index

Paul's Gospel

Fri, 18 May 2012 07:28:09 +0100

We refer to him as the apostle to the Gentiles (I'm pretty sure he wouldn't want a capital 'A' there) and yet isn't it odd how little of Paul's gospel preaching to the Gentiles is actually recorded in the book of Acts. Depending on your view of how the Bible was inspired you would have thought that the Holy Spirit would have prompted Luke to give us a lot more examples of how it's done.

Good news to the Jews

That's not to say that we don't have any examples of Paul's preaching in Acts; we do. But most of it is him preaching to his fellow Jews and mostly done in synagogues. His letters, it is true, are full of his deeply thought-out theology on the gospel - but they're all letters to churches, that is to those who were already Christians. So they can't be held up as an example of how he preached to non-believing Gentiles.

In fact a close look at Acts would suggest that there is only one detailed sermon to a Gentile audience in the whole of the book - Paul's sermon to the Athenians in 17:22ff. You might want to count his talk to Agrippa as well (26:1ff) but he was arguably at least partly Jewish and anyway this is less a sermon more a defence speech.

Good news to the Gentiles

So his sermon in the Areopagus has to be the sole example of how Paul thought was the best approach to preaching the gospel to pagan Gentiles. But then you read it and see that there is no mention of personal salvation in there; no threat of hell nor promise of eternal heaven; not even a word about the cross. He is quite positive about their stumbling across the true God and fills in a lot of the gaps in knowledge they have about him. Above all he appeals to them to change their mind about worshiping a myriad of little deities and to make the Creator of heaven and earth their exclusive God.

It's good stuff. But it's not the Gospel. Is it?

A Revival Centre

Wed, 16 May 2012 07:20:43 +0100

Last Wednesday I posted the first in a series on revival. I was a little fearful since I know many of my readers (like myself) are within the charismatic stream which has highly valued revivals within church history and for a period put a lot of effort into praying for a fresh outpouring. The response to that post surprised me; it would seem that many are asking similar questions themselves. So let's plough on.

Growth

Though far too early to properly evaluate the revival experienced in Pensacola in the 1990s, it is possible to draw some conclusions from the AP report on the Brownsville church's current predicament of being crippled by debt. I'll post some thoughts on debt itself in my next post, but today I want to look at why they borrowed so much money. The reason given is that they wanted to grow their church during the revival. According to the report they bought many houses in the vicinity of their church building so that they could be demolished to make room for a larger car park. They also built an additional sanctuary - seating 2,600 - specifically for the revival throng. Whilst I can understand their desire to cater for the millions who visited, this action of growing the church structure gives us an interesting insight into how revival is viewed by many.

Spiritual depth?

First, revival is seen as something that grows the church. Individuals are 'saved' - and there is nothing wrong with that - and are then added to the church. Revival is seen as a quick and easy way of growing the church roll by winning new converts in large numbers. Of course, this has always been as aspect of what revivals have been about, but when we read, for example, of the prayers offered by church leaders before the Welsh revivals of 1858 and 1904, it isn't growth that was on their mind but the spiritual condition of those already within the flock. Depth of spirituality came first and church growth was a secondary effect. Has this desire to grow large churches has left us a legacy of skin deep spirituality? I think many in the US would say it has.

Revival centre

Second, the adding to the church structure in Pensacola tells us something about the concept of a 'revival centre'. It was somewhere you went to, to experience revival. God had showed up in the seaside city and people flocked there from all over the world. No doubt many caught the fire and took it home with them but when the definitive history of Pensacola is written I doubt we'll be talking about a revival that touched the world. I have no problem with the fire being centred somewhere - but fire, especially wildfire, is meant to spread, not stay in one place.

There have been other examples of revival being centred in one locality. The tiny village of Llangeitho in west Wales comes to mind. Llangeitho was the home of Daniel Rowland - an Anglican priest who drew thousands of visitors to his church in the first spring of the Methodist revival of the 1700s. But when the parish church was too small for these temporary congregations Rowland did not build a new sanctuary, he held his services in the churchyard. And the real genius of this revival is that the other big name from the period, Howell Harris, gathered the converts into small groups so that they could be cared for and discipled once they had gone home. Those local gatherings were just as powerful as the preaching centre that was Llangeitho - proving that God is as present on the periphery as he is in the core.

An Educated Ministry

Mon, 14 May 2012 07:33:47 +0100

Maybe one of the toughest chapters for me to review in Pagan Christianity is the one on educating church leaders. As someone who has three degrees in theology I am almost bound to find fault in what they say. Let me make two points straight off, therefore, and you can judge whether I have been prejudicial or not.

Critique

To begin with it is odd to find such a strong argument against a higher or university education in theology within a book that is so well researched itself. Viola and Barna have a particularly well developed gift of presenting their points in language all could understand – but that should not divert our attention from the fact that their historical research has been as wide as it has been deep. Layman’s language it may be, but it is well educated theologians that are responsible for bringing us this work. Secondly, there surely must be room within the church for those who can tackle theological issues at a deep level. To understand the Bible does indeed take a spirit of revelation – as PC says – but it also takes good and faithful translating, it takes digging into the context of words, it takes historical exploration. To not make the case for this is a serious lack in my view.

Agreement

But enough of the negative. Let me try and find areas of agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever that PC is correct in saying that knowledge and intellect do not of themselves lead to a greater knowledge of God. It takes spirit to spirit revelation for this to happen and academic study is no substitute. Since it is by revelation that this happens it means that all believers – whatever their academic attainment may be – are able to receive it.

It also means that anyone who would want to lead a congregation would need to have experienced this process themselves. Formal academic training is not necessary for this to happen – indeed it may work against it since there is such an emphasis on the rational mind within the educational establishments, both secular and religious. The practice of sending anyone who senses the call to an aspect church leadership to gain an academic qualification is particularly criticised by PC. And in this they are correct. As someone who has been through the system myself I know how inadequate such training can be as far the many practical and pastoral issues of church leadership are concerned.

Defining ministry

Part of the problem, of course, lies in the definition of ‘ministry’ which in most church traditions is far removed from the NT definition, which has a variety of roles defined under such a general term. Once a full time, jack-of-all-trades ministry was accepted as the pattern by the church it was then a very small step to see the need for a formalized education for those who aspired to the position. Having a different understanding of ministry within the church – where a variety of gifts are recognized as being within several different people – could lead to the church once again becoming the training centre for such gifts.

What do you think? Is the local church sufficient in training all its people in ministry? Is there a need for para-church centers or academies to give some the additional training required? And are some needed to specialize in any way?

Paul on Adam and Eve

Fri, 11 May 2012 07:54:06 +0100

So we've been looking at Paul and how he writes about Adam and Jesus, sin and salvation. If you read last week's post you will know that I've been making some general points before coming to Romans 5. What I'm trying to do (in case you're here for the first time) is to show that it isn't necessary to believe in an historic Adam and Eve just because Paul draws a parallel between them and Jesus.

Who fell?

But we've just hit one little point that needs to be touched upon already. Paul doesn't draw a parallel between Adam and Eve and Jesus - just between Adam and Jesus. His use of Adam 1 and Adam 2 makes a great point. It's clever; it's simple; it hammers home the truth about what Jesus has accomplished through his one act of obedience. It's Paul at his theological best. But he isn't being true to Scripture. The Genesis story talks about Eve being the one taken in by the snake and then persuading her partner of the value of eating the fruit. Yes, Adam fell for it and was disobedient. But they both fell that day. And in fact Paul himself is quite happy to draw Eve into the frame when it comes to opining about women taking on teaching roles in the church. In fact it's worth quoting that verse in full it is so startling: 'And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression' (1Timothy 2:14). But Paul could hardly have referred to Jesus as the 'Second Eve', could he.

Interpretation

So Paul is quite happy to use the text according to his own theological needs at the time. That is, he is interpreting the text. Something we all do - including those who claim they're taking the Bible at face value. And as I say he makes his point really well. It's really powerful - but that doesn't mean we have to believe that an actual person called Adam existed.

Universalism?

There are some other points about Romans 5 that should make us ask questions. Paul says that Adam's disobedience has universal implications - 'the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' and 'the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men' (5:18). Is Paul an universalist, therefore, believing that everybody gets saved? Few would make this point and as if to counter it he quickly changes the 'all' to 'many' in the very next verse. Is this sloppy thinking on his part or is it just that Paul realises that the parallel isn't quite as good as he first thought?

There's also another point that should make us question. In verse 12 he says, 'death came to all men, because all sinned'. What does Paul mean here? Did death enter the world because Adam sinned or because we all sin like Adam? Many words have been written trying to explain this verse - suggesting that Paul lacks clarity on the point. While the parallel is good, it is not perfect. And it is certainly no mathematical equation.

Which is why insisting from this passage that in order to believe in a real Jesus we have to believe in a real Adam really doesn't make much sense. Accepting that Genesis 1-3 is a myth does nothing to undermine the good news about what Jesus has done. But neither do we undermine the powerful truth that Genesis 1-3 contains by saying it is a myth.

The Pensacola Outpouring

Wed, 09 May 2012 09:00:54 +0100

Is it inevitable that a once powerful revival turns into dust? As a trained Welsh revival historian I could make a pretty good case for saying so. Acrimony between leaders, false claims, wise counsel ignored, and final disappointment - all characteristics of revivals in the past, not that you usually read of these things in books published after the event.

There, only the undoubtedly positive side of revivals is recorded. After all there are plenty of good things to be said about these events - it's just that the negative things also existed but are rarely discussed, thus ensuring important lessons are rarely learned.

Pensacola

It probably shouldn't have surprised me then to read the recent AP report on the Brownsville AOG church that experienced the so called Pensacola Revival back in the mid-1990s but that is now struggling to survive under a mountain of debt. But I was surprised and certainly saddened by their story. Attendance figures are still high compared to the UK - and stratospheric compared to Wales - but the drop from over 5,000 a night to a total of a thousand over two Sunday services is quite remarkable.

End-times revival

It was hailed by Yonngi Cho as a revival that would last until Jesus's return. (The same thing was said about the 1857 revival in the US.) And it was used by many church leaders around the globe as the thing to go for in their locality. Indeed this was exactly how it was presented in the church I was attending at the time. The greatest need of the UK church, it was said, was revival. And here we had an example of what we should be reaching for. Pensacola was accepted without any critical evaluation whatsoever and whilst many individuals who travelled there were deeply touched by their experience, they did not 'bring the fire home'. Not to our church, certainly.

Evaluating what went wrong is a nigh on impossible job for me with such a dearth of resources and it is probably too soon to be doing so anyway. And yet from the little we know I think it is possible to draw some lessons about revivals in general and maybe even about the charismatic movement in how it relates to revivalism. This is what I want to do over the next few weeks in the Wednesday slot.

Football

Mon, 07 May 2012 08:08:05 +0100

I presume it was John Terry who lifted the cup for Chelsea on Saturday evening. I have to presume because as a frustrated Liverpool supporter I had switched off on the last shriek of the ref's whistle, disappointed and despondent that 'we' had failed once again.

This year's FA cup final was different. It was not played on the last Saturday of the football season; the final showpiece this year will go to the last round of the Premier League. It was also moved from its usual 3.00pm kick-off, starting instead at 5.00. Both changes broke with tradition - but hardly earth-shattering. Mess with footballing custom, however, and you risk having to face a lot of anger. And sure enough the social media outlets were clogged up by complaining fans. For some, soccer's rituals are immutable. Never mind that working class men used to work till Saturday lunchtime and the 3.00pm kick-off was established to suit them; or that the Champions' League is now the big finish to the season (those damned Europeans again). The facts may change but football stays the same.

And when that old chorus, We Shall not be Moved, is sung in unison ~~from the pews~~ from the terraces trying to bring about change can be quite hard. But fair play to the FA they managed it. And despite the break with convention the game was still played and the trophy was still won. I imagine the cup gleamed as it was held aloft by Terry. Gutted.

Adam and Paul

Fri, 04 May 2012 07:20:16 +0100

In the last post in this series on Genesis I looked at the whole issue of sin and whether we have to hold on to a historical Adam in order to make sense of it, since sin and salvation are issues which force some people to reject the scientific evidence and thus insist on a literal reading of the text. As I pointed out in that post this is not necessary. But the question is then raised of what should we make of Paul? After all he linked the idea of Adam's sin and Jesus obedience very closely to each other. Does this alter things? Must we be literalist in our reading of Genesis because Paul was?

Paul's worldview

There is little doubt that Paul probably viewed the Genesis story about Adam, Eve and the fall as a historical event. But he also would have believed in a six day creation, a flat earth, and a geocentric universe where the sun revolves around the earth. That is, Paul had an ancient, pre-scientific understanding of the world and that is not the least bit surprising; he was a product of his time and this fact does nothing to undermine the idea that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write as he did.

So we must take Paul seriously. When we read him in Romans 5 drawing a parallel between Adam and Jesus this is something we cannot just ignore. But does this parallel then force us to read Genesis as literal, historical truth? Before we come to the passage itself let's make a few points.

Paul's parallel

First, there is no need whatsoever for us to reject the historicity of Jesus when we reject the historicity of Adam. This is often the point made by conservatives - since Paul has drawn a parallel between Jesus and Adam then we have to accept both as real, historical characters. But this is a false proposition. After all, Paul wasn't constructing a mathematical equation where both sides have to be equal. It is quite possible for us to draw a parallel with an ahistorical event in order to make a point. Both sides do not need to be true for this to work just as well.

Second, Romans 5 does not have as its central point the proving of Adam's existence. It isn't even meant to be a peripheral point in Paul's mind. For us to try and make it that today is quite wrong. The point is to teach that life is to be found in Jesus despite the fact that death is what we experience today.

Third, as previously stated Paul is writing with a pre-scientific understanding. He should not be expected to do anything else and his work does not stand or fall on whether he got the science right or wrong. A proper understanding of myth as story carrying powerful truth is an interpretation that works well with Paul's treatment of Adam. After all, Paul was doing theology when he wrote Romans not doing science.

In the next post we'll look at how Paul the theologian uses the OT to make his doctrinal points in quite a creative way.

Towards Reform

Wed, 02 May 2012 07:39:49 +0100

And so we come to the final and concluding chapter of Roger Mitchell's Church, Gospel, & Empire. It has been a challenging read with some difficult concepts being discussed. His forthcoming 'more accessible' volume will undoubtedly be welcome! But there is little doubt in my mind that it is a piece of work that is crucial to grasp and implement for those concerned about seeing a transformed church.

In providing a theological understanding for what has gone wrong since the fourth century Mitchell has given us an invaluable tool with which to attempt to first reform and then release church into her world-changing role.

Reformers

In his final chapter, however, he notes once again those reforming voices through the ages who attempted to do the same thing but who ultimately failed. And he offers three reasons why this failure happened. First, in trying to reconnect with an older, truer Christian faith they failed to understand the need to see God through Jesus and this resulted in them holding onto a sovereign, hierarchical God. Second, they did not devise an interpretative tool that could have given them a surer guide on their journey. And third, they did not break free from the imperial church that eventually dragged them back in to the very heart of the problem. Despite these issues, however, Mitchell can see some hope in these movements and is keen to value the potential lying within each of them.

Church on the margins

It is the book's central call that the 'connection between sovereign power and eschatological peace' must be broken. Imperial church must become servant church. Without this 'it is difficult to see how the church can ever recover from its present marginalisation and be trusted by the multitude'. Thus Mitchell sees a direct connection between the current marginalisation of the church and its deep imperial links. In this he himself is quite a marginalised voice, for in their call for church to be restored to its central role in society alongside the power of the state, the majority are actually denying the connection.

In this series of posts I'm sure I haven't done Church, Gospel, & Empire justice but I've attempted to give you a flavour of Roger Mitchell's thinking. I hope I've done enough to draw in more people on the path of what is, in my view, an essential journey towards recovering the purpose of the body of Christ.

This post forms a series on Roger Mitchell’s book Church, Gospel & Empire. See previous post here.

Sacraments and Empty Ritual

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:55:38 +0100

‘The Supper has become an empty ritual officiated by a clergyman, rather than a shared-life experience enjoyed by the church.’ These are particularly strong words by Viola and Barna in Pagan Christianity in a chapter tackling both sacraments – Communion and Baptism. Let’s see how they arrive at this conclusion.

Baptism and the sinner's prayer

Their central point about Baptism's place in church life is that it was replaced by the ‘sinner’s prayer’ in the nineteenth century. I find this interpretation quite unconvincing. I do agree that the gap in time between conversion and receiving baptism has become far too long in many denominations compared to what we see in the New Testament. There is very little ambiguity there about the fact that those who decided to follow Jesus were baptized very quickly afterwards. Indeed it seems in some circumstances that it happened immediately; so much so that PC argues that this was the way ‘someone came to the Lord’. Like many, I would disagree that this is what we see in the NT. Baptism was a sign that someone had already come to faith – albeit a sign that often happened within minutes of the actual act of receiving faith.

PC also takes issue with that common evangelical phrase about Jesus being our ‘personal Saviour’. This is not a phrase they like, referring to its use as ‘ludicrous’. I partly agree with them, especially when they point out that it is yet another phrase and concept that ‘reinforces a highly individualistic Christianity’. What they prefer is to say that Jesus invites us to share in the relationship he has with his heavenly Father. But since Jesus is seen in Christian orthodoxy as the second person of the Trinitarian God I’m not sure it would be wrong for us to say we have a relationship with Jesus also.

Communion

In sharing their concern about Communion Viola and Barna trace its development from being a part of a shared ‘love feast’ to being no more than a ‘tongue-tickling thimble of grape juice and a tiny, tasteless bite-size cracker’. They focus in particular on the developments of the medieval church as it decides on the doctrine of transubstantiation, but while I don’t agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this interpretation I cannot accept that their version of Communion is mere ‘empty ritual’ no more than is any high church’s version. Ritualistic it may be but empty of meaning and value it most certainly is not. A far stronger critique would have been to emphasise the formal nature of such traditions’ administering of Communion – a formality is far from the NT practice of sharing a meal together.

What is most disappointing in this chapter is that it fails to mention anything about the role the sacraments have to play in regards to the presence of God with his people. There are many different versions of how this might happen but PC does not mention it at all.

What do you think? Have the sacraments lost their original meaning in today’s church? Have they become too formal? And do they have any role where the presence of God is concerned?

Adam's Sin

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:51:38 +0100

One of the major reasons why some reject the science of evolution and insist on an historical couple called Adam and Eve is that to do otherwise would disturb their theology of sin and salvation. In this theology the sin of Adam is a dramatic fall from perfection and is inherited by all members of the human race as each new generation is born. This version, however, is not a plain reading of the text but an interpretation of it; an interpretation championed by Augustine and widely adopted by the Western church ever since. There is, though, an alternative.

Irenaeus of Lyons

This alternative is actually older than Augustine's - who was working in the early 5th century - and was widely adopted by the Eastern church. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons but born in Smyrna in around 69 C.E., was one early proponent of this view. Rather than seeing a perfect man fall to the depths of depravity, Irenaeus believed humanity sinned because of its immaturity. God did not create man as a fully formed adult, Irenaeus claimed, but as a being who needed to grow, develop and mature. At the time of their disobedience they had not gained the wisdom necessary to fight off the temptation of the serpent. They had no sense of shame and were innocent - even sexually innocent, claimed Irenaeus. The sin of Adam was, therefore, a 'childish' one. Furthermore, it did not leave humanity with a total inability to cooperate with God. In this we find that Irenaeus has a far more optimistic view of humanity that Augustine.

Augustine

Augustine views the fall quite differently. In the background to his understanding is the view that humanity was created a perfect being with all its faculties fully formed. The view generated here is of a man who was flawless in every way falling into total depravity resulting in him having no ability whatsoever to cooperate with God on his own. This was the 'original' sin and through sexual intercourse, according to Augustine, Adam's sin and its consequences are passed down from generation to generation. This is how Augustine viewed the idea that we had all sinned 'in Adam' whereas Irenaeus said that we have all sinned in the same way as Adam.

While both theologians viewed Genesis 2-3 as historical documents, Irenaeus' interpretation - while not being entirely satisfactory - best fits the evolutionary theory of creation. In seeing man and creation as needing to grow and develop; in refusing to see perfection in the pre-fall world (which is more akin to Greek philosophy than Hebrew thinking) the Bishop of Lyons had actually grasped something of the scientific truth that is so widely accepted today. And it is also closer to the biblical account - for there is a sense in the text that man had room to develop and grow when first created and God declared that his creation was 'very good' rather than perfect.

Though we may not necessarily have heard his name, as Christians in the West we have been heavily influenced by Augustine's theology. His views have shaped both Catholic and Protestant streams and it is really difficult not to see Augustinian theology in biblical passages because he is so lodged in our theological worldview. But as some of these views begin to appear untenable in the face of science, as well as historical and biblical studies, we are faced with a challenge of reaching in other directions to find valid interpretations of the Bible. Those interpretations are available and in many aspects have been available for a long time - if we could only peek over the fence to find them.