and the plan will be executed (think 18-88 to stick with the football analogy that seems to fit so ironically).

For a good explanation of the 18 to 88 analogy see this YouTube presentation

Should Religions Collaborate on Social Issues for Political Reasons?

2011-04-06T11:38:00.002-04:00

One of the issues in my dissertation research is the role of other religions in God's economy of grace--whether or not God uses humanity's religious impulse as a means of grace. In this process I have raised a question to a few people out of curiosity: Should Christians in America collaborate with people from other religions on social issues such as opposition to abortion, homosexuality, pornography, etc., for political reasons?

Photo Credit

Let me explain the question.

The first question I anticipate is, "What do you mean by collaborate? To what extent?" Of course I want all Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Atheists, and so on to collaborate when it simply includes voting. I want everyone to vote the way I do. But "collaboration" in this question means more than this. I mean actually consolidating our resources such as time and money and reputation into a collective, organized manner in which, say, "Christians and Muslims Organized Against Homosexual Marriage" (I don't know that there is such an organization, but it wouldn't surprise me) becomes an active political movement.

Secondly, the question does not reflect what I think should happen; it is just a question of curiosity to determine what others think.

Thirdly, the question itself, if it is sincere, may assume that Christians by themselves are not enough to affect political change on social issues. (I do not think this is the case which is why the question is not sincere.) However, as other religions grow (and, by the way, I consider The Church of Latter-Day Saints a different religion), and as our culture continues to place a primacy on minority opinions, numbers may not be as significant as "collaborative efforts" (think, United Nations, or United Religions).

Photo Credit

Fourthly, if we answer "No" to the question, I will assume Christians should collaborate with Christians, but again, to what extent and are there differences between, say, Roman Catholics or Unitarians that would keep us from joint efforts? Of course, it may depend on what the issues are which are the reason for joining forces. But would this be the case as well with non-Christian religions? For instance, should we join hands with Jews or Muslims over modesty issues since all of us can ground our beliefs in Old Testament instructions on modesty?

Fifthly, the question (if sincere) raises the issue of whether or not the end justifies the means--that is, is it okay for people who are opposed on important theological issues to collaborate for the purpose of accomplishing similar or even exact social practices? What is more important, that we uphold the right social values or that we uphold the right social values for the right reasons? This, of course, raises the question of how different are religions in America. Is it possible for various religions to promote social values for the right reason? If so, then there is something inherently correct in all of the religions. If not, then there is something inherently contradictory. The latter is obviously the case, the former is not.

Finally, one may say something like: "Collaboration should take place, but not on a religious basis." The problem with this reply is that, in this view, our social ethic is detached from our religious basis or any claim to theological truth.

Now, here are some reasons for why a person would answer in the affirmative (I've already hinted at these):

1. Because right actions are more important than right beliefs, not that right beliefs don't matter at all, just not as much as right actions.

2. Because Christians should work together with anyone who agrees because it is possible that the non-Christians will be converted.

3. Because there are not enough Christians to produce political or social change; or, at least, there is strength in numbers.
4. We should live peaceably with all men (Romans 12:18), which requires that we collaborate with others to some extent.

Now, some reasons why a person may answer negatively:

1. Right belief is always more important that right action because right action follows from right belief.

2. Collaboration with non-Christian religions would undermine our distinctly Christian reason for acting the way we do. In other words, we would be equating our beliefs with theirs--the cost is too great.

3. Christians should not expend too much energy in such affairs because the world is going to get worse until Jesus returns.

Perhaps there are others possible replies. What would they be?

As a footnote, here is a small list of such collaborative efforts that I found through a Google search:

Photo Credit

Christians, Jews and Muslims collaborate for environmental purposes in Colorado
Christians and Buddhists have collaborated for "The Good of Humanity"
Christians and Hindus collaborate in regard to children
Thirty religions collaborate for living peaceably.

19th Century Atheism

2011-03-07T12:59:00.001-05:00

Every century has had its share of atheists though more recent centuries feature the most prominent ones--Voltaire in the 18th century, several 19th century atheists, and 20th century atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Sigmund Freud (who bridges two centuries). In the 20th century, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are the "Four Horseman" of New Atheism.

Of the 19th century atheists, the one that has interested me the most is Friedrich Nietzsche. I continue to read through his works which are at times simply bitter tirades (The Antichrist) and at others more sophisticated and mentally stimulating works (Thus Spake Zarathustra; Ecco Homo). What I appreciate about Nietzsche is that he doesn't hide the fact that once God is "dead" morals are out the window as well. No, I don't mean that this is something to be "appreciated," but his honesty and consistency at this point puts the New Atheists to shame.

A quick summary of the difference between old and new atheism:

1. Old Atheism was especially reactionary to liberal Christianity; New Atheism is reactionary to conservative Christianity in particular.

2. Old Atheism rejected morality; New Atheism attempts to construct a God-less basis for morality.

3. Old Atheism was content with its pessimism; New Atheism portrays itself as a positive social movement.

4. Old Atheism was individualistic; New Atheism is a consolidated effort.

5. Old Atheism hated religion; New Atheism is religious.

6. Old Atheism spent a lot of effort attacking Christianity; New Atheism strives to win converts to its own religion.

7. Old Atheists were especially philosophic; New Atheists often disregard the rules of logic and are prone to arbitrary definitions and rules of engagement.

Love Wins: Anticipation of Rob Bell's Controversial Book Coming March 29

2011-03-07T10:58:00.001-05:00

A friend of mine asked me about Rob Bell's upcoming book entitled Love Wins. My three-week hiatus has left me out of the theological loop so I had no response at the time. After watching Rob's video promotion for the book I definitely plan to get the book (probably the Kindle edition). I noticed that it is getting mixed responses. Of course, Justin Taylor's preview is probably the most widely read, but Al Mohler has chimed in as has one of my personal favorites, Roger Olsen. Of these reviews, I think Olsen's caution is correct. I also think that Mohler is correct in his suggestion that some key emergent theologians are turning out to be no different from the old liberals. I look forward to the book.

What I look forward to is, first, whether or not Bell is a universalist, that is, in the sense that all people will be finally saved an no one will ultimately suffer eternally in hell. I reject this view simply because Scripture describes that there are and will be people who suffer such agonies. I hope he ends of a generous inclusivist, and if so, I will be especially interested in how he describes the means by which people are included.

Articles of Faith - An Overview

2011-02-18T08:51:00.003-05:00

"FAITH IS EXERCISED IN LIGHT OF all that we know and believe to be true" (Michael Peterson, With All Your Mind, 49). From time to time it is necessary to re-examine our statements of faith and to determine whether or not they are able to communicate the timeless truths taught in Scripture. In a theological movement such as the Conservative Holiness Movement that is without a formalized creed, our faith is contained in our articles of faith found in the various manuals, disciplines, and handbooks published within the movement. Here I begin a side-by-side comparison between church groups identified with the CHM.

In this post I have listed the titles of the articles of faith as they appear in the church disciplines/manuals within the CHM and their mother denominations. Pardon the laborious lists; there really is a point to this. My goal here is to offer an overview.

The churches are grouped according to tradition. I begin with the Church of England out of which Methodism came, and then proceed to the Methodist Episcopal Church out of which the Holiness Movement came in the 19^th century, and then include the four main traditions of the so-called Conservative Holiness Movement. The four traditions are:

1. The Wesleyan-Methodist tradition

2. The Pilgrim Holiness tradition

3. The Church of the Nazarene tradition

4. The non-traditional or perhaps multi-traditional churches such as the Church of God (Holiness) based out of Overland Park, KS and the God’s Missionary Church.

The “mother” church of each tradition is in larger font and followed by the church group(s) in that tradition. The lists are found at the bottom of this post. The dates in parenthesis are the years in which the manual was published. In most cases, it is the most recent. Here are my observations.

Initial Observations

1. 1. For the most part, each church follows its tradition.

2. 2. The newer churches have significantly reduced the number of articles contained in their disciplines. The Church of England has 39, the Church of God (Holiness) has only 11. Most have 16-22 articles.

3. 3. The titles of the articles are often shortened in the more recent disciplines.

4. 4. The most drastic change is from the Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1958) to The Wesleyan Church. On the other hand, the Allegheny WM and the Bible Methodists are the same as in 1958 except the latter have added articles on Hell and Heaven.

5. 5. On the other hand, the Pilgrim Holiness tradition has taken the most liberty in adding and renaming their articles.

6. 6. Only the Pilgrim Holiness tradition and the COGH do not include some form of “Trinity” in the title of their first article although the article itself affirms it. All of the articles, however, do include articles on the Son and the Holy Spirit.

7. 7. Most have omitted the original article on the resurrection of Christ. I am guessing at this point that it was largely incorporated into the article on Christ, but we shall see.

8. 8. The ICHA numbers their articles differently. By leaving number gaps they are prepared to add entirely new articles if necessary. I suppose it never hurts to be prepared though I'm not sure what would come between The Second Coming of Christ and The Resurrection, Judgment and Destiny. (I had to review my Roman numerals for this one).

9. 9. The NY Pilgrims have the most visually attractive discipline.

Here are my evaluative comments:

Comments

1. 1. The Conservative Holiness Movement is first of all Trinitarian. We are explicit about our faith in the triune God who is one being, three persons. Whereas some traditions in the past have been plagued with Unitarianism, this does not appear to be a threat to the CHM.

2. 2. The “sufficiency” of Scripture is a priority in the doctrine of the CHM. In some cases, the article title even includes “inerrancy” to reflect 20^th century discussions on biblical authority. This is one of the chief strengths, in my opinion, of the CHM. Whereas other holiness groups have hedged on inerrancy and biblical authority, the CHM is solidly conservative on this point. We have avoided the “Bible wars” that still occur in the Church of the Nazarene and even The Wesleyan Church.

3. 3. The word “conservative” is a tested in the spectrum of change or lack thereof found in the lists below. Obvious changes took place when the 39 Articles were reduced to twenty-five in the MEC.

4. 4. For instance, while the Midwest Pilgrim Holiness Church has retained its social values (insofar as I can tell), it has taken the most liberty in making changes in its articles of faith. If the placement of the articles in our discipline is an indication of their priority, what does this say about the rest of the discipline? How willing are we to take our liberty to make such changes?

5. 5. It is possible for the CHM to develop a theological statement that distinguishes the CHM from the broader Holiness Movement. This is a thesis that will be advanced throughout this study.

The Articles of Faith

1. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England

I. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity; II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man; III.On the going down of Christ unto hell; IV.Of the resurrection of Christ; V. Of the Holy Ghost; VI. Of the Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for salvation; VII.Of the Old Testament; VIII.Of Creeds; IX.Of Original or Birth-Sin; X. Of Free Will; XI.Of the Justification of Man; XII. Of Good Works; XIII. Of Works before Justification; XIV.Of Works of Supererogation; XV.Of Christ alone without sin; XVI.Of Sin after baptism; XVII.Of Predestination and Election; XVIII.Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the Name of Christ; XIX.Of the Church; XX.Of the Authority of the Church. XXI.Of the Authority of General Councils; XXII.Of Purgatory; XXIII.Of Ministering in the Congregation; XXIV.Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People Understand; XXV.Of the Sacraments; XXVI.Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments; XXVII.Of Baptism; XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper; XXIX. Of the Wicked, which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper; XXX.Of both kinds; XXXI.Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross; XXXII.Of the Marriage of Priests; XXXIII.Of excommunicate Persons, how they are to be avoided; XXXIV.Of the Traditions of the Church; XXXV.Of the Homilies; XXXVI.Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers; XXXVII.Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates; XXXVIII.Of Christian Men's Goods, which are not common; XXXIX.Of a Christian Man's Oath.

2. The Methodist Episcopal Church (1908)

I.Of Faith in the Holy Trinity; II.Of the Word, or Son of God, who was made very Man; III.Of the Resurrection of Christ; IV.Of the Holy Ghost; V. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; VI.Of the Old Testament; VII.Of Original or Birth-Sin; VIII.Of Free Will; IX.Of the Justification of Man; X.Of Good Works; XI.Of Works of Supererogation; XII.Of Sin after Justification; XIII.Of the Church; XIV. Of Purgatory; XV.In Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People Understand; XVI.Of the Sacraments; XVII.Of Baptism; XVIII.Of the Lord's Supper; XIX. Of Both Kinds; XX.Of the one oblation of Christ,finished upon the Cross; XXI.Of the Marriage of Ministers; XXII. Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches; XXIII.Of the Rulers of the United States of America; XXIV.Of Christian Men's Goods; XXV.Of a Christian Man's Oath

4. The Wesleyan-Methodist Church (1959)

I. Faith in the Holy Trinity; II.The Son of God; III. The Resurrection of Christ; IV. The Holy Spirit; V.The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; VI.The Old Testament; VII. Relative Duties; VIII. Original or Birth Sin; IX. Free Will; X.Justification of Man; XI.Good Works; XII. Sin After Justification; XIII. Regeneration; XIV. Entire Sanctification; XV. The Sacraments; XVI. Baptism; XVII. The Lord's Supper; XVIII. The One Oblation of Christ Finished Upon the Cross; XIX. The Rites and Ceremonies of Churches; XX. The Second Coming of Christ; XXI. The Resurrection of the Dead; XXII. The Judgment of Mankind;

5. The Wesleyan Church (no date)

I. Faith in the Holy Trinity; II.The Father; III.The Son of God; IV. The Holy Spirit; V.The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; VI. God's Purpose for Man; VII.Marriage and the Family; VIII. Man's Choice; IX.The Atonement; X.Repentance and Faith; XI. Justification and Regeneration; XII. Good Works; XIII. Sin after Regeneration; XIV. Sanctification: Initial, Progressive, Entire; XV.The Gifts of the Spirit; XVI.The Church; XVII.The Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper; XVIII.The Second Coming of Christ; XIX.The Resurrection of the Dead; XX.The Judgment of Mankind; XXI.Destiny.

6. Allegheny Wesleyan-Methodist (1986)

I. Faith in the Holy Trinity; II. The Son of God; III. The Resurrection of Christ; IV. The Holy Ghost; V. The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; VI. The Old Testament; VII. Relative Duties; VIII. Original or Birth Sin; IX. Free Will; X. Justification of Man; XI. Good Works; XII. Sin after Justification; XIII. Regeneration; XIV. Entire Sanctification; XV. The Sacraments; XVI. Baptism; XVII. The Lord's Supper; XVIII. The One Oblation of Christ Finished Upon the Cross; XIX. The Rites and Ceremonies of Churches; XX. The Second Coming of Christ; XXI. The Resurrection of the Dead; XXII. The Judgment of Mankind; XXIII. Hell; XXIV. Heaven.

The Alleghenys added two articles at the end—hell and heaven—sometime between 1970 and 1986 (they do not appear in the 1970 Discipline). They have also added a note at the end of the list that reads: “It is not to be understood that a dissenting understanding on the subject of the millennium shall be held to break or hinder either church fellowship or membership.”

7. The Bible Methodist Connection (2000)

I.Faith in the Holy Trinity; II.The Son of God; III.The Resurrection of Christ; IV.The Holy Ghost; V.The Sufficiency and Full Authority of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; VI.The Old Testament; VII.Relative Duties; VIII.Original or Birth Sin; IX.Free Will; X.Justification of Man; XI.Good Works; XII.Sin after Justification; XIII.Regeneration; XIV.Entire Sanctification;l XV.The Sacraments; XVI.Baptism; XVII.The Lord’s Supper; XVIII.The One Oblation of Christ Finished Upon the Cross; XIX.The Rites and Ceremonies of Churches; XX.The Second Coming of Christ; XXI.The Resurrection of the Dead; XXII.The Judgment of Mankind

8. The Church of the Nazarene (2008)

I. The Triune God; II. Jesus Christ; III. The Holy Spirit; IV. The Holy Scriptures; V. Sin, Original and Personal; VI. Atonement; VII.Prevenient Grace; VIII. Repentance; IX.Justification, Regeneration andAdoption; X.Entire Sanctification; XI. The Church; XII.Baptism; XIII.The Lord's Supper; XIV.Divine Healing; XV. Second Coming of Christ; XVI. Resurrection, Judgment and Destiny.

9. The International Conservative Holiness Association (2002)

I. The Holy Trinity; V. Jesus Christ; X. The Holy Spirit; XV. The Holy Scriptures; XX. Original Sin; XV. The Atonement--Ground of Salvation; XXX. Free Will; XXXV. Repentance; XL. Justification, Regeneration and Adoption; XLV. Entire Sanctification; L. The Second Coming of Christ; LV. The Resurrection, Judgment and Destiny; LX. The Sacraments; LXV. Divine Healing; LXVI. Unknown Tongues; LXVII. The Family; LXX. Relative Duties.

Other churches in the Nazarene tradition not included in this study are The Bible Missionary Church, The Pilgrim Nazarene Church, and the Bible Holiness church groups which came out of the now defunct Church of the Bible Covenant after its demise in 1985.

6. The Pilgrim Holiness Church (1958)

I. God; II. Jesus Christ; III. The Holy Ghost; IV. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation; V. Original or Birth Sin; VI. The Atonement; VII. Free Will; VIII. Justification; IX. Entire Sanctification; X. Sin After Justification; XI. Eternal Security; XII. The Church; XIII. Speaking in the Congregation in Such a Tongue as the People Understand; XIV. The Sacraments; XV. Healing; XVI. The Return of Jesus; XVII. Resurrection and Judgment; XVIII. Destiny.

7. The New York Pilgrim Holiness (2006-2007)

I. God; II.Jesus Christ; III.The Holy Ghost; IV.Sufficiency and Inerrancy of Scripture; V.Native Depravity; VI.Free Moral Agency; VII.Redemption; VIII. Entire Sanctification; IX.Security of the Believer; X.Sin after Justification; XI.The Church; XII.Sacraments; XIII.Healing; XIV.Christ's Return; XV.Resurrection and Judgment; XVI. Destiny

8. The Midwest Pilgrim Holiness (2000)

I.God; II.Jesus Christ; III.The Holy Ghost; IV.Sufficiency of Scripture; V.Native Depravity; VI.Free Moral Agency; VII.Redemption; VIII.Justification; IX.Regeneration; X.Adoption; XI.Entire Sanctification; XII.Relationship to Regeneration; XIII.Evidence of the Experience; XIV.Security of the Believer; XV.Sin after Justification; XVI.The Church; XVII.Sacraments; XVIII.Baptism; XIX.The Lord’s Supper; XX.Healing; XXI.Christ’s Return; XXII.Resurrection and Judgment; XXIII.Resurrection; XXIV.Judgment and Rewards; XXV.Penance; XXVI.Destiny; XXVII.Heaven; XVIII.Hell.

9. The God's Missionary Church (no date)

I.The Holy Trinity; II.God the Father; III.God the Son; IV.God the Holy Ghost; V.The Holy Scriptures; VI.Original Sin; VII.The Atonement; VIII.Free Will; IX.Faith; X.Repentance; XI.Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption; XII.Consecration and Entire Sanctification; XIII.The Witness of the Spirit; XIV.Growth in Grace; XV.Sin after Justification; XVI.Healing; XVII.The Church; XVIII.The Christian Sabbath; XIX.Baptism; XX.The Lord’s Supper; XXI.The Second Coming of Christ; XXII.Resurrection and Judgment; XIII.Destiny

10. The Church of God (Holiness) (2001)

I. God; II. Jesus Christ; III.Holy Spirit; IV. Trinity; V.Scripture; VI.Man; VII.Salvation; VIII.Christian Lifestyle; IX.Entire Sanctification; X.Eternal Existence; XI.Ordinances

Mystery and Logic

2011-02-16T09:28:00.001-05:00

There are many things in the Christian faith that contain a great amount of mystery--the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the sovereignty of God and the will of man, and so on. In the history of Christian theology, many have attempted to resolve theological challenges by asserting that they are super-rational; that is, they are above or not subject to our categories of logical coherence. In this view, there may be truths that actually are irrational but we can never know it. Often this kind of an argument is employed to avoid tough questions and is often labeled fideism (the idea that faith is its own reason).

Others have suggested that there are, in fact, contradictory truths that we just have to hold in tension. Again this ends in fideism because it says that the ultimate reason for having faith in these contradictory truths (is that an oxymoron?) is faith itself. In this case, Christian doctrine is actually admitted to be irrational.

And still others, the majority, believe that all truth coheres and one truth can never be actually contradictory to other truths. This is where true Christianity lies. This does not mean that we know what every reason is but only that we know that there is coherent reason for believing.

The super-rational option is especially popular in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition. Those who accept this explanation (or rather, non-explanation) simply appeal to mystery. Such appeals are legitimate until it concerns two assertions that are logically incoherent as is the case with the Calvinist understanding of divine sovereignty and human free will. Appeal to mystery at this point is tantamount to the post-modern, post-foundational turn away from the rules of logic which, by the way, are not human constructions but are part of the order of divine creation.

It is not sufficient to just say God is one and God is three, Christ is both human and divine, God is sovereign and man is free, etc., etc. If all of these statements are taken in a way the terms are frequently employed in other contexts, they are not mysterious, they are flat-out contradictory. Therefore, it is not acceptable to simply accept that what in other cases we would reject is acceptable because it is Christian tradition.

The truth is that none of these propositions (nature of the Trinity, two natures of Christ, sovereignty and FW) are actually contradictory. But it is up to Christian theologians to demonstrate this (and they have been), but too often ordinary Christians assume that the Christian faith assumes logically incoherent statements to be true, which is not the case at all. Quite frankly, I am quite frustrated when people too quickly turn to "mystery" when what they have said is logically incoherent. Anything that is logically incoherent is simply not true, no matter how mysterious it is. There are Christian truths that are mysterious but they are not incoherent. Therefore, when the a Christian truth seems to be not only mysterious but also incoherent, we are obligated to show how it can be true. Showing how a statement (God is one and three) can possibly be true is different from comprehending the entire mystery of the Trinity. In Christian faith, mystery and logic cohere. There is enough logic for us to affirm the mystery, although logic does not comprehend the mystery.

The same principles apply to scientific mysteries, historical mysteries, etc., etc.

Theological Potpourri: January in Review

2011-02-12T12:17:00.002-05:00

No TV and Loving It!
I love encountering stories like this. They are encouraging and let me know that I'm not the only "weirdo" out there without a TV. It seems to me that our use/misuse/abuse of the various media outlets such as television, internet, ipods, ipads, iphones, iwhatevers, has a large bearing on our attunedness to Christian piety.

The Holiness Movement and Biblical Inerrancy

I'm not sure why Tom Oord is so excited about having Randy Maddox lecture on how Wesley was not an "inerrantist." And how helpful is his definition of inerrancy:

"accurate in every detail, including historical allusions and descriptions on the natural world.”

I can only suppose since he does not indicate otherwise that either he means "accurate" as in everything should be taken in the same generic sense, or that there are some criteria for determining what is or is not accurate. On what authority can the latter be provided, and why should we trust that criteria as inerrant itself?

Oord's own words:

"free human authors of Scripture can make errors or have misunderstandings

that do not affect the main message in the biblical text."

This is the lamentable trend of the broader holiness movement and another defining line between it and the CHM. Thankfully, I have dozens of Nazarene pastor-friends who also lament this trend.

Exclusivism versus Inclusivism
William Lane Craig is perhaps the best-known Wesleyan exclusivist. Here are a couple of his articles on the issue (see here and here). Login is required (registration is free).

The Center for Theological Studies blog has a piece on inclusivism.

Other Miscellany

Arminian Today has an interesting article on changing fads in the church.

Roger Olsen poses an interesting question to John Piper and his homeboy, Jonathan Edwards, on the atonement. Have they turned away from penal substitution?

A challenge from CT on memorizing Scripture. My own personal revival recently has been along these lines. I can just hear the critics now, "But Peyton Manning gets paid to do that...." And Christians won't?

This has absolutely nothing to do with theology in itself, except I am using the story in my next sermon on February 13. It's about Felix Baumgartner's 120,000 foot skydive.

A Brief Thought on Divine and Human Freedom

2011-02-08T16:16:00.001-05:00

It is not necessary to say that God is free like human beings are free, that is, to be able to do good or evil. It is apparent from the beginning of man that God endowed Adam with abilities that he himself does not possess, namely, the ability to turn to an evil will. We must conclude that human freedom is different from divine freedom though both are rightly called freedom. Freedom to do good is not a problem for freedom; freedom to do only evil is. Human freedom should not be defined in relation to the kind of freedom we suppose God has, but rather in relation to the kind of freedom that God originally gave man at creation.

Theological Potpourri

2011-01-29T20:30:00.008-05:00

In the world of theological blogs, here is a quick survey of discussions that interest me.

Latest in the Exclusivist-Inclusivist Debate

Roger Olsen has an interesting thought experiment on the logic of restrictivism. This is an interesting topic to me and one that is related to my dissertation. The most interesting comment is:

"Now, does classical, historical Arminianism necessarily lead to inclusivism? No. There is no necessary connection–any more than classical, historical Calvinism leads to hyper-Calvinism or fatalism."

He would know better than me whether or not the theology of Arminius himself leads necessarily to inclusivism, but it seems to me that Methodist theology, which John Rankin called "the palladium of Arminianism in this country" in 1856, does lead to an inclusive position, though perhaps not as radically as some have taken it.

In short, how can one affirm prevenient grace in the Wesleyan sense (the universality of PG is what I have in mind especially) and not be an inclusivist? Or, in other words, how can a Wesleyan who accepts PG be a restrictivist without being inconsistent?

Terry Tiesson raises this question to Olsen in the comments, but then says that it is coherent to affirm that God may unconditionally elect some but conditionally elect others?!? Go figure. How is this consistent? In fairness, perhaps he is defining inclusivism differently that I am. Inclusivism is any view that says that no person is without an opportunity to be saved. There are, of course, a lot of variations, but this is it in a nutshell. Exclusivism, then, is the view that God simply does not give all people an opportunity to be saved. This is a discussion that I will follow-up on later as it develops.

A Theological Analysis of Obamacare

My friend and mentor at Third Millennium Faith, Dr. Steve Blakemore, takes on the liberal Christian support of Obamacare. It is a bit lengthy for a blog, but is worth the read (see it here)

Bible version/translation issues.

Ben Witherington is in the process of moving his blog to another location, but here is an article that is still on his old one (and will be moved to the new one). He argues that the new 2011 version of the NIV is superior to other English translations including the ESV. I am looking forward to seeing it.

(photo credit)

A key sentence in Stan Gundry's description of the committee proceedings:

"If readers are to understand it in the way it was meant, translators need to express the unchanging truths of the Bible in forms of language that modern English speakers find natural and easy to comprehend."

According to the findings, the word "they" has become a standard replacement for singular antecedents. Consequently, I expect more problems with how the NIV render/distinguishes the plural and singular forms. Also, I can't help but think, "We've come along ways from the KJV which was formative to the English language." And those who know me know I am not a big advocate of the KJV--but I still use it and I especially like it for memorization (though I always check it in the original language).

Calvinism versus Arminianism

Whatever you think about John Piper, in person he is humble and radically focused on loving God, even if his writings are frustrating and even offensive to an Arminian. His admonition to Calvinists is worthy of reading as an admonition to Arminians as well. In the end, labels don't matter as much as the substance of our faith--and that goes for conservative Wesleyans as well.

(John Calvin)

Altar Work

2011-01-29T17:47:00.005-05:00

Altar work. It is touchy, sensitive, delicate, fragile, emotional, impressionable, and female. (No, not the last one.) People who have been brought up in the altar-calling revivalist tradition have probably developed a special relation with the altar. That altar may be like a security blanket--a place of comfort. Or the altar may be like the judgement seat--a place of dread (assuming that humans naturally dread judgment). Perhaps the altar is a ticket like I thought when I first went as an eight year old. I left thinking, "Only one more time in my life do I have to get up in front of everyone and walk down the isle and be the focus of so much attention (for E.S. of course)." To others the altar may simply be reassurance amidst a life filled with doubts, a refocusing on what matters more than anything else in this life. Whatever it is, it is personal.

For many years now I have been fascinated by altar work. Actually, since I was a child when I would observe how different people prayed. I've seen people do all kinds of things during altar times--forget who they're praying for, fall asleep, laugh hysterically, jump on the altar, get mad and leave, refuse to talk to anyone, turn white and nearly faint, etc., etc.

A number of people have touched me profoundly in the way they conduct altar work, perhaps none more than Joe Smith (Shelbyville, IN), and he probably doesn't even know it unless he reads this. I recall one time at a campmeeting when a seeker seemed to laboring endlessly to no avail. After quietly praying for sometime in the background, he wisely approached the seeker and encouraged him or her (I don't recall) to start worshiping. This may seem simply, but you would have to have seen his countenance, heard his voice, and watched as he almost physically lifted the seeker's face (and heart) toward God. Amazing!

So, all of that to come to a brief list of altar work principles that I have compiled from watching others. If you are a seeker:

1. Be prepared to share with someone what your need is, generally or specifically.

2. Expect to receive some guidance from God's Word.

3. Don't leave until you've made up your mind and you know what the very next step is, even if you're not sure what the one after that will be.

4. If you're not sure why you are going to the altar and you just feel like you should go, don't be afraid to say, "I just need to spend some time talking to God," or some other kind way of telling us altar hawks to "bug off, this is between me and God."

If you are an altar worker:

1. Take your Bible with you to the altar, and then use it appropriately. Have some key passages relating to various needs memorized.

2. Don't be afraid to ask the seeker how you can help him or her pray. It's okay to ask if there is a specific need while looking at them in the eye (if possible) but make sure your voice is tender and your demeanor is soothing so as not to scare them. If they don't give something specific, be content.

3. Don't ever, ever, ever assume that you know what the seeker is seeking. I've seen some very embarrassed people.

4. If the seeker tarries for some time, start worshiping God.

5. Keep the counseling sessions for another time if possible (it's not always).

6. On rare occasions, tell the seeker to get off their knees and go obey God, simple as that. (I've seen several seasoned ministers do this, and I respect it, and have done it myself once). I suppose you have to know the person fairly well and/or be very perceptive.

7. If people are still praying, but the congregation is doing nothing but getting antsy--sing all 15 verses of "I'll say yes." Just kidding, but sing, exhort, sing, sing some more (most people like singing), do something. Unless its unmercifully late in the evening and the children are out of hand, keep the people around to see the victory.

I believe in the power of public seeking. I am glad that the altar is part of my heritage. I am eager to see how future generations experience it and view it and use it in the rapidly changing church culture. I hope it stays around for another hundred-plus years.

photo credits

Where do we get our theology?

2011-01-28T12:44:00.001-05:00

Everyone is a theologian in the sense that everyone has thoughts about God--the only difference is that some are good theologians and others are bad ones. Well, actually, there may be another difference, namely, where we get our theological ideas. Most people get their idea about God and how God operates in the world from one of the following sources.

1. Preaching

Herman Melville, Moby Dick (Everyman’s Library edition), page 60.

“The pulpit leads the world…Yes, the world’s a ship on its passage out, and not a voyage complete; and the pulpit is its prow.”

This is the most obvious source, or is it? I once heard a speaker say with passionate conviction, "That's not theological; it's just the truth!" Hmmm?!?! Preachers, whether you like it or not, you are a theologian. That's not the question. The question is whether or not you are a good one.

I dare to say that despite our notoriety for forgetting what the preacher preached, we tend to remember concepts more than the specifics, which is what makes preaching both powerful and dangerous because the subject matter is, after all, God. We are especially susceptible to preachers who are passionate, preach with conviction, and preach simple, unsophisticated sermons. Too often, however, lack of preparation and rigorous study of Scripture make for a poor sermon theologically regardless of how well the preacher preached. On the other hand, a preacher who has carefully studied the Scripture in preparation for his sermon and has attempted to work through the theological implications can make a positive, life-long impact on a person (if they are passionate, convincing, and simple. How ironic!).

2. Prayer

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (Barnes & Noble edition), book 11, chapter 4

"A man should be dissolved in prayer."

(Doestevsky is probably my favorite 19th century novelist).

Have you ever really listened to people pray at church? If not, stop and listen sometime. The way people talk to God says much about what they believe about him. Is God a lever to be pulled, a button to be pushed, or a puppet to be manipulated? Or is God the sovereign Lord to whom we appeal for grace in our time of need?

I'll include altar work here as well. I've witnessed a group of preachers praying their heart out for God to put something into the seeker while others were praying for God to take something out. Maybe they're both right, but it sure sounds confusing without explanation.

3. Sunday School

Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels, 157

"It is scarcely worthwhile becoming an expert on something one believes to be insignificant."

Sunday School is one of the few opportunities people have to ask questions. And receiving a good answer is dependent upon the same requirements a preacher has for preaching a good sermon--how well the teacher knows Scripture and can make theological connections. But do you know how many bizarre Sunday School lessons I've sat through (and probably taught a few)? (By the way, I attend an excellent Sunday School currently). At other times the lesson may be great but as an open forum discussion can be too overwhelming to make sense of in the time allotted.

Many Sunday School teachers have some formal Bible training and ministry experience which are a rich source for them to draw from. But sometimes a church plugs in "whosoever will" regardless of their ability. A well-controlled Sunday School taught by a qualified, clear-thinking teacher can be a fruitful experience. I am in favor of Sunday School, or at least the concept of formal education in the church. Since when does formal education have to be separated from worship?

4. Popular Christian Literature

Herman Melville, Moby Dick (Everyman’s Library), 476

“To produce a mighty book, you must choose a mighty theme. No great and enduring volume can ever be written on the flea, though many there be who have tried it.”

(Who would have thought writing about a whale for nearly 600 pages could produce a mighty book?)

Christianity Today recently ran an article on the effectiveness and popularity of Beth Moore (see it here). John Piper, Henry Blackaby, John Ortberg, Charles Swindoll and dozens of others continue to be the best sellers among Christian authors. For the most part these authors stick to the basics. But remember, there are some very basic theological differences between them (most of them are Calvinists) and us (Wesleyan-Arminians). The Wesleyan Publishing House seems to be doing a good job producing contemporary literature for Christian living, but in publishing circles it is known that Wesleyans don't read as much as Calvinists (at least according to one large publisher) so I don't expect to see many of these books on best seller lists, but maybe we can change that. Most of the Christian living material available at your local Christian bookstore is probably not going to be favorable toward the Wesleyan doctrine of holiness.

5. Radio Programs and Podcasts

American Family Radio, Moody Broadcasting, Focus on the Family, and a bunch of individual ministries (I like William Lane Craig's podcast at his site Reasonable Faith) provide a wide variety of programs that are a tremendous source. Once again, this is a mixed bag, containing good theologians and bad ones.

SUMMARY

So, how do we determine whether or not our sources of theology are spouting good or bad theology? Ah, that's the bottom line. No matter how charismatic, how convincing, how good of a story-teller one is, or how contemporary, glossy, interactive their presentation is, we are duty-bound to sift all things through Scripture and reason. Scripture because it alone is infallible; reason because Scripture is coherent and bad theology can usually be identified by its incoherency or by its inability to answer the tough questions.

Finally, even though what we think about God matters greatly, even if we are wrong-headed, I think what CS Lewis said in his sermon The Weight of Glory is right:

"I read in a periodical the other day that the fundamental thing is how we think of God. By God Himself, it is not! How God thinks of us is not only more important, but infinitely more important."

Church Review: Vineyard Community Church (Cincinnati, OH)

2011-01-26T07:50:00.013-05:00

*Caveat: As a pastor I always encouraged church-seekers to attend a church three Sundays in a row in order to get the real church experience. So, in light of this advice, I should acknowledge that this review is based on a single experience. Also, this is not an endorsement of the church under review.

On rare occasions I get the opportunity to attend a church, usually a mega-church of 5,000 or more attendees, simply out of curiosity. In all sincerity, I don't do this in order to nitpick. I'm honestly interested in what the large churches are doing to attract a crowd and spread the Gospel. Not that attracting a crowd is the end, but it certainly helps.

WHY THE VINEYARD COMMUNITY CHURCH?

Last year I had the opportunity to visit the Vineyard Community Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. I had attended quite a few years ago and so this was my second time. My original attraction was Steve Sjogren (pronounced SHO-grin) who wrote the highly recommended Conspiracy of Kindness and popularized the idea of kindness outreach (which I've been privileged to participate in...and it works!). Steve has since relocated to Florida because of health problems (according to the nice lady who was quite eager to divulge all relevant and irrelevant information about the Vineyard).

LOCATION

The church is located in a northern suburb of Cincinnati, near the Tri-County Mall. Fortunately I was able to remember the general location because there is no signage on Kemper Road.

Obviously people don't just stumble into this place since it's nicely (or aggravatingly) hidden behind Dicks Sporting Goods.

SCHEDULE

The service, or celebration as they call it, I attended began at 10:30--I showed up fashionably late at 10:40 along with 200 other people. The service ended promptly at 11:30 (a noon service followed).

LOGISTICS

The massive parking lot was nearly full but we found a parking spot rather quickly. None of the parking spots insofar as I could tell were far from an entrance (there is at least one in each direction, probably more). After entering I headed straight for the balcony. If there was a greeter I was in too big of a rush to notice (sorry, no points for the greeter). Finding a seat in the dimly lit auditorium was not difficult. I plopped comfortably into a padded theater-style seat about 200 feet from the platform with several empty seats around me.

WORSHIP EXPERIENCE

The music was already in full swing when I secured my seat and no one (except me) was sitting down (soon I was). I noticed several people's lips were moving with the song. I assume they were singing the song I had never heard and would have had to have several rehearsals to learn if I did. I enjoyed the free 15-minute concert since I hadn't quite settled into this style of worship. Immediately following the string of worship choruses, a nature video (I'm not sure what else to call it) began showing on the six or eight screens scattered throughout the auditorium. There were no words, only background music. Before I knew it an offering bag was passed down my row. As soon as the video ended, and while the ushers were still collected, a man stepped forward and with incredible stage presence, flawless demeanor, and a commanding voice stood center-stage and said, "Um! Hi!" Two or three stories and ten minutes later, I realized this was the sermon. He spoke for forty minutes, posted a few Scripture passages on the screen, made some really good points, and announced that he was done...and that was it. Everyone stood up and left, so I followed suit. Quite an abrupt ending.

THE CHURCH

I already mentioned how accessible the church is once you actually find it. Inside is built for crowds--multiple entrances and exits, signs directing us to various attractions through the building, a large atrium with various amenities including a bookstore and a cool, coffee-house style lounge with online access and an information desk. I was handed a small sack with several neat items including some snazzy little cards similar to those Darrell Stetler II has made for his church (Darrell is on Twitter here). The nice landscaping could be seen out the west-wall of the atrium which was entirely glass, or mostly so. Overall, a very nice place, welcoming, friendly, clean, progressive (it had been remodeled since I had attended previously).

SUMMARY

In short, it seemed like most of the crowd was there for their one hour of God-time, to put it crassly, since many appeared to show up just in time and leave as soon as possible (I hung around for 45 minutes after). The liturgy was quite simple--15-20 minutes of music, a nature video with the offering, and a 40 minute sermon.

WHAT I LEARNED

1. If you're thinking about building a new church have multiple entrances and don't put the parking lot on just one side if possible.

2. Preachers, have a prepared introduction (watch Travis Johnson, he's a master).

3. If you have a screen, make sure everything that appears on it is meaningful, obviously relevant, and not begging for interpretation.

4. Large open spaces indoors is fantastic!

5. Have lots of information about your church available. Lots and lots, but you don't have to load down a visitor with all of it at once. Make the information visible and accessible. Great job, Vineyard!

Holy Scripture Revival

2011-01-25T11:29:00.006-05:00

My local church is holding revival services this week which is always of great interest to me both spiritually and academically. Spiritually, because I sincerely want to grow in my love for Christ. Academically, because it appears to me that there is great equivocation in our use of the term "revival," or perhaps outright theological incoherency between our view of salvation and our doctrine of the church. But that is beyond the point here. The real point was made by our associate pastor Travis Johnson who hit the nail on the head Sunday evening [watch here 1/21/11] when he said something like the following: "In our praying for a Holy Spirit revival (whatever that may be [my words, not his]), we should especially pray for a Holy Scripture revival."

Here are my reflections. The Holy Spirit always coheres with Scripture. What the Spirit says to us today through our conscience, intuition or however else He may operate, He has already said in principle in His Word. So if you are praying for a "Holy Spirit revival" perhaps a good place to start is with Scripture. I personally have been spending quite a bit of time studying and memorizing passages in the Proverbs. More to come on that later.

Brief Thought on Infant Baptism

2011-01-24T14:25:00.004-05:00

A random thought while reading Augustine: I am inconclusive on the practice of infant baptism at present. I am in favor of it insofar as it serves as a symbol of the salvation that is provided for infants by God's prevenient grace and a sign that the infant's parents will/are raising the child in Christian faith. I am opposed because simple minds are unable to distinguish between the symbol and the real cause, and because of the Augustinian-Calvinist notion of inherited guilt, which I reject.

Areas of Variance within the Doctrine of Entire Sanctification

2009-04-29T16:51:00.004-04:00

For anyone who happens to take the time to read these occasional musings, I apologize for the prolonged absence. Of course, an apology may imply that someone has been offended and I seriously doubt that my absence has had that kind of impact.

Here are some recent thoughts concerning the state of the doctrine of holiness in the CHM. Most people (ministers and laypeople alike) do not recognize that not only is there a widening spectrum of conservative Wesleyans (CHMers) when it comes the the standard issues, but there is likewise (and perhaps to a greater extent) a widening spectrum in the doctrine of holiness in general and entire sanctification in particular. Here is a list of eleven areas where I see disagreement within the CHM regarding the doctrine of holiness.

1. Passages which teach entire sanctification

The most basic issue for preaching and teaching entire sanctification is locating the text(s) which include either the terminology or the theological concept we intend. It is typical to find people using any passage with the word "holiness" or "sanctification" as a reference for entire sanctification. Others are more careful to use passages which more clearly teach the doctrine. But many of the factors which are raised on this list will determine the concept of "holiness" a person believes is supported by Scripture. Methodologically, we must begin with 1 Thess. 5:23 which is the only biblical passage to use the term. But from there it is sometimes a free-for-all.

2. Terminology

The second area of widespread debate is the use of terminology. Being that we only have one founding passage for E.S., the rest of Scripture is like open season for some to pilfer. Especially controversial, or at least misunderstood or misappropriated, is the language of perfection which also happened to be Wesley's favorite. Some may say its just a matter of semantics--well, semantics matter. Are we perfectionists?

3. The Pentecostal Paradigm

A third area of controversy is the role of Pentecost in the experience of entire sanctification. The first real issue is whether or not the Pentecost qualifies as a passage supporting entire sanctification. The second issue, regardless of how one decides on the first, is how Pentecost is paradigmatic for the believer. Should we preach entire sanctification from Acts? Is the "purity" of Acts 15:9 entire sanctification?

4. The witness of the Spirit

There is likewise confusion about what the witness of the Spirit is. And not only what it is, but when it occurs and whether it is necessary for salvation. Is there a separate witness for entire sanctification? What if doubt arises after a person has received the witness of the Spirit? Is that possible? Wesley answers these questions very clearly--if only more people read Wesley.

5. The doctrine of imputed righteousness

I am appalled at the number of people who unashamedly reject the doctrine of imputed righteousness. What of the seventy-some times the word appears in Scripture? I grant that "imputed" is an obscure English word, but "counted for," "placed into account," "granted," and other words could just as well be used. Likewise, I grant that some of the people with whom I have spoken were not aware of what they were rejected--but that may be the precise problem. We cannot understand holiness until we have a healthy view of righteousness which is imputed by God's grace. And neither will we understand some of the following points on this list.

6. The relation of sin and the believer.

There are at least three views that I have found in the CHM. The first, and perhaps most widely-held view, is that a believer cannot sin and remain a Christian. Usually, "sin" means willful, rebellious sin. I certainly agree that if sin is defined in this way then this view is correct. However, this view is quite limited in its overall "workability." The second view is that it is possible for a believer to sin, even willfully, but not continuously. I discuss this view in my thesis and find it lacking in part because "continuously" can not be defined either objectively (by others) or subjectively (by myself). I am not one to think that everything has to be defined narrowly, but I have a hard time understanding what "continuously" means. A third view is that it is possible for a believer to sin, even willfully, but not with the intent of breaking fellowship with God. I have lumped several more-nuanced views into one of these categories, but this is an overview.

7. The relation of sin and the entirely sanctified.

If the relation of sin and the believer in general is a problem, it especially becomes a problem when related to the life of entire sanctification. Some have told me that an entirely sanctified cannot sin in any sense, and others have said that an entirely sanctified person cannot backslide in the sense of becoming apostate.

8. The subsequency of entire sanctification.

Probably all of our statements of faith include a definition of entire sanctification that reads something life "a definite work of grace subsequent to regeneration." What does that word mean? This has been debated for years (decades, even centuries going back to Wesley's day), especially among Nazarenes, who have done much of our theological thinking for us. Is this a logical subsequency, a chronological subsequency, or a subsequency in some other theological sense? Can a person be saved and entirely sanctified in the same trip to the altar?

9. The metaphysics of the sin nature

"Metaphysics" simply means the "whatness of." What is the sin nature? A substance, a lack, a corruption, or all of the above? How can it be a substance and a lack metaphysically and be understandable? What kind of "thing" is the sin nature? Most, if not all, of what I hear preached is metaphorical reference to the sin nature. There may not be widespread disagreement on this as much as widespread ignorance (not to offend anyone. I include myself).

10. The metaphysics of entire sanctification

If we do not know what the sin nature is, then how can we know what entire sanctification is if it is defined as a negative--that is, the taking out of the sin nature. If entire sanctification was defined as a positive, then we could define it metaphysically without having to define the sin nature metaphysically. But who has done that? There is a good bit of material, good material, available on this stuff, but very, very few have taken advantage. In many cases the material is only available in places like the Schmul library at GBS where first and second generation Wesleyan theology can be found.

11. The relation of holiness to social issues

Particularly, toward "worldly trends." What stance should a wholly sanctified person take toward culture? Niebuhr's famous book Christ and Culture includes the CHM, not by name, by certainly by concept. I suspect that many of us would differ in our perspective on where the CHM is located on his spectrum

Necessary categories for a profitable discussion on sin

2008-06-30T16:51:00.004-04:00

In order to discuss sin without speaking past one another, it is vital that some categories be agreed upon. I propose five distinctions that must be made in some way in order to capture the Wesleyan understanding of sin. They are: (1) Humanness, (2) Sin nature, (3) Infirmities, (4) Involuntary transgressions, and (5) Voluntary transgressions. The names of the categories may differ according to your preference, but the important thing is that we have conceptual categories that provide a basis for discussion. So, here are my descriptions.

Humanness--This is the category in which the incarnate Word belongs (John 1:14). It is humanity as God created it to be in its pure, natural state, that is, in its perfect state (perfect in the sense that it is exactly what God created it to be). Sin is not necessary or essential to humanity (i.e. Jesus Christ was human yet without sin; cf. Definition of Chalcedon). God is not the author of anything evil, so humanness cannot be inherently evil. Therefore, it is not humanness per se that is the object of atonement. We should be aware that humanness is by nature (that is, by divine design) finite so that we as mere humans cannot be in two places at one time or predict the future unassisted, etc. Regardless of what it means to be "human," being human is good because God declared it so. However, as Wesley insisted, because of the Fall none of us are in our natural human state. In other words, we are not all that God created us to be--and we will not be until eternal glory.

Sin nature--I intend to write a more detailed description of this category; I just simply want to acknowledge that it is a category to be considered in this discussion. Rather than saying what the sin nature is here, I intend in describing the other categories to state what the sin nature is not. In short, the sin nature is not any of the other four categories, but is something else.

Infirmities--It seems to me that Wesley equivocates somewhat in his use of "infirmity" but here I mean those traits of humanity which are the direct result of the Fall. They are not personal in the sense that we bring them about on ourselves, but they are in some sense "inherited," or common to fallen humanity. This includes, I believe, forgetfulness, physical weakness and frailty, emotional and chemical imbalances, personality extremes and a number of other traits. It is important to understand that this is not the equivalent of original sin or sin nature. These infirmities are merely consequences of the Fall and they are not finally cured until glorification though improvement can be made in this life. Such infirmities are subject to the atonement in the sense that they do not need forgiven, but they are in need of being healed. I believe Revelation 21 describes the time when these infirmities will be cured once and for all.

Involuntary transgressions--These are actions or attitudes that stem from our fallen nature and/or infirmities. Because I believe it is possible to love God with our whole heart (to be entirely sanctified) it must be possible for a believer to commit an involuntary transgression without it stemming from a sin nature. In this case, the transgression is certainly involuntary because I believe any real regression must be voluntary. However, until a person is entirely sanctified I must say that it may as well be that this kind of trangression stems from the sin nature as much as it may from human infirmity as defined previously. Whether or not this category is labeled as "sin," involuntary transgressions must be atoned for, and are automatically if the person is trusting in Christ for salvation (1 John 1:7).

Voluntary transgressions--this is the category that Wesley calls "sin properly so called." This category includes transgressions which consist of both the willingness and the knowledge of wrongdoing. It is easily understood what is meant by knowledge, but it is not so clear what is meant by the "voluntary" or "willful" part. I intend to return to this matter because defining the "will" is a slippery subject.

Defining Sin

2008-06-26T13:07:00.003-04:00

I have defined sin as any attitude or action that does not please God. Now let me give some biblical backing for such a definition. I begin with Romans 14:23, "anything that is not of faith is sin." I then move to Hebrews 11:6, "without faith it is impossible to please God..." It seems to me that faith is manifested in attitudes and/or actions. We are designed to please God through faith, and any attitude and action that is without faith fails to please God. Therefore, any attitude or action that displeases God (is not of faith) is sin.

I am happy for the time being with this definition. I believe it avoids the problems of other definitions such as:

1. Sin is a voluntary transgression of the known law of God. Some of the problems have already been discussed, but to summarize:

--What about the clear references to sins that do not incorporate knowledge (Lev. 4)?

--Is sin entirely subjective under this definition? If not, then what is the object or the criterion for determining what is or is not sin?

-- What is "voluntary"? Of course, most people would say that a sin must be both willful and known, but the question is still a good one-what is the object of the will in this definition? What is the intent?

2. Sin is a transgression of the law (1 John 3:4)

--My biggest problem here is that it seems that here John is talking about a willful transgression of a known law. This seems true in light of the context in which he is trying to give some criteria for determining who is really of God and who is not. Those who reject or deny the atonement of Christ (1:8) and those who separate themselves from the Christian body (they "hate" their brothers). These two things: denial of sin and rejection of the body of Christ is the lawlessness, I believe, he is speaking of in 1 John 3:4. More on this later.

By the way, thanks to those who have responded. If you have signed up to receive my blog entries you may simply reply (I found out) and your comments will not appear in the comments section of the blog. I especially appreciate those of you who have sent detailed replies which require significant time and energy. One of the main purposes of this blog is to not only benefit others, but that I may put myself out on the hotseat in order to clarify and better my own thinking on these issues. I not afraid of being wrong; I'm afraid of being wrong and doing nothing about.

Sin and the Believer-Part 4 A Crucial Issue

2008-06-17T18:23:00.009-04:00

For years the debate among a select group of theological leaders within the CHM has regarded a particular definition of sin. I have already suggested that sin is any action or attitude that displeases God. Of course, others would want to add qualifiers that describe such actions and attitudes as intentional, that is, that the elements of knowledge and consent are essential. I have already suggested some problems with this qualification, but that is not what I want to discuss at present. Rather, I want to suggest that the debate, at least in the conversations in which I have been involved, has failed to answer a more important question. It is the question I believe the Apostle John asks us, "Do I need the atonement right now?"

I asked this to one conversation partner and his immediate answer was "No" (though not emphatically so). A few months later he had changed his mind and now his answer is "Yes and No." I think I know the concern: the concern is that if I say yes then I am implying that I am sinning at present. Grant it, if this was a true implication then I would have to answer in the negative as well. But, as you may guess, this is not a true implication of the proposition "I need the atonement right now (that is, continuously)."

It is true that the object of the atonement is sin, that is, an action or attitude that has displeased God. Often this action or attitude was intentional, but often it was not. In either case, the atonement was necessary.

A second truth about the atonement is that a person having once sinned is now and continuously dependent upon sacrifice being made. This is the specific reason why atonement is necessary continuously: if the sacrifice of Christ ceased to be operative we would be lost simply on account of our initial alienation from God. I believe this is what John is getting at in the first chapter of his first epistle. He is not suggesting that every believer is presently and continuously sinning (1:8) but that we are presently and continuously in need of the atonement because we have at one time sinned (1:10). This also seems to be the indication of the writer of Hebrews who says that Christ is our priest "continually" or perpetually (7:3). In reference to this verse someone may say, "Of course Christ must have a perpetual priest because there are always sinners who need to be saved." The problem with this interpretation is that it separates the OT background from the epistle, a background that suggests that the perpetual priestly role of Christ is especially personal. This also seems to be what John has in mind in chapter one as I have already mentioned.

The crucial issue, I believe, is not only a definition of sin, but a closely related question regarding the role of the atonement in the life of the believer. Do believers need the atonement continuously (without cessation)? Another way (a more blunt way, if that is possible) of asking the question may be: Do believers continuously need a mediator with God? For those who suggest that sin is only a willful transgression of the known law of God, I have found that they struggle to answer the question precisely because they have not worked out a view of the atonement that does not demand that we sin presently and continuously (thanks Calvin and Luther!). And I have spoken to more than one minister/leader who has struggled at this point.

Their fear is that we will become Calvinists! My fear is that we will become heritics denying the present, effectual atonement of Christ which some (and I do mean more than just a few with whom I have personally spoken) have already denied though with a great deal of reserve. Of course, I don't want to be either a Calvinist or a heretic, but I believe I have at least found a way to view sin and the believer without being a Calvinist. I am still waiting for a verdict from the other view. I am simply issuing a warning: if we cannot affirm one of the most basic tenets of our faith--the mediation of Christ and imputed righteousness--then we need to look at the reasons why. I am not suggesting that a narrow definition of sin is the necessary cause because I believe Wesley understood sin to be especially a willful transgression of a known law, but he maintained a high view of the continual need of Christ's atonement via imputed righteousness. I think where we have mistaken Wesley is that his "narrow" view of sin is not quite as narrow as those who would deny that there is also, in Wesley's terms, a "sin improperly so-called" which he insisted also needed the atonement. I believe the crucial issue here is to remember that whatever our definition of sin is, we must reconcile it with an truly Christian view of the atonement.

A side note regarding imputed righteousness:

One of my greatest disappointments with the writings of the late Nazarene theologian Richard S. Taylor is that he was very disparaging of the doctrine of imputed righteousness. I'm amazed. I supposed he read more of Wesley than I have, but I wonder if I have read the same material. It was not until one of his final writings (and I don't recall off the top of my head which piece) that he actually said anything positive (slightly positive, at least) about imputation. Don't take this as a definitive statement because I never heard him preach, I have only read his books and articles (with just two or three minor exceptions). My point is that in the places where I would expect to find something about imputation I either find it spoken of negatively or not at all.

Summer Activities

2008-05-19T21:24:00.002-04:00

This is just a brief note regarding my plan for the summer. I am required for my program to be able to read German and either French or another language useful for my research. I have chosen to take Latin primarily because I am interested in reading primary sources from the early Church. I will also be guiding to high-school student through Latin as well this summer as I study myself. I am using Wheelock's Latin Grammer for those who are interested. I would still like to take French, or rather complete French because I have started it twice before.

The second thing I am working on is a small group curriculum titled "Disciplines of a Godly Family." I am familiar and have used Kent and Barbara Hughes' book by that name, but this curriculum is quite different from their work. I plan to write 8-10 forty-five minute lessons.

The Worst Kind of Error

2008-05-15T11:52:00.004-04:00

Some errors are more significant than others, in some cases, infinitely more significant. I recall one pastor who took a somewhat easy-going approach to unpleasant circumstances by saying, "Who is going to remember this in ten years?" The obvious point is that if the circumstance is such that no one will remember in ten years it probably is not very significant. But on the contrary, it may be that what we view as insignificant is, in fact, of utmost significance and while we may not remember such minute details ten years from now, mistakes in small things may produce major discrepencies in our thoughts and actions later. It could be that we are simply mistaken in what is significant or insignificant. So what is it that determines the difference? What kind of error is the worst?

I believe wholheartedly that theological error is the worst kind of error. In other words, what we think about God himself, his person and his acts, is of more significance than what we believe about anything else. Action, I believe, proceeds from belief. We do, we are, we live what we believe. So, if we believe wrongly, then it follows that we will live wrongly. The worse kind of error is error in the mind.

Errors of the nous (mind, spirit) are more serious than errors of the physis (body, physic); error in doctrine is more critical than error in practice. Because I am committed to the principle that everything we do is because we want to (in the sense of the Greek theleo), it follows that internal error is worst than external error. Perhaps this is why we are admonished above all things to love God with all our heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37) and to be transformed by the renewing of our mind (Romans 12:2).

This principle is especially apparent in the early Christological debates where errors regarding the two natures of Christ, even if by implication, are viewed as the most abominable sins. The Church has never tolerated the practice of sin, but it has especially been hesitant to restore those who have fallen out theologically often putting the heretical subject through the most grueling process to do so.

Returning to the present and to our own context of the Wesleyan tradition, I find it quite disturbing when people (especially pastors, and there have been several with whom I have spoken) decide that they no longer believe in the doctrine of entire sanctification. In essence, they are denying that it is possible to love God with our whole heart! With that possibility ruled out, many errors follow. We may love God with our whole heart, but if we do not apply our mind to loving and thinking properly about him then we may very well hinder others in loving God with their whole heart.

Thankfully, the options that was posed to me as I began my preaching ministry--either passion or education--are not mutually exclusive. Especially as pastors, spiritual leaders, people to whom people go for theological insight, we ought to learn to love theology. If we are not willing to engage and deepen our theological insights, we may very well end up committing the worst kind of error.

Sin and the Believer-Part 3

2008-05-12T12:59:00.006-04:00

Not so long ago, an individual who had previously expressed his disagreement with me on this matter, made an apology (kind of) and asked for forgiveness (kind of). The request was made that I forgive him for what he may have done that was not appropriate--namely, not coming to me immediately and instead voicing their disgust to other people. Recognizing that the source of the person's anxiety was my view of sin and the believer, I asked what it was specifically that he disagreed with. The reply was, "I think that when a person sins he is a backslider" and by "backslider" he meant "no longer a Christian." Hmmmmm. And you are asking me to forgive you? For what? What have you done that needs forgiveness?

I give this little anecdote because it illustrates the predominate mindset of many people. That is, I am saved by grace, but kept by "my not sinning." In other words, this notion suggests that it is my righteousness ("my not sinning") that is the necessary cause of salvation. I am, therefore, saved by my works, or my good deeds, or "my not sinning" (all of these being equivalent). In both testaments, however, a person is not saved by their not sinning, but by there attitude toward sin, or how they react to sin (cf. Leviticus 4, 1 John 1:9-10).

This was, of course, at the heart of the Reformation. The Reformation commitment to sola fide (faith alone) and sola gratia (grace alone) is precisely a commitment to the reality that nothing we do merits salvation, and that faith in Christ's merit alone is the necessary cause for salvation. When we settle for less our theology is essentially legalistic and works-based. We need to recover a healthy respect for the doctrine of imputed righteousness. When we fail to incorporate imputation, that it is Christ's merit alone that provides salvation and not ours, into our view of holiness it becomes all about me and not about Christ. Or, at least, about me first and Christ second.

The point here is simply that my Christian experience is entirely based upon the righteousness of Christ the fruits of which is actual righteousness in my life. But we must not confuse the cause with the effect. The righteousness of Christ is the cause; my own personal righteousness is the effect--and this never changes. The cause should also be understood in the sense that it is "causing righteousness" so that righteousness is a life to be lived as much as it is a status that is achieved. The life is lived and the status is exemplified when we live humbly by recognizing that there is nothing in us that merits salvation.

The point here has been that regardless of one's definition of sin, regardless of how one views what takes place when willful sin takes place, we must not lose sight of the fundamental commitment to Christ as our Savior, or to the doctrine of imputed righteousness which does not allow us to say, "I am saved by grace, and kept by my not sinning." That has always been a false statement in Christian theology, and although I have never actually heard anyone say those words per se, I often hear people say that by implication.

What Day is May 11?

2008-05-10T21:55:00.004-04:00

Do you know what tomorrow is? May 11, 2008? If you know much about Christian history you will know the answer. I went to the store to find a card that honored this sacred day of the Christian year, but couldn't find a single card that even mentioned it. Actually, I didn't go to find a card for that reason, but it did cross my mind as I was looking for a card for a different reason. Tomorrow is ever bit as significant as Christmas or Easter Sunday. In fact, the significance of what we celebrate tomorrow is at the very heart of our Christian faith. Without tomorrow, or what it represents anyway, there is not Christian faith. Yet, I will be surprised if anyone comes to me tomorrow and wishes me a happy....Mother's Day? (That would certainly surprise me) No, Pentecost Sunday. The sad thing is, someone may be more likely to wish me a happy mother's day than a happy Pentecost day. So...in advance lest the same thing happen to you--blessed Pentecost Sunday!

What is Pentecost Sunday, or Whit Sunday as it is sometimes called? It is the day that Christians celebrate (or ought to celebrate) the gift of the Holy Spirit as recorded in Acts. It is celebrated on the seventh Sunday following Easter, and ten days after Ascension Thursday. We celebrate God's gift of his Son at Christmas, why not the gift of his Spirit today? Sadly, though, most believers will go through the day entirely clueless about what the day is.

As Christians living in a land that celebrates Halloween, the Easter Bunny, reindeer, etc., it is even more important that people see what it is that is really worth celebrating. This is a time when we should focus on the person and work of the Spirit, and as holiness people we especially focus on the sanctifying work of the Spirit. It is also a good time to focus on the unity of the Church. For ideas on how to celebrate Pentecost in your home see Celebrating the Christian Year by Martha Zimmerman.

Where Calvin Got It Right!

2008-05-10T16:48:00.008-04:00

At many points Calvin and the Reformed tradition has been our theological archrival, and understandably so. In my understanding of Scripture which stands generally aligned with John Wesley and his acceptance of the criticisms of Calvinism by Jacob Arminius, I reject the so-called TULIP doctrines (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, perservation of the saints) as articulated by the Reformed tradition. This does not mean that I do not believe in the doctrines of total depravity, divine election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, or the perseverance of the saints per se. In some cases I would differ with Calvin on his definition of terms, systematic emphasis, and/or theological outcomes, but there are many points where I stand aligned with the eighteenth-century Frenchman. I raise this point only because there are so many in our ranks who disparage Calvin as a heretic. While I do not recommend an untrained theologian to read Calvin, he is very helpful in matters that typically rise above our usual conversation. I hope that in castigating our opponents we can be respectful enough to glean truth from wherever it may come. Whether we like him or not as a person, many of his theological points are very insightful and useful even for a Wesleyan.

Several points here are not unique to Calvin, but I list them because I have found him particularly helpful on the point. There are alternative views to each of these points, some that are obviously heretical (i.e., Pelagianism, Nestorianism) and others that are not (i.e., Lutheranism, Semi-Pelagianism) Here is a list of ten theological agreements:

I agree that human nature is totally depraved in the natural state; that there is no ability within human nature itself that would enable it to be declared righteous. And that this doctrine is foundational to our understanding of salvation.
I agree that knowledge of God must come from God himself, particularly knowledge that leads to salvation because we do not have the natural ability to understand God as our Savior. Theology drawn exclusively from nature is not sufficient for Christian theology.
I agree that God's grace is active in every person's life, even in the lives of those who are not among the elect.
I agree that there is never a time in our lives either as a sinner or as a Christian when we merit or earn God's grace. We are not saved by good works and neither are we kept by works. While righteousness is imparted in salvation, we are saved alone by the merits of Christ's righteousness imputed to us.
I agree that Scripture coupled with the Spirit's witness is the final authority for the Christian life. The words of Scripture alone are not sufficient to produce faith; the Holy Spirit must be actively regenerating a person.
I agree that critical exegesis is necessary and proper for understanding Scripture, though insuffient in itself for producing faith. No creaturely device or reason alone is the ultimate arbiter of the truth of God.
I agree that the witness of the Spirit is an especially private phenomenon without public criteria, and that the object of the Spirit's witness is our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
I agree that the Church is the place where the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments are properly administered. The sacraments consist of baptism and the Eucharist (communion).
I agree that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist though not without distinction from the symbolic elements of the wine and bread.
I agree that the attributes of both natures in Christ are communicated to one person, and that Scripture indicates that there is an immediate communication of attributes from the divine nature to the human nature as is fitting for humanity.

These may be a bit random, but they reflect my current state of mind. There are, of course, many reasons why I am not a Calvinist (I recommend the book by that title--Why I am not a Calvinist).

Sin and the Believer-Part 2

2008-04-17T21:35:00.004-04:00

[NOTE: If you, the reader, cannot at least acknowledge the possibility that a believer (regardless of how many works of grace she has) may sin, I do not expect that you will care to continue reading. ]

It is necessary before continuing to discuss the relation of sin and the believer to actually give a definition of sin. This is one of the most controversial issues in the CHM and one that should not be considered lightly. There are those, perhaps the majority, who define sin as "a willful transgression of a known law of God." This was, of course, John Wesley's classic definition of sin. It was not, however, Wesley's only definition of sin. And this is where people make a tragic mistake. Think with me for a moment. If sin is only a willful transgression of a known law of God, then anything that is a transgression of God's law but is unknown, is not a sin. So, in the case of Mr. Everman, who when I met him had absolutely no experience with church or Christianity, thought that adultery was a normal part of life. Both of his parents cheated on each other, and they both knew it and allowed it! So, when he got married he and his wife had the same kind of agreement. Now, someone could argue that there is no way a person could not know that adultery is wrong. But the same could be said about multitudes of drug users, alcoholics, liars, even thieves--anyone who grows up without being taught that these things are wrong may very well believe that they are not wrong, or more, that they are actually right! Such was the case with Mr. Everman. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, according to his testimony he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. If this is so, and we must suppose that it is, according to this definition--that sin is only a willful transgression of a known law of God--Mr. Everman was not sinning until I told him that what he was doing was wrong!

There are others, a growing minority I believe, who acknowledge the inadequacy of this definition alone. So, as all good theologians should do, they go to Scripture and realize that in Leviticus 4 and other passages (Heb. 9:7) there is a sin of ignorance. Ah! So what Mr. Everman did before he had any knowledge of wrongdoing was sin after all. So, according to this group of people there are two kinds of actual sin: there is willful sin and there is sin of ignorance.

If the people who take the first view really read Wesley carefully they would recogize that he had a two-fold definition of sin: there is sin properly so-called which is a willful transgression of the known law of God and then there is sin improperly so-called which includes sins of ignorance. Just read A Plain Account of Christian Perfection and you will easily come across these terms.

There is another important issue though. It is the definition of "law." In both views sin is a transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), but what is the "law"? I do not intend to define the term here and now, but I must say that it is too often assumed that the "law" is a plainly-stated set of rules that everyone ought to understand and so we have no excuse for not obeying them. If the Bible reflected our church manuals this would be so; but it doesn't. It's filled with stories, laments, hymns of praise, poems, parables, admonitions, exhortations, apocalyptic imagery, and, yes, a multitude of straightforward commandments. The point is that "law" (Torah in the Hebrew) is much more than commandments; it is a life, a story. But more on this later. (By the way, I do not believe John intends 1 Jn 3:4 to be a catch-all definition for sin; this is a major fallacy that I find common in our circles. That is the assumption that 3:4 can be imported into any other context of Scripture. Has anyone stopped to consider the word-concept fallacy?)

To cut to the chase, I teach my children that sin is any attitude or action that displeases God. If it displeases God it needs the atonement; that is, it needs forgiven. In the end, I am not so much interested in how a person defines sin as much as I am of how a person would answer the question, "Is what I did/do need forgiven?" If so, it is sin.

Sin and the Believer-Part 1 The Possibility of Sin

2008-04-05T15:22:00.009-04:00

There is a theological elephant in the middle of the CHM's living room and we continue to walk around it, living as though it is not there. The elephant is called sin. We just don't know what to do when sin enters the home of a believer. We are at a loss for words and we offer no answers. How many times has the question been asked, "If a Christian sins does he have to be saved again, or entirely sanctified again?" It is not an easy question to answer, but it is a question that must be answered. Of course, I will contend later that the question itself is misinformed. Nonetheless, we need to consider the implications in asking the question.

The question rightly assumes that it is possible for a believer to sin. Already this is more than some people want to allow. For some reason many people I talk to have the notion that believer's not only don't sin, but indeed cannot sin. We may make mistakes, we may have faults and infirmities, we may have areas in which more discipline is needed and we need to grow, but our doctrine of holiness has no room for the possibility of sin in the life of the believer. This is a great doctrine, a high and lofty view of salvation and God's grace, a view that takes seriously the ethical implications of the atonement, it regards the Law in the highest esteem as well as the call to follow Christ in full obedience. But there's only one downside--it's unbiblical. This is not to say that the doctrine of holiness is unbiblical, but rather the doctrine espoused in much of the preaching and teaching I hear.

The Apostle writes in 1 John 2, "If any man sins we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one." Who is it other than a believer who is guaranteed an Advocate with the Father? If it included the sinner, the rebellious, God-rejecting sinner, then presto, everyone sinner and saint alike is covered by the blood. But clearly this is not who John had in mind. He had in mind the believer, the one who knows the forgiveness and cleansing of sin. This is why he said "if," a third-class condition that suggests possibility and sometimes even probability. "If" a believer sins...this means it is at least possible, albeit not desireable, nor inevitable, that a believer may sin. It is a possibility not a probability. John has just declared that it is possible to also not sin. Where some people go wrong--the most uninformed among us for most people know better--is in thinking that if we allow that it is possible that a believer may sin then that must mean that it is probable. This is a simple error in logic, an illegitimate inference. Saying something is possible is significantly different from saying something is probable. This should be clear before proceeding.

But we cannot proceed too quickly because many people are hung up here. Isn't this allowing for antinomianism, lawlessness, a license to sin? My reply, how so? I have not even suggested what the consequences are if a believer sins. All I'm insisting on to this point is that we at least acknowledge that it is a reality--it is possible according to John as well as James (whom we will consider later) that a believer might sin. It is worthwhile bringing up the impeccability issue at this point. The person who refuses to acknowledge that it is possible for a believer to sin by implication says either that the believer is impeccable or a single act of sin separates one from God entirely--either way one cannot be a believer and sin, not once, not ever. Such Scriptures as 1 John 3:6, 9 are quoted as proof texts and these will be dealt with in time. Also lending credence to this view is that it makes us take sin very seriously, after all, if believer sins by, say, looking at a woman in an inappropriate way (Mat. 5:28) even if only momentarily, if Jesus returned or if the man suddenly died, he would not be in relationship with God and therefore be lost eternally. The implications of this will be worked out later, but for now it must suffice to say that this view does not take 1 John 2:1 adequately. Again John says, if a believer sins he has an advocate with the Father. Again, in 5:16 he says something similar when he insists that a sinning brother is given eternal life (John always uses "life" and "death in the first epistle to refer to eternal life or eternal death).

If we work through 1 John in order we must conclude before we get to 3:6, 9 that John allows for the possibility of sin in the believer in 2:1. We can only understand later passages in light of this. It is not sufficient to explain 2:1 by suggesting that John has in mind that it is possible for a believer to apostasize. How can an apostate have an advocate with the Father?

He Entered...

2008-03-20T17:18:00.010-04:00

He entered under the obscurity of darkness leaving the gates of splendor and entering the gate of a common stall. The King of kings received only the welcome of a few shepherds. As the village slept, the Creator became a creature among men, a baby surrounded by the most unwelcoming creatures, donkeys, sheep, and such like--not a peaceful start for the Prince of Peace. Now the mother of God wrapped a gift she could not give.

He entered into the midst of the noisy multitudes that had gathered for Passover bringing them to silence. For three days the wise men of earth received wisdom from heaven, the elders being taught by the younger. Yet within a lifetime this wisdom would become foolishness and a stumbling block because the Law cannot comprehend the Cross.

He entered the land of the Gentiles as the Messiah for the Jews. But his foe has no prejudice. Arriving unannounced, it was those devils whom he cast out that made him known. Yet, the locals did not approve of this disturbance from the Almighty and they politely, yet forcefully requested his absence. He who loves and receives was despised and rejected.

He entered the kingly city robed in royal garments, and he paraded before the praises that soon turned to shock as he overturned the tables of the temple. One symbol, the temple itself, is replaced by another, the Temple himself. The door of history turns on its hinges as the Good Shepherd passes through the threshold through which he will not again return. Rather than judging the abominable Romans, Jesus takes up arms against his own. Those who are guardians against heresy have become the heretics; those who are the servants of Yahweh have not recognized the most immanent presence of his Son; and those who hail him as their King do not know that battle he came to fight.

He entered the garden without fanfare. Bearing our griefs and carrying our sorrows he found Everyman too weak to share the load. At his Father's command, the Son fulfilled the sacrifice of Isaac, despising the shame but embracing the joy that was set before him. In his final moments the Eternal Fountain of life asked for a drink while staining the ground with the very life that poured from his wounds. He built his own altar.

He entered the grave, a prison reserved for the judgment of sinners, though sinless. He had been sent down from heaven and was now cut off by earth. His descent being complete, the span of the first entrance cannot be compared to the distance of the latter--the distance being farther than that which was ever intended for heaven and earth. Neither can the fall of man be compared to the fall of this man; this man's fall is great that Everyman's fall in order to get lower and lift higher. Never had Sheol experienced the presence of such a One. Sheol could never remain the same because then...

He left.

----------------------------

Video 1 http://www.ignitermedia.com/products/iv/singles/20/Sundays-Comin

Video 2 http://www.ignitermedia.com/products/iv/singles/2/Are-You-Amazed

The Wonderful Life of Impracticality

2008-03-18T15:34:00.002-04:00

I can think of no practical purpose for this short essay. In fact, for the searcher of practical things, this essay is not recommended reading because it has no practical value. Value? O yes, but practical value? Probably not. The very topic of this essay, in fact, the very goal is to fall short of practical things. After all, how practical is practicality? Isn’t it absolute practicality that makes things very impractical? I, for one, believe that there are good things that are not necessarily practical things. Ours is a world that has become entirely too practical.

If you have persevered through the first paragraph, I invite you into the world of…impracticality. Things that are higher than the mere practical, mundane things of life. Practicality has gone wrong because it is its own source – practicality for practicality’s sake. Thus, humans have become machines, always doing the practical. Prayer becomes a technique; love becomes a means; truth and goodness becomes “what works”; and Christian experience becomes work and duty, and salvation one’s wages. We are convinced that it is the practical world where things are accomplished. I assert that it is precisely this world that keeps us from accomplishing anything.

In our quest of practicality, we have sought to quench the humanness of wonder and worship.

Practicality kills the terminally ill. Practicality kills millions of unborn children every year.

Practicality keeps us from personal devotion to God. Practicality renders prayer powerless.

Animals are practical – God made them that way. Humans are beyond practicality.

The divorce rate increases as we become more and more practical. It is commitment to the wonder, awe, mysterious and outright impracticality of love that holds a marriage together.

It is practicality that is to blame for killing our sensitivity towards wonderful things.

We have lost our sensitivity of God because we have lost our ability to wonder, to be awe-stricken, and to be astonished.

Because we have lost our sense of wonder, we turn to doubt. That is, we doubt anything that does not have practical usefulness. Consequently, faith is a rare commodity for faith requires wonder.

Ultimate reality, God as Trinity, is above all else, mystery. For centuries theologians have attempted to make the Trinity practical, yet it has proven to be most elusive. God will not be shaped by practicality. He refuses to be used. Consequently, many of us have become Deists garbed in Theistic language because we cannot accept the impractical or the ethereal.

The impracticality of a child is more human than the practicality of an adult. Why must we be like children when we approach God? Because a child experiences wonder more easily than an adult.

Theology begins in wonder. Life itself begins in wonder. A child grows and develops because of its instinct to wonder.

There is joy in wonder. And practicality never produces joy. Now let’s get back to our practical life before we become convinced.

The Foolishness of the Cross

2008-03-18T15:24:00.003-04:00

1 Corinthians 1:18-31

The season is Lent. The celebration of Christ’s birth, of his life and ministry is over for the time being. The wise-men have gone home, the crowds are gathered for Passover, the disciples are still unsure of what lies ahead. From Ash Wednesday to Good Friday tuned-in Christians around the world focus on the suffering of Christ and are driven to passages telling us about the meaning and significance of that once-and-for-all event. We ought solemnly to reflect on the fact that the cross was and is for us. The cross cannot be illustrated, it cannot be dumbed-down like a fairy tale; it demands our utmost attention and our deepest respect.

18a For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;

In this passage we see first,

I. That the Cross is Foolishness and to Whom

Thus eliciting jeers and scoffing as people look at the messenger and say, “Here is someone who with great effort is going to say something very foolish.” The logos, the word or the message, of the cross is foolishness because the cross itself is foolishness. Of all the conceivable plans for salvation, why the cross? Why couldn’t God just save by divine fiat, by mere declaration? Why did God have to become Incarnate to pay the price for our sins? Why couldn’t God have lifted man up to him, rather than lowering himself to man? And if God did have to become man to save the human race, why did he have to die on a cross, or why did he have to die at all?

These questions seem too much to answer to the modern mind. The traditional theories of the divine government and/or penal substitution appear abusive in our sensitive and intolerant world. It’s not that people have a problem with Jesus dying on the cross - unbelievers by the scores acknowledge that much - but it’s the claim that Jesus’ death on the cross actually means something that is the height of foolishness to the earthly mind. Such an idea is intellectually unacceptable, irrational foolishness, and simply an insult to human evolution. Is it possible that that is exactly what God intends to do—insult our inordinately heightened self-image?

The fact is that today many of the books you find in bookstores actually deny that God became flesh. And how dare anyone tell them it is because they are perishing; that they are on the road to destruction. For centuries human wisdom has attempted to liberate humanity. In the twentieth century alone humanity has advanced so much that we are comfortable to only meet Jesus in church. The idea of a Savior dying on the cross for the sins of the world is not only intellectually inferior, but is downright mythical - for many it is an actual myth, for lethargic Christians it becomes a practical myth.

18b…but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
But we also see

II. That the Cross is the Power of God and to Whom

But who are “the saved”? And what are they saved from? The saved, Paul says, are those who are in fellowship with Jesus Christ (1:9) and consequently identify with Christ especially in his suffering. These are saved from their own foolishness, the foolishness that Paul later acquaints with the Greeks and the Jews. The cross is the power of God to those who are willing to take up their cross and follow Jesus.

But for those who come to receive the benefits of the cross without taking the cross itself, the cross is powerless. For those who come to take the Savior but leave the cross, the cross is powerless. For those who come to commune with God by eating the bread of his flesh and drinking from the cup of his blood, but do not take up the cross upon their shoulders, the cross is powerless. For those who come to the cross for forgiveness and justifying grace, but refuse to live transformed under the cross, the cross is powerless. And if the message of the cross becomes powerless, we know that we are not among those who are saved, but are among those who are perishing.

God forbid that the cross become powerless. Yet, there are numerous other ways in which the cross and its message can become powerless in our lives. In the words of one author, “More people are bored out of the Christian faith than are reasoned out of it.” How can the cross become powerless? It becomes powerless when it ceases to challenge us, to disturb us, to unbalance us, to disorient us, or as modern psychology would have it, to put us into cognitive dissonance, to rattle our brain and stir or heart. In short, the cross becomes powerless when it ceases to amaze us, when it becomes mundane, ordinary, expected, or, God forbid, a spectacle of amusement or a boring Sunday School lesson. The cross can never become the status quo; for never again will there be another cross like the cross of Jesus. When the cross you are kneeling at loses its disdain of sin, when the cross you embrace ceases to prick you, when the cross you carry ceases to be a trial, when the cross becomes an ornament of your bejeweled life, you are embracing the wrong cross—that is not the cross that Jesus carried; that is not the cross that leads to the grave of the one who rises again. That is a cross of your own making, and it is both foolish and powerless.

In our foolish effort to preserve the sentiment of the cross, we take measures to see to it that we don’t forget it—we place a cross in the front of our sanctuaries and turn a light toward it so that we remember it’s there. We sing hymns on occasions reminding us of the sentimental value of Calvary. We hang a crucifix around the neck like a rabbit's foot in our pocket. To what avail? A cross without Jesus is powerless and foolish. It is not the cross that matters but the person who willingly placed himself on it and said, "Take up your cross and follow me."

“It is on the cross that we belong to you; it is on the cross that we come to know you; it is on the cross that we love you; it is on the cross that we are fed with your truth. Without the cross, everything else is nothing but religious sentimentalism. Jesus, join me to yourself! Let me become one of the members of the body of the crucified Jesus Christ!” (François Fénelon Meditations on the Heart of God)

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

III. Why the Above is True

It is written in Isaiah 29:14 that God will do an astounding deed, one that will amaze the wisest of men. As in the day of Isaiah’s woe against Jerusalem, on the day of the crucifixion God destroyed the wisdom of the wise and hid the understanding of the prudent. Suddenly those wise men appear quite foolish after assuring the wicked that everything was okay. The walls are coming down, the Babylonians are coming and the wise men are fleeing. Eight hundred years later the accusers of Jesus, those who mocked him and dared him to come down off the cross, foolishly grasp for an explanation. He stayed on the cross in order to walk out of the tomb. What seemed foolish to the mockers made a mockery of their foolishness. Where are the wise now?

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Where are those sophists, those Greek philosophers who claim to have answers for the deepest questions? There is

IV. Evidence that the Above is True

Namely, how can something so foolish cause such a stir across the face of world history? How can mysticism, then humanism, then modernism, and now post-modernism—one philosophical trend after another, appearing like a flash in the pan in the whole scheme of things—how can they come and go, and the message of the cross still stand?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

It does so because it pleased God to have not kings and princes, but fishermen and tentmakers carry the message of the Gospel—people who more readily identify with a cross. It was not the jesters in a medieval courtroom, but the somewhat eccentric monks who carried the message of the cross. It was not the dukes of Saxony or Picardy that proclaimed the cross, but the Protestant refugees who carried the true, unadulterated Gospel across the Catholic lands. It was not the high churchman in Anglican cathedrals who evangelized the new world, but a weary hunchback named Francis Asbury who spread Scriptural holiness across these lands. Today, it is not the swift, the strong, the wise or the rich who take the world’s most profound truth to the uttermost parts of the world, but it is those who carry the cross and bear the suffering it brings. And with this God is pleased and we should not suppose that it would ever change.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

Nonetheless, the elite and the wise, look for something other than a cross. The Jews look for a messiah, a conqueror who will give the sign that the time has come to be liberated from Israel’s oppressors. Was it Theudas? No. Was it Judas of Galilee? No. Was it Jesus? No. Jesus gave no sign to conquer Rome, he just died on a cross. How can a Jew serve a crucified Messiah? Of course, the resurrection makes the question a foolish one. But nonetheless, Jews and those like them stumble over a crucified Savior.

So what of the Greek? They look for wisdom; that is, there is no possible way for the Unknown God to become a man—such a thought is too elementary and is simply not physically or metaphysically possible. The Greeks and those like them scoff at the idea of an enfleshed Savior, especially of one who dies. Ironically, Greek gods often die but they always come back to life. The difference--they never die willingly and certainly not a shameful death.

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Yet, both and Jews and Greeks are welcome to embrace the cross of Christ. The wisdom of God can so overcome the wisdom of the world that men and women are lead to embrace what they once thought foolish. This is the power of God in Christ.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

The cross is not for those too proud to be identified with being a fool. The cross is not for those who cannot trust the foolishness of God. Those who place themselves anywhere but on the lowest rung of the social ladder cannot identify with cross-bearing Christianity. No one can be below us when we carry the cross; everyone must be above us.

Paul told us in verse seventeen that the cross cannot be described with eloquent words—it can only be told for what it is. It is a cold, hard fact that a Jewish man living in first-century Canaan was crucified by Roman soldiers on charges of blasphemy, and that he died near mid-day one Friday with crowds looking on. And it is just so that this man was carried to a tomb and laid there as any other dead man. And it is a well-attested fact that on the third day the tomb was empty and Jesus was once again walking and talking with those whom had known him before. This is not theory, it is fact. It is not a nice moral story as the famous Albert Schweitzer wrote at the turn of the century:

“There is silence all around. The Baptist appears, and cries: “Repent, for
the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” Soon after that comes Jesus, and in the
knowledge that He is the coming Son of Man lays hold of the wheel of the world
to set it moving on that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history
to a close. It refuses to turn, and He throws Himself upon it. Then
it does turn; and crushes Him. Instead of bringing in the eschatological
conditions, He has destroyed them. The wheel rolls onward, and the mangled
body of the one immeasurably great Man, who was strong enough to think of
Himself as the spiritual ruler of mankind and to bend history to His purpose, is
hanging upon it still. That is His victory and His reign.”

No, Dr. Schweitzer, this this was no accident, this was divine design. No, Dr. Schweitzer, Jesus was not a victim of his circumstance; rather the world is the object of his redemption. No, Dr. Schweitzer, Jesus is not merely an “immeasurable great Man” who sets a good moral example for us to follow; he is the divine-man who came for our redemption, whose life and death and resurrection we must embrace with everything we are.

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

V. Why the Above is True

Verse twenty-nine sums it up—God sent his Son to die on the cross so that no flesh might boast of itself in his presence. What is there to boast of when you are carrying your own death? What boasting comes from one who is being lead to the death chamber? The time of boasting is over; all human pride must come to an end. All effort of self-preservation must die on the cross with him. And yet the one who actually did have the power to come down from that cross did not.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

And for that it is Jesus Christ who is our wisdom, who is our righteousness, who is our sanctification, and who is our redemption. Where human wisdom fails; his death prevails. Where human ingenuity comes to an end; Christ’s victory begins. Where human reason comes to questions that human reason cannot answer—Jesus and him crucified is the answer. When all of life is stripped away, when all that is left is Jesus showing us his nail-pierced hands, then are we saved.

1 Cor. 2:2 “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

We are the benefactors of his life and death.

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Jeremiah 9:23-24

“Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the
mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24 But
let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that
I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the
earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.”

If the cross is the solution, what is the problem? The problem is sin, the root of which is human pride which Paul has been calling wisdom. So we might say, if sin is not the problem, then the cross can never be a solution. The cross is indicative of the problem and imperative for our salvation.

On having a blog

2008-03-12T17:59:00.003-04:00

I do not claim to be a blogger nor a blog reader; I do not have the time to spend thinking up new posts and neither do I have the desire to write for writing's sake; I do not wish to attract a wide audience nor to create a massive page interchange (e.g. a long list of other bloggers). I simply view this blog as a place to express any thought I believe is worth sharing, which happens to be most of them. Every once in awhile some thoughts come to mind that are too controversial to make available to the general public; therefore, as soon as I can figure out how I intend to make this a private enterprise. It may be, however, that I may simply get bored or tired of the blogging effort and decide to retire.

I will also be straightforward about my cynical tendencies that arise when certain issues are broached. Time will tell what those issues are. I view myself as an open-minded thinker and one who is willing to entertain even the most outrageous ideas if only momentarily. Nonetheless, some ideas are hardly worth entertaining, and those who insist on the point trivialize more important issues. Of course, this is no promise that I will not at times be guilty of making mountains out of molehills, but as it usually works, if I've made a mountain it is probably worthwhile (but who's to say?).

I also do not allow anonymous comments simply because there is a general lack of courage in people to take responsibility for their words and actions. On the other hand, I too am aware that at times I wish I could speak anonymously (i.e. from the pulpit or on this blog). But when I think I have been mistaken I hope to have the greater courage of backing up, even if I do not know how to correct my wrongdoing. (By the way, I have already changed my mind about making this a private blog.)

One final word on the title of the blog: I couldn't think of anything better--I am Wesleyan and I am a theologian. Of course, I am many things, but a person can only take so many hyphenated titles. Perhaps in the future I will change it.