davidould.net

You either get this or you don’t. I’m hoping you do.

DW bringin’ the beat ... Daniel Wallace ... Bill Mounce gonna make ya bounce…

Sunday’s sermon is almost finished and Genesis 3 is all over my brain. So it seems only fitting to post this up…

Adam lay ybounden,
Bounden in a bond;
Four thousand winter,
Thought he not too long.

And all was for an apple,
An apple that he took.
As clerkes finden,
Written in their book.

Ne had the apple taken been,
The apple taken been,
Ne had never our ladie,
Abeen heav’ne queen.

Blessed be the time
That apple taken was,
Therefore we moun singen.
Deo gracias!

As with that painting of Eve and Mary (and there’s a lively discussion on the same post over at Stand Firm), there are plenty of things that are wonderful in this music and a couple that I really don’t like.

I’m not sure I can call the moment of the Fall “blessed” and the author was driven to that point by his own desire to affirm Mary as “heav’ne queen”. I guess one mistake leads to making another.

Nevertheless, it’s a wonderful piece of music. The idea of Adam bearing the wait of 4,000 years in his bondage as he anticipated Christ is quite marvellous.

One of the current thoughts running through my head is to not despise the day of small things (Zech. 4:10). By which I understand that even is something is not perfect, or incomplete, we should still at least take joy in it if there are glimpses of the gospel (which is, I understand the original point of Zech. 4:10 - Zerubbabel has only built the foundation of the temple - but even that is worth rejoicing over).

The other thought is a continued chewing upon Genesis 3. It came up last year as we considered 1Tim. 2 as a church, it keeps coming up as I speak to Christians about marriage, and it is now first and foremost in my thinking as I prepare a sermon on the seedbeds of penal substitution and sacrifice in that same chapter for this coming Sunday.

There are fascinating themes that run through the chapter (and the preceding one). In particular one main strand is the topic of life and death. Adam is warned that by eating the fruit “dying you shall die” (Gen. 2:17) and, indeed, death enters the world through that action (so Rom. 5:12). So it is extraordinary that the woman, up until that point unnamed, is called “Eve” at the end of chapter 3. God has set out His punishment and curses, an exposition of that single descriptor “death”, and then we get this:

Genesis 3:20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

Obviously, given all that has already occurred, Eve’s role as “mother of all the living” is more than simply the biological mother of all humanity. Life is the opposite of the death which Adam’s sin has unleashed upon the world. Eve, in some way, will by the bearer of spiritual life into the world. This is no more than has already been stated by God:

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.

It is, of course, a wonderful gospel promise. The “protoevangelium”, as Luther puts it.

So Eve, in her name and in her seed, stands in front of us as a reminder of not only sin (for she fell with Adam) but also of the gospel promises of God.

Over the years many have made a link between Eve and Mary, the mother of Christ. Such links are more common in Roman thinking than elsewhere. I came across a striking example today:

O Eve!
My mother, my daughter, life-giving Eve,

Do not be ashamed, do not grieve.

The former things have passed away,

Our God has brought us to a New Day.

See, I am with Child,

Through whom all will be reconciled.

O Eve! My sister, my friend,

We will rejoice together

Forever

Life without end.
— Sr. Columba Guare copyright© 2005 Sisters of the Mississippi Abbey

Both the image and poem come from members of a Roman Catholic religious order. The originals can be found here and the poem put to stunning music here.

Given my thoughts about Gen. 3 there was much here that struck me. The notion of Mary holding out the unborn Christ to Eve as her comfort is quite wonderful. The poem also uses clever imagery. The “new day” of the New Creation with its return to the Tree of Life is excellent. There is also a rich promise in addressing Eve as “life-giving” when everything in the picture speaks to Eve’s falling into the despair of death. Just the very idea of the encounter, with all the resolution and relief it would have brought to Eve is a captivating thought.

But there’s also some issues. Why does Mary call Eve “my daughter”? I can’t find any basis for it. Quite the contrary, for Eve is the mother of all the living (of which Mary is surely included, in both senses, physical and spiritual).

Perhaps of most concern is the image of Mary crushing the serpent herself. Even that image has a double-edge to it. The serpent is wonderfully wrapped around Eve’s leg, controlling and restraining her. Yet, nevertheless, the artist has Mary crushing the serpent.

Is Mary the serpent-crushing seed of Eve? I don’t think so. I almost want to call it blasphemous. It is certainly a serious mistake

But not today. For I don’t want to despise the day of small things. What do you all think?

(h/t Confessing Reader)

All the papers are now online (all except the press release in pdf format).

• Press Release
• GS 1707 - Women in the Episcopate - Further Report from the Legislative Drafting Group
• GS 1708 - Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure
• GS 1709 - Amending Canon Number 30
• GS 1710 - Illustrative Code of Practice
• GS 1708-10X - Explanatory Memorandum

Just want the executive summary? Here’s the para. of interest in the press release (my emphasis):

“The General Synod mandated us to draft a Measure including special arrangements, within existing structures, for those unable to receive the ministry of women bishops and to do that in a national code of practice. We believe we have achieved that by providing for male complementary bishops, as we suggested in our earlier report, and now hand our work to the Synod to discuss the drafts in detail.”

Of course, this moves us on no further than the debate had by General Synod last year. At that time, you may remember, there were many who argued that any such arrangement would undermine the full validity of women bishops. Those tensions still remain.

Nevertheless, the working group has attempted to set out a code of practice to deal with conscientious dissent. Here’s some samples of what they say:

The legislation enabling women to become bishops within the Church of England enshrines this principle. Equally, it imposes certain obligations on those who, on theological grounds, cannot receive the ministry of women as bishops and priests or those ordained by them. They are required, under the Canons, to accept that the Church of England has decided to admit men and women equally to holy orders and that those whom the Church has duly ordained and appointed to office are the lawful holders of their office and are to be accounted as such by all – with all that that implies in terms of due respect and lawful obedience.

I’m quite pleased with this, and I want to suggest that others who are opposed to the consecration of women should be too. Out here in Sydney I’m never likely to have to deal with this issue but back in England it could very well be a reality. What are we being asked to do? Well, I would suggest it’s no more that observing the following:

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Those of us who dissent need to remember that God has decided that this is what will happen. He has, I suggest, decided to hand the Church of England further over to her disobedience in walking away from His word. Proponents of women bishops are keen to cite the example of Deborah in Judges 4. They speak better than they know. The story of Judges 4 is one of the disgrace of Israel. Doing evil in the eyes of the Lord He puts a woman in charge. When a man finally steps up (or, rather, is called up by her to lead in her place - read the text of v6 carefully) he still wants her to lead. Her response is well known:

Judges 4:8 Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” ⁹ And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh.

Yes, it’s a disaster but it is what God has intended to happen as Israel slip further and further away from Him.

And now God has intended, it seems, that the Church of England should have women bishops and we are to recognise that and obey the authorities He has put in place. That means that if Mdm Bishop sends you paperwork, you fill it out and send it back. It’s as simple as that. Just like you would fill in your tax form. Even if you cannot receive and acknowledge her ministry (understood as word or sacrament-based), you can still submit to her canonical authority - as we do in other areas of life (or, at least, we should do if we take the Lord’s words seriously).

The Code of Practice itself is pretty comprehensive and my first reading didn’t raise much concern. At the end of the day it relies on the female diocesan to make it work. In particular there is a suggested statutory delegation of episcopal functions which would, when enacted, provide more than adequate protection for dissenting parishes.

Nevertheless, none of this will happen in a hurry. The working group envisages the final legislation being debated in 2010. How should dissenters proceed now? I would suggest that they continue with opposition to the measure in general, but with firm support for the code of practice suggested by the working group. It is a charitable attempt to make our positions safe, and has been set out in the face of strident opposition from the more vociferous proponents of women’s ordination. We could ask that the code of practice actually becomes a leglislated measure, but it is unlikely to happen.

Back to the preamble to the suggested Code of Practice:

Respect and graciousness will be necessary from everyone if the Church of England is successfully to be able to sustain a diversity of arrangements unique in Christian history. The Church of England has, for many centuries, had a tradition of encompassing, within the limits of its liturgies, formularies and order, an unusually wide range of convictions on matters of faith and order.

While I reject the assertion of the second sentence as pretty typical historical revision of the actual breadth of conviction that was intended to be contained in the Church of England, the first is nevertheless certainly true. Queen Elizabeth herself famously never allowed her investigators to “ask the third time” whether clergy under her authority really subscribed to received doctrine. Whether it really was charity or simply the wisdom of not making unnecessary martyrs remains a question for the historians, but we English have usually managed to talk these things through and work things out without the need for a Terrible Fuss™. Time for the dissenters to outdo others in respect and graciousness as we battle to protect our consciences.

It’s Boxing Day here, I trust everyone had a great Christmas.

You may have noticed for the past few weeks you’ve not been able to comment here. I’ve sorted the problem out now and so I await the deluge of witty reparté...

Oh, and don’t know what to do with that battery-powered thingy your aunty got you yesterday? Here’s one suggestion…

One last post in our Messiah series. Hope you’ve enjoyed it.

The Hallelujah chorus is, suprisingly, not the end of the Messiah. For we are left to consider not just the awesome victory of God but also the benefits which it has won for us. These are summed up in one word “Resurrection”. The Gospel hope is of a restored, Resurrected, Creation and our place in it purchased by our union with Christ. He has saved us on the Cross and has guaranteed our future by His own resurrection.

So we moved into a number of pieces which reinforce this great theme. First is that magnificent gospel statement from Job, perhaps the earliest clear statement of confidence in the Resurrection that we see in the Scriptures. Job’s plea, of course, is one of vindication. A resurrected redeemer will vindicate him, no matter what happens in the meantime.:

Job 19:25-26 I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.
...
1 Corinthians 15:20 For now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.

Having stepped into 1 Corinthians 15, we are now led through the argument that the Apostle Paul makes…

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Our problem is a very human problem. We are all descended from the one man and so inherit our sinful nature and consequent death from him. What we need is another man to lead us instead. That man has come - the Lord Jesus Christ. In Adam we all die, but those that are in Christ will live, even though they die (John 11).

But how will this be accomplished? In what way does the Lord Jesus Christ guarantee our future?

1Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

Here is the great Christian confidence. It is not that we must struggle and labour in our travails until we have won our way into God’s favour. There is no lengthy sentence of purgation required of us. No! Rather, when the Lord Jesus Christ returns we will be transformed instantaneously by His power. Like a trumpet blast that sounds suddenly and clearly, the return of Christ will be a day of victory and restoration.

1 Corinthians 15:52-53 The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.

This is, perhaps, my very favourite part of the Messiah. And below you will find one of my favourite recordings…

That will be the great day where the victorious death and rsurrection of Jesus is seen for what it really is…

1 Corinthians 15:54 Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.
...
1 Corinthians 15:55-56 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

The Chorus breaks in with the great shout of confidence:

1 Corinthians 15:57 But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Soprano is now given the privilege of showing us quite how deep this victory of Jesus is. In the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God has shown His unswerving dedication to the salvation of His people.

Romans 8:31 If God be for us, who can be against us?
...
Romans 8:33-34 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is at the right hand of God, who makes intercession for us.

This is well worth stopping to consider for a moment. The risen and ascended Jesus, now at the right hand of God, intercedes for His people. It is common for Christians to wonder about their status in God’s eyes. Worry no more! Your status is as secure as that of Jesus for He intercedes for you. Your future is guaranteed by His own resurrection and your present is sustained by His intercession. Questions of perseverance in the Christian life are incorrectly asked if the enquiry concentrates on the believer. Rather, we should raise our eyes to look at Jesus and consider what He has already achieved and what He is doing for us now. Upon consideration of Him we are given far greater assurance.

This is why the Reformers’  great watchcry was “Soli Deo Gloria” - “to God alone be the Glory!” The Messiah has been an account of the saving action of God in Jesus Christ. Thus we finish with a resounding anthem of praise to Him:

Revelation 5:12-13 Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His blood, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. Amen.

Having urged us to proclaim the good news of Christ to all of Creation, we are turned to a further exposition of what that good news is. And the contents of the message are somewhat surprising.

Psalm 2:1-2 Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against His Anointed.

The question is asked by the Bass. A deep resounding query that now, having seen all that we have seen, seems almost pointless to ask. Why indeed would the nations rage against the Christ?

The tenor tells us of their rebellion.

Psalm 2:3 Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us.

The import behind the question, of course, is not that it is wrong simply because Christ is who He is but, rather, for a different reason.

Psalm 2:4 He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn; the Lord shall have them in derision.

God laughs at those who oppose Him. He laughs in the way that the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have laughed the first time they heard Saddam Hussein brag of destroying the US armies in “the mother of all battles”. God laughs because the hostility and rebellion of mankind is stupid, contemptuous and utterly futile.

He will squash them like ants…

Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

This is, of course, part of the great news that we are to proclaim to all the earth - that the Lord God and His annointed will crush all opposition to their eternal reign. It is a terrifying but glorious thought.

Glorious indeed, since it makes the choirs of heaven break out in ecstatic praise….

Revelation 19:6 Hallelujah! for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
...
Revelation 11:15 The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
...
Revelation 19:16 King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
...
Hallelujah!

Let us be clear on what is being said here. These two sections of Revelation being quoted in the famous Hallelujah chorus speak of the total and devastatingly crushing victory of God over all His enemies. Every single person who has opposed the Lord Jesus Christ will be dealt with, for eternity and it is this that makes the choirs of heaven break into song! How about you…?

John Shepherd, perhaps the most mis-named clergyman in the whole of Australia, the man who brought us “We need to challenge the belief that the Resurrection from the Dead was a physical resurrection” has come up with another cracker for Christmas:

”Salvation is not about who is in and who is out”, currently available on the Times Online site, who must recognise a controversial article when they see one.

So what has Dean Shepherd, denier of the Resurrection got to say?

A funny thing happened on the way to the cathedral. A woman in the street asked me if I were saved.

When you think about it, it’s an odd question to ask. Even odder is the answer you would give.

The regulation short replies — yes, no or don’t know — seem not to be quite in the spirit of the thing. But then, I must say, the question seemed to be fairly light on genuine concern for the state of my spiritual health. It was more like a threat. I picked that up from the tone of voice. I am intuitive like that. And the poster. You could get a clue the way things were going by the poster she was holding. It said “If your (sic) not saved, your (sic) damned.”

Thing is, I reckon John would be threatened by such a question. After all, it’s quite confronting. At least it was when Jesus spoke about the same topic. The KJV uses the word “damnation” to translate the Greek “krima” or “krisis”, both of which speak of a punishment or judgement of condemnation. It’s interesting the way that Jesus uses the language:

Matthew 10:15 I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment (krisis) than for that town.

...

Matthew 23:33 You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? (lit.: “the krisis of hell”)

It is rather threatening.

My salvation coach raised an interesting question.

your what?

Salvation is a central theme of the Christian faith. Salvific themes of the Old Testament include escape from captivity, freedom from oppression and hope for a transformed and reconciled world.

In the New Testament Jesus announces the coming of God’s kingdom by forgiving sins and healing the sick. This is the work of salvation, which the Church would continue, instituting a new Heaven and a new Earth.

Again, curious turns of phrase. I always thought it was God who instituted a new Heaven and a new Earth (Rev. 21:1ff. and all that). If I were being generous I would state that Shepherd has some rather over-realised eschatology. But I fear that is not what he is talking about…

At least three things stand out. The first is that this salvation is experienced corporately, not individually. The Old Testament writers speak in terms of a community in which the presence of God could be experienced within a fellowship bound together by devotion to God. For the writers of the New Testament, Jesus was never to be thought of as a personal saviour, as though He were our personal toothbrush.

We are not saved individually, as though by some private act of divine indulgence. It is within the community that we can find forgiveness for the past, and hope for a way of beginning again.

What Shepherd, of course, absolutely hates is the notion that we require individual salvation. Jesus, as he has already reminded us, comes “forgiving sins” but heaven forbid we actually speak about an individual’s sins. The Old Testament writers did, of course, speak in terms of community but not at the expense of individual responsibility, sin and salvation. Perhaps most famously of all that arch-sinner King David had this to say:

Psalm 51:1 For the music director; a psalm of David, written when Nathan the prophet confronted him after David’s affair with Bathsheba.
Have mercy on me, O God, because of your loyal love! Because of your great compassion, wipe away my rebellious acts! ² Wash away my wrongdoing! Cleanse me of my sin! ³ For I am aware of my rebellious acts; I am forever conscious of my sin. ⁴ Against you– you above all– I have sinned; I have done what is evil in your sight. So you are just when you confront me; you are right when you condemn me. ⁵ Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. ⁶ Look, you desire integrity in the inner man; you want me to possess wisdom. ⁷ Sprinkle me with water and I will be pure; wash me and I will be whiter than snow. ⁸ Grant me the ultimate joy of being forgiven! May the bones you crushed rejoice! ⁹ Hide your face from my sins! Wipe away all my guilt!

This is a very personal song, in every sense. David the sinner speaks of the individual salvation that God brings. That is not to say that he is divorced from his community, after all he goes on to say:

¹³ Then I will teach rebels your merciful ways, and sinners will turn to you. ¹⁴ Rescue me from the guilt of murder, O God, the God who delivers me! Then my tongue will shout for joy because of your deliverance. ¹⁵ O Lord, give me the words! Then my mouth will praise you.

David will go back to the community and tell them of the individual salvation that they might all, sinners the lot of them, receive from God. The community is the place where we work out our salvation - a salvation experienced first personally as God sorts out our sins.

I think many of my readers might call that “strike 1” for Shepherd.

Second, there is no evidence to suggest that what is required for salvation is an intellectual assent, a signing-off, which would effect a once-for-all change in us, whereby salvation is instantaneous, and we are passive recipients of its benefits.

It would be wrong to imagine that salvation occurs in a single act of religious fervour. The most usually quoted example of such an apparently swift transformation is Paul’s conversion. Yet, according to the account in Acts (ix, 1-19), it was not suddenly on the Damascus road, but only after the laying-on of hands by Ananias in the context of the care of the house of Judas, and after the scales had fallen from his eyes, and his sight was restored, that Paul was baptised, and his strength returned.

Salvation cannot be confined to one cataclysmic event; it requires engagement with a process in the context of a community — the Church. The transformation of human life that salvation suggests takes time, and needs to embrace many aspects of Christian insight and understanding.

Right towards the start of the Old Testament, that great anthology of the “community” of God, we are introduced to a man called Abram. God makes some pretty amazing promises to him, such as these in Genesis 15:

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” ² But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” ³ And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” ⁴ And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” ⁵ And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Now there are some quite astounding propositions set before Abram. He will be rewarded. His own son will be his heir. His offspring will be numbered like the stars. What does Abram do in response? Does he go and take his time in order to embrace the many aspects of insight and understanding that his community can provide?
No, rather…

⁶ And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

He believes the promises of God and the effects are, contra Shepherd, instantaneous. Abram becomes a passive recipients of God’s benefits, to borrow a phrase from somone. So profound is this moment of instantaneous passive receipt that it is marked out as the great salvation moment and model in the OT by the Apostle Paul in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

As for the Apostle Paul himself, his reflection upon the Damascus Road is as follows:

Acts 26:15 So I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. ¹⁶ But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this reason, to designate you in advance as a servant and witness to the things you have seen and to the things in which I will appear to you. ¹⁷ I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you ¹⁸ to open their eyes so that they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’ ¹⁹ “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, ²⁰ but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds consistent with repentance.

For Paul, then, the moment of conversion was that encounter. Elsewhere he describes it as an abnormal or untimely birth (1Cor. 15:8). This same Paul speaks clearly again and again of the free and total salvation provided in the Lord Jesus Christ, by simply trusting Him.

I think the phrase is “strike 2”.

Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out — who are sheep or who are goats.

Yes, I know what you’re thinking. But let’s hear him out…

Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief? Salvation is concerned with the transformation of life. All life. Barriers to the flourishing of all human beings are to be overcome, whatever stage people are at in the awareness of this life-giving dynamic. What matters is that we have all been freed to be all there is in us to be. Otherwise Christ has died in vain.

It would be easy to quote Jesus here, as no doubt many of you have already done. Rather, let me explain what is going on. As we noted earlier, Shepherd has spoken about “forgiveness of sins” but wandered far away from any Biblical understanding of the notion. With sin, damnation and forgiveness now out of the way he needs to find another way to restate the Biblical themes. So why not go for his own version of the MDG’s? What we end up with is humanism. If there is no dilemma over entry into the New Creation then the New Creation can begin now. Note as well that it is, once more, we who do the saving. How far this is from the grace of God. It is, truly, another form of works-righteousness that the Scriptures rightly condemn again and again.

The mantras are familiar to all those who labour away in TEC. “Freed to be all there is in us to be” is a classic.

And, best of all, we are told that “otherwise Christ has died in vain”. Thing is, reading this whole thing you have no clue why Christ died at all. If we are the ones making the New Creation, then what place is there for Christ? What need for His death?
The irony of Shepherd’s quote is priceless. Here it is in situ:

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died in vain!

Consider that carefully. Paul is stating that righteousness comes not by observing the Law but by faith in Christ. If it comes through Law observance than Christ died in vain. But Shepherd would have us believe that if salvation is not through works, and rather, by faith (including intellectual assent to the claims of Christ and faith in them) then Christ died in vain. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of what Paul is arguing.
Are you in any doubt that Shepherd preaches salvation by works? Check out his closing sentence:

Are we saved? This is a poor question to ask. A better question is “Are we committed to the process of human flourishing?” If yes, then we are saved.

I would count out the “strike three” if this were not so desperately tragic. God forgive this man for such a terrible denial of Christian truth and setting-aside of Christ’s perfect saving work.

I had to get this up the moment I saw it. No explanation necessary, just press the big play button…

One is not enough! Here’s another favourite of mine…

Plenty more on the youtube page.

Matt recently pointed us to a post by Christina Rees, chair of the women’s ordination pressure group WATCH (Women and the Church). The piece by Rees is one of several in the last week for the Guardian newspaper’s “Comment is Free” section.

Last week the question was raised “What should evangelicals believe?” This is, of course, a key question. Much of the fracturing amongst those who are opposed to the innovations of TEC and others in the Anglican Communion comes about because this simple question cannot be answered clearly.

I was lucky enough to spend my formative Christian years (my 20s) at All Souls, Langham Place in London. I didn’t pick it up right from the start, but God had seen fit to have me sit under some of the finest and most faithful preaching in England. In particular I got to hear fairly regularly from John Stott [wiki] who wikipedia accurately describe as

...a British Christian leader and Anglican clergyman who is noted as a leader of the worldwide evangelical movement.

It was under the pulpit of Stott and others that my great confidence in the Scriptures was watered into life and then thoroughly nourished.

Stott is, of course, famous across the world, not least amongst Anglican Evangelicals, for the clarity of both his convictions and their communication. Having been heavily involved in both the NEACs of the English Church and then the Lausanne Conference, one of his greatest passions was the quest for unity amongst those who called themselves evangelical.

So, in his 1999 work “Evangelical Truth”, subtitled “A personal plea for unity” he writes the following (199 ed., p.141):

It is important to observe, however, what kind of unity Paul is commending [in Phillipians]. It is neither unity at any price, even compromising fundamental truths in order to attain it, nor unity in every particular, seperating from anybody who fails to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ as we do. It is rather unity in the gospel, in evangelical essentials, ‘standing ... side by side in the struggle to advance the gospel faith’ [Phil. 1:27]

Stott is more than happy to allow those that claim the name “evangelical” to disagree on a raft of what he calls “secondary issues”. But there are certain matters which he holds as unshakeable (p.143):

But these secondary matters, in which we can afford to give each other freedom of consicence, leave primary Christian truths intact, especially those which relate to the person and work of Christ, as defined in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, togehter with the great Reformation emphases on the supreme authority of Scripture, the atoning death of Christ, the justification of sinners by grace alone through faith alone, and the indispensable ministry of the Holy Spirit. On these we must insist.

Behind all this lies the fundamental evangelical conviction of the clarity and authority of the Scriptures. So, when setting out how we know anything, Stott speaks of (p.54, 65, 67)

The evangelical emphasis on truth, revealed by God and therefore absolute, binding and universal…

...

Because Scripture is the revelation of God by the inspiration of the Spirit, it has authority over us.

...

The evangelical answer is that Christ rules his church through Scripture. Scripture is the sceptre by which King Jesus reigns.

None of this, of course, should be a shock to those of us who are evangelical. It is the classic evangelical position of which Stott is only one example.

So when the Guardian asked their question, “What should evangelicals believe?”, you would expect to see much made of the authority of Scripture.

It started well. John Richardson (friend of this blog) gave the first answer:

Ideally, it should be possible to say of evangelical belief what Bishop Stephen Neill once said (perhaps optimistically) of Anglicanism; there are no “special” doctrines, there is no “particular” theology, since evangelicals would claim for themselves what Neill claimed for the Church of England as a whole: “Show us anything clearly set forth in holy scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to holy scripture, and we will abandon it.”

There will of course, John tells us, be differences - but evangelicalism is grounded in the conviction that a sure testimony about Christ has been passed on , that evangelism proceeds from this and that a response of faith is needed.

So far, so good. Then Christina Rees has a go:

Although evangelicals should rightly be devoted to the Bible as the inspired word of God and the prime source for the authority of our faith, we should resist the tendency of some to elevate the Bible to the point of worshipping it, of making it an idol. The Bible is precious: it contains truths and points to the truth, but is not itself to be worshipped. We need to remember that the focus of early Christian self-understanding was not a holy book or even a special rite or ritual, but a set of relationships. After Jesus had ascended, his followers identified themselves by their beliefs and by the experience of God’s presence among them, as individuals and in communities.

I think evangelicals should be those Christians most characterised by their passion for passing on the message of the risen Christ and the sacrificial, unconditional and never-ending love of God. They should be most dedicated to encouraging and helping people to come to a saving faith in God through Jesus the Christ, something we believe is made possible by the power of the holy spirit.

In a word, no. It’s an interesting side-shuffle (that I’ve not seen since my wife attempted to teach me salsa dancing) that’s performed here. Scripture is set up as a straw-man object of worship and then knocked off a plinth that nobody put it on in the first place. We are told it “contains truths” and “points to the truth”. It’s starting to sound a lot less like the clear conviction of men like Stott.

Perhaps the biggest undermining of the Scriptures is in the description of the early church. It’s interesting that the Bible itself speaks not so much simply of the relationships between those early believers but the foundation of the gospel declaration that those relationships were grounded upon. So, Paul gives us perhaps the first lengthy example of this kerygma:

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, ² and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you– unless you believed in vain. ³ For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received– that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, ⁴ and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been in vain. In fact, I worked harder than all of them– yet not I, but the grace of God with me. ¹¹ Whether then it was I or they, this is the way we preach and this is the way you believed.

This apostolic message was very rapidly enscripturated and those Scriptures given the same weight and authority as the Old Testament Scriptures (so, for example, 2Pet. 3:16). There was no declaration of the life and work of Jesus outside of the Scriptures. When Luther spoke of “Christ clothed in the Scriptures” it was not a new idea - it was the way things were from almost the very beginning.

So the early Christians did have a “passion for passing on the message of the risen Christ”, as Rees puts it. But that passion could not be divorced from the authoritative Scriptures that provided the key testimony of that message. What Rees wants us to believe is that the key message can be divorced and even freed from the Scriptures, rendering the Scriptures if not unnecessary then not central. It is a distortion not only of the evangelical position but of what those Scriptures themselves have to say.

By the time that Graham Kings answers the same question on Friday, discussion of the place of Scripture is relegated away to part of the fifth of six “essential beliefs” of evangelicalism:

We are led, fifthly, into an open relationship with God in prayer, which is often expressed as conversation with God, as well as through written prayers, and in the study of the Bible, which is seen as God’s authoritative word – not locked up in a book, but released in our lives. The scriptures are not set on a level with “reason” and “tradition” but above them and interpreted contextually by them.

The Holy Scriptures, God’s special, necessary and sufficient revelation are now described as “God’s authoritative word” but actually relegated far down the page.

What Kings is communicating here, whether intentionally or not, is that our approach to the Scriptures is somehow an outworking of deeper and more fundamental convictions rather than the solid foundation that it takes in classical evangelicalism.

We have come a long, long way away from Stott and even Richardson.

What is most distressing about all this is that those who hold these positions want to continue to be called “Evangelical” and to have their place in the evangelical world. There was much outrage from their side that the recent NEAC 2008 consultation (or, to be fair, lack of it) organised by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) seemed to marginalise their position. Had the CEEC actually managed the discussion well then there would still have been, one suspects, a large amount of disquiet from the Open Evangelicals, such as Rees, Kings and others. For their position is simply not evangelicalism in its classical sense.

Now, those who hold to what was always the classical evangelical position, so clearly set forth by men like Stott and Packer, are called “conservative evangelical” in order to make space for the “open evangelicals” and “post-evangelicals” and whoever else wants to share the name.

They are rather, if I may be so bold, “faux-Evangelicals”. They speak of the authority of Scripture but are afraid of its harder messages. So Rees does not want to be called a heretic if she thinks Scripture is not clear on homosexual behaviour. But that is, ultimately, what she is because the real issue is not sexuality but the authority of Scripture itself. On that key issue she and so many others have relinquished any right to be called an evangelical.

Now, of course, all this can look very much like what Stott himself warns us of when he writes of “our evangelical tendency to fragment” (p.9). But this is not simple sectarianism. Evangelicals should be and always used to be known for their confidence in and submission to Scripture. When that is no longer the case then we should not change our definition of “evangelical” in order to continue to give people a place at the table. Rather, perhaps, we ought to tighten our definition before it’s hard to tell what we are anymore.