Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (1)

Some years ago I bought a copy of David Bebbington’s Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (pub Routledge 1989). Bebbington’s book can hardly be described as a page turner, however, it has become a major text in terms of understanding Evangelicalism in an historical context. In the Church of Scotland, and I’m sure other denominations, Evangelical is a slippery term which seems difficult to define and its origins are uncertain if not in dispute. Bebbington’s work is highly commended to anyone interested in understanding Evangelicalism.

I hope to write a series of posts on this important work as an offering towards understanding and communication between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals especially in the Church of Scotland at this time.

Bebbington begins with an attempt to define Evangelicalism.
Evangelical apologists sometimes explained their distinctiveness by laying claim to particular emphases. … according to Henry Venn in 1835 Evangelical Clery differs from others, ‘not so much in their systematic statement of doctrines, as in the relative importance which they assign to the particular parts of the Christian System, and in the vital operation of Christian Doctrines upon the heart and conduct.’ And Bishop Ryle of Liverpool asserted that it was not the substance of certain doctrines but the prominent position assigned to only a few of them that marked out Evangelical Churchmen from others. … It [the Evangelical tradition] gave exclusive pride of place to a small number of leading principles. (page 2)

What Venn and Ryle are saying here is that Evangelicals do not hold different doctrines from other Christians, but that in their systematic exposition of the Christian faith they give prominence to a few of those, which are not so privileged in other systems of Christian doctrine. I’m sure there is a danger in elevating only a few doctrines amongst others, the obvious danger is of imbalance. There would need to be more said to identify the particular points of doctrine so elevated and a case made for their place in the Evangelical scheme.
I do like Venn’s comment about the vital operation of Christian Doctrines upon the heart and conduct. There is far too much that passes under the name of Christian doctrine or theology that would only move the heart to coldness and leave all matters of conduct to personal preference. For Evangelicals this will not do. If the heart is not affected by our Christian doctrine and our life is not conformed to the likeness of Christ then our doctrine is wrong and needs changed.

Bebbington describes four characteristics which he says emerge clearly from a study of Evangelical history:
conversionism – the belief that lives need to be changed.
activism – the expression of the gospel in effort.
biblicism – a particular regard for the Bible.
crucicentrism – a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

These are not elegant terms and should not be widely used. However, they do get to the heart of what is distinctive about Evangelicalism. Of interest, Bebbington can show that for eighteenth century Evangelicals the Bible was not normally put among the most important features of their religion, however, by the time of Bishop Ryle at the end of the nineteenth century the first principle of Evangelical religion is the absolute supremacy it assigns to Holy Scripture. (page 3) In particular the primacy of Scripture was directed against those who exalted the authority of either church or reason. And then in the twentieth century those attributing most importance to Scripture became known as conservatives.
This ‘change’ in the relative importance attached to Scripture is something Bebbington returns to, as we will in later posts.

There is what I find a sad note on page 4,
Instead of the joy of new discovery that pervades eighteenth-century lists of distinctives, there is a resolve to resist an incoming tide of error.
For many resisting error has become the main thing in Evangelical religion in the early twenty-first century. But this cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Yes, resisting error is important, the watchman must sound a warning, the sheep must be guarded from the wolves. But is this all Evangelicalism has to offer the church, and more importantly the non-Christian world? I hope not!
And yet, the joy of new discovery doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps what should be more evident in Evangelicalism is that joy in the Lord and in his wonderful gospel which brings to life a confidence and humility in trusting our Lord. We could do with more of this!

I think it will be good to post separately on each of these four distinctives before moving onto the rest of Bebbington’s book, so watch out for more on this theme.

Promoting the Gospel

Last week I read John Dickson's book Promoting the Gospel: The whole of life for the cause of Christ. I can't find a picture on the web, pub by Aquila Press 2005, ISBN 1 920935 770. Copies are available in the Tron Book shop Glasgow, at least they were the last time I was in.

The eleven chapters of this book are a great encouragement to any Christian to be involved in the work of promoting the gospel. I know that some have used these eleven chapters as fuel for a sermon series, but they could equally be used in small groups, for evangelism training or the whole book read at a church book group (and if you don't have one, why not?)

However, the highlight of the book are the appendices, especially 1 and 2. Appendix 3 is good, a modern retelling of the gospel in which Dickson gives an example of an evangelistic conversation, but appendices 1 and 2 steal the show.

In appendix 1 Dickson seeks to answer the question 'What is the Gospel?', and boy does he answer it well. An examination of key NT 'gospel' texts results in the following description of the core content of the gospel:

• Jesus' royal birth secured his claim to the eternal throne promised to king David.
• Jesus' miracles pointed to the presence of God's kingdom in the person of his Messiah.
• Jesus' teaching sounded the invitation of the kingdom and laid down its demands.
• Jesus' sacrificial death atoned for the sins of those who would otherwise be condemned at the consumation of the kingdom.
• Jesus' resurrection establishes him as the Son whom God has appointed Judge of the world and Lord of the coming kingdom.

For me, there isn't anything in this 'core content' that should not be included, nor is there anything omitted that should be included. This is the Gospel: it's all about Jesus, the Kingdom of God is the message, the cross is at the centre.

In appendix 2 Dickson offers what he calls Gospel bites, by which he means ways of answering the questions asked by people who don't share our faith using the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Too often we don't look for the Gospel in the gospels and here are a series of great examples showing us how to answer with the Gospel from the gospels. Easiest just to copy out the first example, page 192:

Imagine a friend declares, 'I've done too many wrong things ever to be a Christian.' ... Lk 7:36-50 could provide the basis for the following possible reply:
Well, then, you are exactly the sort of person Christ was interested in. He was at the home of a religious leader (Pharisee) one day when a prostitute came in looking for him. She was so overwhelmed she burst out crying. Everyone there wanted to condemn the woman and throught Jesus should do the same. Instead, Jesus condemned his self-righteous host and turned to the woman and said, 'Your sins are forgiven.' He forgave her and she was a changed woman because of it. Christ didn't come for the 'good' people. He came to restore and forgive those willing to admit they are anything but good. Have you ever looked into Jesus life?

Read it through, a short answer but it addresses the comment and uses a gospel story to teach the Gospel. Dickson offers a number of other examples which, once you catch on, you will be able to work out your own.

This is a good book to help us keep the main thing the main thing. The Good News needs to be proclaimed and we need to promote the Gospel.
John Dickson was a speaker at this years EMA, and you can download his two addresses from that site here.

Rhapsody in Blue

I got a copy of this CD the other day, thanks to Karen.

What a great disc, a really wonderful group of musicians with Brian Kellock's piano and so much work from Tommy Smith.

This is well worth taking a chance on if you think you don't like jazz. Listen to this and you'll find that you do.

Ezekiel and the 'celtic' church

I've never been persuaded that the celtic church really existed in the form presented to us by the celtic church gurus. There clearly were Christians in Ireland and Scotland from the early 5th Century, but as with all others they would have been Western Christians under the authority of Rome.

I've been reading Chris Wright's book on Ezekiel, which is highly commended. Commenting on 8:14-15:
14 Then he [The LORD] brought me [Ezekiel] to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. 15 He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this."
Wright offers the following comment:
Christians are rightly recovering a creation balance in our worship and spirituality. Celtic worship has been enjoying something of a revival, even if not all of it would be immediately recognized by Patrick or Columba. However, there is a danger that what passes as allegedly 'Celtic' actually draws on pre-Christian Celtic paganism (which is very much in vogue with New Age adherents), rather than the vigorous and trinitarian Celtic Christianity which emerged after the remarkable conversion of Ireland. It is vital that our appreciation of creation within our worship is kept anchored to the biblical affirmations about God himself, and not allowed to drift over into a false kind of personalizing of nature. If creation is exalted to excessive levels in our theology or worship, we may subtly marginalize the person and character of the Creator and come close to ascribing divine power and properties to natural forces and elements. 'The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it' (Ps 24:2), and our worship, like the worship of all created things, must be directed to the Lord himself alone. The paradox is that if we worshp the living God rightly as Creator, then we shall care for creation as well, as he commanded; but if we worship the creation (in any of its manifestations, or even by unbridled consumerism), we quickly forget the Creator. (pages 106-107)

I am grateful to Chris for this timely reminder and hope that sharing it with you will be an encouragement to worship our God who alone Created everything there is.

More on red letters

Further on red letter Christians and red letter bibles, see an earlier post here. I was reading the follow passage in a bible with red letters for the words of Jesus.

John 12:27-29
27 "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say?`Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

Whose voice speaks from heaven in v. 28? Presumably the same voice as spoke from heaven at the baptism of the Lord Jesus and at his transfiguration. The only voice that ever speaks from heaven is the voice of God.

Why do we colour the words of the Lord Jesus red but not the words of God? Are the words of the Lord Jesus better, more significant, more important than the words of God spoken from heaven?

It is a truly silly idea to have red letter bibles, and an even worse idea to claim to be a red letter Christian, privileging the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Scripture over the word of God, which is the essential nature of Scripture.

Tom Wright Justification 1

In 2008 John Piper published The Future of Justification: A response to NT Wright. This short volume from 2009 is Wright’s response to Piper. See my earlier post on Piper, in short, I think his book seeks to show that Wright is not following a main line, traditional reformed interpretation of justification. We didn’t need a book to tell us that.

In a number of posts I’m going to offer comments on Wright’s response.

Chapter 1
In this first Chapter Wright sets out to show what this discussion is all about and why it matters.

“Ever since I first read Luther and Calvin, particularly the latter, I determined that whether or not I agreed with them in everything they said, their stated and practised method would be mine, too: to soak myself in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, to get it into my bloodstream by every means possible, in the prayer and hope that I would be able to teach scripture afresh to the church and the world. The greatest honour we can pay the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible – they would be horrified at that – but to do as they did.” (page 6.)

I have not yet found a human author with whom I can say I agree with everything they said (or wrote). And I do not expect to find one. By definition a human author is human and therefore even the best author and their best work will be tainted by sin in some part. We cannot allow ourselves to be blindly chained to any human author, however much we value any tradition of interpretation of Scripture that derives from them.
I am not one of those who denies the value of theology and the systematic study of theology. However, if I am forced to choose let me study Scripture and only Scripture. There is no greater need in our generation than for Scripture to be heard and obeyed. If I find my study of Scripture to lead me to disagree with any tradition or part of Christian theology then I will humbly do that. That is what Augustine, Luther and Calvin did. Are they the only ones to be given this duty?

“But the real point is, I believe, that the salvation of human beings, though of course extremely important for those human beings, is part of a larger purpose. God is rescuing us from the shipwreck of the world, not so that we can sit back and put our feet up in his company, but so that we can be part of his plan to remake the world. We are in orbit around God and his purposes, not the other way round.” (page 8 – Author’s emphasis)

Yes, read that one over again and then lower your peacock feathers. Salvation is for God’s glory alone, not our glory. This doctrinal debate is not about some obscure point of theology. Justification is that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It does very closely touch the work of redemption God has achieved in Christ. It is about the heart of the gospel.
It matters that we get this right, because if we get it wrong we will end up mistreating the gospel and misrepresenting the purposes of God in his great work of redemption.

In this opening chapter Wright comments on the vast field of contemporary literature on this theme. Noting that he will not engage with it all, but promises us a larger more detail work on Paul as part of his on going Christian Origins and the Question of God series. In this introduction Wright promises much. He will offer us three further chapters of introduction in which he outlines his thinking on justification before a final four chapters of detailed exegesis of the key Pauline texts on this theme.

Final Thoughts on The Word Became Fresh

I haven't offered a full review of all the chapters in this really good book. It's a long time since I've read a book of just 154 pages so full of really helpful comments and ideas.

Just two more, see earlier posts

On application:
God has given his word for our instruction and obedience, for our endurance and encouragement; therefore any interpretation that stops short of appropriation [application] is illegitimate. (page 94)
What a great definition of application,wholly grounded upon our understanding of the nature of Scripture as God's word and the purpose of Scripture which God desires to see in our lives. Too many sermons fail to be sermons at this point. A fine exposition of God's word ends at the point of exposition and never touches any kind of application. Davis shows in his chapter on this that application may obviously be applied to our behaviour, but also - and this is really important - to our thinking. Sometimes what needs to change is our thinking about God which can easily become un-biblical. In relation to narrative text Davis is very helpful in illustrating where the application can be doxological, the outcome of a story may be the glorifying of God and an out pouring of praise from those who respond properly to the wonders of our God.

On centre:
For a student of OT talk of a centre raises the spectre of a search for the unifying centre of the OT. Rather Davis offers a premier presupposition,
God has given his word as a revelation of himself; if then I use his word rightly, I will long to see him, and he will be the focus of my study. (page 121 - what a sentence to have on a page bearing this number!!)

Yes, Scripture is about God, a gracious self-revelation of God to humanity. It is only about humanity in relation to God, not about humanity and not about God in relation to humanity. If we go wrong at the beginning we won't get back on line at all. Too many sermons, and far to much of what is called contemporary theology is not worthy the name being rather sociological or anthropological studies in which some kind of god may or may not be involved. A theocentric approach to Scripture will serve us like a compass needle and keep us in the right direction.

This book is most highly commended for all preachers and all students of God's word. It has a particular focus upon OT narrative texts but the points made can be transferred to other genres and passages of Scripture.

God Isn't Deluded, Even If Dawkins Is!

As we anticipate the publication of another book by Richard Dawkins, described on the cover rather grandly as ‘the most formidable intellect in public discourse’, I share here a section on the Delusion under which Dawkins labours from William Lane Craig. I found this on the EA site, here.

I feel increasing sure that God really isn’t impressed by Dawkins and the so called new atheists.

Dawkin’s Delusion

Richard Dawkins has emerged as the enfant terrible of the movement known as the New Atheism. His best-selling book The God Delusion has become the literary centerpiece of that movement. In it Dawkins aims to show that belief in God is a delusion, that is to say, "a false belief or impression," or worse, "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." On pages 157-58 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." Note it well. If this argument fails, then Dawkins's book is hollow at its core. And, in fact, the argument is embarrassingly weak.

It goes as follows:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements. Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument intended logically to imply the conclusion "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.

A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements not as premises but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins's cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" simply doesn't follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified. The only delusion demonstrated here is Dawkins's conviction that this is "a very serious argument against God's existence."

So what does follow from the six steps of Dawkins's argument? At most all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation.

Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. Dawkins's argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false in any case. Take step 3, for example. Dawkins's claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: Who designed the designer?

This objection is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of some unknown group of people even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extraterrestrial agents even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extraterrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. In the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Second, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations-for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. If a less simple hypothesis exceeds its rivals in explanatory scope and power, for example, then it may well be the preferred explanation despite the sacrifice in simplicity.

But leave those questions aside. Dawkins's fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a nonphysical entity, a mind is not composed of parts; and its salient properties-like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition-are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable physical quantities and constants (mentioned in the fifth step of Dawkins's argument), a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas (it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus), but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may indeed be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity. Other steps in Dawkins's argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.

Several years ago my atheist colleague Quentin Smith unceremoniously crowned Stephen Hawking's argument against God in A Brief History of Time as "the worst atheistic argument in the history of Western thought."5 With the advent of !e God Delusion the time has come to relieve Hawking of this weighty crown and to recognize Richard Dawkins's accession to the throne.

William Lane Craig is research professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. His Ph.D. in Philosophy is from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom.