The Holy Trinity - again!

I am very happy to commend Stephen Holmes book, The Holy Trinity: Understanding God's Life.
Pub: Paternoster 2012
200 pages, xix introduction, 30 pages biblography and index
Price: see amazon!

There are a number of good books that cover this story, the development of the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Steve mentions almost all of them in his footnotes and often through direct engagement with them in the text.

What makes Steve's book different is the clarity with which he draws together the threads of Trinitarian debates from the 4th Century to the time of the Reformation. As Steve shows what he calls 'The Harvest of Patristic Trinitarianism', pp. 144-46, stands for the Medieval and Reformation period scholars also. For this summary alone the book is worth having.

In his opening and closing chapters Steve engages with 20th Century Trinitarian scholarship and boldly shows where these have departed from the Ecumenical settlement of Trinitarian study. Steve offers an historical study to show that the older tradition has strong exegetical roots. He limits his study in this way, 'Nothing I have written excludes that possibility [that this settled doctrine was always wrong]; I do, however, attemnpt to show just how strongly exegetical the traditional presentations of the doctrine were.' page xvi.

For those seeking a brief introduction to the history of Trinitarian thinking within the church and an engagement with 20th Century contributions Steve's book is a good starting place. The footnotes and bibliography will guide you to many other valuable resources. And Steve's writing about the Cappadocian Fathers will have you rushing out to buy English versions or learning Greek to read them for yourself.

Thanks to Steve for this book. And thanks to Paternoster for what promises to be a very helpful series. The series is entitles: Christian Doctrine in Historical Perspective. Coming volumes:
Andrew McGowan, The Person and Work of Christ
Robert Pope, The Church and the Sacraments
Andrew Kirk, The Church and the World

A New Journal

While at the Tyndale Fellowship OT Study group I learned about this publication - The Journal of Theological Interpretation. It is new to me, although started publishing, twice annually, in 2007.

There is web information here.

Kevin Vanhoozer, one of the Editorial Board writes,
“The Journal of Theological Interpretation is a most welcome addition to a development that is as much Renaissance as Reformation: a recovery of ways of reading the Bible that, while not dismissing historical and literary concerns, go on to engage the word of God and thus to tear down the iron curtain that has for too long separated biblical studies and systematic theology. First a commentary series, then a Dictionary, and now a Journal. A three-stranded cord is not easily broken: the contemporary move towards the theological interpretation of the Bible is alive and well.”

The first copy I have is vol 5, no 1. This looks like being a very useful addition to our biblical studies tools, a good reminder of the need for our interpretation of Scripture to engage with theology at some point. So, well worth looking out for.

Would the true God please stand up now!

The human imagination is a great thing. We are especially good at imagining god the way we want him/her/it/them (delete as appropriate) to be. This imaginative quality plays right into our present relativistic worldview, or perhaps that should be worldviews!

How do I know that the God/god I know is the true God? How can I ever say that what anyone else calls god is not the true God? Is it even possible to think of such a question?

The true God has made himself known. If he had not made himself known no human would ever be able to imagine him as he is.

While in Peru in 2004 I heard the story of an Inca chief just a few years before the Spanish arrived who went for three days alone to an island in the midst of a mountain lake. On his return he told his head men that he had watched the sun, whom they worshipped, rising and setting in the same places each day for three days. And he concluded that if the sun were the great god he would chose to exercise greater freedom, so there must be a greater God than the sun and he wanted to get to know him.
This, I think, is exactly what I mean by general revelation, or what is the main point of Romans 1. Into the fabric of creation the true God has built in evidence of his existence and his nature. Not a full revelation, but sufficient for us to know there is a God and something of his power and divinity.

To this God has added the special revelation which is Scripture, the 66 writings of the Old and New Testaments. In these writings, and in no others, had the true God specially made himself known. One of the best definitions of Scripture I know is, 'Scripture is the gracious self-revelation of God.'

In current debates, certianly within the Church of Scotland, there is much heat generated on the subject of the 'authority' of Scripture. It is, in my opinion, much more important to grasp what the nature of Scripture is. Once we see that Scripture is God making himself known, the 'authority' of Scripture becomes at the same time both clear and subordinate. Any authority Scripture has is a function of God who is revealing himself in Scripture.

I've also come to recognise that starting any kind of Christian theology with Scripture is unhelpful. We need to start with God and come to Scripture as a sub-set of our thinking about God. In this the Scots Confession of 1560 is to be prefered to the Westminster Confession of 1647.

The God I Don't Believe In

God has become difficult. When someone says 'God' to me I no longer have any confidence I know what or who they mean.

All our Christian confessions are that there is only one God. But, that does not mean everything, or everyone which goes by the name, or title God/god, is this one God.

Rather than a long negative list of elements of false gods, let me say something positive.

The one God is the Father of Jesus. This is how the one God has chosen to make himself known. I don't think any human could work out who God is by themself. God is known because he reveals himself, not because we discover him.

There are many things I want to say about God and who he is, God is love, God is just, God is true and good and right. But I find I need to say this first, God is the Father of Jesus. Saying this connects God to our humanity in the humanity of the incarnate Jesus. It opens for me and all others a way of knowing this otherwise unknowable God.
Anyone or anything named 'god' which is not the Father of Jesus is not God and is not worthy to be worshipped, served, adored, loved, depended upon.

'Tis Done!

I've just finished reading the second volume of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation. Hence 'Tis Done!

Say something nice about Herr Bavinck's book.
Very comprehensive. If you want to know what the position of Reformed Theology is on the doctrine of God and/or Creation this is the one volume that will do it for you.

Now tell us what you really think!
There are just too many pages describing positions in theology and philosophy that Reformed Theology will disagree with. I know that Deism and Pantheism are wrong, I don't need to read about why they are wrong under every heading.

If you want to read a really good book on the doctrine of God, you should try Gerald Bray's volume of that title in the IVP Contours of Christian Theology series (pub 1993). At 251 pages of text, plus some notes and suggested further reading, this is a far more accessible and useful volume than Bavinck. Bray covers the doctrine of God, which to be fair is only the first three parts (432 pages) of Bavinck. But he does it so much better.

So, 'tis done! That's another book ticked off my reading targets list for 2010, and the first of my major volumes. I'm really looking forward to starting Larry Hurtado's 'Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity'. This theology is all very well but just not as much fun as biblical studies.

I'm going to replace Bavinck on the reading targets list with Gordon Fee's 'God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul' (pub 1994). Just in case Hurtado doesn't turn out to do enough detailed exegesis of the text Fee won't let me down. But I'm not aiming to get to Fee until the summer, unless Hurtado ends up being a better page turner than Dan Brown.

Theological Humility

I'm reading (ploughing my way slowly through) vol 2 of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics on God and Creation.

In a long-ish discussion of the Sovereignty of God and God's will and nominalism I came across the following:

Every scientific discipline is bound to its object; it may not - for the sake of some preconceived theory - falsify or deny the phenomena it observes.
So also theology is strictly tethered to the facts and evidences that God discloses in nature and Scripture. It must let these facts and evidences stand unimpaired and unmutilated. When it cannot explain them, it must acknowledge its ignorance. p. 239, emphasis added.

It appears that for some God's will is a foundation beyond which one cannot and need not press, however, for others there is much that can be said about this.

What interested me was Bavinck's plea for some theological humility. All we can do is receive the revelation God gives us and do our best to understand and submit to it. We do not invent or imagine God or the gospel and must submit to the limits of revelation which God has imposed upon us. To often we are tempted to believe that we can discover something about God or the gospel which he has not revealed. This must obviously be folly and the temptation resisted.

Jesus and the Constraints of History

I've borrowed the title of A E Harvey's 1982 book for this post. I've been thinking about the play 'Jesus Queen of Heaven' which is causing a bit of a storm in Glasgow in which Jesus is presented as a transgender, or transsexual, depending upon which newspaper report you read.

Some comments:
1. This is offensive. However, we do not live, and I don't want to live, in a Christian state and so we cannot expect non-Christians to be at all sensitive or caring about offending our Christian faith.

2. Jesus is an historical figure. You can imagine Jesus however you like, but if you do you must know this is idolatry - making an image of God which is not real or true. Jesus was male, there is no evidence to suggest Jesus was ever sexually acitve in any way, these historical facts constrain our thinking about Jesus.

3. Jesus is at the centre of Christian theology. This only applies to Christian theology since Jesus is not at the centre of non-Christian theology. The Jesus who takes the central place in Christian theology is the same Jesus who is constrained by history. Christian theology depend upon history this because of the nature of revelation and the facts of the incarnation, the crucifixion and resurrection, the ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, all of which are events in history. Any Christian theological reflection which is a-historical, or which denies historical fact is bad Christian theology.

4. I therefore conclude, whatever is being imagined, or presented in this play, it is not the Jesus of history and therefore not the Jesus of Christian theology. The path of faithful Christian discipleship is not to conform our image of Jesus to our ways of life but to transform our ways of life until they conform to the life of Christ, for the glory of God the Father.

The Bible and Theological Interpretation

Mike Bird has a very helpful post on theological interpreation of Scripture in which he copies ten thesis from Kevin Vanhoozer, read it here.

Well worth reading and reflecting upon.

The Trinity and John's Gospel

I picked this book up at EMA in June. I like the series, well, not ever volume, but most of them are very good. Biblical theology is a hobby of mine and this book is a very good example of excellent biblical theology.

The authors give us a really good example of biblical studies providing a strong foundation for theological reflection.

The Bible is, after all, a profoundly theological document. Readings that fail to move beyond literary and genetic/historical issues to substantive doctrinal ones thus fail to grasp the Bible’s main subject matter. (pages 20-21)

No fear with this work, theological reflection is the final aim, but the route to it is through detailed study of the text of scripture. John’s gospel is the source and verse by verse, section by section a detailed account of what John writes about God, and how this is fully Trinitarian is carefully built up. Chapters 2 to 6 are entirely given over to a study and synthesis of what John’s gospel contributes to our understanding of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The biblical studies are excellent, the theological reflections start from the text and build four square upon what has been learned from John’s gospel. Jesus is shown to be God theos, in the whole gospel – note the inclusio 1:1, 18 and 20:28. But also in the references which include Jesus in the monotheistic character and nature of God, theos.

I don’t want to fall into blogging another long book review, although that would be very easy from this great book. Buy the book, read the book and share with me how much you have benefitted from it.

Just one more quote, on the author’s approach to their work:
we have read the Fourth Gospel with awe and wonder and with prayerful dependence upon ‘the Spirit of truth’ (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). (page 23)

May we all so read every page of scripture and find there displayed for us the glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Tom Wright Justification 2

Chapter 2 – Rules of engagement.

In the long term, this may be one of the most important chapters in Wright’s book. Here Wright sets out a methodology for the study of Paul and/or justification. So often in church life today there is disagreement about theology or praxis which arises in large part from the different starting places and varied assumptions made by those taking part in the debates.

Wright contends that exegesis “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions that it raises in itself and the answers it given in and of itself” (page 23) is the beginning and end of the task of understanding Paul and justification.

Systematise all you want in between; we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it and much to be said for it, particularly when it involves careful comparing of different treatments of similar topics in different contexts. But start with exegesis, and remind yourself that the end in view is not a tidy system, sitting in hard covers on a shelf where one may look up ‘correct answers’, but the sermon, or the shared pastoral reading, or the scriptural word to a Synod or other formal church gathering, or indeed the life of witness to the love of God, through all of which the church is built up and energized for mission, the Christian is challenged, transformed and nurtured in the faith, and the unbeliever is confronted with the shocking but joyful news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. That is letting scripture be scripture. (pages 23-24)

Yes, what a wonderful paragraph! Any attempt to study scripture, to know God in any meaningful way involves theology. We cannot but have a theology, so we might as well have one that is well thought through and holds together well (a good systematics). But, too often we have allowed the system to control our reading of the text. We instinctively reject readings of scripture that don’t fit in with the system we hold. We look for answers in the big system rather than in the text of scripture. I heard Phillip Jensen at the EMA in 1997 tell us that he thinks Calvinists have a real problem with this. Thinking that Calvin’s system is so good we cannot imagine the text of scripture ever disagreeing with Calvin, so we amend our understanding of scripture to fit in with what we think Calvin wrote, although most times we have that wrong as well! So a big yes to having a good systematic theology, but a massive no (or even a Pauline me genoito) to allowing our system to take priority over our exegesis. It is good exegesis that will bring God’s word with power into all of the situations described by Wright at the end of the paragraph, and how great is the need for a clear statement of scripture in our churches and church courts.

Wright makes a good case for the inclusion of Ephesians in any study of Paul and justification, pages 26-28. It is curious how often conservative readings of justification do not attend to Ephesians, or Colossians for that matter.

Wright then suggests that we need to develop ‘A Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ (page 28 and following). There is a hermeneutic circle of theology and theological interpretation. Luther and Calvin were not only influenced by Augustine and the New Testament, but by all the theology that had been written and taught in between. It is important to consider which theological technical terms are not biblical, e.g. ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ and what associations are gathering into theology by the use of the Latin term iustitia? Now this is not to say that non biblical terms cannot be wisely used to help us understand scripture, rather that we do this too often without being aware of it and we do need to remind ourselves of the theological baggage we bring to scripture.

As an historian Wright is always concerned about historical questions.
We come with the questions and issues we have learned from elsewhere [other than scripture]. This is a perennial problem for all of us, but unless we are to declare, here and now, that God has no more light to break out of his holy word – that everything in scripture has already been discovered by our elders and betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what scripture says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is needed. I know that John Calvin would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. (page 33)

Wright is not saying that God will give fresh revelations of himself other than scripture (that’s a whole different discussion!). His point is this: can we in our study of scripture understand God’s word more clearly than earlier generations of students? If not, why do we study scripture, we should print text with Augustine, Luther and Calvin, like some Christian Gemora, and learn to interpret the few chosen interpreters. But, if we do believe that God will lead us in our study of scripture into his ways, not previously known, then historical study, not only of scripture but of theology is urgently required.

Wright ends this chapter with a complaint against contemporary English translations of Paul, particularly the NIV. In particular Wright mentions the translation of Rom 3:21-26

NIV - Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

I’ve copied the text above and you can see that the NIV has used ‘righteousness’ in vv. 21, 22, but justified, justice, just, justifies in vv. 24-26, which the same dikaisoun- root is used in the Greek. (I tried to copy the NA27 text but this blog post doesn't hold that font) Wright’s point is that this variety in English usage sets up a particular way of reading vv. 21-22 which is not what Paul intended. This point will be picked up in great detail in chapter 7 when Wright offers comments on Romans.

Three main things then:
1. Exegesis needs to have priority over systematic theology.
2. History is important, both in relation to scripture and theology.
3. Read the text, and make sure what you are reading is the text.

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.

More Total Church

Some final thoughts from this wonderful and highly commended book.

On discipleship and training:
Others should learn truth not only from preaching but from lives that display the truth that has been preached!
Keep saying the obvious or people will forget.

On spirituality:
"Biblical spirituality is not about contemplation; it is about reading and meditating on the word of God. It is not about detached silence; it is about passionate petition. It is not about solitude; it is about participation in community. ... It [biblical spirituality] is centred on the gospel and rooted in the context of the Christian community." (p. 137)
Yes, a necessary corrective to too many forms of spirituality which are self seeking and self serving. See also Peter Adam 'Hearing God's Words', Apollos (IVP) 2004.
Union with Christ is the beginning of Christian spirituality, not it's goal!

On prayer the suggestion is made that we should prioritise prayer with others over prayer alone. So long as we are not saying that one is better than the other, there is truth in our learning to pray together, and our times of prayer shared with others encouraging and strengthening our times of prayer alone.

On theology:
"Theology must be in the service of teh church and its mission. Authentic theology must be shaped by what we might call a missionary-hermeneutic. Theology divorced from this context is essentially barren, self-referential and indulgent." (p. 152)
There is no theology apart from or outside of the community of faith. This position, while true, needs to be rigorously defended today.

On apologetics: (I really like this comment)
"The rejection of revelation is only a symptom of an underlying problem. ... The underlying issue is not a rejection of the possibility of revelation, but a rejection of the actuality of revelation. In other words, the underlying problem is not revelation per se, but what is revealed - our need for a Saviour." (p. 161)

An accurate analysis of the malaise afflicting the church in our days. This surely is what Romans 1:18ff is about, the rejection of God, the rejection of the gospel because we don't like it.

On a theology of the cross:
"We begin to see the relevance of the theology of the cross when we start to consider what forms a theology of glory takes today. Liberalism can be labelled a theology of glory, for it argues that God is known through human reason. Sacramentalism claims we encounter God through the symbols and rituals of the church. Creation spiritualities can also take the form of theologies of glory whether it is the sentiment expressed in 'nearer to God in a garden' or the more developed theology of someone like Matthew Fox. Power evangelism, too, looks for the revelatino of God in acts of power, arguing that miracles are an essential part of effective mission. And mysticism says that God is known through spiritual experiences or contemplative exercises." (p. 167)
Against all this, we know God through the message of the cross. Human wisdom does not recognise divine wisdom.

I think it is good that my last word on this great book is on the cross of the Lord Jesus, which so powerfully and clearly shapes and influences the authors and their experience of church. If only the cross were more clearly at the centre of our church life.

The Fresh Word on Theology

You just knew theology was going to come into it somewhere.

There is a use of the term 'theology' which has to do with arranging and analysing themes and topics related to God, perhaps using Scripture as a proof text, but not being tied to the patterns of Scripture. This is not how Dale Ralph Davis uses the term in his third chapter. Theology can be a study of how to live together with God. In Scripture we see the great God of the Bible involving himself in the lives of his people. It is this 'practical' theology that we need to help our preaching and interpretation of all texts, including Old Testament texts.

Davis takes the example of the Abraham narratives, Gen 12 following and identifies the four-fold promise of Gen 12:1-3 as the theological centre of the complex of narratives.

Gen 12:10-20: Abram lies to Pharaoh about Sarai being his sister. This lie puts the covenant promise of descendants at risk. Abram's major defect here is not lying (this is not a Victorian morality tale), but a failure to trust Yahweh the promise making God. Protection should be entrusted to Yahweh and his promise.
Or what about Gen 23, a sad tale of death and burial arrangements. The point is not that we should all have pre-paid funeral plans and all the arrangments made in advance. No, the promise of the land, Gen 12:1-3, is beginning to be fulfilled - even if only in a cemetery! This small beginning can be over looked if we are not watching for the theology at work in the narratives.

What a contrast to a commentator like say Brueggemann, whose insights are often very helpful. However, a great weakness in Brueggemann is his insistence that each of the OT narratives is independant from every other OT narrative. Even to the point where Gen 12 does not relate to Gen 13 or Gen 14!

Although Davis ends his chapter with a comment on the OT scholars search for 'the centre' his use of theology as a category for studying OT narrative texts does not depend upon resolving this riddle. Rather theology provides a coherent, whole bible framework within which each text can be held together. We can't be simple bible readers if we want to be biblical preachers, we need a robust, whole bible theology.

Total Church: Gospel and Theology

Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community. Pub IVP, 2007

This was one of my summer reading books. I can't commend it highly enough, if you've already got the book, read it, if not buy it and read it.

Written from the experience of church in The Crowded House the authors write from a conviction that community is at the heart of the gospel and should be at the heart of church.

In the first section of the book they write of gospel and theology in relation to church.

p. 16 - gospel-centred means two things: word-centred and mission-centred. The gospel is a word to proclaim.

What a challenge to much of our church life in CofS! So often God's word is marginalised by our fighting over it and whatever we mean by mission we can hardly be described as mission-centred. Do we agree that the church is to be gospel-centred, and if so, is this what we mean by gospel-centred?

p. 18 "The theology that matters is not the theology we profess, but the theology we practise."

We are so good, and quick, to argue for our own chosen theological position and to defend the purity of our profession. What would happen, what difference would it make if we promoted our theology by our living? When, for example, we claim to hold to the doctrines of grace, why do we so seldom practise grace? Here's a theological challenge, why not, everytime we state to ourselves or in public a theological position we commit to immediately identifying a practise, a way of life implied by that theological position - and then living this theology in our lives day by day.

p. 36 writing on the difference between full-time and part-time in ministry - we need to model whole-life gospel-centred missional living.

We really have lost the thread of the ministry of the people of God, we diminish all ministry by thinking and speaking about full-time, or paid-ministry. Each disciple of the Lord Jesus should be whole-life engaged in discipleship, whole-life engaged in gospel mission. How do we model this? What does it mean in Scotland in 2009? Is whole-life gospel-centred missional living the age old plan of God to save the world one life at a time?

As you can see, I have been greatly challenged by this book. More to follow.

Some questions on Jesus from N T Wright

I’m still in the introduction to N T Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God (ok, I’m reading this excellent book for the second time!).

In his chapter on the ‘Third Quest’ Wright offers five, or six, questions that have emerged from this ‘Third Quest’ and are worthy of being answered.

1. How does Jesus fit into Judaism?
2. What were Jesus’ aims?
3. Why did Jesus die?
4. How and why did the early Church begin?
5. Why are the Gospels the way they are?

Clearly these questions belong together. It is possible to offer an answer to one without addressing the others, but any such answer will necessarily have implications for the other four.
These questions cannot be answered either by theology or by history alone, but require a combination of history and theology to provide any reasonable answer.

The historical fixed points are:
1. Second Temple Judaism
2. About 100 ad the existence of a vibrant and growing Christian Church.
Between these two points we have the life and death of Jesus, the beginnings and expansion of the early Church and the writing of the Gospels. N T Wright is correct to challenge us that any account of Jesus must address all of these points.

The rejection of history as important in the study of Jesus has been made in a number of ways. Amongst others Bultmann rejected the Jesus of history as compromising the Christ of faith. One should encounter Jesus afresh in the existential moment of encounter and there is no need for a Jesus of history. A certain type of piety also rejects the Jesus of history, this is done for faith, or as it is claimed to promote faith, we approach the Gospels, and other New Testament writings with faith and when challenged by history retreat into a form of faith which rejects all need for evidence from history.
Both of these forms of rejecting history are themselves to be rejected.

Our Christian faith rests upon the history of God’s work of Salvation in and through Jesus Christ his Son, who is this Jesus of history. This Jesus must recognisably be located within second Temple Judaism and there must be in his life and death something of such significance as to explain the growth and expansion of the Church within just a few decades of his death.

The possible sixth question is, ‘So what?’ Why after all these years are we still bothering with Jesus? Why is it we can leave him alone and carry on without him? What difference does a historical account of Jesus, his life and death make? Or, what difference would an historical account that disproved the Gospels historical claims make? These are questions that thinking disciples of the Lord Jesus cannot fail to address.