Hearing a Word in Due Season

I've realised that I'm probably not good at hearing what God wants to tell me particularly when the Word comes to me head-on. (Although maybe I'm being unduly hard on myself. I don't know.)

In any case, just recently the Lord 'whispered' into my ear on two occasions. The second time involved our priest/pastor who was talking about the rifts in the Anglican Church among the different brands of churchmanship. She had a burden to promote more unity among the groups. When I asked her further about this issue betraying in the process my allegiance to one of the groups she said lightly (my paraphrase): 'What's important is that the gospel is preached!'

That gentle word brought me up short.

I realised as I began to think about this comment that much of my life and that of my family's life had been nurtured in difference. First, I was raised in a Pentecostalist family in the 1950s and 60s. Second, even this difference was intensified further by the unorthodox views of my grandfathers on questions of the Trinity, the soul's existence after death, eternal torment, and the resurrection.

Such nurturance-in-difference can be associated with intolerance and pride.

Moreover, in my own family, differences with my father was not tolerated. He ruled the emotional and intellectual content of the family like other fathers of his generation. Even the children's different personalities, interests, opinions and gifts were hardly tolerated.

The question now is, where do I go with this new awareness? The temptation is to go off half-cocked which often just makes the situation worse. In rooting out the weeds, we can end up rooting up the wheat as well.

So, I am choosing to sit calmly with what I've been given and see what further things the Lord may reveal.

However, the old adage which seems to have been first used by an undistinguished Lutheran theologian in a tract during the bloody 30-year 'religious' war (1618-1648) also seems appropriate: 'in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity'.

High Church/Anglo-Catholic, Liberal, Evangelical!

Anglicanism has a curious makeup! It comprises three main groupings of 'churchmanship'. (This 'churchmanship' can also occur in other denominations such as the Lutheran Church but is prominent in Anglicanism.)

However, it must be emphasised that individual Anglicans often resist being categorised. Furthermore, Anglicans who seem to belong to one of the three groups will display both beliefs and behaviour that may not fit with the typical characteristics of their supposed group.

Despite these facts knowledge of these three groups is still helpful for navigating Anglican Church opinion on various matters; moreover, it is particularly helpful for understanding why certain Anglican Churches worship the way they do and use/don't use the Prayer Book the way they do.

The Basis of the Unity in the Anglican Communion

Introduction

The Roman Catholic Church finds its unity in the Pope; the Eastern Orthodox Churches find their unity in the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the unified Church before it split into East and Western Church in AD1054 (although the division between East and West had begun well before that date).

Anglicanism is made up of 38 member Churches (provinces*) which makes up the Anglican Communion. Each of these member churches or provinces is in communion with the Canterbury diocese in England as the first diocese of the Church of England.

But the question arises, where does that communion find its unity? (We need to bear in mind that the question of unity is different from the question of authority which will be dealt with in the next post.)

First, it doesn't have a supreme Bishop or Pope like the Roman Church. Second, nor does it look to historical councils as such for its unity as does Orthodoxy. Yet, Anglicanism does have a basis for its unity.

The unity is found in four so-called 'instruments of unity': the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conferences, the Primates' Meetings and the Consultative Council.

Archbishops of Canterbury

Archbishops of Canterbury do not rule over the Anglican Communion in any way comparable to the Bishop of Rome. Power in the Anglican Communion is more widely dispersed. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a special focus of the unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion as it was originally the place of the missionary Augustine who came to England with the gospel, becoming the first Archbishop in AD597. The present Archbishop is seen as the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion worldwide.

Lambeth Conferences

These conferences made up of archbishops and bishops are called every 10 years by the Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss matters facing the Communion. These have been held since 1867. 

Primates' Meetings

The Primates are the Bishops or Archbishops elected as first among equals in a province. The meetings began in 1979 and are held when conditions are such as to warrant their importance for the Church. Of recent times, Archbishop Williams has called them to discuss matters pertaining to sexuality and authority in the Church.

Anglican Consultative Council

This council first met in 1971 and was set up by the Lambeth Conference because of the need for more frequent contact among member churches. It includes bishops, clergy and laity. It meets about every three years in different parts of the world.

* The Anglican Church of Australia is a member church of the Anglican Communion and is therefore a Province.

Holy Communion: Prayer of Preparation

Worship should not be rushed; we are all here worshipping the One who has made us, redeemed us through the death of His Son and resides in us in the power of the Holy Spirit. Os Guinness, I think, used the phrase about preaching to the audience of One and the same applies to worship. We have no audience but God: Father, Son and Spirit. Whatever tradition we are in only the audience of the One matters.

Anglican worship typically begins with a lay reader's announcement of the opening hymn which is then sung while a group of leaders 'process' into the church with the 'crucifer'--a person appointed to carry a cross--coming first. Everyone in the procession follows the cross as a general rule both in and out of the church worship area. The priest (word derived from 'presbyter', elder) or if a bishop is present comes last.

Procession members stand before the altar rail and acknowledge the altar.*

Responsive Worship

Anglican worship is responsive worship with the leader (either priest or lay reader) calling and the congregation responding, backwards and forwards. And in this back and forth movement, God the Holy Trinity is centrally involved. 

Following the opening hymn which is announced by the lay reader, the priest (Pr) says
  
The Invocation
Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Blessed be God's kingdom, now and for ever. [Words in bold type are always meant to be said by the people.]

The Greeting
Pr: [Either the words of 2 Cor 13.14] or more simply,

The Lord be with you, (with arms outstretched in blessing)
and also with you.

Pr: Let us pray.

Almighty God,

to whom all hearts are open,

all desires known,

and from whom no secrets are hidden:

cleanse the thoughts of our hearts

by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit,

that we may perfectly love you,

and worthily magnify your holy name,

through Christ our Lord. Amen.

This prayer is known as the Prayer of Preparation or the Prayer for Purity. It is a prayer form known as a co'llect. (Accent on the first syllable.) Collects as a prayer form 'collect' together the silent prayers of all assembled and concentrate them into a prayer prayed aloud by all. (See here for more on this prayer form.) Originally this collect was found in the Catholic Mass in Latin and was translated into an English version by Archbishop Cranmer for the first English-language Prayer Book in 1549.

The first four lines are all God directed and God descriptive.

God is 'Almighty God', El Shaddai, not an indulgent grandpa but One who demands our reverence and worship. And God Almighty knows us through and through and nothing of us is hidden from his eyes.

This designation of God leads us to ask for cleansing for 'thoughts of our hearts' for our hearts, our inner, spiritual centre stand before God. Think of the prophet Isaiah when he 'saw' in a vision the Lord, 'high and lifted up' enthroned in the temple (Isa 6.1-8).

The cleansing comes from the 'inspiration of your Holy Spirit': and what is it about the Holy Spirit that has to do with cleansing? The blood of Christ is the meritorious cause connected with the cleansing of the soul but the Holy Spirit is the efficient cause. The Spirit brings about what the Blood of Christ has procured for sinners (1 Joh 1.9).

'That'

What an important word! Because it signifies a goal for the purity.

The acknowledgement of Almighty God and our tacit acknowledgement of our sinful tendencies lead to a cleansing reception of the Holy Spirit for a purpose: 'that we may perfectly love you [God Almighty], and worthily magnify your holy name'.

The phrase 'perfectly love you' led John Wesley I seem to recall into what he called 'Christian perfection'. What the phrase more immediately reminds me of is the great commandment: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and with all your strength'. That's the depth of this perfect love. To love God at and with the core of our beings, with our very selves.

Love means in Bible parlance to obey, believe, trust God's promises and to learn to know him, to know his character, his 'name' which equals his 'essential character' as revealed in Christ.

All members of the Trinity are mentioned in the collect which is typical of Anglican worship which is strongly Trinitarian. Our access to Almighty God is 'through Jesus Christ our Lord'. The Son is so important because the Father always listens to the Son and vice versa. One of the Church Fathers (Augustine I think) said that the love between the two is the Holy Spirit!

Amen!

Amen is generally the word for the congregation and we see from the Old Testament. In my earlier Pentecostal days, it was customary for preachers to encourage congregations to use the Amen word. So be it! It's a word of faith, trust and affirmation in God's promises. (See here for a helpful article.)

Anglicans know the above prayer 'by heart' but the danger is that it can become a mere prayer form that is not heart-felt. I think at one stage that Anglicans all knelt for prayer; whereas that is not the case today in my experience. Standing up to pray is acceptable to God I know but kneeling is a posture that reminds us of our status as dependent creatures before God.

-----------

*Evangelicals will sometimes stand still or slightly bend their heads towards the altar at the beginning of a service or when they go to the altar for Holy Communion. (This acknowledgement can be likened to courtroom behaviour.) Others do not show any acknowledgement at all. 
All others bow their heads. The question of 'churchman-ship' arises at this point, a subject too large to be entered into here but differences are evident between Anglo-Catholic High Church and Evangelical Low Church worship. Anglicanism allows for different practices because of its conflicted history.

Markan Parables About The Kingdom of God

Secrets of the Kingdom

In Mark 4.21-34, we have two parables specifically about the Kingdom of God which are introduced by a series of injunctions (Mk 4.21-25) which help to enlighten us further about their meaning. In verse 21, a rhetorical question is answered with the implied answer in the negative. No, we don't put a light under a bushel (KJV, 'a bushel' is measuring bowl or basket) or under a bed. Rather a light or candle is placed on a stand or a candlestick.

Jesus says that the secret and the concealed is to be made open and manifest. It would seem that our Lord is referring both to the Parable of the Sower that he has just made plain to the disciples (Mk 4.10-20) but it might be he is making a general statement regarding the way he is revealing things to the disciples. (In the New Testament, a 'secret' usually means something once hidden but now revealed.)

Ears To Hear

This phrase is one characteristic of our Lord and probably refers to what he has just said. It alerted hearers of that time and us today to the importance of what Jesus has just said about the revelation of the secrets of the Kingdom.

It is important to watch what we hear! It's from that that we give to others. As we give, we ourselves will receive more. But to those who listen to the wrong things, even what they have will be reduced. 

The Blade, the Ear, and the Full Grain (Mk 4.26-29)

Seeds are amazing aren't they? Usually they fit easily into our hands but when placed into earth they will produce first roots, then shoots and finally the fully grown plant. Our Lord is speaking of grain grown for food so he finishes with the action of harvesting the fully ripe crop.

Jesus Messiah packs much meaning into few words. We must keep in mind that he is talking about the Kingdom of God which is the Rule or Reign of God; it is the sphere where the will of God is done 'as it is in Heaven' (Matt 6.9-13). Although this world appears to be so inhospitable to the Kingdom Jesus says that the Kingdom's progress is like a seed that gets planted and grows at first secretly under the ground but then it shows itself more and more until it is fully ripe. The reference to the sickle and the harvest are end-time symbols (Rev 14.14-20). So the Kingdom continues to grow all through this present dispensation until the time of the end.

Mustard Seed Kingdom

Interestingly, according to a great sermon I heard on Sunday from our Vicar, the second parable has certain similarities with the first parable above.

God is the God of small beginnings! We can think nothing is happening with regard to a particular matter but God's angel's are always busy. While Peter was languishing in gaol the angel was on its way to secure his deliverance. At the end of the Acts, Paul is in Rome after appealing to Caesar and it's salutary to ponder the last two verses of the book (Acts 28.30f).

Paul stays there for two whole years! Imagine that! Paul preaches the Kingdom of God to all who are interested and he does this at the heart of the mighty Roman Empire 'quite openly and unhindered' (RSV). Kingdom preaching by an apostle in Rome appeared as something small.

We feel that we are doing nothing of value and then God acts to place someone in our lives for a new purpose. It's seems small at the time but later we look back and praise the Lord for his goodness. We must not despise the day of small things (Zech 4.10).

Second Order:: Holy Communion: Sections of Service

Three Orders ('order' as in an 'order of worship') of Holy Communion are set out in A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA, 1995). 

(Technically, the APBA also allows for a 'Fourth Order' which can be 'created' by a parish priest et al. with the approval of the regional bishop (=overseer) as long as it contains certain features common to Anglican worship)). 

In all three Orders a specific pattern of worship is established with slight variations among the three.

Introduction to Anglican Prayer Book History

"A Prayer Book for Australia"

Anglican worship is typically ordered by the use of a prayer book. In fact, Anglicanism may be said to be recognisably Anglican because of its use of set forms of worship based on a prayer book usually found in the pew for worshippers to use.

In Australia, Anglicans used the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) (1662) until 1978 when the first modernised An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was produced.  The Prayer Book was again revised in 1995 to make its language more inclusive; hence A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) is now commonly used in most parishes using a prayer book today. (The BCP is still in use in some Australian parishes and is still part of Church practice by church law in the Anglican Church of Australia.)


Though some still call the Anglican Church of Australia 'The Church of England', the Anglican Church of Australia was constituted in 1981. However, the history of the English church is relevant to Australia because of the fact that the Anglican Church of Australia is derived from The Church of England.

Church of England in the 16th Century

Catherine of Aragon

All this emphasis on the use of a prayer book will seem strange to those who are Non-Conformists (Pentecostal, Baptist, Church of Christ, Salvation Army, etc.) but the Anglican use of a prayer book arises from its birth in the Reformation period of the middle of the 16th century just as many regular practices thought odd in other churches arise out of their past tradition too.

Henry VIII

Some allege that the Church of England arose simply because King Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and was denied by Pope Clement VII.

Anne Boleyn

Certainly this political event did hasten the formation of a Protestant, non-Catholic wing in the English church but the winds of the Protestant Reformation which were blowing on the continent were also being felt in England.

The Pope's refusal to grant the annulment to Henry led the king to undertake one of the boldest moves in English history. Henry assumed supremacy over the English Church which allowed him to separate from Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn hoping for a male heir.

Again we don't realise the raw courage of Henry in taking this action because many monarchs trembled at the word of the Pope because of his powers to excommunicate. (To be excommunicated from the Church of Rome meant you would be lost forever in the fires of Hell.) It was no small thing to challenge a Bishop of Rome and Henry was duly excommunicated for his defiance along with other Reformers in the Church of England.

Thomas Cranmer(1490-1556)

Thomas Cranmer was a pivotal figure in the Church of England and for Anglicanism worldwide. He had been appointed as an ambassador for the King and while abroad came into contact with continental reformers such a Ulrich Zwingli (Swiss Reformer) and others. However, he got a surprise call to become Archbishop of Canterbury in 1532 at the instigation of the Boleyn family. (He had formerly been the chaplain of this family.)

He became responsible for reform of the Church in Henry's time and then more so in Edward VI's short reign. Cranmer also played a large part in arguing for the validity of Henry as the Supreme Head of the Church in England which led effectively to the annulling of his marriage to Catherine. 

Cranmer was responsible for Church services being conducted in English. We can hardly appreciate this change in our time but imagine walking into church--and everyone went to church; it was mandatory--and hearing for the first time the Liturgy spoken by priest and people together in English!

We might wonder about the slowness of reform but the Protestant movement was a Reformation not a Revolution! (Luther in particular was not interested in starting the Church off from scratch after 1500 years. That's why Luther retained many aspects of catholic practice--as opposed to Roman Catholic practices--at which evangelicals today might baulk. Luther wanted to reform the catholic tradition not obliterate it.)

A Christian Church had been in existence in England by AD 208. It became part of the Roman Church in the AD 664. However, the Church of England as a reforming church wanting to remove doctrines and practices that were forbidden in scripture (indulgences, masses for the dead, prayers to the saints, veneration of the sacrament) but not necessarily removing practices that were not forbidden. 

Edward VI (reigned 1547-1553)

From Henry and Anne's union came Elizabeth (later to be Elizabeth I). Anne was later executed on trumped up charges which left the King able to marry his latest interest, Jane Seymour; she died 11 days after bearing a son, Edward who became Edward VI, a Protestant king guided by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. (Be aware that Henry VIII was not protestant or Lutheran. He regarded himself as 'catholic' but it was a form of personal Catholicism.)

With Henry's death in AD 1547, Edward assumed the throne at 9 years of age and only lived until he was 15 but during those six years the move away from Catholicism became pronounced. For example, in 1549 the first English prayer book was produced through the work of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Clerical celibacy was ended as was the Roman Mass with its view of transubstantiation (which had led to adoration of the host and other superstitions).

The newer English Church did not abandon the whole liturgy it had inherited from the papal church however but Cranmer reformed it extensively. It did not abandon the past because it believed that God had preserved some good things within the old church's liturgical practice even if it had become corrupted by faulty doctrine and practice over centuries. (Rome itself sought to respond to the Reformation by calling the Council of Trent [1545-1563].)

After Edward's short but significant reign, his half-sister Mary became Queen (1553-1558) even though Edward tried to prevent her ascension to the throne. Mary was a fanatical 'Romanist' and persecuted the Reformers by seeking to destroy the English Reformation through martyring Protestants and Reformers. She had 400-500 Protestants executed mostly by fire including Bishops Ridley and Latimer and also Cranmer (who first recanted his Protestant faith and then dramatically changed back again on the day of his execution). These executions made her very unpopular but she didn't relent. Indeed, her subjects disliked even more for her marrying King Philip I of Spain (a fierce opponent of all things Reformed and Protestant).

Elizabeth I (1533-1603)

Elizabeth I

Elizabeth Tudor had waited quietly enough in the wings of a 12-month stay in the Tower for her opportunity to reign which came in 1558. She was a Tudor with all the vigour and determination of her father and as the daughter of Anne Boleyn she was a Protestant. (She never married and so Henry's worst nightmares were realised in the discontinuance of the Tudor dynasty.)

She was wise enough to know that she had many enemies at home and overseas in France and more especially in Spain. (Remember the Spanish Armada in 1588?) She sought a more conciliatory approach to Catholics even while presiding over a Protestant Church of England. She adopted the title Supreme Governor of the Church (rather than the 'Supreme Head' title her father and half-brother had used). Elizabeth II holds this same title to this day.

Her great importance is that she brought the Church of England back to its Protestant form under Edward but she was also stubborn. She had a fear of civil war which inclined her towards conservativism, and according to Zahl, her bishops wondered throughout her reign, 'How Protestant is she?' (p. 21).

Introduction to Anglican Prayer Book History

"A Prayer Book for Australia"

Anglican worship is typically ordered by the use of a prayer book. In fact, Anglicanism may be said to be recognisably Anglican because of its use of set forms of worship based on a prayer book usually found in the pew for worshippers to use.

In Australia, Anglicans used the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) (1662) until 1978 when the first modernised An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was produced.  The Prayer Book was again revised in 1995 to make its language more inclusive; hence A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) is now commonly used in most parishes using a prayer book today. (The BCP is still in use in some Australian parishes and is still part of Church practice by church law in the Anglican Church of Australia.)

Cranmer's Bequest: The Book of Common Prayer

The Book of Common Prayer (BCP)--'common' means 'public' in this context--came out of the fires of the English Reformation and its words have found their way into the English language and into the liturgies of other denominations. We speak of 'the world, the flesh and the devil' which we might imagine is a Biblical phrase but no, it's found in the prayer book during the time of Edward VI (1549) composed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

Archbishop: Thomas Cranmer

Cranmer was a genius without doubt, a learned scholar and not a combatant but he was used to translate the former Roman Catholic liturgical forms from Latin into English and purge them from their Romish errors. However, he was no mere translator but an active shaper of the religious consciousness of the English people. He was responsible for the first two editions of the Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1552 ). The definitive BCP of the period was appointed for use in the Church of England in 1662.

What is the Gospel (3)

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples. 

Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear.

But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are:

• His distinction between gospel and salvation

I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.

Why did Jesus come? Jesus at his coming, 'abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel' (2Tim 1.10, emphasis mine).

In Ephesians, the gospel is called, 'the gospel of your salvation' (Eph1.13) which at least suggests that the link between the two is very close. 

Or further, it might suggest that the gospel is the message of salvation through Jesus the Messiah! Jesus we remember was called 'Jesus' because he was to save the people from their sins (Matt1.21)! Jesus came to seek and to save those who are lost (Luk19.10).

I also wonder whether all the preachers and teachers beginning with the Reformation have been failing to preach the gospel simply because they are concerned about the salvation of their hearers. I don't think so. Rather I believe that when preachers focus on the salvation of the unsaved, they will also preach Jesus as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

• Is Jesus always to be preached as the fulfiller of the story of Israel?

We know that Paul didn't always do this type of preaching because of his ministries at Lystra and at the Areopagus. Paul adapts his message [the gospel] to his audience. These two audiences were mainly pagan. However, McKnight still wants to see Israel's story implied in Acts 13. Well I think that's a stretch! And I think it's a stretch to find this suggestion of Israel's history in the Acts 17 passage as well. Paul appeals to Genesis 1 and 2 and to the idolatry subsequent to the Fall but any direct reference to Israel's story is absent. 

It can't be argued that because Paul preached Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 17) that this means he preached about the Story of Israel: that line of argument is clearly begging the question! That's the point McKnight is trying to establish so he can't assume it proven as part of his argument in Acts 17.

I think it better to say that the gospel is adapted to the audience. When hearers know nothing about Israel's story one can then appeal to the God of creation who is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Would the preaching of Jesus as the completion of Israel's story be of benefit to those outside the church today? I hardly think that too many within the church would understand the point much less those outside.

• The relevance of the ecumenical creeds

McKnight, it appears, has discovered the Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene believing them to support his case. However, even a cursory look at these two creeds shows that McKnight is battling to argue that the creeds solely confess the gospel--as he understands it.

The Nicene says, 'For us and for our salvation/ he came down from heaven'. The creed is saying--just as the scriptures do--that Christ's coming was about sinful humanity; it was for our salvation, our rescue from the power and penalty of sin. And the Apostles' Creed (perhaps formulated originally to be used at baptism hence the use of the first person pronoun) finshes with 'I believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN'. These are distinctly present and future salvific terms. The Trinity and their work of salvation are confessed as an integral whole.

• 'Story'

This point is more a quibble than anything else but we do have to keep in mind that in talking about 'story' and narrative, we are leaving out the majority of the bible! When we talk about the Bible's story we are talking about a humanly created storyline that theologians have developed about the Bible's content.  Nothing wrong with that in itself. We are all in the same boat. Most of us wish to have some over-reaching theme that covers the Bible's content.

The Bible's text is made up of many different genres: saga, genaealogy, law and ordinance, prophecy, parable, psalm, narrative, epistle, and apocalyptic. Without doubt, a movement from beginning(s) to final consummation exists from Genesis to Revelation. Interestingly, this sweep of history used to be known as 'salvation history', 'covenant history' or 'redemptive history' and all of these terms do give insight into the nature of this history.

It's all right to call it a story or a drama but then we are left with the question as to what is the subject of the dramatic history. What is it about?

As you would expect various answers are given. Redemption, Jesus Christ and covenant are often mentioned. Another favourite is the Kingdom of God.

My point is that just talking about the drama or story of the bible is inadequate because it doesn't furnish us with a theme for the dramatic story.

Let me finish with a summary quote from the last link above proposing the Kingdom of God as the unifying theme/story of the Bible:

Like redemption, the covenant is definitely a unifying theme of the Bible, but it also seems to be inadequate to bring together the full range of Biblical revelation. By itself, the notion of covenant tends to be abstract and difficult to define. What we need is a theme that is broad enough to embrace every major Biblical idea, a theme that includes redemption, gives proper honor to Christ as the Creator and Savior, and also does justice to the centrality of the covenant.

Such a theme is the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, all of the other suggested major themes are included and given proper place. In addition, the kingdom of God includes other themes important for our understanding of the Bible, such as creation, the Biblical teaching about angels and demons, the doctrine of final judgment and everlasting punishment. Christ Himself remains a central theme of the Bible because as the King, He is the center of the kingdom, its very essence. Redemption as a central theme is the unfolding drama of God’s restoring the kingdom to its original purpose (p. 5).

What is the Gospel (2)

In the last post we sampled some Scot McKnight's ideas in The King Jesus Gospel. We concluded by saying that the author believes the gospel is the Story of Jesus as it is embedded in the Story of Israel.

McKnight's big idea is that the gospel is not equal to SALVATION. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1.16) and the gospel is preached so that hearers will receive salvation; but the gospel, the good news about Jesus Christ is not essentially salvation.

How does McKnight support this hypothesis?

He says, ponder 1 Cor 15.1-8, 12-28. Paul speaks expressly of the gospel he preached to the Corinthians and he starts with the fact that 'Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures and that he was seen by Cephas (Peter), and then by the twelve. . . seen by over five hundred brethren at once . . . . Then last of all He was seen by me also' (1 Cor 15.3-8). A death-burial-resurrection-appearances theme is evident.

So when the gospel is preached, Christ is preached as the One who died for our sins, who was buried and rose again on the third day etc. but Paul adds this crucial phrase: ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES. He uses it twice in two verses.

Which scriptures is he talking about? He's talking about what we call the Old Testament (OT) and what the Jews call the Tanakh, a word based on the three parts of the OT: torah, prophets and writings. All but the first 11 chapters of the Tanakh document God's dealing with the Patriarchs, and with Israel. These OT Scriptures testify to the Christ, the Messiah. Isaiah 53 tells us in detail about the Messiah's dying for sin and our healing. We remember that Jesus used these scriptures with the two disciples he met on the Emmaus Rd.

McKnight then says, examine the preaching of the Jesus Christ and note that primarily Jesus preaches Himself as the realisation of the pious hopes of Israel! Jesus Christ is the good news embodied; revealed even in his name (Yahweh saves)! No wonder some of the leaders--not all--but many rail against Jesus because of what he says about himself. Jesus's primary message is 'Look at Me!'. (Young ego-centred children use that phrase but Jesus is centred in the will of his Father. His 'look at me' is a getting followers to look to the Father through Jesus.)

But we need to see that that's the gospel (according to McKnight)! The good news is that Jesus's story is the capstone and fulfilment of Israel's story. (I'm not so enamoured of the term 'story' which is big in theology circles at the moment but I'll say more about this at a later time.)

And then says McKnight, look at the 'sermons' throughout the Acts of the Apostles. If you go through them you will find that over and over they focus on Jesus death, burial and resurrection as the culmination of Israel's travail. Now in two places that does not happen (Acts 13, and Acts 17) but nevertheless we find it in Acts 2.14-39; 3.12-26; 8-12; 10.34-43 with 11.4-18; 13.16-41. McKnight adds Acts 14.15-17; 17.22-31 and Stephen's sermon in Acts 7.2-53.

McKnight's thesis is that Israel's story 'frames' all the apostolic preaching of the gospel from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts 28); however the point becomes whether he can fully sustain this thesis.

What is the Gospel? (1)

Scot McKnight believes that the question, What is the gospel?, is a crucial question for the church. He also believes the church to be confused about the 'real' answer to the question, the biblical answer.

I've not long finished a stimulating book by McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (2011).

Provocatively he argues that Evangelicals (those supposedly concerned about the evangel, the gospel, good news) today are not really evangelical at all! They are more accurately called soterians! (He's coined this word to denote those who are primarily concerned with salvation at the expense of the gospel.)

He believes that evangelicals--and included in this description would be many charismatic and Pentecostal churches as well--have built 'salvation cultures' (p. 29) rather than 'gospel cultures'. The two he affirms are not the same thing even though the former is part of the latter. Once might say that the gospel is the big picture whereas salvation is one of the smaller pictures within that.

So we might ask, So what is the gospel?


He's not quick to answer that until he mentions some of his concerns about modern-day evangelicalism and also the traditional, mainline denominations (one of which I attend).

Starting with the latter first, he says that to baptise babies or young children and then onto confirmation is leading to big problems. In many cases, the baptised are never brought back to church. Their parents don't ever bring them back and hence they never get the instruction preceding confirmation. The mainline, traditional churches generally as we know are slowly dying of old age. They often have 'members' of the church who have never personally believed on Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

But what is happening in the evangelical world is sometimes not much better! Although some sort of personal response is called for and made, those decision-makers don't always go on to become disciples. They come to church perhaps and worship but during the week their discipleship of Christ is lacking. For example, from personal experience I am been shocked by what some 'Christian' converts claiming to be 'born-again' imagine is acceptable moral behaviour.

McKnight does not believe that people should not be challenged to make 'decisions for Christ' and elect to believe on him as the Saviour of the world--what he calls 'the decided' group. But it should not stop there. The 'decided' need to be discipled, to be disciples of Christ.

And yes I know, we still haven't got to the answer to the question of what is the gospel. To do that, McKnight says, we have to distinguish (but not separate) four elements: the Story of Israel/the Bible; the Story of Jesus; the Plan of Salvation; the Method of Persuasion. McKnight states that Evangelicalism, and even Catholicism and Orthodoxy would align the gospel with the Plan of Salvation. Under that understanding, the Plan and the Method are often merged (but that is another issue).

He believes the Story of Jesus as it is embedded in the Story of Israel is essentially the gospel (particularly as we find it in 1 Cor 15.1-8) and in the historic creeds of the church (Apostles' and Nicene Creeds).

Next time I will give an outline of how he arrives at that idea and whether it is sustainable.

Becoming a Trinitarian

The teaching of the Trinity looms large in my life because I was raised in a non-trinitarian family. Indeed my grandpa was also non-trinitarian; he died too early for me to appreciate what he might have to say about this teaching but the family attended an early Pentecostal church in Melbourne founded in 1907 that seemed to have the view that it would only quote scripture with regard to its beliefs and nothing else.

I say the latter because their statement of belief did not make definitive statements about God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but simply quoted scripture. (Interestingly, this church was very open to Trinitarians worshipping with them and was not hostile or antagonistic towards them; nor did it actively speak against Trinitarianism.)

It took me some time to work my way out of this frame of belief and it came about through a most unusual way. Although my family's belief about Jesus' deity was my no means identical with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses it had certain similarities.

In the 1960s, Witnesses were active in visiting homes and trying to get them to join their Kingdom Halls and being unhappy to become embroiled in argument for which I was equipped I purchased, Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses by Ted Dencher (1966). Dencher had a chapter on why he believed in the deity of Christ which was to bring a momentous change in my beliefs. My family believed in the deity (godhood) of Christ too but they also believed in Christ's essential subordination. They understood God the Father to be Almighty but Jesus to be only 'the Mighty God' (Isa 9.6-7).

The Rights and Wrongs of Subordination
Orthodox Christian belief is much more nuanced than my family gave it credit for. I once heard a Muslim arguing against the deity of Christ and many of his New Testament quotations I had heard quoted with approval within my family!

But what Muslims and unorthodox Christians fail to understand is that Jesus in the flesh was subordinated to the Father (Phil 2.5-7; Heb 2.9) and no orthodox Christian believer should find that unacceptable. Hence, all the passages such as the Father being greater than the Son (Jn 14.28) and the idea of the Son proceeding forth from God (Jn 8.42) are perfectly in line with this subordinate state that Jesus adopted in coming to us in the flesh.

But to take the above Philippians passage (Phil 2.6-7) further: Jesus is said to be in very nature God before his incarnation but did not attempt to use his divine prerogatives for his own betterment but humbled himself. In Hebrews, Jesus is also said to be 'the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person' (Heb 1.3).

Names and Titles of Christ
What stunned me about Dencher's presentation was that he identified the number of times that Jesus uses names and titles reserved only for God. For example, who is the First and the Last? The Old Testament says in Isaiah 44.6, that Jehovah, YHWH, is the 'First and the Last'; but when we look at Revelation 22 we find that Jesus uses this same title if the chapter is read through carefully noting who the various speakers are (Rev 22.7; 12; 16; 20)!! Jesus says he is coming soon (v12) and then identified himself in verse 16.

Just these few differences with what I had been taught made me begin to question that family tradition which was held on both sides of the former generation. I value what I have learned from them but couldn't continue to believe what clearly I came to see was not scriptural. However, breaking away from my family's teachings was not easy.

The Emphasis in John's Account on the Disciples' Faith

I've been intrigued by Jn 2.11 where it is said that after seeing the sign of water into wine and the manifestation of Christ's glory, 'his disciples believed [put their faith, NIV] in him'.

What's intriguing about that you might ask?
Well, the text doesn't comment for example on the belief or otherwise of anyone else. Not the servants who filled the stone jars or the 'master of the banquet' (NIV)--all of these knew about the miraculous sign--but the active faith of the disciples.

The gospel writer is sophisticated and chooses his words and themes carefully and as responsible readers we must do that same. That this observation above is not just happenstance is seen in the fact that in the same chapter after Jesus has driven out the money changers out of the temple precincts, a similar statement is made (Jn 2.22). And in this statement, the author projects us into the post-resurrection period when the disciples 'recalled what he had said [about his body being raised in three days]. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken' (NIV).

Even before John 2.11 we've heard about the faith of the disciple by either implication as in Andrew's, Simon Peter's and Philip's cases or directly as in Nathaniel's case. The latter scorns the idea that anything good can come out of Nazareth but is confronted by the Son of Man who knows him and confesses that he is the Son of God, the King of Israel (Jn 1.49).

Why is the writer so focussed on the disciples' faith?

At least one of the answers to that question is found in Jn 2.23-25. This little passage is slightly discordant in terms of the above because Jesus, we notice, doesn't take the faith of those who see his signs at face value. He calls a certain disciple group to trust in Him and in turn he is entrusting himself to them.

But apparently not to everyone because 'he knew all men'; he knew their instability and fickleness it would appear and his time 'had not yet come' to be handed over to be executed (which has been alluded to in verse 4 and verses 19-21).

The faith of the disciples is going to grow throughout the gospel account and even after the Resurrection; so we should take heart. The faith that we have today by God's grace is going to grow as we mature in union with our Lord Jesus Christ.