Jul 15
Three on Theology #3
7:52 pm, in ThreeOnTheology
1 Comment »
  1. On spiritually greener grass

    Michael Spencer writes of Thomas Merton’s and his own struggle with the desire to leave for greener grass.

    Despite his seemingly endless desire to move away, change his vocation, start over or run away, Merton remained at Gethsemani throughout his monastic life until the last few weeks of his life when a new abbot allowed him the freedom to travel. His superiors did not believe it was God’s will for Merton to move or change, and they kept him close by, allowing him a hermit’s life for most of the day, but also bringing him together with the community for worship and other concerns. From that imposed stability came the Merton we know and read today. I doubt we would have known the same one if he’d been allowed to take off everytime he wanted.

  2. Miroslav Volf on church allegiance and violent conflict
  3. Thoughts on unity and God’s purposes for his Church

    In June, Alistair of Adversaria was blogging on denominations, church union and reunion. So far, there are 3 posts (1, 2, 3). The most common way of looking at these issues is probably through a “doctrinal correctness” lens. Alastair shifts the perspective–fruitfully–to “what was God doing with his people when he permitted his church to split?” Here are two quotes, the second one extended:

    In the OT we see God directing the flow of history for the purpose of maturing His covenant people. He moulds and transforms His people through a number of powerful events and experiences. He builds up His people and then breaks them down, in order that they might be refashioned into something newer and more mature.

    Through the Reformation God created a very new order within the Church. Whatever our convictions regarding the biblical character of the claims made by the Reformers, if we truly believe that God continues to form His people through His providential guidance of the course of history, we must wrestle with the question of why God saw fit to split His Church at the Reformation.

    While many Protestants will claim that the split at the Reformation was purely a matter of God separating His true people from a false church and delivering them from a Babylonian captivity, I am not so sure that it is that simple. On the Roman Catholic side there are those who will insist that there has to be only one Church and that Protestants have left this Church by rejecting the authority of the pope over them. Once again, I think that the reality is more complex than this.

    As in the case of the split of Israel, I don’t think that God straightforwardly supports either side’s ecclesial claims against the other. The subsequent history of Israel and Judah shows that splits in the government of the people of God do not necessarily destroy the oneness of the people of God in other respects. The people of God remain one by virtue of their covenant relationship with Him, even if they are scattered among many different church structures. Against Roman Catholic claims, the unity of the people of God is not ultimately dependent upon being under the Pope. The unity of the Church is found in its relationship to Christ.None of this is to deny the desideratum of visible and even institutional unity. My point is rather that such institutional and governmental unity is not absolutely essential to the unity of the Church. Just as in the case of Israel and Judah, the essential unity of the people of God is found in their relationship to Him. The two nations continued to be related to each other by virtue of this fact.

Jul 10
Three on Theology #2
10:01 pm, in Doctrine, Orthodoxy, ThreeOnTheology, Atonement, Gospel, Theology
4 Comments »
  1. What makes a doctrine important?Is a lack of experiential impact a sign that a doctrine is not important? What else makes a doctrine important? Below you can see how this question developed for me (a reminder to self that theology is not an abstract system of truth–although certainly truth–foremost, it is about who the living God is).
    • This question was raised by means of a post by Andrew at Theogeek, who was wondering if the doctrine of Penal Substitionary Atonement is significant if it does not make a difference in lived experience and if people hold to some functional equivalent.
    • I wrote a post expressing my un-ease with this, since it tends to negate the historical function of doctrines and since I also wonder whether functional equivalence “works.”
    • I don’t think I was listening very well, perhaps because I was bothered by the idea. Brad H responded in a comment that helped me understand what Andrew’s chief point may be: “what does a doctrine matter if there is no discernible experiential effect?”
    • My response, in a comment:
      1. But if doctrine, however abstract, is about something relational (God in relation to humans/humanity), even if we can’t discern the experiential effect on the human side, does it not convey important information about who God is? Hence, is a doctrine, which says something about who God is, not intrinsically important, regardless of its perceived effect on the human side?
      2. Is a notion of orthodoxy not enough to care for and guard some doctrines in any case? Shouldn’t we just care about the truth of the matter, regardless of personal impact?

    What do you think? What makes a doctrine important?

  2. Is a gospel awakening happening? Drew Goodmanson writes in a post that the recent Gospel Coalition conference (I was able to attend most of it) may be a sign of gospel awakening because it represents three shifts in thinking about the gospel by the Evangelical Center (referring to the center is my way of stating what Goodmanson is saying). First, a shift toward acknowledging scripture as normative narrative. Second, the shift to thinking of the gospel as bigger than a ticket to heaven. Third, the shift that the gospel requires a missional posture toward the world. I had appreciated those aspects of the gospel coalition conference without really thinking about them. Goodmanson’s post help me see their significance. I should add a caveat that a church seeking to be scripturally faithful 50 years ago was probably emphasizing these things in its own ways. But the way they are being said now is important and encouraging. Here are links to the Gospel Coalition foundational documents and audio and video.HT for Gospel Coalition documents: Steve McCoy
  3. The papacy as a guarantee striving to be stronger than the cross An Orthodox priest, Father Stephen, writes about Pope Benedict XVI’s re-assertion of submission to papal primacy as a mark of the true church:

    Universal Primacy has a way of offering a guarantee that transcends the cross. No matter how badly we fail, the de jure Primacy of the Pope in every local Church, guarantees that no one can really mess it up. I think that is neat, and the product of human imagination. I believe that God has established His Church such that, just like Christ, when pierced with nails it will bleed. Only love binds the Church together, nothing more.

    HT: JS Bangs, Boar’s Head Tavern

Jul 09
Three on Theology #1
4:48 pm, in ThreeOnTheology, The Church, Grace, Atonement, Theology
2 Comments »
  1. Sinclair Ferguson on the danger of reifying grace

    The union with Christ we have is not that we somehow or another share His grace. Because - follow me carefully - there actually is no ‘thing’ as grace. . . There is no grace that can be attached to you transferred from Him. All there is is Christ and your soul.

    The full quote at Shepherd’s Scrapbook

  2. On speaking words of death in the church

    In short, which is worse–the babbling, emotional, theology-challenged, snake-handling charismaniac OR the self-righteous, xenophobic, status-seeking, materialistic Reformed/Calvinist?

    It’s a pointless question, isn’t it?

    If we Christians want to speak words of death in the Church, then by all means let’s resort to naming the worst possible examples of living the Christian life that we might possibly find in some other denomination or sect. Then let’s write as if those worst possible examples were the norm.

    Read the post at Cerulean Sanctum

  3. A specific doctrine vs. functional equivalent?

    Andrew at Theo Geek argues that the doctrine Penal Substitutionary Atonement does not matter, as long as people hold to its functional equivalent.I am profoundly uncomfortable with this type of argument. First, it has the effect of doing an end run around church history. For example, Penal Substitionary Stonement (”PSA”) as a Protestant doctrine functions historically in ways that I don’t know could be replaced by a diffused “functional equivalent.” Specifically, it is Biblical answer to the Catholic idea of a penalty satisfaction debt for sin. Saying the doctrine does not matter amounts to saying that the history underlying the doctrine does not matter either.

    Second, it is not clear that “functionally equivalent beliefs” really deliver the same thing as a doctrine itself. In the case of PSA, I see a gigantic difference between believing that “a loving God forgives sins” and that “a loving and holy God forgives sins because he sends his son who willingly suffers the punishment for sins”. I would argue that the two Gods are even different Gods. The first God is the same as the second God only if one says, “well, I’m leaving some important stuff out.” Enter, then, the doctrine of PSA. So maybe I’m saying that there is no good way to get a real functional equivalent on this (or other) doctrines.