An Encouragement for Preachers

Here's a beautiful little quote from J.I. Packer that I came across to encourage us who preach God's Word:

"The preacher, rather than the critical commentator or the academic theologian, is the true interpreter of Scripture, for the preacher is the person whose privilege it is to bridge the apparent gap between the Bible and the modern world by demonstrating the relevance of what Scripture says to the lives of those addressed."

from Truth and Power: The Place of Scripture in the Christian Life (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996),125.

Chris Wright on a Missional Hermeneutic of the Bible

In the 1st two chapters of his book The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), Chris Wright suggests that instead of seeing the Bible as merely providing a basis for mission (e.g. from favourite passages like Matt 28:18-20), it might be more profitable to see that there is a missional basis for the Bible – i.e. the Bible is generated by and is all about God’s mission. In another words, he suggests and tries to define the shape of a missional hermeneutic of the Bible.

Wright first tries to justify the idea of a missional hermeneutic. One of his main reasons is that the Bible can be seen as the product of God’s Mission. He states: “The whole canon of Scripture is a missional phenomenon in the sense that it witnesses to the self-giving movement of this God toward his creation and us, human beings in God’s own image, but wayward and wanton. The writings that now comprise our Bible are themselves the product of and witness to the ultimate mission of God.” (p.48). The processes by which the Scriptural texts came to be written also arose often out of a missional context or situation. Wright further shows how this missional context or situation which resulted in writing can be seen in the New Testament and Old Testament documents. In short, ‘the whole Bible renders to us the story of God’s mission through God’s people in their engagement with God’s world for the sake of the whole of God’s creation’ (p.51).

As for the shape of how such a missional hermeneutical looks like, Wright states that we first have to shift our paradigm and understanding of ‘mission’ from ‘our human agency to the ultimate purposes of God himself; missions as “missions” that we undertake, to mission as that which God has been purposing and accomplishing from eternity to eternity; and an anthropocentric (or ecclesiocentric) conception to a radically theocentric worldview’ (p.62). He then proposes a shape for the missional hermeneutic under the following headings:

• God with a mission. The missional hermeneutic begins with us recognising that we have a ‘missional’ God. Wright cautiously agrees with the term missio Dei, often used to encapsulate this idea. The missional nature of God is seen in how the biblical narrative begins with a God of purpose in creation, moves on to the conflict and problem generated by human rebellion against that purpose, spends most of its narrative journey in the story of God’s redemptive purposes worked out in the stage of human history, and finishes beyond the horizon of its own history with the eschatological hope of the new creation (p.63). While not squashing out many of the smaller narratives that occur in the Bible, there is a general flow – the ‘affirmation that there is one God at work in the universe and in human history, and that this God has a goal, a purpose, a mission that will ultimately be accomplished by the power of God’s Word and for the glory of God’s name. This is the mission of the biblical God (p.64)’.
• Humanity with a mission. Chris suggests that the creational mandate (Gen 1:28) sets humanity and mankind out on a mission. It is out of this missional understanding that generates our ‘ecological responsibility, our economic activity involving work, productivity, exchange and trade, and our whole cultural mandate’ (p.65).
• Israel with a mission. Israel’s election, Chris contends, was for the sake of all nations. The universality of God’s purposes for the nations, but yet seen in this particular stage in salvation history in the particularity of God’s choosing of Israel, remains as one of recurrent themes in the Old Testament.
• Jesus with a mission. Jesus came with a clear understanding and purpose that he was sent, and that he was the fulfilment of the Servant figure in Isaiah and the Davidic messianic king (Isa 42:1 and Ps 2:7, both of which are affirmed in the voice from Heaven at Jesus’ baptism). Jesus had a clear understanding that his will was to do his Father’s will, his mission was determined by God’s mission. Wright states, “In Jesus the radically theocentric nature of biblical mission is most clearly focused and modelled.” (p.66)
• The church with a mission. Jesus in turn, entrusts to us the church a mission that is rooted in his own identity, passion and victory as the crucified and risen Messiah. (p.66).

In summary, Wright states that a missional hermeneutic means that we seek to read any part of the bible in the light of i) God’s purposes for his whole creation ii) God’s purpose for human life in general and all the bible teaches about human culture, relationships, ethics and behaviour iii) God’s historical election of Israel and the effect that has on the nations and their own national life in terms of obeying God iv) the centrality of Jesus v) God’s calling of the church to be the agent of God’s blessing to the nations in the name and for the glory of the Lord Jesus (p.67). He ends the chapter by suggesting how, like a map, this hermeneutical framework will not give an account of every single detail and landmark in the biblical landscape, but that it will provide a way of seeing the whole terrain, of navigating one’s way through it as one experiences the reality of the biblical landscape (p.68-69).

Overall, Wright has provided an interesting suggestion. He is right on how seeing how missions should not be viewed first and foremost as activity and in an anthropocentric way. If we do, our tendency would be to use the Bible to justify such activity and viewpoint. Rather, if we view missions as something integral to God Himself – something God does for the sake of his glory and purpose (and here, some would go further to suggest that missional is something God is) – then missions could be a key way of summarising what the flow of the Bible is about. In another words, there is some truth in Wright’s proposal that just as the Bible gives a biblical basis for missions, there is also a missional basis to the Bible. I’m not fully persuaded though that a missional hermeneutic (as Wright presents it as God with a mission; humanity with a mission; Israel with a mission; Jesus with a mission; and the church with a mission) actually serves to tell one what the Bible is all about – or in other words, what’s the content in this river of the Biblical story that is being told. Missions serves as a good and right way of describing the flow and direction of this river, but something else needs to be filled in to tell us what’s actually flowing in this river. Or to use Wright’s closing analogy of the map – I’m not too sure if his missional hermeneutic actually introduces us and connects the major features in the biblical landscape as we travel through it. Rather, I think the missional hermeneutic acts more like the vehicle we are sitting in as we navigate through the biblical landscape. We are heading somewhere with it, but we still need something else – another map – that helps to explain the major features of the landscape as we are carried along. As to what that map is, suggestions abound – the glory of God manifested in Christ (Schreiner); the Kingdom of God (Goldsworthy); or perhaps not the presence of any one main theme, but the inter-relation and connection of a few central themes (Carson? The writers of Central themes in Biblical Theology? My own view)

Chris Wright on Postmodernism and the Bible

Here's an interesting quote from Chris Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 46-47, as he comments on one aspect of postmodernism (diversity and plurality) and the Bible:

"[...] The living dynamic of the gospel has been such that, while it has an unchanging core because of its historical rootedness in the Scriptures and the Christ event, it has been received, understood, articulated, and lived out in myriad ways, both vertically through history and horizontally in all cultures in which Christian faith has taken root.

[...] The Bible got there before postmodernity was dreamed of - the Bible which glories in diversity and celebrates multiple human cultures, the Bible which builds its most elevated theological claims on utterly particular and sometimes very local events, the Bible which sees everything in relational, not abstract terms, and the Bible which does the bulk of its work through the medium of stories.

All of these features of the Bible - cultural, local, relational, narrative - are welcome to the postmodern mind. Where the missional hermeneutic will part company with radical postmodernity, is in its insistence that through all this variety, locality, particularity, and diversity, the Bible is nevertheless actually the story. This is the way it is. This is the grand narrative that constitutes truth for all. And within this story, as narrated or anticipated by the Bible, there is at work the God whose mission is evident from creation to new creation. This is the story of God's mission. It is a coherent story with a universal claim. But it is also a story that affirms humanity in all its particular cultural variety. This is the universal story that gives a place in the sun to all the little stories." (Emphasis his)

Books to recommend for thinking about Worldviews

One of the main things that has kept me busy as of late is preparation for a short course on Worldviews which I will be conducting in my church. The course is meant to introduce the average lay person in the church to the concept of worldviews and how in understanding the biblical worldview, we can engage with the other worldviews out there. To that end, I have found the following books helpful in the preparation.

1) James Sire, Naming the Elephant (http://www.amazon.com/Naming-Elephant-Worldview-As-Concept/sim/083082779X/2)

In this book, Sire clearly and succinctly explores the concept of a worldview by asking and answering the follow questions (which happen to be his chapter divisions):
· What’s the history of the concept? How has it been used in both philosophy and theology?
· What comes first in worldview – reality or knowing the reality?
· Is a worldview primarily theoretical or pretheoretical?
· Is a worldview expressed as a rational system of propositions; as a way of life; or as a grand story or narrative?
· Are worldviews public or private?
· Can we now have a (re)definition of worldview?
· Of what use is the concept of worldview in engaging others?

I’ve found this book relatively easy to read, and Sire does a good job in summarising the key academic discussions that have occurred in recent worldview studies. His usage and commendation of David Naugle’s Worldview: The History of a Concept (which is a more technical book exploring the same ideas as Sire does) can be seen throughout his book. Overall, his definition is ‘all-encompassing’ enough to allow for the various schools of thought that have arisen within worldview studies.

“A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions which we hold about the basic constitution of reality and that provides the foundation on which we move and live and have our being.” (p.122)

Readers familiar with Sire’s thought will realise he has allowed a greater place for the role of narratives or story in expressing (and likewise influencing) one’s worldview.

2) James Sire, The Universe Next Door (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Next-Door-Worldview-Catalog/dp/0830827803/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)

This is Sire’s earlier book on worldviews. Earlier would also mean that Sire here holds on to his earlier thinking that worldviews are primarily expressed as a set of presuppositions or propositions that we hold to the big questions of life. He hence distinguishes the different worldviews according to philosophical categories – theism, deism, naturalism, nihilism, existentialism, Eastern Religious worldview, New Age worldview, and postmodernism.

This book is useful because Sire masterfully summarises the key tenets of each philosophical worldview (according to the big questions of life) such that we can observe the general pattern for each worldview and what is it that distinguishes one worldview from the next. Though critics may accuse Sire of over-generalisation (which he recognises and tries to show the variances within each worldview), he has nonetheless done his best within the scope of the length of the book. It is up to us the readers to contextualise in our own peculiar situation – for e.g. in Singapore society, I think the philosophical worldview of the average Singapore is driven by a funny mix and combination of deism (though not Christian deism, but more of the gods of other religions) and naturalism (expressed most in pragmatism). But Sire’s book provides us the foundation to do this contextualising by enabling us to know the major tenets of each philosophical worldview. It is also important not to totally eject the ‘presupposition/propositional’ approach to worldview in favour of the ‘narrative’ approach because I remain convinced that behind every story or narrative stands propositions or presuppositions which shape that story – even though we may not be conscious of it, let alone articulate what these presuppositions or propositions are. Sire’s book draws our knowledge to what some of the presuppositions and propositions could be.

3) Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Crossroads-Introduction-Christian-Worldview/dp/0801031400/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251430431&sr=1-1)

This is actually the 2nd book in a series of 3 that Goheen and Bartholomew ( henceforth abbreviated as G&B) have come up with. The 1st focused on Biblical Theology (see earlier review here) and the 3rd will be on philosophy.

It is clear in this book that G&B adopt the story or narrative approach to worldview. The layout and the sequence of thought in the book is clear – starting first with a discussion on the concept ; then looking at how the biblical grand story (or metanarrative) of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consumation actually provide or express a Christian worldview ; then tracing the other metanarrative that has largely affected the world – that of the story of secular or autonomous humanism (i.e. by our own reason, we can understand life and work towards a utopian life). Over the span of two chapters, G&B skilfully explores how this story of secular humanism was born and grew and blossomed over the whole course of human history and thought ( they begin with the Greco-Roman times and move through the Medieval, Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment – showing at each stage the development of the story of secular humanism). G&B proceed on to show how despite the advert of postmodernism, the grand story of secular humanism is still well and alive as expressed in the story of consumerism, which grips so many of us. The effect of the story of secular humanism is the increasingly secularisation of society - religion or God is forced into a private corner and has limited domain or say only in the ‘religious’ affairs of the world.

G&B’s challenge is that, rightly understood, the biblical grand story will lead us to realise the fact that ‘Jesus is Lord’ and God’s Kingdom and the salvation He brings is comprehensive and restorative. i.e. God’s Kingdom has every influence and area over our lives and this world we live in and should not be forced into the private corner. In the last 2 chapters of the book, G&B provide some brilliant ideas and insight (and a good list of references for those who want to chase it up more) on how our biblical worldview should impact us in the way we think about business, politics, sports, art and culture, scholarship, and education. One cannot walk away from reading this book without realising the ‘big-ness’ and ‘grand-ness’ of God’s kingdom penetrating into every area of life, and repenting of the way perhaps in our religious piety, we have ‘narrowed’ the scope of God’s salvation to our individual salvation or merely the salvation of the church, while forgetting the comprehensive restorative nature of his salvation to life in this world as well.

One minor point though – I felt G&B have not given enough weight and attention to the penal effects of sin and the penal substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. Instead sin is largely presented as a deconstruction and reconstruction (in a negative way) of the structures of this world God established at creation. Jesus’ death is hence presented as the way to undo the power of sin in this regard, hence enabling the restorative work of God in these structures of the world and life. While all this is true, it is my opinion that G&B could have showed more sufficiently the linkage between the restorative work of the cross and resurrection on creation and the wrath of God towards sin and sinners – it is precisely because that wrath has been dealt with, the penalty of sin paid for, that God can now restore what sin has damaged.

Overall, the two books – The Universe Next Door and Living at the Crossroads – complement each other. I have been greatly encouraged in my thinking and also in my pastoral ministry of the effectiveness of using the concept of worldviews as we proclaim the gospel, engaging with them at a level which matters most to them existentially – their understanding of life and this world we live in.

(pictures taken from Amazon)

Sustaining Grace

"God has promised to sustain us by his grace. He has promised us the sustaining grace of forgiveness, so that we can stand before him unafraid. He has promised the sustaining grace of enablement, giving us strength to do what he calls us to do. He has promised us the sustaining grace of protection, delivering us from evil. He has promised us the sustaining grace of wisdom, protecting us from our own foolishness. He has promised us the sustaining grace of perseverance, keeping us until the final enemy has been defeated. He has promised the sustaining grace of eternity, giving us the hope of a day when the struggle will be over.

It is a willing heart that causes us to seek the grace that has been promised. When we turn from our own way and recognise our inability to live his way, we begin to seek the full range of resources that he has promised us in his Son. Grace is for the willing and we only become willing when we confess not only the gravity of our sin, but our inability to deliver ourselves from it. Then our willingness opens to us all the sustenance of heart that can only be found in the Son."

From Paul David Tripp, Whiter than Snow: Meditations on sin and mercy (Illinois: Crossway, 2008), 24 (italics mine)

(Picture is from flickr.com)

Thinking Deeper on Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology

I'm carrying on a series of earlier posts (see here) reviewing some of the essays from McGowan’s Always Reforming: Explorations in systematic theology (Leicester: APOLLOS, 2006). Next up are the two related essays by Stephen Williams, ‘Observations on the Future of System’, p. 41-66, and Richard Gamble, ‘The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology’, p.211-239.

Using the topic of the Calvinist-Arminian dispute as a starting point and drawing on the works of Charles Simeon, Williams highlights the following key points in his essay: Firstly, that when one looks hard at his or her convictions in systematic theology, one discovers that coherence of convictions often happen in what he terms as the ‘religious (and if we may add piety) context’ of systematic theology over the ‘speculative context’ (p.45). In another words, as he states elsewhere, “Life, rather than thought, is the zone where coherence is demonstrated.” (p.52). Secondly, Williams advocates that systematic theology should follow the lead of biblical theology in being concerned more about the relation of particular doctrines to life than the mutual relation of doctrines (p.49). This leads in to the third point – that there may be a ‘wider system’ than what our individual ‘traditions’ of systematic theology has to offer us. If so, such a ‘wider system’ should be uncovered in relation to biblical literary genres and salvation history (p.53). Finally, we should be more concerned about ‘doctrinal rules’ (of engagement) rather than ‘doctrinal moves’. He states, “What matters is the notion that moves that we make within the body of doctrinal rules should not be the primary focus of our theological attention if theology is geared to worship, obedience, proclamation and service. The rules are what matters most.” (p.59).

In Gamble’s essay, he begins by first defining theology and the characteristics of scriptural revelation – how it is historically progressive, involves redemption, has a historic-organic nature to it, and how it consists of different literary genres. Gamble then goes on to explore the relationship between systematic theology and biblical theology, and his conviction comes clearly across – “[...] biblical theology is and should be considered the natural, proper, and even exclusive, structural framework for systematic theology.” (p.228). This would mean a ‘major recasting of most systematic loci or topics’ (p.226). Gamble recognises the ‘classical method’ of structuring systematic theology used at the time of the Reformation, and that this method has somewhat been largely passed onto us. The implication of allowing biblical theology to ground and drive our systematic theology would be that a more ‘objective’ way of arranging the topics or subjects in systematic theology – one that ‘comes from within [the bible’s] own pages’ (p.238). Unfortunately and disappointingly, Gamble stops short here in showing us or giving us a model of how this could be done.

There is a common trend observed in both essays – and that is a call for systematic theology to be more grounded in biblical exegesis within the context of a recognition of salvation history (i.e. biblical theology). Gamble has rightfully pointed out that at least one implication of the above conviction would be a rethinking of the loci or topics of systematic theology. Interestingly, in another book I’m currently reading, Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), actually propose four levels of engagement when one reads Scripture – firstly, Scripture itself. Secondly, biblical theology which traces out the narrative shape of the biblical story. Thirdly, as one considers the narrative shape of Scripture, what one finds is a Christian worldview which sets out the main elements of beliefs that constitute the biblical story and sets them within a coherent framework. Fourthly, systematic theology and Christian philosophy which seeks to reflect on these Christian beliefs at a more theoretical level. They state, “The point of a Christian worldview [...] is that the biblical story embodies and implies a framework of basic beliefs that can be set out to equip Christians in their lives.” (p.27). I have a point of agreement and a point of disagreement with Goheen and Bartholomew. I think they might be on to something in suggesting the concept of a worldview as a bridge between biblical theology and systematic theology. Carson has also earlier suggested such a move in his Gagging of God. This is all the more so following recent definitions of the concept as involving not just the mind, but more so the heart , i.e. fundamentally, a worldview is about orientation and commitment of the heart. Thus the concept of worldview could have some mileage in (coming back to Gamble’s conviction) shaping the loci of systematic theology. The point of disagreement is that Goheen and Bartholomew might have drawn up too sharp a distinction between intellect and practice in their definition of systematic theology, relegating systematic theology to the former. More recent definitions of systematic theology have been keen to include the element of sapentia (wisdom). John Frame for example defines theology as ‘the application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life’ (p.10 in Always Reforming) . This would mean a much closer coherence and overlap between the concepts of worldview and systematic theology than what Goheen and Bartholomew’s four-level scheme would have allowed for.

Harvesting the Drama Metaphor for Ethics Part II

See here for Part I of post.

In the 2nd section of his book, Wells moves on to examine five practices carried out as part of improvisation within the theatre – assessing status; accepting or blocking; questioning givens; incorporating gifts or ‘overaccepting’; and reincorporating – and seeks to see how these five practices could be applied to ethics. Well’s main proposal is that such improvisory practices enables the Church to know better how it should carry out its practices as it lives in Act 4. Wells proposes the main practice that should characterise the church should be that of ‘accepting all offers – to let go of the impulse to block and to enjoy the freedom of perpetually accepting’ (p.115).In the case of less than ideal offers, even evil offers, the church should not rely on ‘blocking’, but instead should ‘overaccept’. A (somewhat lengthy) paragraph from the book captures what I think is at the heart of Well’s argument:

“I have argued in my treatment of improvisation so far that Christian ethics is about learning to take the right things for granted. It is commonplace to perceive life within the context of a story, and one takes a circumstance or development for granted if it is true to the character of the story. Christianity perceives reality in terms of a particular story, whose broad dimensions I set out [...] as a five-act drama, spanning creation-Israel-Jesus-church-eschaton. The key to Christian living is to have a thorough perception and embodiment of what forms of life are appropriate to Act Four. Many, perhaps most, of the church’s mistakes derive from a mistaken apprehension of which act it is in. It is not the church’s vocation to create (Act One) or to conclude (Act Five) the story. The Messiah has come (Act Three), and it is the church’s role to follow in Christ’s footsteps (Act Four), not to act as if the fullness of God were yet to be revealed (Act Two). Thus the simple task of the church is to keep the story going, in the face of numerous temptations to block and kill the story when it becomes uncomfortable or threatening. Because the Christian story is larger and greater in depth and scope than the smaller stories that present themselves, Christians can overaccept the offers that come to them from the world in the light of the larger story. Rather than use violence, which bypasses the imagination, kills the story, and sits uneasily in Act Four, the church addresses threats to its integrity by perceiving what such offers could mean in the context of the five-act play.” (p.143-144)

Wells then moves on in the 3rd section of the book to apply his improvisory model to the four issues of human evil, diseases and sicknesses, cloning, and genetically modified food (!) In each of these issues, he consistently applies the five practices mentioned above within improvisation to the issue.

Overall, Wells’ methodology of carrying out ethics in Improvisation could be described as a ‘post-liberal virtue ethic couched in the theatrical language of improvisation’. ‘Post-liberal’ because Well’s emphasis on the location of theology and ethics being grounded in the practices of the church appear often enough to show his indebtness to those in the post-liberal tradition (e.g. Lindbeck). ‘Virtue’ because Wells’ central focus in the practices of the church is always on the formation of habits within the church, especially those formed through its acts of worship. The following paragraph captures both these emphases of Wells’:

“I argue that Christian ethics must always be grounded in the practices of the church. I suggest that the central role of Christian ethics is the formation of habits and disciplines – that it is those habits and disciplines that largely shape what the church regards as crises and dilemmas – and that it is those same habits and disciplines that largely govern the church’s response to such crises and dilemmas. [...] And I describe two central practices, overaccepting and reincorporation, that epitomize how communities should seek to reflect the pattern of God’s activity and embody the Christian story in their common life.” (p.213)

While Wells’ model could be one way of seeing how the theatrical metaphor could be applied to ethics; and while Wells has provided at times some interesting insights and reflections into ethical issues through his ‘improvisory practices’, one wonders if this is the most ideal way of utilising the theatrical metaphor. My main concern is the lack of consideration of the rest of the four Acts (Acts 1, 2, 3, and 5) within the Drama, and a result, due weight is not given to these other Acts. One seems to get the impression that for Wells, Acts 1 and 2 are merely there to remind the church not to behave as if it was still in the first two acts (as if it was creator or as if the Messiah has not come). But Wells has failed to give due attention to how Acts 1 and 2 could in fact have some degree of continuity into Act 4 for ethical consideration. Act 3 also seems to be there so that the church in Act 4 can directly follow on from its Saviour. This fails to consider how Jesus himself fulfils Act 1 and 2, and how in doing so, might have implications in terms of the Church’s following in Act 4. In another words (and in Wells’ terminology), ’overaccepting’ might mean more than just directly following Jesus in Act 3, but rather an overall consideration of how the whole Drama (Acts 1-3 and 5) might impact the exact stance of the church in ‘overaccepting’. This leads in to my last ‘questioning of the givens’ (in Wells’ terminology again) – Is virtue ethics the main way to carry out ethics within the theatrical metaphor? While it is definitely part of the consideration, wouldn’t the fact that there is Act 5 set the main way of doing ethics as more teleological in nature, or at least give more attention to it?