Back to Share the "Big Story"

I've noticed that this blog continues to get hits despite the fact that I haven't written for some time now.  I had come to believe that it simply wasn't worth my time to keep this blog up, that no one wanted to jump into the conversation.  On the hope that perhaps this will change, I am again taking up my digital 'pen'. 

Originally, I wanted this blog to simply be a place where I could share what I am learning (I am currently a second year graduate student of Biblical Studies at Olivet Nazarene University), and offer a forum for my friends and family (and others!) to dialogue with me.  I want to continue toward that goal, and I feel I have some fresh insights to share.  One other brief note, just to establish some credentials: I am not only a student any longer.  I have actually been a teaching assistant at ONU for over a year now, but a few weeks ago I accepted an offer to teach, full time, Old Testament at ONU come next fall after I have finished my masters thesis.  Such a privilege has caused me to think ever more seriously about how to most effectively present the Scriptures to a world (even a church!) that today is so biblically illiterate. 

To that end, I offer here some of the insights that have refreshed me in my own study of the Scriptures recently.

Lately, I have found myself more and more compelled to ask myself, What is the "big story" that is to be found in the Scriptures?  This question has been planted in my mind specifically by a prominent and prolific (yet very accessible!) scholar that I've had the opportunity to study at length during the past semester: N. T. Wright.  After reading through his entire Christian Origins and the Question of God series this past semester--in addition to a few other smaller works--I have been convinced by him that there is to be found in the Scriptures a "big story." 

Perhaps this doesn't seem like a very novel idea, but I think that it is.  In fact, I think that one of the reasons why we Christians today fail to feel the full "umphf" of the Scriptures is because we are unfamiliar with this "big story."  It occurs to me that 90% of the exposure that most Christians get to the Scriptures is either in daily devotional literature, Sunday worship services, or independent Bible studies.  In each of these forums, it also occurs to me that the Scriptures are read in very small sections: perhaps a chapter, or a few verses, or even just one verse at a time.  Moreover, we are encouraged to ask questions like, "What does this tell me about God today?"  or "What does this mean for my life now?"  These kinds of encounters with the Scriptures (in devotions, Bible study, and worship services) and these types of questions that we pose to the texts of the Bible are not bad.  They do not, however, it seems to me, encourage us to see the "BIG STORY."  Rather, they encourage us to find "principles", "teachings", "timeless truths" and the like--the same sort of thing that people seek out when they watch Oprah, for instance.  The result is that often we are left trying to divorce the ethics of the Christian life from the story of the Christian faith.  We try to extract the truth from the history of our faith.  The result of that is that we try to be good people (good Christians, followers of Jesus) without any real momentum, and even often without any real knowledge of Jesus and what he came to accomplish.  The proper momentum for living the Christian life, however, comes from knowing our story, and because so many of us do not know that story, we fail to recognize why we do what we know we ought to do.

So what is that "big story"?  I believe it is all to be found in Scripture, but that we each need a guide (or rather several guides!) to help us to weed through our various mis-readings of Scripture to find out what Scripture truly says.  As such a guide, I want to sketch one possible telling of that story, and argue that all of the Scriptures--from Genesis, through Isaiah, Haggai, and 2 Thessalonians, to the Revelation of John--can be understood within this story.  The Christian story (which is history as we understand it) could be told something like this . . . .

     There is one God, not many, but one.  This one God has revealed himself to us as the Creator.  He has created all that is--earth, sky, stars, space, us.  And this God has revealed himself as a good God.  He created all things good.  (Gen 1-2)  But humans were not content with the goodness of this God's creation; so we rebelled.  We turned our backs on our own creator, and thus brought down a curse on ourselves and the rest of creation.  (Gen 3-11)  But God was not content to let us live in such a rebellious state.  He purposed to restore his creation--ALL OF IT, including we human beings. 
     So this good God called out a man by the name of Abram, whose name he later changed to Abraham.  (Gen 12, 15, 17, etc.) Abraham was to be the beginning of God's single plan to bring about the restoration of creation, to deal with the problem of evil thoroughly and completely.  Abraham's calling was the beginning of God's answer to Adam's sin.  This good God promised Abraham that he would have a great big family, and that through his family all of the other families of the world would be blessed.  The fulfillment of this promise did not depend on Abraham's faithfulness, but on the faithfulness of this good God alone.  No one would thwart this good plan of God.  So Abraham did become a great family, which was given the name "Israel."  God gave Abraham's family a way to live--Torah/Law (Exodus 20+)--and promised them that they would live in harmony with God, man, and all of creation if they lived in this way.  Once again, this was all part of God's single plan to restore all of creation through Abraham and his family.  Israel was to live in the "Torah" as a sign to all the other nations of the way God intended for humans to live.
     But time and time again, Israel failed.  She was faithless to this good and faithful God.  Her long history (Deuteronomy--2 Chronicles) attests to the basic rebelliousness/sinfulness of humanity.  God gave her every opportunity to live as mankind should live.  He forgave her, restored her, sheltered her again and again; yet she continued to fail.  This is the constant theme of the prophets of Israel (cf. esp. Hosea): despite the faithfulness of God, Israel is faithless. 
     So what about God's plan to restore all of creation through Abraham's family?  God had promised that this would be the way the restoration would take place.  God was faithful to his part of this "covenant", but Israel was faithless.  Israel's failure under the Torah seemed to stall out the plan of God: how could the restoration of all creation ever come to pass when Israel was unfaithful to the plan?  In order for the plan to go forward to all the other nations--in order for the full restoration of all of creation to take place--the plan demanded a faithful Israel.  But Israel was not faithful, and the hundreds of years of her history suggested that she never would be without some sort of gracious intervention on God's part.  The family of Abraham had failed to bless all the other families of the world, as God had promised they would.  What was needed was a faithful Israel.  In order for the plan to move forward and for God to keep his promises to Abraham, a faithful Israel was what was needed.
     Enter Jesus.  Jesus, as a Jew and as the Son of God, was faithful to God in every way that Israel was faithless.  He steps in before God as a faithful representative of Israel, takes the curse that Israel deserved upon himself, and in so doing offers to status of "family of Abraham" to all nations (cf. Paul and esp. Gal 3-4 where pistis Christou ought to be translated "faithfulness of the Christ/Messiah" instead of "faith in the Christ/Messiah").  The one plan of God to redeem and restore all of creation through Abraham's family--which was stalled out by the faithlessness of Abraham's initial family, Israel--is renewed and expanded by the one faithful Israelite, who represents Israel before God.  God himself gracious intervenes to renew the plan that he promised could not be thwarted. 
     The result of all of this is the offer of what Paul refers to as "justification" or "righteousness", which basically means "acceptance into the family of Abraham on the basis of the faithfulness of the Messiah, Jesus."  All who believe in this Messiah are incorporated into this one family ("you are Abraham's descendants and heirs according to the promise!" Gal 3:29), which is empowered by the very Spirit of Jesus to carry forth the one plan of God--the restoration of all of creation--into the future.  (This is basically what it means to live in the "Kingdom of God.")  This one family now lives in a certain way (the ethics of the New Testament--i.e. the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 12-15) as a faithful witness to the rest of the world that God's plan of restoration is in fact going forth!  Some day all of this will culminate in the full restoration of all things. (Rev 19-21)  Christians will not "go to heaven" at the end of this process, leaving the world behind; rather, heaven will come to earth, and the entire creation ("heavens and earth") will be restored, reunited, redeemed.  (1 Cor 15)  We who call ourselves "Christians" are witnesses of this story, and embodiments of it.  (We already are "new creations.")  This is the reason we act the way we do.


So how about it?  Do you know the story?  If you do, are there parts of my telling of it that you would tweak?  Do you know why we do what we do as Christians?  Do you recognize that you are, if you are "in Christ"--that is "justified"/"righteous"--a part of something MUCH BIGGER than just getting individual souls to heaven when they die (whatever that means)?  It seems to me that most of us have forgotten our story--largely from a neglect of the study of Scripture in general, or from a mis-reading of Scripture that sees as its central aim the extraction of certain "principles" or "truths" from the story of the Scriptures.  But all that we are and do as Christians only makes sense in light of this story.  The Scriptures present us with a story (truly history) that we can live forth from.  Are you living this story, or are you living another story?

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!