The Rev. Dr. Michael Jensen of Moore Theological College has 20 Theses on why the Reformation is not over!

Whereas: -
1. Continued division between Christians who hold to the orthodox faith is deplorable and regrettable and we should work to heal it;
2. Insisting on division based on mere prejudice against Roman Catholics, or cultural snobbery, or ethnicity, or sectarianism  is deplorable and should be repented of;
3. Hyped-up and largely loveless Protestant rhetoric and sabre-rattling for the love of mere aggression must be eschewed;
4. It is a matter of great rejoicing that Roman Catholic priests and lay people have discovered the Scriptures anew in recent years;
5. A person is not saved by assenting to justification by grace through faith alone;
6. Evangelical Christians have much to learn from the tradition of the Christian church over two millennia (as the Reformers themselves taught);
7. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are in many respects admirable, even extraordinary men;
8. We are increasingly needing to stand together with Roman Catholics on issues of social justice and religious freedom;
9. We have common cause with Roman Catholics against the New Atheism and the other forms of intellectual secularism;
10. I rejoice in a number of Christian friendships with Roman Catholics whom I happy to call brothers in Christ and from whom I have learnt much;

[Read more...]

Yes, it’s Reformation Day. To celebrate, let me point to three posts.

On why the church always need to be reformed by returning to its catholic roots, read the CT article about Thomas Oden’s journey from liberalism to orthodoxy. And note why you need more than your ESV and a concordance to do good theology!

Steve Harmon blogs on Remembering the Reformation Rightly.

Scot McKnight refers to a post on how charismatic churches desperately need reforming.

Post Tenebras Lux to you all!

In John 13 Jesus washes the disciples’ feet. Commentators agree that, at the very least, this story makes the point of Mark 10:45 in narrative (see comments by Michaels, p. 725):

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Jesus commands the disciples to follow his example: “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (13:14-15).

Aside from the question about whether the church should actually wash feet in our gatherings in obedience to Jesus’ command (Michaels thinks so) Jesus sets down an ethic of death for his disciples. Jesus lays down his life for those he loves; he loves “to the end” or “to the ultimate” depending on how one understands the Greek of verse one (either quantitatively or qualitatively). So also, the disciples are to lay down their lives for each other.

Interspersed in this narrative are two pronouncements – one in verse 16 and another in verse 20.

Very truly I tell you, no servant is grater than his master, no is a messenger greater than the one who sent him (16)

Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me (20)

These two pronouncements put Jesus’ action in the story in the framework of the ongoing mission of the disciples after Jesus’ departure. The concept of agency, which is prominent in John, is evident here. As the Father sent Jesus as his emissary to the world to reveal himself to it (1:14) and to die for it (1:29; 10:17-18), so Jesus sends his disciples as his and the Father’s emissaries to reveal the Father and to die in service to each other in the world.

Michael’s puts it eloquently: “John’s Gospel has taken the notion of agency, intimated in Matthew and Luke, and made it the very foundation of both christology and ecclesiology” (745).

Jesus’ mission from the Father serves as NO mere model for the mission of the church; rather Jesus’ mission, as presented in John’s Gospel, IS the church’s mission.

“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you”.
(John 20:21)

I’ve been analyzing the biblical and theological arguments in Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert’s new book on the mission of the church What Is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission. Their thesis is the church’s mission is singularly proclamation and worship. As they stated:

The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father (62, emphasis mine).

The church’s mission in the world, according to DeYoung and Gilbert, has nothing essentially to do with the enactment of justice, mercy, truth and faithfulness in the world. While these may be outcomes from individual disciples as they scatter into the world outside the church, these activities, while good, are not central to the church’s commission in the world. The church’s mission is not to “change the world” or to “Transform the city” (129-30). The desire is commendable, but not only is it overly optimistic, but more than that, it represents at best a peripheral concern for the church.

It comes as no surprise, but I take a different view of things. And while I hold much in agreement, I think the points of disagreement are extremely significant. Primarily what I think is wrong with this book is what DeYoung and Gilbert deny. If it was simply a matter of bringing the proverbial pendulum back to center, in light of recent attempts to make the mission of the church simply faithful presence, I’m all for that. I agree that we need to reaffirm the necessity of proclamation in the church’s witness in the world. But this book goes well beyond that by attempting to lay out a biblical vision for a church mission that is concrete-less, intangible. A church that only secondarily or accidentally transforms the world within which it exists.

That kind of a mission may be something, but it is NOT the biblical mission of the church.

[Read more...]

When I preach on Romans 14, which is quite often to be truthful, I give two examples of how I am both the weaker and stronger brother on some issues. For example, my theology of Christian freedom means that I have no problem with Christians drinking alcohol in moderation. While drunkenness is censured, a leisurely drink is not, since wine “gladdens” the heart (Ps 104.15) and it is good for the stomach (1 Tim 5.23). In fact, I’m drinking a glass of Pinot as I write this blog post. So here I am a “stronger” brother who exercises his Christian freedom by enjoying a glass of wine or a beer. Though I try to use my conviction in this area not to offend those who do not share my views on this matter (but I won’t allow myself to be bullied on the issue either, see Rom 14.16).

But in other areas I’m a weaker brother. For instance, many of my American Christian friends, who are quite conservative both morally and theologically, often go to Halloween parties. Now my view is that it’s a stupid pagan festival, full of the macabre, glorifying all things dark, making light of witchcraft, and not good for your teeth or waistline either.  I’m not saying let’s burn our Harry Potter novels (I liked the movies), but I couldn’t bring myself to go to a Halloween party dressed as Dracula, Death, or even a Democrat Senator (all three can be scary). Yet I know that it’s just a party, it’s just a costume, no one is worshipping the undead, but it’s just the vibe of the whole thing. Would Jesus go to a Halloween party? I couldn’t in conscience go. My conscience is more easily offended here, so on this issue I’m the weaker brother. But I recognize the freedom of others on this matter even if I don’t agree with it.

What matters, whether we are weak or strong on any given issue is this: pursuing the things that make for peace and mutual encouragement (Rom 14.19).

Check out this performance of Hebrews. Rather kuhl!

HT: Michael Viney

Derek Oullette has an interesting post on the similarities and differences between Tom Wright and Scot McKnight on the gospel  (surely their must be a limerick possible with their last names rhyming!). Quite intertesting. Though I would point out that Scot does deal with the still-in-exile theme in his book A New Vision for Israel and Scot is dealing with the theme of Empire more globally in a forthcoming book that he’s editing with Joe Modica.

Over at Credo, Tom Schreiner reviews Justification: Five Views, for which I contributed the “progressive reformed view”. Schreiner’s review is very positive, he sides in the end with Michael Horton, but his remarks affirm that I had achieved my goal in occupying a half-way position between both Michael Horton and James Dunn. That aside, I still think I’m right!

Strangely enough, I’ve now seen a review of the book before I’ve even received a copy myself, and I’m one of the authors! How the internet makes things go faster these days. I still haven’t read what the other authors write about me. I’m strangely eager to feel chastened, rejected, and misunderstood!

In other Tom Schreiner news, his Galatians commentary is reviewed over at RBL by my friend David Luckensmeyer who doesn’t like the distinctively conservative theological ethos of Schreiner’s book.