Thinking Deeper on the Trinity

I’m starting a new series of posts on reviewing some of the essays I’m currently reading from the book Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006).First up is the essay by Dr Gerald Bray ‘The Trinity: Where Do We Go From Here?’ (p.19-40)


Dr Bray highlights that the doctrine of the Trinity has suffered an eclipse in much systematic theology discussions for the past century or so, but now has come back with a vengeance (thanks to Karl Barth), with some theologians making the Trinity the center and of all their systematic theology, and in fact, of all Christian faith and practice. What has particular emerged in recent Trinitarian discussions is a greater openness to Eastern Tradition which tends to focus more on the concept of ‘persons’, over the Western tradition which tends to take as its starting point the concept of ‘substance’. At least what seems clear is that ‘the notion that God is a ‘substance’ somehow distinct from his three persons has been rejected, mainly on the grounds that the unity of God cannot be depersonalized, nor can there be a fourth ‘thing’ in him that can be conceptualised as such’ (p.23). This emphasis on divine persons has further led to firstly, the notion of God being described as divine communion, i.e. God himself is a community of personal relationships (and the gospel is hence seen as God inviting us to enter into communion with him in that way also) (p.23); secondly, a greater ‘personalisation’ of the Holy Spirit (p.24); and thirdly, a consideration of how the work of the individual persons intersect and bear witness to the unity of God working, i.e. an affirmation of the slogan ‘the external works of the Trinity re undivided’ (p.25).


However, there are also limits, and Dr Bray highlights six points which future theologians should heed when articulating the doctrine of the Trinity.


First, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must be solidly biblical. Dr Bray calls for a more thorough investigation into the biblical roots of the development of this doctrine, rather than a straightaway assumption of the starting point of this doctrine to lie in post-biblical developments. While the New Testament is the appropriate starting point for such an investigation, it nonetheless will lead to the question of how we are to relate the ‘God of the Old Testament’ to the ‘God of the New Testament’, i.e. did God appear to the patriarchs as the Father, with the Son and Holy Spirit remaining hidden? Or did he speak to them as three persons speaking with a single, undifferentiated voice? How qualified are we to say that even though the Jews could not distinguish the three persons of the Trinity in the way Christians can, they nevertheless had direct contact with God in his fullness (p.31)? In this regard, I find Robert Letham’s book The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004) useful. He explores the doctrine of the Trinity according to the four sections listed in his subtitle. His conclusion on the Trinity from the OT is right: While the OT does not make explicit the doctrine, it does ‘provide the essential foundation without which the full Christian doctrine of God could not exist’, and one of the key things the OT does is to provide the means ‘both to distinguish and to hold together the roles of Son/Wisdom/Word and Spirit, since these were vivid personifications, not abstract principles’ (p.32 of Letham). In the light of the NT’s development of the basis laid in the OT and in light of the fact that the ‘the external works of the Trinity are undivided’, is it too far off to say that in the OT, God spoke and had contact with the Israelites as God in his fullness? Overall, the OT definitely prepared the ground for the NT, and the NT in turn prepared the ground for much of the Trinitarian and Christological discussions that would eventually find its way to Nicaea and Chalcedon. In fact, one could say that Nicaea and Chalcedon was really responding to the NT evidence in light of the heresies of its day.


Secondly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must be integrative of different theological traditions. Dr Bray wants us to see that both the Western tradition (of which Reformed Theology springs from) and the Eastern Tradition offer different perspectives of a greater and united truth (with regards to the Doctrine of the Trinity). Progress will be made not by totally accepting one tradition and rejecting the other, but a sensitive and critical evaluation of insights from both traditions.

Thirdly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must seek definition and clarity as far as possible. This will mean, ‘rolling back’ on some of the ‘progress’ in this area as suggested in recent books in Trinitarian theology (p.39). What Dr Bray has in mind here are books which almost seek to equate all kinds of relationships (man-woman, marriage, Christ-church etc.) as equal to relationships within the Trinity. The fundamental error here is a failure to remember the manner of relating and loving must be appropriate to the nature of their relationship. The divine persons of the Trinity love as perfect beings, something which we are not (p.35). Also, the terms of discussion need to be clearly defined, otherwise an ideology can be made that sounds plausible and relevant because of an apparent similarity of vocabulary, but is in fact quite different. A good example would be the claim by feminists for ‘equality’ in human relationships based on the ‘equality’ that exists among the Trinity (p.27).


Fourthly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must re-examine the divine attributes in relation to the concept of mutual coinherence. What Dr Bray means here, I think, is two things. Firstly, we must be careful not to be too quick to give up on all talk of ‘substance’ in favour of ‘persons’. It is interesting to see that in some modern Trinitarian discussions, the idea of ‘substance’ is almost virtually non-existent, or at best reduced to merely the ‘perichoresis’ (mutual indwelling) of the different divine persons. Bray reminds us this cannot do, and what is at stake in giving up on talking of ‘substance’ is an eventual demise of talk of the attributes of God, leading to some theologies today like that of ‘open theism’ (p.32). However, Dr Bray rightly states that between ‘person’ and ‘substance’, ‘person’ rightly controls the ‘substance’ or nature (a realisation that was made in Chalcedon, for if the divine person of the Son did not control his divide nature but the divine nature controlled instead, there was no way the Son could have taken on a human nature) (p.33). All in all, Dr Bray is calling for us to continue to affirm the definition ‘one substance, three persons’ or ‘one ousia, three hypostasis’. In this regard, perhaps, Trinitarian discussion should still be part of the doctrine of God, with other discussions including what it means that God is LORD, the acts of God, and the attributes of God (see John Frame’s The Doctrine of God); rather than Trinitarian discussions constituting the entire discussion of the doctrine of God. Secondly, there is also a need to think through the attributes of God in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. Colin Gunton (Act and Being) was right to state that part of the problem of earlier discussion of the attributes of God was done pretty much against the background of Greek philosophical concepts, rather than in light of the truth of the Trinity. (In this regard,Thomas Weinandy’s Does God Suffer? is an interesting exploration of the attribute of impassibility and immutability in light of the Trinity)

Fifthly, a future Reformed Trinitarian theology must be deeply spiritual in its approach. What Dr Bray means by this is that early Trinitarain thought was never conducted out a vacuum, but it ‘grew out of Christian’s experience of God, which included prayer, meditation, and even escatic experiences at least as much as it did theological argument and discussion’ (p.35). This means that for us today who are seeking to talk about the Trinity, whatever ‘we say should be capable of being put into immediate practice by ordinary Christians in their everyday lives. In this regard, I once again commend Letham’s The Holy Trinity final section, where he looks at the implications of the doctrine in four areas of the incarnation, our worship, creation and missions; and our understanding of persons.

Lastly, a future Trinitarian theology must show how the work of the different persons relates to the Trinity as a whole. Dr Bray has his particular eye on the person and work of the Holy Spirit, which he says ‘itself integrates the other two persons and lies at the heart of most of the disagreements that have divided Western Christians since the Reformation’ (p.39).

Overall, I found Dr Bray’s essay stimulating and thought-provoking for its relative size (some other essays are over 60 pages long!).

Teaching Christology, Soteriology, and Eschatology

THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF A RESEARCH PAPER I PREPARED AS PART OF MY PRESBYTERIANISM COURSE.

The purpose of this research paper is to suggest how a teaching session on Christology, Soteriology and Eschatology could be conducted for a Catechism (or Membership) Class. The assumption is that this particular session is part of a larger course covering the other aspects of Christian doctrine and living. Due to the space constraint, this paper will focus on Christology, and will only touch on soteriology and eschatology as it pertains to Christology.

We have opted to present the material under the following 4 points.

1. The doctrine of Christ is presented in the Scriptures as a climax to the unfolding bible’s storyline.

Jesus himself and the biblical writers present Christ as a climax to the bible’s storyline as revealed to us in the pages of Holy Scripture. Jesus himself says, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).”[3] The apostolic writers could say of Christ, “For no matter how may promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God (2 Corinthians 1:20).”[4] Even Calvin himself, who saw the entire sweep of the history of redemption as covenantal in nature, viewed Christ as the mediator of both covenants,[5] though allowing for a progressive revelation of Christ as one transits from the Old Covenant to the New.[6]

The implication is that we must never view God’s salvation plan in Christ as an afterthought – either as an afterthought to Adam’s rebellion, or as an afterthought following the failure of Israel. Rather, we ‘have been chosen in Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless and in his sight’ (Ephesians 1:4). Another implication is that we must never view Christology as merely another doctrine to be discussed on the same footing alongside with the other six major doctrines of Revelation and Scripture; God; Man; (Application of) Salvation; Church (and Sacraments), and Eschatology. Rather, if we understand correctly and see the Christ event as ‘the climatic move in Bible’s plot-line’[8], then we will see that the other doctrines stand in a much tighter connection with Christology; and in fact, find their fullest expression when considered only together with Christology. While we recognise there remains much room for seeing how exactly the inter-connections between the other doctrines and Christology work out, the conviction of the centrality of Christology in our systematic theological considerations remains clear, especially in light of the developing plot of the Bible’s storyline.

2. The doctrine of Christ, in its simplest form, can be viewed as considering the person and the work of our Lord Jesus, and is best covered under the significant key movements of the ‘Christ event’: Jesus’ incarnation; his life of obedience; his death; his resurrection; his ascension and exaltation, and his return as judge, as revealed by Holy Scripture.

Such an approach is not new, and in fact develops along the flow of Jesus’ work and ministry as revealed in the plotline of the Bible’s story and The Apostle’s Creed. Such was also the approach of John Calvin.[10] The salient points to be highlighted under each of these movements of the ‘Christ event’ are as follows:

Incarnation

Scripture moves us to consider and uphold the divinity and humanness of our Lord Jesus – that in the one person of our Lord Jesus, he was truly God and truly man at the same time. Romans 8:3 states that Jesus was ‘in the likeness of sinful man’, while Hebrews 2:14 states that ‘since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death’. John 1:14, on the other hand, affirms that the Word, who was with God and was God since the beginning, nonetheless ‘became flesh and made his dwelling among us’. The word ‘became’ has to be elaborated and expounded so as to avoid a whole host of misunderstandings. It does not mean ‘appeared to be’; nor ‘that the divine nature and human nature was somehow transformed into a new neither-here-nor-there kind of nature’; nor that ‘Christ simply had a human body but a divine soul’; nor ‘that Jesus became two persons - a divine person and a human person in one man’; nor that ‘Jesus emptied himself of his divinity in order to become man’.[12] Rather, the whole presentation of Scripture leads us towards the conclusions of the Definition of Chalcedon in AD 451 – that Jesus Christ was

[…] one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, being made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of the natures being by no means removed because of the union but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person […], not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, the Lord Jesus Christ […][13]

In another words, what we have to uphold in the incarnation is the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. he had one mind, will, soul, and body) who had both the divine nature and the human nature in him, but who acts as the one person.

The implications are staggering. We need the perfect God-man to save us. We need Christ to be human so as to take what was ours and we need Christ to be God so as to impart what is His (by nature) to us (by grace). We need Christ to be human so as to die our death but we need Christ to be God so as to overcome death and be victorious over it.[14] In short, in the incarnation, we see God who is for us, and we see a man who is for God – an answer to the two big questions that have arisen from the bible’s plotline thus far, “Is God for us or against us?”, and “which man is for God?”

Life of Obedience

Two points will suffice here. Firstly, Jesus’ life of obedience has always been neglected, or at best, treated as some kind of prelude to his atoning work on the cross. Rather, it is preferential, together with Calvin, to see Christ’s lifelong obedience as part of his atonement for us. He states, “In short, from the time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to redeem us.”[15] Yet, Calvin had his priorities right. By affirming the incarnation and sinless life of Christ as essential for our salvation, Calvin does not detract from the cross. Rather, he presents Christ’s obedience as an ongoing obedience which began with his birth and which culminated in his death on the cross. The early answer of Jesus “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’” (Matthew 4:4) culminates in his cry at Gethsemane “Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matthew 26:39). The importance of this is as Calvin states, “even in death itself his willing obedience is the important thing because a sacrifice not offered voluntarily would not have furthered righteousness.”[16]

Secondly, the obedience of Jesus holds valuable lessons for us as we consider Christian living and ethics. The virtues held by Jesus; his behaviour and his actions all provide for us a model of the kingdom person to follow – better still: to ‘improvise’ – as we carry on living and participating in God’s Kingdom as we await for the Eschaton.

Death

There is tremendous discussion today on how we should view the death of Jesus and what is the best ‘model’ to represent what that death achieved.[18] D.A. Carson highlights rather than identifying different “models” of atonement theory that have been constructed across the history of the church and seeking to ground each within the New Testament, it is methodologically better to recognise that the New Testament and other biblical documents speak of the atonement in diverse and complementary ways. One should seek to see how these different aspects of the one atonement cohere and relate to one another and whether one aspect of the atonement rightly illumines and controls, and thus take precedence, over the others.[19] This is best done by considering the entire plotline of the Bible’s storyline, especially its major turning points in redemptive history, and seeing what are some of the dominant themes that have arisen so far in helping us consider what the cross achieved.

In this regard, one cannot deny the dominant presence of the themes of the love and wrath of God as we go through the bible’s storyline. Biblical books like Exodus, as well as the story of Israel as revealed in the Former and Latter Prophets, the typology of the Tabernacle and the Temple all highlight the pertinent question of how a Holy God can draw near to His people without destroying them because of their sin. Or as John Stott states, “How then can God express his holiness without consuming us, and his love without condoning our sins? How can God satisfy his holy love? How can he save us and satisfy himself simultaneously?”[20]

This sets us up for the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. It is only as Christ dies in our place and on our behalf that the wrath of God against sinners can be satisfied, and that there can be forgiveness. As Calvin states, “This is our acquittal: the guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God.”[21], and further in that same chapter, “Christ was offered to the Father in death as an expiatory sacrifice that when he discharged all satisfaction through his sacrifice, we might cease to be afraid of God’s wrath.”[22] In fact, Calvin provides a good model for us when considering the work of the cross. He allows for other aspects of the atonement such as the Christus Victor motif , but subjugates that under the legal-penal theme and sacrifice metaphor.[23]

Overall, the first implication of Christ’s death and burial is that we have victory over our enemies of death, the devil, and fear of God’s wrath. A second implication is that we also have victory over sin in the Christian life. By being united to Christ in his death (Romans 6:4-5), through the cross the world has been crucified to us, and we to the world (Galatians 6:14). By being joined to Christ’s death and burial, we have departed from our old way of life and our flesh has been mortified, as Calvin states.[24]

Resurrection

The first thing to emphasise when we come to considering Christ’s resurrection is that both Jesus’ death and resurrection are to be seen as a whole, and reference to either actually refers to the whole. Christ’s death and resurrection are so vital to Christianity that when Scripture speaks of either one of them, readers are to infer the other as well. The second thing is that while death and resurrection are to be thought of together, their respective roles in salvation can be distinguished. Calvin states, “Therefore, we divide the substance of our salvation between Christ’s death and resurrection as follows: through his death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection, righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that – thanks to his resurrection – his death manifested its power and efficacy in us.”[26] In another words, Jesus’ resurrection shows the power and effectiveness of Jesus’ death for the believer. It is for this reason that the Apostle Paul says, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17). The third thing to highlight is that Jesus’ resurrection has massive implications for our Christian living and ethics. Just as we experience mortification in the cross, so now we experience vivification in Christ’s empty tomb – Jesus’ resurrection enables us to walk in newness of life. Jesus’ resurrection also serves as a guarantee of our own resurrection, and of God’s bigger promise to renew the world and this current creation.

Ascension and Exaltation

The ascension of Christ and his exaltation is next. Calvin highlights that as much as Christ has shown forth his glory and power through the resurrection, yet he ‘truly inaugurated his Kingdom only at his ascension into heaven’.[27] With the ascension also comes the sending of the Holy Spirit in a new and powerful manner. Calvin states, “Carried up into heaven, therefore, he withdrew his bodily presence from our sight [Acts 1:9], not to cease to be present with believers still on their earthly pilgrimage, but to rule heaven and earth by a more immediate power.”[28] Calvin goes on to highlight three ways in which Christ’s ascension benefits our faith – it shows that the way back to heaven is open for us even as Christ ascends heaven ‘in our flesh, as if in our name’; having entered into heaven, Christ appears before God the Father as our eternal high priest and intercessor; and the ascension displays Christ’s might and victory.[29] As Peterson states, “Our exalted Lord and Saviour gives enabling grace to his people, sanctifies them by his Spirit, gives gifts to his church, protects it from its enemies, restrains those enemies, and wields all power until he comes again as Judge.”[30]

Return as Judge

Christ’s return as judge vindicates God and will unveil His Kingdom fully for what it is, even though that kingdom is veiled or hidden from the world now. Christ’s return as judge also means a judgement for all – be they the living or the dead.

Perhaps there is no better way to conclude the significance of the ‘Christ event’ for us than to consider Calvin’s concluding hymn of praise to Christ that is lengthy but wonderful:

We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ [Acts 4:12]. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him” [1 Cor 1:30]. If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects [Heb 2:17] that he might learn to feel our pain [cf. Heb 5:2]. If we seek redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross [Gal 3:13]; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in His Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgement, in the power given to him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other.[31]

3. The doctrine of soteriology can be thought of as the application of the redemption won by Christ. In this regard, the truth of our union with Christ is pivotal in showing how we come to experience the benefits of salvation.

The application of the redemption won by Christ is crucial to us experiencing salvation. As Calvin famously stated, “As long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”[32] In this regard, we agree with Calvin and other contemporary Reformed Theologians that the idea of union with Christ is what brings us into Christ such that we experience the benefits of the salvation he has won for us. This union finds its most prominent New Testament expression in the phrase ‘in Christ’ or ‘in the Lord’, with slight variations, occurring frequently and almost exclusively in Paul’s letters (elsewhere, e.g. John 14:20, John 15:4-7, 1 John 2:28).[34] Such union is brought about by the ‘secret energy of the Spirit’ and ‘the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself’.[35] But faith is the principal work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is Spirit-worked, sovereignly and efficaciously. As Gaffin states “The union Calvin has in view, then, is union forged by the Spirit’s working faith in us, a faith that ‘puts on’ Christ, that embraces Christ as he is offered to faith in the gospel. Faith is the bond of the union seen from our side.”[36] In short, we promote Calvin’s ordo salutis[37] as the way to understand how the redemption won by Christ is applied to us: through an initial and continual union with Christ by Spirit-worked faith.

Two implications arise from such an understanding. Firstly, such an ordo salutis does not focus particularly on the chronological or logical order of the processes within – i.e. it is not heavily concerned with tracing out the sequence of events within salvation e.g. regeneration, repentance, illumination, justification, sanctification, and glorification. Rather, it is better to think of union with Christ as ‘an all-encompassing reality that resists being correlated as one benefit among others, like a single link in a chain’.[38] Secondly, contrary to some forms of current thinking, it is important to uphold the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Calvin is helpful on this point. He always relates justification and imputation to union with Christ. He states, “We do not therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body – in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.”[40] For Calvin, imputed righteousness cannot exist apart from union with Christ. Why? Because it is not an abstract entity but it is Christ’s own righteousness that is imputed to us and reckoned as ours. Likewise, there is no union without imputation. Our basis for justification comes not from being in relationship with Christ, no matter how real or intimate; neither does it come from a righteousness that results in me from that union. But rather, it comes from Christ’s own righteousness, which in union with him, is imputed to me.[41]

4. The doctrine of eschatology, while wide-encompassing and including many viewpoints (and controversies!), nonetheless find its basis in the person and work of Christ.

Space constrains us from elaborating on the various aspects of the doctrine of eschatology. It suffices to highlight here that we must not allow our discussions on the more controversial issues of eschatology to cloud out this essential point – that the doctrine of eschatology finds its basis in the person and work of Christ Jesus. Richard Bauckham states correctly when he states that ‘[Jesus’] ministry, death and resurrection constitute God’s definitive promise for the eschatological future of all things’. This promise is ‘in the form of concrete anticipation. What has happened to Jesus is what will happen to the whole creation.’[42] In another words, Christian eschatology sets out from a definite reality in history (the history of Christ Jesus) and announces the future of that reality, its future possibilities and its power over the future. In that sense, Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and his future.[43] Bauckham’s conclusion is apt, “What is important is that the resurrection of the crucified Jesus entails the future coming of the kingdom he proclaimed. Its relationship to the eschatological future is constitutive of its meaning for Christian faith. Neither Jesus nor his resurrection can be understood in non-eschatological terms.”[44] The implication of this truth is that Christian eschatology and hence Christian hope cannot merely be an openness to the future without specific content; nor seen simply as the outcome of the process of history itself; nor a simple embodiment of ideas of utopia, but rather a recognition that it is God who will finally establish his rule over the world – a rule that extends to the new heavens and the new earth, with the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb at the center of it (Revelation 21:22)

[3] Other biblical passages that highlight this view of Jesus include Matthew 5:17, John 5:39-40.
[4] Other biblical passages from the apostolic writers include Romans 16:25-27, Ephesians 3:10-11, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:1-2, and 1 Peter 1:10-12 among many others.
[5] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. J.T. McNeill; trans. F.L. Battles; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 2.10.2 (henceforth will be abbreviated as Institutes): “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in mode of dispensation. […] they [the patriarchs] had and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and were to share in his promises.” See also Institutes 2.10.23.
[6] Institutes 2.10.20
[8] The title of one of his chapters as used by D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), chapter 6.
[10] See Institutes 2.16-17.

[12] The technical names for all these errors are, respectively, docetism; monophysitism; apollinarianism; nestorianism, and kenoticism.
[13] Definition of Chalcedon AD 451 as quoted in Robert L. Reymond, ‘Classical Christology’s Future in Systematic Theology’, in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006), 91. It is also noted that the Definition of Chalcedon is also highlighted in The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church in Singapore) chapter VIII.2.
[14] Both points are highlighted by Calvin in Institutes 2.12.2-3.
[15] Institutes 2.16.5.
[16] Institutes 2.16.5
[18] For a sample of the discussion, see The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the theology of atonement (ed. Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).
[19] Carson makes this point in his book Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 61-62.
[20] John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), 132.
[21] Institutes 2.16.5. This is why Calvin is insistent that Jesus did not just die any death, but that he had to be condemned to death under Pontius Pilate. Any other death would not have any ‘evidence of satisfaction’.
[22] Institutes 2.16.6
[23] A point made by Henri Blocher, ‘The Atonement in John Calvin’s Theology’, in The Glory of the Atonement (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 296-301.
[24] Institutes 2.16.7
[26] Institutes 2.16.13.
[27] Institutes 2.16.14.
[28] Institutes 2.16.14.
[29] Institutes 2.16.16
[30] Robert A. Peterson, ‘Calvin on Christ’s Saving Work’, in A Theological Guide To Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback; Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008), 238.
[31] Institutes 2.16.19
[32] Institutes 3.1.1
[34] Richard B. Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections’, in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology (ed. A.T.B. McGowan; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006), 272.
[35] Institutes 3.1.1
[36] Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 279.
[37] Order of salvation
[38] Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 280.
[40] Institutes 3.11.10
[41] This last point comes from Gaffin Jr., ‘Union with Christ’, 286-87.
[42] Richard Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology (ed. John B. Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance; USA: Oxford University Press, 2007), 309.
[43] A point made by Moltmann as quoted by Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, 309.
[44] Backham, ‘Eschatology’, 309.

Review of Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited

NOTE: THIS IS A VERY LONG POST, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SAVOUR THE REWARDS AT THE END!


D.A. Carson’s latest book Christ and Culture Revisited[1] sees Carson exploring the relationship between Christ (or Christianity) and Culture, as the title suggests. It’s not as if such an endeavour has not been attempted before, but that earlier attempts have been largely concerned with deriving various possible models of relation based on selected portions of Scripture (along with the relevant portions of historical or contemporary theology that support such a viewpoint), rather than a consideration of the overall theological message or voice arising from the whole canon of Scripture, i.e. within a biblical theological framework. This is the freshness that Carson brings in his endeavour.

The book is divided into 6 chapters. In the 1st chapter, Carson defines his terms: “culture” being a concept which ‘denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols’ in which ‘men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life’ (p.2).[2] He then picks up the seminal work of H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,[3] and does an overall sketch of the 5 possible paradigms of relation as suggested by Niebuhr: (1) Christ against Culture; (2) The Christ of Culture; (3) Christ above Culture; (4) Christ and Culture in Paradox, and (5) Christ the Transformer of Culture (p.13-29). Carson highlights the key Scripture passages Niebuhr uses and the key figures of historical and contemporary theologians he appeals to, before offering a preliminary assessment for each of Niebuhr’s paradigms.

In the 2nd chapter, Carson picks up his main criticism of Niebuhr’s earlier endeavour – and that is Niebuhr’s presentation of the relation between Christ and Culture is more reductionistic than what Scripture as a whole allows for. The whole of Scripture seems to present a much larger and more cohesive understanding of the relationship between Christ and culture, such that the options Niebuhr presents should really be thought of as nothing more than possible emphases within this comprehensive integrated whole.[4] Carson continues in the rest of the chapter to sketch out how this integrated whole might look like by considering what he terms as the “Non-negotiables of Biblical Theology” (p.44-59). This section is worth a read on its own, as Carson shows us the key theological emphases within each of the great turning points of redemptive history in a succinct manner.[5] The relevant insights exploring the relationship between Christ and Culture can be summarised as follows:
- Creation and Fall informs us that this world is ‘God’s world, but that this side of fall this world is simultaneously resplendent with glory and awash in shame, and that every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we were made in God’s image and shows itself to be mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God’ (p.49)
- Israel and the Law informs us that Israel was considered a theocracy, and that ‘the entire Israelite culture was to reflect God’s glory and reveal God’s truth and God’s character’ (p.51)
- Christ and the New Covenant reminds us of the tension that we live with, between the fact ‘that the kingdom is already present and the promise that the kingdom will finally come in the end’ (p.54), and that the new covenant people of God in this kingdom is ‘not in a nation – neither Israel nor any other nation – but in a transnational community made up of people from every tongue and tribe and people and nation’. One entailment of this truth is that on ‘this side of consummation there will be ongoing tensions between the Christian community and all other communities’ (p.55). Finally, Jesus’ statement “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” means a distinction between the authority of Caesar and the authority of God has been introduced, while not conceding that God and Caesar are parallel authorities (p.58).
- A Heaven to Be Gained and a Hell to Be Feared means that current relations between Christ and culture have no final status nor will ever reach utopian ideals ‘as long as we remain in the inaugurated-but-not-yet-consumated kingdom’. Perfection comes with the consummation, and in the meantime, we must live with tensions that will not be finally resolved (p.59)
This is the integrated whole that Carson urges us to think along with, while recognising that different aspects of the whole will clamour for more attention from time to time depending on our concrete existential circumstances. In my personal view, Carson’s integrated whole can be further summarised as two tensions that must govern our thinking in this subject matter: firstly, the tension between the doctrine of ‘common grace’ and the doctrine of total depravity – i.e. all of the potential of the so-called “natural world” (all of art, music, administrative gifts, colourful diversity, creative genius etc.) was called into being by God and operates under the authority of the resurrected Christ, but yet everything is corrupted by sin (p.64). In another words, our experience of culture will always be caught in-between this tension; and secondly, the tension between the fact that we belong to the culture of the consummated kingdom of God, which has dawned among us, while simultaneously live in a world which largely does not recognise this culture nor submit itself under it (p.63-64). These two tensions seem to form the base from which Carson’s interactions in the rest of the book spring from.

In the 3rd chapter, Carson pauses to reflect greater on the two terms of “culture” and “postmodernism” – something which must be done as current discussions of culture or reliance on postmodern thought have often led to the dissuasion of reflection on Christ and culture. Through a series of 4 questions Carson himself poses, he upholds the importance of not succumbing to the ‘indenfensible mantra of many cultural anthropologists (today): no culture is superior or inferior to any other’ (p.72), or the relativists who state that it is grossly misleading to be sorting out the relationship between ‘Christ’ and ‘culture’ when all Christians inevitably constitute part of culture (p.75). Instead, Carson insists that culture, ‘like every other facet of the creation, stands under the judgement of God’ (p.75), and that Christians, though inevitably finding themselves from a larger culture and part of it, can nevertheless be simultaneously distinguishable from that larger culture (p.75). And here is where the biblical theological framework mentioned earlier comes in – it provides Christians a way of evaluating their larger culture, as they grapple with the theological message that comes from considering all the turning points in redemptive history, while recognising that their own cultural location demands that certain biblical emphases have a higher priority than others (p.85). In terms of postmodernism, Carson highlights there is a middle way between the hard battle currently ongoing between proponents of modernism and postmodernism, between foundationalism and postfoundationalism theological method – the middle way is what he terms “chastened modernism” or “soft postmodernism” (p.90). He states:
“A chastened postmodernism heartily recognises that we cannot avoid seeing things from a certain perspective (we are all perspectivalists, even if perspectivalists can be divided into those who admit it and those who don’t) but acknowledges that there is a reality out there that we human beings can know, even if we cannot know it exhaustively or perfectly, but only from our own perspective.” (p.90)
This is what the storyline of the whole Bible provides – a worldview by which to understand the questions of deity (if there is a God, how is he like?), origins (Where do I come from?), significance (Who am I?), evil (Why are things not the way they’re supposed to be?), salvation (What’s the problem and how is it resolved) and telos (Why am I here? What does the future hold?) (p.95). Carson’s conclusion is key: “[The Bible’s storyline] does not claim to say all that might be said about God. It merely claims to cast a broad enough vision to be able to see the shape of the whole.” (p.96). In fact, Carson states that while such a vision includes a system of beliefs, it is more than that and also includes the volition that thinks and acts in line with such beliefs (this leads me to affirm once again that the theodrama concept might be a good way of capturing this Christian worldview and in relating the three disciplines of biblical theology, systematic theology, and ethics). Carson’s conclusion is clear from the 3rd chapter: the bible’s storyline i.e. the biblical theological framework provides a way to effectively discuss the relations between Christ and culture, despite the current postmodern climate and it’s spilling effects into discussions on culture.

In the 4th chapter, Carson turns his attention to considering 4 key elements or cultural forces which shape our modern culture – secularism, democracy, freedom and power. One wonders why Carson stops short at these 4 cultural forces and has not included what in my mind is another key cultural force – consumerist individualism and free-market globilisation, leading to materialism and greed.[6] That aside, a discernible pattern is soon noticed in this chapter – all 4 cultural forces are interconnected. The Biblical theological framework advocated throughout the book also shows that while some of the cultural forces may have good intentions and noble ideals behind them, our depraved natures soon corrupt these cultural forces. Hence, we ‘cannot embrace unrestrained secularism; democracy is not God; freedom can be another word for rebellion the lust for power, as universal as it is, must be viewed with more than a little suspicion’ (p.143). This all means that ‘Christian communities honestly seeking to live under the Word of God will inevitably generate cultures that, to say the least, will in some sense counter or confront the values of the dominant culture’ (P.143). But Christians, in understanding the Bible’s storyline, will also be committed to enhancing the culture they find themselves embedded in.

The 5th chapter sees Carson taking all the above mentioned principles and applying it to the specific question of church and state. This is a lengthy chapter (60 pages), and hence reflects one of the dominant priorities of Carson’s book. Carson first clarifies the key expressions of ‘religion’, ‘church’, and ‘nation/state’, before surveying biblical texts and their priorities for thinking the relationship between church and state (a summary is found in pg. 171). He then turns to looking at historical and theological reflections, covering reflections on the work of Augustine, Stanley Hauerwas, Oliver O’Donovan, and Bonhoeffer. Carson finally concludes this chapter by providing some concluding reflections on this topic. After reading this chapter, my thoughts are stirred as follows:
- It is difficult and not as straightforward as how we often like things to be when it comes to talking about relations between church and state. Inevitably, the deeper issues of Christians and state and religion and state will be drawn in.
- We ought to ultimately remember where our ultimate citizenship and primary identity lies, while remembering that Scripture exhorts us to submit to the authority of the state except where it involves the believer in doing disobedience to God.
- For those of us who live in democracies, we must remember that this was never an option for first-century believers. This means that for us, such a position brings new freedoms and responsibilities, and we must ‘improvise’ based on Scriptural principles which we see from the whole Biblical storyline. At least, for one, it means taking our responsibilities seriously (all the way from voting to influencing government to legislating and governing (for some)), while at the same time, not confusing the kingdom of God with our own government or party.
- What light does this shed on public theology (how can Christians do theology on the public front)? Carson warns against ‘translating our Christian values and priorities into secular categories’ (p.196). While we may likely appeal to a broader range of people if our arguments are not couched in Christian categories, we may inevitably allow such secular values to take precedence over our Christian frame of reference, or we may end up being accused by our opponents of ‘being in reality religious wolves in sheep’s clothing’. This is a difficult area to think through. While opponents are likely to cry the ‘religious game’ when hearing out Christian arguments, they have to realise that it is impossible to argue a case from a “neutral” position when we are first and foremost Christian believers. Would some kind of “natural law” serve as the way forward to carry out public theology? Perhaps, though I’m sure that would have weaknesses of its own. At least in multi-religious Singapore, if we were to provide arguments on social issues on the basis of the church, then we must be prepared to likewise allow that space to the other religions as well.
- Ultimately, we must remember that utopia will not be found in any form of political system, but in the eschatological hope of God’s consummated kingdom which He will bring in His time and His way. Perhaps, in this regard, we can pray for our government that they will continually to govern in such a manner that would not hinder the progress of the gospel, and the concept of religious freedom, while having some complications of its own, may nevertheless be the best we can do this side of God’s Kingdom.
- I like Carson’s point on this, and I quote it by way of concluding my thinking on this issue:
“Perhaps this is the place to affirm that, however complicated the theorectical discussion becomes over the relationships between church and state, the most attractive outworking by far is found in the individual Christian or group of Christians who, precisely because they live out their faith, become involved not only in bold witness but also in ways of helping others in the community that cross many thresholds normally controlled by government agencies. A church starts a center in its poor area to mentor kids without dads, to help kids read, to look after the sick and elderly, to start a school that has far more care, discipline, Christian influence, and rigor than in the available options, and so forth. Let the critics cry “Foul!” and demand that religion be private. We serve a Lord who will not allow us to be silent and retreat.” (p.202)
“Amen” to that!

We must end (chapter 6 in my view summarises the argument of the previous chapters). This book review has way exceeded what I first set it out to be (but what can we expect when one tries to summarise Carson?). Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited is a good and rewarding read – though not the easiest one due to Carson’s prose and his unique way of presenting sub-ideas and excurses through his numbering and paragraphing format! But his main ideas are clear. What is most commendable is Carson’s seriousness in teaching us to think biblical-theologically, and this involves not just knowing the main turning points in redemptive history, but seeing how these turning points lead us to address and rigorously think through a topic as complicated as that of Christ and culture. Biblical Theology for Carson is, ultimately not just about a system of beliefs, nor even about the volition to act and live in light of these beliefs, but also includes the willingness and ever-readiness to engage every area of our life and culture with it. This itself is well worth the hard work and effort in reading this book!


[1] Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
[2] Carson follows Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 89 , in his definition.
[3] New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1951.
[4] Carson rightly suggests that the failure of Niebuhr to consider this integrated whole could be due to his view of how the canon should function. For Niebuhr, the canon ‘rules’ by providing not so much a totality of the canon’s voice, but by providing boundaries of the allowable paradigms, and that one is faithful to Scripture so long as our choices are aligned with anyone of these paradigms. This is contrasted with Carson’s own view where canon ‘rules’ by providing an overall theological voice, even as we recognise the diversity of the voices within (p.40-43).
[5] Carson does something similar in a more extended fashion in his earlier book The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), chapters 5-7.
[6] Richard Bauckham, ‘Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story’, in The Art of Reading Scripture (ed. Ellen Davis & Richard Hays; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 46, has insightfully pointed out that postmodernist who are strongly adverse to the ideas of ‘metanarrative’ have strangely missed out ‘the powerful, late modern grand-narrative of consumerist individualism and free-market globalization’.

Oh The Power of the Cross

Just want to wish everybody a blessed Good Friday with the words of this song, which we sung in service today and which I used to sing in chapel back in my college days. Strange... everytime I sing this song, it somehow or another brings tears to my eyes. Good reminder of what the cross accomplished for us.

"Oh, to see the dawn
Of the darkest day:
Christ on the road to Calvary.
Tried by sinful men,
Torn and beaten, then
Nailed to a cross of wood.

CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Christ became sin for us;
Took the blame, bore the wrath—
We stand forgiven at the cross.

Oh, to see the pain
Written on Your face,
Bearing the awesome weight of sin.
Ev'ry bitter thought,
Ev'ry evil deed
Crowning Your bloodstained brow.
(CHORUS)

Now the daylight flees;
Now the ground beneath
Quakes as its Maker bows His head.
Curtain torn in two,
Dead are raised to life;
"Finished!" the vict'ry cry.
(CHORUS)

Oh, to see my name
Written in the wounds,
For through Your suffering I am free.
Death is crushed to death;
Life is mine to live,
Won through Your selfless love.

FINAL CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Son of God—slain for us.
What a love! What a cost!
We stand forgiven at the cross.

"The Power of the Cross" Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend
Copyright 2005
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o5SSQlxNLs

Preaching Exodus 1

My church has just started preaching through a new series on Exodus, and I heard the first sermon today on Exodus 1. It was a good sermon, with the preacher drawing the main lesson that God is the Lord of history (He is in control of the terrible circumstances of racial genocide in Exodus 1, and repeated throughout the rest of history as seen recently in Auschwitz, Rwanda, Cambodia etc.). But more important than that, God is the Lord of salvation history, and works history towards the fulfillment of His purposes for us in Christ.

That got me thinking. The first 7 verses of Exodus 1 straightaway connects the Exodus story with the earlier story before it - the story of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and central to that story is the promise made in Gen 12:1-3 (the Abrahamic covenant), which is repeated to Isaac and Jacob. Yet, in Exodus 1, we find the Israelites in slavery. And there was no means the promise could be fulfilled for them if they were in slavery. It wasn't just something that they could 'walk into' - in another words, the people of Israel couldn't just walk into the promise land and form themselves as a nation. They neeed RESCUE. God needed to rescue them in order to fulfill His promises to them.

Could Exodus 1 then serve as a mirror for us NT Christians? In that just as Israel couldn't walk into God's promises on her own but needed a miraculous resuce, we too as the true people of God couldn't have just walked into God's promises on our own too. We need rescue just as much as the Israelites needed rescue. We need rescue from slavery to sin, we need rescue from the forces of evil that work against our lives. And that is precisely what has happened to us. God made us alive with Christ when we were dead in our sins and trangressions, in which we used to live when we followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, while we were gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts (Eph 2:1-5). In another words, could Exodus 1 serve as a passage to lead us to the doctrine of total depravity and all that stands opposed to us in our salvation?

Singles - Are we in the church making it easier or harder for them?

A couple of days ago, I reviewed an anonymous lady's article on singleness, as introduced by another friend of mine. I really liked the article, and so I've asked for her permission (through my friend) to have her article posted on my blog.

She's agreed... so here it is:


Single-d Out
Pauline Arp wonders why singles are being singled out, even in the church and what it can do to help the situation.

“So, what’s a girl like you doing single?” asked a married Christian friend the other day. If there’s just one dreaded question in my life, this would be it.

I smiled weakly and muttered, “Er, I don’t know… ask God?”

I never know how best to answer this without ever sounding rude or dismissive. And I’ve tried coming up with various replies, from the defensive “What’s wrong with being single?” to the self-pitying “Nobody wants me” and the corny “Because I’m Pauline, you know, the female equivalent of Paul?” to the plain feeble non-answer “Hah, erm… heh”. They’re unimaginative, but at least they don’t involve coarse joking.

I know friends and family check in on my marital status because they care and, to be honest, I never have an issue when they ask if I’m seeing anyone. But when the question becomes ‘why’ I’m not, their intention eludes me. I wonder why people wonder about my state of singleness, because they wouldn’t unless they think being married is the better state to be in, no? I mean, nobody ever goes up to a married person and asks, “So, why are you married?” or “Why are you not single?” right?

My questioners’ point of view usually becomes clear as their questioning go on. They won’t accept that I’m single because no godly man has taken an interest in me, nor have I in any godly man, enough to begin a relationship and consider spending the rest of our lives together. Instead, they proffer politely that I’m perhaps too picky, or maybe not getting out there enough, or a tad lazy about meeting new people, or just plain lazy about everything (which would then call for a rebuke).

I’d be the first to admit I won’t be accepting marriage proposals from just any Christian man. I’ve got expectations of what a husband is to be – God-fearing heads the list, then more spiritually mature than I am, a heart for missions, and a handful of other qualities which explains why I’m still single. I simply won’t marry a Sunday Christian who can’t lead me or who doesn’t understand my burden for the unpreached in third-world countries. But point is, when I’m asked why I’m single, there is often the implication that I would be better off getting hitched.

This is where I’m really begging the question, “But what’s the problem with being single? Because if we examine what the Scriptures say, 1 Corinthians 7 clearly points to singlehood being the more desirable state where the apostle Paul wish all men were like him (v7). He went on to give the reasons:
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

But Paul qualified that each of us has our own gift from God (v7), acknowledged the likelihood of one burning with passion (v9) and gave the concession to marry. He also brought home the real point that we are to obey our Maker no matter which state we’re in:
Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

Still, even though we Christians know God’s stand on singlehood and marriage from Paul, our Asian culture and social mores would have it that being married is the norm while staying single is the anomaly. And this view is often pervasive in the church too.

The very fact that some churches have ministries for the singles is proof of this. As much as we’d like to think a singles’ ministry is not SDU with religious participants, it often becomes that when the ministry’s activities are planned around providing opportunities for singles to mingle in the name of fellowship.

In such a church setting, singles are subliminally led to think they’re being, well, singled out. A single Christian girlfriend admits it’s hard not to feel outcast in her church which has an activity-centred singles’ ministry. “It makes me feel like an oddball. It makes me wonder if I should get married, and so perhaps I should join the activities to meet potential life partners. It even makes me question if it’s ungodly to be single.”

When we have Family Fellowship, families come together to share their burdens with other families, they are ministered to and they encouraged each other to lead more godly lives. The same thing happens for the other ministries. Why should it be any different for a singles’ ministry? A singles’ ministry should never be where eyes wish to meet and sparks hope to fly.

If the church’s intention is to minister to the singles, then I think it should have a ministry that encourages a single person in his/her state that God has called him/her to. It is to be a ministry where contentment and wisdom are preached and the single’s role in church is emphasised. It’s a ministry where same gender singles share their challenges and encourage one another. For women, it is a gathering to help each other grow in Christ-likeness through studying what God’s word says about singleness and marriage, and where issues such as loneliness and envy are discussed and painful struggles like a yearning for children are dealt with. That, is what I want in a singles’ fellowship and ministry.

Admittedly, not all my single sisters-in-Christ take issue with a singles’ ministry that promotes opportunities for unmarrieds to mingle. They feel the church is a safe environment for such “match-making activities” to take place, the “hit rate with Christians will be higher” and they certainly don’t mind a helping hand in this department.

I know I’ll be labelled ‘idealistic’, but unless you’re a hermit who never steps out of your house, why do think you’ll need a church ministry to help you meet the love of your life? (Which, by the way, should be Christ.) And what is such a ministry advocating - marriage or godliness? There is certainly nothing wrong in hoping to find a partner to share the burdens of life and the Christian walk, but is God and the church unable to provide this support? When you become deliberate in your efforts, there is always the risk of discontentment festering. What then if you don’t find your spouse-to-be at this ministry? Will you be disappointed and struggle even more with singleness? To me, a ministry to help singles pair up reeks of man’s doing and little submission to God.

When we go back to Paul’s point about having undivided devotion to God, we know where our hope and joy are to lie and where our attention is to be directed. We will realise we wouldn’t need a ministry of mixed genders for singles at all. If we’re giving God our undivided attention, then we would be focused on serving Him and His people. We would be active in the various ministries working to build up the church. And these ministries are themselves, though not intentional, opportunities for singles to meet other like-minded Christians. We would be inviting marrieds and singles into our homes without the intention to set singles up or to be set up, but with every intention of embracing each other as they are – our family. Whether or not eyes meet and sparks fly, is beyond the church and entirely up to God.

When it comes to submission, we have the perfect example in Christ at Gethsemane (Matt 26: 36-44), where He cries out to God to spare Him of His impending death on the cross and yet still surrendered to His Father’s will. If Christ submitted to God’s will to suffer an excruciating death on the cross He didn’t deserve, who are we then, in our struggles, to not utter the same: “Yet not as I will, but as you will”?