Baptism: When? Who? Why?

I have recently been working through the issues surrounding the sacrament of baptism in a more deliberate fashion than I have had the opportunity to do so before, and I believe I have come to a fairly settled disposition concerning what, in my view, is right and proper practice.  I would like to briefly state my conclusions and hear your reactions.

In summary, it seems to me that the classical Christian faith (that is, the consensual voice of the Church throughout time and space) has taught, in line with the apostolic witness and the Scriptures the apostles composed, that baptism is the Christian sacrament of "initiation."  That is, properly understood and performed, baptism marks the beginning of a person's full communion within the Church (and, as a result, in a particular, local manifestation of church).  It is also the sacrament that signifies the grace received at conversion/initial salvation/whatever-else you want to call it.

As I understand it, baptism does not necessarily convey God's grace (in other words, contrary to the popular Roman Catholic understanding, I do not believe that baptism in itself secures ones salvation).  Baptism does, however, create a sort of "sacred space" in which God regularly chooses, out of his own freedom, to impart grace to the believer.

With this understanding, baptism is properly performed in either one of two cases: (1) when a confessing adult accepts God's pardon for their sin and seeks, in faith, to proclaim their conversion to the Church; and (2) when Christian parents desire to baptize their infant with the confidence that when the child has come to the "age of accountability" (whenever that may be), (s)he will choose to make his/her own profession of faith through some sort of confirmation rite.  I believe that an infant baptism without this later confirmation is an incomplete sacrament since baptism signifies saving faith--something an infant is incapable of, even while (s)he is covered by God's grace in his/her years of innocence.  (That does not mean, however, that an infant baptized but not confirmed in unsaved, since saving grace is not necessarily tied to the sacrament.  It is faith, of which the sacrament is a sign, that saves.)   

For two excellent articles--one in defense of infant baptism, the other in defense of infant dedication--see the two links at the bottom of this post.

I have found these issues confusing in the past, but have had time recently to work through them diligently and in conversation with the broad tradition of the Church.  Perhaps I've said nothing that is all that unfamiliar to you--and I honestly hope that what I have said is not innovative in the least--but I am interested in your responses.  Where do you stand on the issues involved?  What is baptism, in your view?  Who should or should not be baptized?  Why or why not?

Please join the discussion.  As always, any and all comments/questions/concerns are welcome provided they are presented in a kindly manner.  God bless!

For a well-written defense of infant baptism by ONU Professor, Dr. Mark Quanstrom, click HERE.
For a well-written defense of infant dedication over against infant baptism by ONU Professor, Dr. Carl Leth, click HERE.

Casting a New Testament Vision of "The Age to Come"

Those who have read my blogs know that I am not a big fan of the evangelistic "technique" that attempts to corner people with the question: "If you were to die in the next five minutes, do you know if you would go to heaven or hell?" I will admit, however, that I have often been critical of this technique (specifically, its implicit understanding of salvation as a "lifeboat" out of this world, and its eschatological outlook of "getting into heaven . . . which is nothing like earth"), but I have not often offered a positive reworking of this "technique." The truth is, I incline to want to dispense with the "techniques" all together, but that does not mean I want to dispense with teaching and proclaiming the truth. Moreover, there is one nugget of truth to this evangelistic "technique" that I can appreciate and affirm--that is its insistence upon calling people to decision. The truth of the matter is that the gospel proclaimed by Jesus and His Church clearly calls people to decision, but I'm fairly certain that there are better ways to articulate the truth that the Scriptures proclaim than the one encapsulated by the above-mentioned question. So here goes my meager attempt at a rearticulation of the gospel truth that calls people to decision, without resorting to the inadequate and misleading "lifeboat" soteriology and "sky-hook" eschatology:

The New Testament clearly teaches that we live "at the ends [NIV: fulfillment] of the ages." (1 Cor. 10:11) There is a "present, evil age" that is passing away (Mt. 12:32, Lk. 18:30, 20:34, Gal. 1:4, Mk. 10:30, 1 Cor 1:20, 2:6-8, 3:18; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 1:21, Titus 2:12, and that a new "age to come" is just about to dawn (Mt. 12:32; Mk. 10:30; Lk. 18:30). This Messianic, golden age to come--this coming Kingdom of God--was hinted at in the Old Testament by the prophets of Israel (i.e. Isaiah 65:17-25; Dan. 2:24-48), but was only fully understood in light of Jesus Christ's inauguration of the Kingdom. (Remember Christ's message: "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near!" [Mt. 4:17; Mk. 1:15]) Since Christ has come, the Kingdom of God has broken into our present age--and, as a result, we are assured that "the age to come" cannot be far off. The proclamation of the whole of the New Testament--from Jesus, to Paul, to Peter--is that "this world in its present form is passing away" (1 Cor. 7:31), and a new age of glory is right on its heels--an age guaranteed to come because Christ has come, died, risen, and ascended to the Father. The present age is marred by evil, sin, corruption, and disaster; the age to come will be free of all evil, sin, corruption, and disaster, and will be marked by God's unmediated presence among his people (Rev. 21).

Where does the call to decision come in, though? It comes in when we consider what the "criteria" for entrance into the age to come is, according to the New Testament. Jesus says, "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." (John 10:9) Much of the New Testament is concerned with fleshing out what this means, and no one fleshes it out more thoroughly than Paul, who writes to the Galatians: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever." (Gal. 1:3-5, emphasis added) It is Christ's atonement--specifically in and through his obedient death on the cross--that provides us with salvation, with a gate through which we may enter "the age to come." Thus, salvation can be spoken of not only as a present reality, but also as a future reality (Heb. 9:8: " so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him"). But while this grace has been offered to all (I reject the notion of a "limited atonement"), it is not received by all. And here is where the call to decision is to be proclaimed: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God." (Eph. 2:8) This gracious gift of God, unmerited, undeserved, requires a response of faith from us. This faith must be placed squarely in Jesus Christ, who is "the gate" into "the age to come." Apart from faith in Christ, the gate into this new age is closed off to those who stand unreconciled to God because of their sinfulness and unrepentance.

In summary, then, we live in "this present evil age." Because of Christ, however, we know that "the age to come" is about to dawn--and has, in some measure, already been inaugurated here and now, in us ("the kingdom is within/among you" [Lk. 17:21]). Christ himself is the gate into "the age to come," but this new age will be both similar to and different from this "present age." It will differ in that evil will be no more. It will be similar in that "the age to come" is not some spiritual heaven "out there," but is rather a New Creation with physical and corporeal dimension to it, right here! (Again, Rev. 21--"a new heavens and a new earth . . . the dwelling of God will be with men") Entrance into the age to come is conditional--but the condition is nothing more than faith in Christ.  He has become the gate through which we may enter the "age to come," but we will have to allow him to remove our sin from us, because sin and evil cannot be a part of the coming age.

Granted, all of this takes a bit more time to explain than asking, "If you were to die in the next five minutes, would you go to heaven or hell?"  But this fact is probably a good thing for at least a couple of reasons: (1) We really ought to take more time with people than this question allows; and (2) this question is not really in the best harmony with the New Testament soteriologically (pertaining to salvation) or eschatologically (pertaining to the age to come); it is an emaciated version of the NT's call to decision.  The fact of the matter is that truth can rarely be boiled down to simplistic formulas or mantras: such reductionism always happens at a price.  I hope that we can recover a fuller vision of the NT's teaching on the age to come, and as a result can confront people with the decisiveness of the gospel proclamation in a way that is more consistent with the New Testament itself.


As always, your thoughts, comments, responses, concerns, (but not your slander) is welcome!

A Brief Review of N. T. Wright's "The Last Word"

I've recently finished reading through a magnificent little treatise (short book) by N. T. Wright entitled The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars.  If you're not familiar with Wright, he is an extremely accomplished New Testament scholar (taught at Oxford, Cambridge, and McGill) and a prolific author--in fact, I'm not sure how he has time to write all the books he has because he's also a bishop in the Anglican Church.  Read more about him HERE at his (unofficial) website.

In The Last Word Wright attempts to answer a fundamental question: How can we, in any meaningful way, speak of the Bible, which is mostly a collection of narrative and poetry, as "authoritative"?  Before I continue, let me make clear that Wright does not say we cannot speak of the Bible as "authoritative"; he simply asks "how?" this can be.  In his introduction, Wright asks “the question of how we can speak of the Bible being in some sense ‘authoritative’ when the Bible itself declares that all authority belongs to the one true God?” (xi)  The central thesis of the work is put forth on page 23: “the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is a shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture.’”   To live under the authority of Scripture, then, ultimately means to live under the authority of God as exercised, in some way, through Scripture.  In order to accomplish this, Wright proposes that our reading of scripture must be “(a) totally contextual, (b) liturgically grounded, (c) privately studied, (d) refreshed by appropriate scholarship, and (e) taught by the church’s accredited leaders.” (127f.)  

I especially appreciate Wright’s emphasis that corporate reading of scripture within the church must take precedence over individual readings if we are to resist fragmentation and truly be the church through which God’s Kingdom is breaking into the world. (133–34)   He proposes a model for the Church's relationship to Scripture (one which he has reprinted in numerous publications) called the "5 Act" model.  In it, Wright proposes that we understand the Bible as the first four acts of a five-act play.  Obviously the fifth act of a five-act play cannot be completely different from the previous four--it must be a continuous story; but, on the other hand, we cannot rigidly repeat the previous acts and expect to bring the story into any sort of completion.  Therefore, our acting out of the "fifth act" (during the life of the earthly church) must be continuous with the narrative already contained in Scripture, but it must also, in some meaningful way, be innovative insofar as we are moving forward in the story of God's redemptive work in the world, not backward.

As a whole, Wright’s central thesis—that the scriptures are “authoritative” only insofar as they are understood within the whole work of God’s Kingdom on earth—is a much needed counterweight to both the fundamentalism and liberalism that characterizes North American biblical studies and exegesis. If you are interested in a short work on biblical authority that is both scholarly and very accessible (Wright is the master at this combination), and which goes beyond the simple bickering between conservatives and liberals about "the authority of the Bible," then you would be well-served to pick up this book (which you can find for about $6 on Amazon.com right now).


I'd love to hear from you on the blog if you've read the work, would like to read it, or have comments on Wright's work in general, or the issue of biblical authority . . . or really about anything.  :-)

Speaking Out: Israel, the Goldstone Report, East Jerusalem Settlements, and Misguided Theology

As many of those who read this blog are probably aware, I spent a semester in the Middle East during my junior year as an undergraduate at Olivet.  My main intention going into this trip was to study the theology and religion of Middle Eastern cultures, especially Islamic religion.  However, the majority of the semester ended up being geared toward the politics of the region.  As an obvious result, studying the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was a major emphasis during my time in the Middle East (entailing a fourth of the coursework, which included two weeks spent in and about Israel and the Occupied Territories).  While I was very alert to the political activity in the region while I studied there, the truth of the matter is that, having returned to the States, I have not kept up nearly as much with political developments in the region as I would have liked to (which is not a bad thing, since you could easily lose yourself in attempting to keep up with all the developments).  Every once in a while, though, something happens which triggers a response from me about which I simply cannot keep quiet.

Last winter the Israeli invasion of Gaza (December 27, 2008 -- Jan. 18, 2009) prompted such a response from me (see summary article HERE, 1 year after the fact): I wrote several emails that many of you may have received (this was before my blogging days).  My concern was for the civilians living in Gaza.  With nearly 11,000 people living in each one of the 139 square miles of Gaza (packed in like sardines, to say the least), living conditions that are sub-par to even some refugee camps throughout the world (80%+ live in abject poverty, according to World Vision), and with no open borders through which to flee (because Israel controls the borders and rarely every lets anyone in or out), the civilians of Gaza literally had nowhere to run when a full-scale assault by Israel's military--including tanks, helicopter fighters, rockets and foot soldiers--was conducted.  The reports coming out of that region during the 3 week incursion were devastating to me.  Israel intentionally targeted several different UN food warehouses.  A Red Cross van was fired on by an Israeli tank after having just received permission to travel into Gaza to provide humanitarian aid--one of the Red Cross volunteers was killed.  White phosphorous mortars (an illegal weapon, akin to "mustard gas") were fired into civilian areas.
While all the rockets ever fired by Hamas (over a span of about 6 years) into Israel's southern region had, in total, killed approximately 10-15 Israelis (which is evil and is terrorism, let me be clear), Israel's armed forces killed 252 children during that incursion (according to B'Tselem, a prominent Israeli humanitarian watch group).  And that was just the children.  Total civilian casualties in the three weeks were well over 1,000.  In 3 weeks.  The fact is that Israel killed far more civilians than they did Hamas militants during those three weeks.  During the same period of fighting, nine (yes, the single digit "9) Israelis were killed by Palestinian fire, three of them were civilians. While pro-Israel supporters have always claimed that these kinds of civilians casualty numbers are the result of Hamas militants using civilians as "human shields," the fact of the matter is that we're talking about 1.5 million people crammed into a piece of land the size of a postage stamp--people who had nowhere to run to because the Israeli government controls access in and out of the territory.  The vast majority were not being used as "human shields"--there is just simply and absolutely nowhere to go.  In fact, there are documented reports (see the "Goldstone Report" below) of Israeli soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

I shared these statistics with friends and family members last winter--1,000+ Palestinian civilians, including 252 children killed, in three weeks' time over against 10-15 Israeli civilians over the span of 6 years--and asked them to consider if they truly thought what Israel had done could in any way be called "self defense."  I received very few empathetic responses, and I will offer my opinion as to why I believe that was the case in just a moment.  In short, I believe this is due to a misguided theology that is popular in the U.S. today.

I would like, however, first to draw attention to two other recent developments coming out of the region which I also simply cannot ignore.  The first is the recent "Goldstone Report" (see 2-minute video summary by Goldstone himself HERE)--a report recently published by a UN Commission, and headed by former South African judge, Richard Goldstone.  The report (see full-text HERE) was an attempt to compile all relevant data pertaining to war crimes and crimes against humanity that may have been perpetrated by both sides during last winter's Gaza incursion, described above.  It specifically reports on 36 particular instances of crimes perpetrated during the war.  Very telling is the fact that, while Goldstone and his colleagues attempted several times to seek Israel's aid in producing the report, the Government of Israel never let these UN officials into Israel, and also prevented them from traveling to the West Bank to talk with Palestinian leaders and victims, whom they were forced to meet with in Amman, Jordan. In total, the report condemned both sides for committing various war crimes and crimes against humanity; however, the Government of Israel blatantly denies that any such crimes were committed by its military.  Evidently the 252 children, a Red Cross worker, and UN employees killed and the various hospitals, food pantries, and humanitarian aid stations leveled were all necessary casualties in Israel's eyes.  I suppose that if my reader cannot at this point come to the obvious conclusion that, at the very least, Israel has gotten away with extremely reckless military behavior and denied any culpability for massive civilian casualties--if my reader cannot come to that conclusion him/herself, I assume that there is very little more than I can do to persuade him/her.  I am compelled to speak out on this, however, as my heart still does hang heavy at times for the peoples I met, spoke with, and lived under the protection of during my stay in the Middle East.

A second issue I feel the need to bring to my readers' attention concerns the recent breakdown in the peace talks in Jerusalem, which were thwarted by a recent announcement of Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem.  A summary of the situation runs like this: Vice President Joe Biden recently visited Israel in an attempt to restart the peace-talk process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (the PA, the dominant government in the West Bank).  The hope of the US is, as it has been for decades now, that a two-state solution might be reached.  That an independent Palestinian state could be formed alongside Israel.  It is a decent solution, but one which is increasingly infeasible.  Why is it infeasible?  Many factors persist.  One primary factor is the building of Israeli "settlements" in the West Bank.  To date, tens of thousands of homes have been built by the Israeli government in the West Bank--an act considered illegal since 1967 under international law [UNSC Resolution 242, unanimously passed].  So here's the rub: the U.S. and other international players keep trying to reach a two-state solution, while one state (Israel) continues to infiltrate the territory of the other would-be state (Palestine).  Even if a two-state solution was reached today, there arguably would be no second "state" to give the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been forcibly removed from their homes and land for the past 60+ years.  In any case, VP Joe Biden was recently in Israel trying to jump start these talks once again.  Israel said we're in.  The Palestinians said we're in.  And even as Biden was still on the ground holding talks, Israel announced that some 1,600 more homes were scheduled to be built in East Jerusalem, which is one of the most hotly disputed territories in these talks.  In short, at the same time that Israel said, "Yes, we're willing to negotiate a peace treaty that includes giving these lands to the Palestinian Authority," they also announced that they were getting ready to build 1,600 houses on those same lands!  Obviously, VP Joe Biden was a bit perturbed, and chastised Israel, saying, "The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I've had here in Israel." (see quote in BBC article HERE)  If it is not obvious that Israel is being utterly duplicitous here, once again, I'm not sure what other evidence would hit my reader in the face more squarely than this.  The truth of the matter is that Israel has no intentions whatsoever of ever signing a peace treaty with the Palestinians that would require the relinquishment of any of these lands (lands that were home to many Palestinians prior to the creation of the state of "Israel").  They have stalled for 40+ years now, and they continue to intend to stall until there is literally no "second state" left to give over, even if they did sign a treaty.  They are de facto putting an end to the possibility of a settlement even as they enter talks aimed at a future settlement.

And now, let me come to the point of why I believe this is important for American Christians today, who may be reading this blog wondering why I highlight this particular conflict for special treatment.  While these kinds of atrocities, war crimes, genocidal tendencies, duplicity, and oppression are quite common in our world today--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not being nearly the most deadly conflict currently raging in our world--this is the only conflict that is being fueled to an enormous degree by a specific theological position of American Evangelical Christians.  There are many American Evangelical leaders, pastors, authors, politicians, and other Christian laypersons who have been preaching a message for the past 40-50 years (and in some cases longer) that goes something like this: "The modern nation-state of Israel, created in 1948, is the direct inheritor of the promises made to Abraham and ancient Israel of the Old Testament, and since these promises include the right to this particular strip of land in Palestine, we Christians must 'stand with Zion' (which means uncritically supporting the government and military of Israel, no matter what)."  The conclusion of many Americans who donate money to Israel, lobby in Congress for Israel, and produce massive quantities of pro-Israeli propaganda is that, even as we watch the Israeli military kill 252 children in 3 weeks, this is OK because Israel is God's chosen people and everything they do deserves to be supported by Christians.

The Scriptural and theological rebuttal to this stance is lengthy and sound, and you can see my blog "Dispensationalism Fails the Bible Test Again" for a brief introduction to it.  In a nutshell, this reading violates the New Testament witness and makes us, quite obviously, advocates of violence, hatred, racism, and deceit--none of which have a place within the Kingdom of God as Christ inaugurated it.  While I do not have time to dive into all the details, let me simply note the primary reason that I continue to bring up these kinds of issues: This is a conflict that, as a result of my studies in the Middle East, I have realized is, to an alarming degree, fueled by American Evangelical Christians, some of whom are in my own family.  If you knew how many lives--including many Christian lives!--have been lost, how many homes have been demolished, how many millions of people have been hurtfully affected by Israeli activities like those described above, and if you realized that these activities are literally being sponsored--financially and ideologically--by a relatively small band of misguided Evangelical Christians in America, it would bring you to tears, as it has done so for me.  Thousands of people have died.  Millions have lost homes.  An entire nation of people has been scattered and oppressed. . . and there are some in America supporting all of this who call themselves followers of the Christ, who himself was born, grew up, and ministered in the West Bank!

Please, please. . . take the time to educate yourself on what is at stake in uncritical support for the nation of Israel (as groups like John Hagee's CUFI promote and finance).  Look at the glaring incongruities here between the activities described above and the Kingdom of God described by Christ in the Scriptures.  How can we continue to support this, while also calling ourselves followers of the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Prince of Peace?  There are not two extremes--either uncritical support for Israel or anti-Semitism; don't believe that lie.  The middle path--the narrow path--is one that recognizes that the Way of the Kingdom of God transcends all the "ways" of any nation, including the one called "Israel," and that Christians must not mistake good and evil, even when the evil is perpetrated by allies or friends.

With a heavy heart, fighting off the despair that this blog may not change anyone's heart or mind and may only instigate more conflict, I rest my case (for the time being).

Sharing the Gospel/Feeding the Homeless: A Response to Nick's Blog

This post is an extended response to a question recently posed on my good friend Nick's blog.  His post entitled "Social Justice (vs?) the Gospel" raised a question concerning the relationship between meeting people's physical needs and the proclamation of the gospel.  I think this is a very worthy discussion, and would offer my meager insight on the issue.

First, let me ask this question, What does it mean to "proclaim the gospel"?  What, in fact, is "the gospel"?  I think this is one of those ideas that we speak about often, but rarely ask ourselves what we mean by it.  Are we talking about a simple doctrinal formula--maybe the Apostles' Creed, maybe 1 Cor. 15:3-8--that we recite, possibly along with some sort of explanation, and then ask people to agree to?

It is interesting to note the etymology (word origins) of the word "gospel."  The word used in the New Testament is euongelion.  It is used exclusively in the NT in the singular, but was a word widely used in the Greco-Roman world in the plural: euangelia.  In Greco-Roman culture euangelia usually denoted the "glad tidings" of some sort of recent military victory.  A herald would come into a city or village and declare the "glad tidings" of the Emperor's conquest of some distant land.  When the New Testament adopted this particular word to describe its own proclamation, and used the singular form of the word, a distinct political message was sent: As opposed to all the other "good newses" out there, this is the one "good news"!

And what was the content of this "good news"?  We could argue that when Jesus was on earth, the content of the good news was "Repent, for the kingdom of God/heaven is near!" (Mt. 3:2; 4:17; Mk. 1:15)  This is the summary of the "good news" that Jesus preached, according to the Gospels.  The good news of the Church post-Easter, however, is quite different. [After reading this sentence, I have realized that it would have been better for me to say, "The good news of the Church post-Easter, however, is something quite more (not something different).]  Whereas the kingdom of God was the content of the "good news" Jesus preached, after his ascension and Pentecost the content widens to include Jesus himself.  The Proclaimer becomes the proclamation.  Not only is the good news that the kingdom of God has entered victoriously into "this present evil age," but there are certain things about this man named Jesus that everyone needs to know and believe.

Thus, we need to realize that when we proclaim "the gospel," we are proclaiming both that Jesus is who we believe him to be (Son of God, who died, rose, was seen, and ascended into heaven) and that the kingdom of God has broken into our midst in a decisive way.  To be sure, from Acts on the New Testament focuses more on the former than the latter, but they are never completely disjointed.

Now here's the rub for the present discussion: The "good news" that is proclaimed by Jesus and by His followers is always accompanied by what we might call "mercy ministries" or "compassionate ministries."  Ask yourselves, How many compassionate miracles did Jesus perform for the people that sought him even as he taught them about the kingdom of God and called them to repentance?  Then think of the Book of Acts: How many miracles and compassionate deeds did the Early Church perform even as it proclaimed that Jesus is Christ and Lord, and that his kingdom had broken into this world?  Even one of Paul's main ventures during his ministry of "the gospel" was collecting money from churches he planted in order to help the impoverished church in Jerusalem (see Acts 11:27-30, 1 Cor. 16, & 2 Cor. 9).  It seems clear from the NT witness that "the gospel" can be understood as something which can be communicated verbally through "proclamation" (although the word here in Greek is not "preaching" or "proclamation" but rather a verb form of the noun euangelion: literally, most texts that speak of "preaching/proclaiming the gospel" say "gospeling the gospel.").  It also seems clear, however, that the ministry of the gospel--the proclamation of the "good news"--is always accompanied by acts of charity (meaning godly love, not just giving money to a poor person)--often demonstrated in quite miraculous ways!

If we follow the example of Christ and his apostles we will be hard pressed to see a need to continue the debate that asks, "What's more important--sharing the gospel or meeting people's needs?"  The question is a moot point in a Church living under the example of the NT.  The gospel demands that we call people to a decision because it's content includes certain affirmations about who Christ is and what God is doing in the world.  It also, however, necessarily includes acts of charity because the gospel includes the message that God's kingdom has broken into the world in a decisive way.  Because the kingdom of God has broken into this world, because Christ became Incarnate in this world, the gospel affirms every action we take--miraculous or mundane--to meet the needs of people who are still living in this world.

To share "the gospel" in its entirety demands that we call people to a decision about Christ and that we extend the influence of his kingdom into their lives in whatever way we can.

Beauty

(One of my favorite pictures from my semester in the Middle East: a friend captured a picture of my silhoette against the sunset while I was standing on the edge of the Sahara Desert in Western Egypt.)  
 I have developed a somewhat eclectic mix of aesthetic values.  I like watching strange movies like The Fountain as well as popular films like The Lord of the Rings.  I enjoy the music of Enya, Damien Rice, Charles Wesley (his hymns), Nat King Cole, and David Crowder.  I love visiting the Art Institute in Chicago! (...and am looking forward to another visit at the end of this school-year with my family!  Their Impressionistic Gallery is astounding: Renoir is probably my favorite.)  Medieval Byzantine iconography is incredible to me, and I have an icon of Christ Pantocrator, which I purchased in a monastery gift shop in Sinai, hanging in our home.  I love beautiful landscapes, and have greatly enjoyed a few outings into the Western United States, where I have visited and hiked through Yellowstone and the Grand Teton mountain range.  Not only the "Wild West," but even a walk through the local park district here in Bourbonnais is often full of beautiful scenery and wildlife.  Even things like grammar, eloquent discourse, and a well-written novel have immense aesthetic value to me.  C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce and George MacDonald's Phantasties come to mind.  Even the Scriptures themselves, apart from guiding me into theological truth, have an unparalleled beauty, in my eyes, in the whole of the world's literature.  And, above all else, the relationships I share with my wife, my family, and my close friends are, among many other things, very beautiful to me. 

Beauty is everywhere, for, as the hymn writer has put it, "this is my Father's world."

I truly believe that God has demonstrated his love for us, not only in sending his Son and his Spirit, but in leaving his mark in absolutely everything that is.  Creation entails all that exists, and all that truly exists--all that truly is--has a measure of beauty in it because it derives its very existence from the Father of Heavenly Lights.  Take time today to appreciate the beauty around you, even right next to you, even within you!  Beauty is not an autonomous entity; it is a derivative of the Creator God.  Let this blog post be nothing more than encouragement from me to you to locate the beauty you encounter today, and give thanks to the God who has granted that beauty should be a part of this, "my Father's world."

Evangelism & Conversion: The Holy Spirit's Work

What comes to your mind when I say the word "evangelism"?  How about "conversion"?

Do you think of T.V. preachers?  Street-corner preachers?  Do you think of tracts you've received in the past?  The "Roman Road"?  The "sinners' prayer"?  Altar calls?  Revival meetings? (For you non-evangelicals reading this blog post, I'm sorry about all the foreign terminology.  For all you evangelicals... yeah, you know what I'm talking about.)

Now let me first say that none of the above-mentioned methodologies are inherently bad (although I have serious reservations concerning some of them), but let me ask you this question: What do all of these methodologies have in common?  Namely, what (or "Whom") do each of these methodologies tend to so often neglect?

Here's how I'd answer the question: The Holy Spirit.

So often, in "evangelism" or attempts at "conversion," we put the emphasis on our methodologies: we need to direct people to pray this type of prayer, give them this type of tract, use these sets of Scriptures, walk them through this type of convincing argument that forces them to the conclusion that they need our product, "the gospel," (which is basically what vacuum salesmen do).  And, again, none of this is inherently bad.  Use Scripture.  Lead people in prayers of repentance.  Even pass out tracts.  (Probably avoid the salesmen techniques.)  But remember this...

...evangelism and conversion are not primarily our tasks.  They are first and foremost the work of the Holy Spirit.  When we use these "strategies," we are doing nothing more than partnering with the Holy Spirit in the work He is already doing in the life of the person we're speaking of.  If you don't accept this fact, then why share the gospel in the first place?  If I read the Book of Acts rightly, the evangelism of the disciples only began and only continued within the context of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  I think we forget this far too often.  Someone's conversion--their acceptance of the gospel--does not primarily depend upon our presentations of the gospel or our evangelistic strategies; it primarily depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus says "blows where It will." (John 3)

The Wesleyan doctrine of "prevenient grace" (or "grace that goes before [salvation]") helps me in thinking this through.  According to the Wesleyan understanding of the work of God's grace, God not only saves us by his grace, but prior to this he attracts us, calls to us, woos us by his "grace that goes before."  If God's grace--which is to say, the work of the Holy Spirit--is understood in this way, then all of our "evangelistic outreach" must be understood in light of what the Holy Spirit is already doing.  I believe the Holy Spirit is calling all men to repentance, and that whenever we present the gospel--whether through word, or through deed--we are doing nothing more than partnering in the work that the Holy Spirit is already performing (and has been doing a heck of a lot better than us for a heck of a lot longer, I might add!).

In conclusion, then, let me offer a model of evangelism that might seem an alternative to those methods you're familiar with (that is, if you're a part of "Evangelical Christianity").  This methodology is analogous to the situation Paul describes in 1 Cor. 14:24-25 and to the description of the early church in Acts 2:42-47.  Here goes: What if we thought of evangelism as inviting people into our community of faith and letting the manifestation of our unity in Christ be the "gospel presentation" that the Holy Spirit uses to convict them of sin?  Stated in another way, what if people came into our churches and there found communities of faith that were so evidently filled with the Spirit of Christ that our communal life itself was the "gospel presentation"?  What if we focused more on confronting people with a unified church than with six verses out of the Book of Romans?  I tend to think that people will be much more receptive to the message of those six verses out of Romans once they have seen the demonstration of the communal life in Christ clearly apparent in a righteous and loving church.

Perhaps then, the non-believer in our midst  "will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, 'God is really among you!'" (1 Cor. 14:25)

"Sola Scriptura"

Having taken up a course in Reformation theology this semester, I have already begun to realize that one of the great tenants held by modern Protestants concerning the Reformation is little more than a myth. I am speaking of the notion that the Reformers--Luther, Calvin, and others--finally got "back to the Bible" after a long dry-spell of any biblical truth in the so-named "Dark Ages." This myth is often summarized in the polemical battle-cry--"sola scriptura!"--which is so often shouted by one Christian group over against another Christian group (both of whom believe the Bible to be the true words of God).

The truth is this: The dominant stream of the Christian Church has always, even pre-Reformation, believed that the Scriptures are the primary source of theological truth. The Reformers did not differ from their Medieval counterparts, nor from their Roman-Catholic antagonists, in this regard. The Bible has always been the source of theological truth for the Church, and here's a few Medieval theologians who recognized this long before the Reformers were even born:

Duns Scotus (13th c.): "theology does not concern anything except what is contained in Scripture, and what may be drawn from this."

The whole Medieval Augustinian Tradition: a group of clergy who, according to world-renown Oxford Dean of Theology Alister McGrath, "emphasized that the basis of Christian theology was scriptura sola." (From McGrath's Intellectual Origins of the Reformation)

Augustine (5th c.), who wrote an entire volume called "On Christian Doctrine" that was little more than a handbook on how to understand and interpret the Bible.

Nicholas of Lyra (14th c.), who emphasized the need to listen to the "literal meaning" of Scripture long before Luther or Zwingli.

Thomas Aquinas (13th c.), the great "doctor" of the Medieval Church, and one of the most influential theologians of all time, who said long before the Reformers that Scripture is the fidei fundamentum, the "ground of faith"

This is a brief overview of some of the most important Medieval voices to have given credence to the notion of "sola scriptura" long before the Reformers. These theologians dominated the Medieval Church's understanding of Scripture, so we can assuredly conclude that "sola scriptura" was not a new innovation of the Reformers.

The Reformers did not "get back to the Bible," they just began to read the Bible in different ways than it had been read before. The issue has never been--nor is it today--about some Christians who are "Bible-believing" and some who are not. Those who earnestly follow Christ and take his message seriously have always grounded their faith in the Scriptures. The issue has always been an interpretive one: It's not about whether we believe the Bible is true, it's about how we read the Bible.

This is the reason I believe this is important for us today: If the Church pre-Reformation really already based their understanding of God on the Scriptures in the same way the Reformers did, then we Protestants who hardly ever give credence to any reading of the Bible that came before Luther or Calvin (or in some cases our own pastor)--we need to be attentive to how the Church read the Bible for the 1500 years prior to the Reformation. We can go a step further: we need to be attentive to how other Christians outside our own small circles of modern, Protestant, evangelical, American Christians read and have read the Bible.

One of the great tests of "orthodoxy" developed by St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th c. was to ask the question: "What has been believed by all Christians, everywhere, at all times?" Let us rephrase slightly: "In what way have the Scriptures been read by all Christians, everywhere, at all times?" (Of course all might only mean the vast majority in some cases.) This test guards us against claiming certain "doctrines" (which are nothing more than interpretations of the Bible) that are only local to our time period (i.e. the 20th-21st centuries) and our geographical location (i.e. America). (A good example of such an unorthodox doctrine is "dispensationalism," which has only been believed by a handful of Christians, almost completely in America, and only since about 1850. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons could pass the test of orthodoxy as easily as dispensationalism.)

Well, let the lesson be this: The Bible has always been our source for knowing God and his truth. The Reformers didn't come up with this, and the myth that "sola scriptura" originated with them is simply not true. We must, therefore, recognize that the Church all throughout history and throughout the world has sought to be faithful to the Bible. We need to listen to these voices, or else we are sure to find ourselves as innovators of a new faith rather than as defenders of the faith.

Nouthetic Counseling, or is All Truth God's Truth?

An emerging ministry has caught my attention over the past few weeks: It is called nouthetic counseling. If this movement has not yet reached your radar, and you live in the Southern or Midwestern United States, it may soon.

According to the homepage of the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors (www.nanc.org), which is the certifying body for these counselors, "Nouthetic counseling is counseling that uses Scripture to confront people about their sin with the goal of helping to restore them to usefulness." It is an approach to pastoral counseling that was pioneered in the early seventies by a man by the name of Jay Edward Adams, as a reaction to what he (and others) perceived to be a growing disconnect between biblical truth and the type of "secular" counseling techniques taught to ministry students in seminaries.

This approach specifically rejects all forms of "secular counseling" or "psychology." The membership covenant, which must be signed by all those trained in nouthetic counseling before they can become members of the NANC, states: "We deny that secular theories and practices are manifestations of General Revelation or Common Grace. We affirm that they are, in fact, attempts to substitute the 'discoveries' of rebellious human thought for the truths revealed in Scripture, and are, therefore, in competition with a proper interpretation of General Revelation and with biblical counseling. They cannot be integrated with the Faith once for all delivered to the saints." In a nutshell, any secular approaches to psychology or counseling are incompatible with biblical Christian faith.

As I learned about nouthetic counseling, this aspect of it concerned me greatly, so I continued researching.

Come to find out, the NANC specifically traces their origins to the revival of the fundamentalist movement in the 1970s. Their lengthy "history" page on their website (LINK) begins to tell the story of the rise of nouthetic counseling by talking about the religious wars and denominational divisions of the 1960s, with the heroes of this time being designated as "those who had separated from the apostasy of the old mainline denominations." The main conflict in this fight, according to the NANC, had been "the battle for the authority and inspiration of the Bible." Coming toward the end of the lengthy history recording on the NANC's website, you will find that they quote Curtis Lee Laws, who coined the term "fundamentalist" back in the 1920s, a couple of times: His comments are concerned with the fundamentalists' war with "liberal" views of the inerrancy of the Bible. By the end of the historical account, there is even an oddly-placed (not to mention disconcerting) attack on the daughter of Billy Graham, Ruth Graham McIntire, who admitted to going to "professional counseling" after finding out her husband was having a secret affair. The NANC chides McIntire: "For Ruth Graham McIntire 'God and the Bible' were not enough!"

This illustrates well the reason for my concern with nouthetic counseling. Let me first be clear in saying this: I do not believe that nouthetic counselors are all Bible-bashing fundamentalists, nor do I doubt that the Holy Spirit can use even these nouthetic counseling techniques to transform individuals. I have learned long ago not to say where the Holy Spirit may or may not work. However, the underlying philosophy of nouthetic counseling (namely, biblical fundamentalism) is, I believe, fatally flawed.

Once again, the membership covenant for nouthetic counselors reads: "The counselor must build his [it's always his, never her] counseling system, including its presuppositions, principles and methodologies solely from Scripture." I want to contend that this simply cannot be done. If this logic is followed through to its conclusions, then the nouthetic counselor would be contradicting his own covenental statement by reading even Dr. Jay E. Adams' books, or any other texts outside of Scripture for the purpose of informing their counseling techniques. They simply cannot follow their own logic. I believe the reason nouthetic counselors are sometimes successful is because of this very fact: they cannot follow through with their own logic. They must import ideas from outside of Scripture to even begin to describe the situations they deal with in counseling (i.e. the Bible does not once use the term "depression").

More importantly, this outright refusal to accept that there is any validity to secular theories of psychology or counseling is an implicit rejection of the doctrine of Creation: All truth is God's truth. According to the NANC, secular psychological and counseling models are not even compatible with the General Revelation of God. For the NANC, as for all biblical fundamentalists, truth is reduced to that which is contained in the Bible. Anything outside the Bible is either unimportant or evil. This is a rejection of the doctrine of Creation.

But our God has created all things, and there are traces of his goodness, his love, and his truth even in places where the words of Scripture have yet to permeate. (How do the nouthetic counselors explain any transformation performed in counseling outside of cultures exposed to the Bible?)

We must, as Christians, affirm truth wherever we find it, and I would venture to say that there is a significant amount of truth even in the secular models of psychology and counseling. I am not defending everything in these secular models: I am no expert in psychology or counseling, and cannot speak for or against everything taught in these models. But St. Augustine puts it this way: We must "plunder the Egyptians." Just as the children of Israel were separated out from Egypt, but in the process took the clothing, gold, and silver of their captors, even so, as the Christian separates herself spiritually from the world at large, she also takes with her all that she has learned from the surrounding culture, using it for the purposes of the Gospel. This is a much more Christian understanding of the nature of truth and God's revelation than the narrow fundamentalist version. The Scriptures most certainly should inform pastoral counseling, more than any other source, but they are not the only source for truth that is relevant to psychology and counseling (the nouthetic counselors prove this themselves every time they read any other book outside the Bible).

In conclusion, while I am not speaking wholly against nouthetic counseling, I am concerned about the fundamentalism that so explicitly drives this approach to pastoral counseling. It is a movement that is mostly thriving where you'd expect it to thrive--independent Baptist congregations, who have bought into the fundamentalist version of the nature of the Bible. However, I have begun to see this approach make inroads into other sectors of the Christian world as well. It is still a very small movement (according to the NANC, they have less than 1,000 certified members), and perhaps it will not ever reach your radar. But it has reached mine, and I hope this blog will inform your thinking if and when it reaches yours.

Beginning with the End in Mind

Dr. Bowling, the University President here at Olivet Nazarene University, has always begun the first university chapel message of the school year with an address to the senior class that will graduate at the end of that year. During these messages, Dr. Bowling takes time to encourage these seniors to be rigorous in their studies, to continue to develop relationships, and to become even more attune to the Lord's work in their life during their last year at ONU. One of the phrases he uses every time in that message at the beginning of each schoolyear came to my mind this morning: Every year, he tells the senior class to "Begin with the end in mind."

At the beginning of 2010--a new year, a new decade--I simply want to offer the same piece of advice to the friends and family (and strangers!) who sometimes frequent my blog: Let's begin 2010 with the end in mind. Listen to the words of John the Revelator:

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, I am making everything new! Then he said, Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true. He said to me: It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.”

May these be encouraging words, motivating words, words of truth to spur you on to holy living and hopeful expectation during this new year, 2010. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness! He is coming again! Let us be prepared, in season and out of season, for the day he fully reveals his glory to the world! May the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, be close to you this year. Amen.