Re-orienting the "gifts": Part VI

Summary
The unifying concept that links these four passages is the idea of a Spirit given ministry – not Spirit given abilities for service. Kenneth Berding makes this point when he says, “Undoubtedly, no one can engage in a particular ministry without being able to do so, but when we mistakenly equate the entity we call “spiritual gifts” with special abilities, we end up reading special skills into a place where special ministries... are in view.” It seems obvious to say that one cannot perform a particular ministry without being able to do so. However this ability is precisely the point. At the moment of salvation the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and receives His general empowerment for ministry, which in this sense is defined by Berding as “any edificatory activity in the Christian community which serves to build up the Christian community.”

A spiritual gift may then be defined as a God given ministry, function, or activity that builds up or strengthens the body of believers. Essentially, gifts are specific roles that are designated by the Holy Spirit and given to the believer to fill. Prominence is placed upon the performance of the function or the doing of the service, not the ability to do the ministry. This definition allows for individual personality and natural ability, for God has individually formed each of us before we even entered the womb. The Spirit then uses our unique personalities and talents in practical ways to grant success in the ministry to which he has appointed them.

The purpose of these ministry gifts then seems to be the development, growth, edification, unification, and common good of the Christian community in conjunction with the glorification of God. Relationship of the members of the body is not only implied in all of the passages, but is a necessity. Without the relationship of the believers to one another in a faith community these instructions would be both without subject and purpose. In conclusion, it can be said that a gift is a God-given ministry, function, or activity that one uses to faithfully and unselfishly contribute to the common good, mutual care and edification of the whole church community. Consequently, gifts aid the church in bearing witness to the world, for when the people of God operate in love and harmony they will have a redemptive impact on a lost world.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part V

I Peter 4
Peter’s mention of the gifts is the only such mention outside of the Pauline corpus. Peter does however use the term in much the same capacity as Paul. Before making specific mention of any gifts Peter exhorts the believers to maintain the specific attitudes of sound judgment and love for one another, both dispositions seen in the other gift passages. Further, Peter, like Paul posits that the end of exercising the gifts is to serve others and glorify God.

Peter mentions only generally “speaking” and “serving” as gifts that may be possessed. Because of the lack of a list and combined with the exhortation to use the gifts to serve the community we can see that Peter’s emphasis was not on any specific gifting or extraordinary spiritual capacity the people might have had but was instead on the objective of the gifts; that being mutual service to the Christian community and glorification of God. And because the focus seems to be on the purpose of the gifts it is logical again to understand particular functions within this community as being what Peter had in view.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part IV

Ephesians 4
The discussion of the gifts here resembles the previous two passages in that there is made reference to a body which is made up of different parts. Most significantly to note is that while the same word for “gift” is used as was used in I Corinthians 12, here Paul is using it to describe the “gifted men” as the actual gift.

Though different from the other passages it seems that we may still conclude that supernatural ability is not what is meant by gifting. Indeed, this is especially clear in this passage as the believers themselves are explicitly stated to be the gifts. Also of importance is the fact that this passage makes specific mention of unity in the body. This combined with the idea that each person who is given to the church is vital and necessary for the growth and building up of the entire body leads us to understand this passage as a discussion of the way in which the body functions in relationship to itself. This is accented by the understanding that all of these things occur in a spirit of love – which not coincidentally mirrors the I Corinthians 12 passage which is followed directly by a discussion on love. We can take from this then that the roles that each individual is to play should be done in community alongside of the other believers for the mutual edification of all in addition to the glorification of God. Again, such an understanding finds a focus on roles and functions within a community as opposed to a capacity or divine enablement for service.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part III

I Corinthians 12
The message of I Corinthians 12 is that every part of the body has a function. Paul includes a lengthy metaphor discussing the human body in order to illustrate this. The question for the Corinthian church then seems to be “What ministry do you have to contribute” instead of “What is your special ability”.

The word for “gifts” in verse 4 is a common usage that comes from the same word for “grace” and emphasizes “that which is given freely and generously.” In verse 5 Paul then mentions “varieties of ministries” which puts the focus on “the role or position of serving.” In verse 6 Paul mentions “varieties of effects.” This word for “effects” means “activities or deeds” and stresses “that which is done with possible focus on the energy or effort involved.” Lastly in verse 7 Paul speaks of the “manifestation of the Spirit” where this word “manifestation” means revelation and refers to something that is made known.

Each of these words are significant because Paul seems to be using them interchangeably in these texts to communicate the same ideas – ideas which he uses language regarding role and action, not power or supernatural capacity. Much like the Romans passage there seems to be significant evidence which would lead us to believe that the gifts being referred to are better understood as divinely given ministries to be performed as opposed to divinely imparted special abilities for ministry. It is the role that is highlighted, not the power or right to fulfill it even if divinely given. This accented by Paul’s statement that these manifestations are “for the common good” or the well being of the community as a whole.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part II

It is unmistakably apparent that the gifts were given to the early church to fulfill a specific purpose. Much of the evangelical community maintains that these same gifts were given not only for the establishment of the early church but also for the continuing maintenance of the church. It must be asked however what the true nature of the spiritual gifts were in the early church and then how they relate to the church today.

A Spiritual gift is commonly defined as “…divinely given capacities to perform useful functions for God, especially in the area of spiritual service.” The focus here seems to be on the divinely given supernatural ability or capacity though many follow Charles Ryrie in including natural talent within their definition. The gifts are then seen as a permanent part of the Holy Spirit’s new covenant ministry, though this point is often disputed. However this debate is an irrelevant one if we look to a different understanding of the spiritual gifts.

In this new understanding the spiritual gifts should not be viewed so much as a spectacular ability or a supernatural capacity but instead as a fulfillment of divinely designated function. This “functional” perspective comes after an examination and comparison of key texts concerning spiritual gifts.

Romans 12:3-8
The immediate context in which Paul discusses spiritual gifts in this passage is the manner in which believers are to operate in relation to one another; that is in harmony which is brought about by attitudes humility and “sound judgment.” The community of believers is here being viewed as a collective body in which each person is a different part. Paul makes a point of stating that just as we are all “one body in Christ” so we are also “individually members one of another.” The context would then lead us to believe that the gifts being discussed should be understood primarily as the functions or tasks that are to be executed.
The word “function” in verse four implies “sustained activity and/or responsibility”. This also suggests as does Paul’s metaphor of the body that each believer has a different responsibility, activity, or work to do. It is interesting to note that even in the listing of certain specific gifts Paul’s emphasis seems to be on the manner that these gifts are exercised or carried out which Paul says is according to the measure of grace that has been given to each individual.

Re-orienting the "gifts": Part I

This commences part one of my reflections on the nature of what is often referred to as "spiritual giftings". I will begin by reviewing the nature and mission of the Church, so that we have a context in which to understand the "gifts".

Robert L. Saucy says that “The church is God’s assembly… It is a people called forth by God, incorporated into Christ, and indwelt by the Spirit.” Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer considers this divinely called assembly as a “new order or class of humanity”. He furthers this understanding by noting that there is a visible expression of this “new order” where there exist any who convene together in the name of Christ and includes within that local gathering any ministry or service that they are involved in.
Within this context the church seems to be called for one purpose: “the glorification of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit." I believe that this glorification should be understood in a very specific way according to the manner in which it has been revealed to us - which that the whole of the Scriptures can be understood as an account of the Creator God revealing Himself to created man with the intention of His own glorification by means of cosmic redemption. It reveals that the God who created all and is in control of all wishes to establish with us, the dependant created creature, a lasting covenant – establishing with us a precedent for an understanding of ourselves in relation to God.
It is from this relationship that the human draws his entire existence (indeed, according to Colossians it is from this relationship that all of the cosmos draws its existence). In order to have a correct understanding of oneself and the world in which we live one must understand himself in light of humanity and his relationship to the Creator God. Then, understanding the broken nature of our relationship to that Creator God, we realize the importance of His covenant redemption. Which, upon entrance into the promise, by means of Christ’s sacrificial death, as established in His Holy Writ, provides for the human being a communal context in which to live, create, love, work and worship according to man’s reflection of the divine nature, and will one day result in the redemption of the whole cosmos as it is submitted to the supremacy of Christ, at which time God will deal justly with the forces of evil. The Church then is an outworking of this cosmic intervention of the Trinitarian God as is the mission of the church. In fact, theologian Jurgen Moltmann posits that mission does not come from the church but that the church is a result of Christ’s mission, and as a result functions as an extension of that mission. Thus the goal or mission of Christ/Holy Spirit is cosmic redemption of which the church is an integral part of in the present age. Further, as we function in the body of believers as an extension of Christ so also our role in the world can be seen as an extension of this divine mission. This would cast the work of the believer in a way that should be seen as the redemption of human civilization, which is understood as a collective term generally embodying the sum of human relationships but more specifically refers to culture; that is, the traditions, institutions, and communal structures that form the context in which our consciousness is aware of existence, interacts with reality, and interprets all experiences. Thus the goal of the church is the worship of God which happens as a result of the building up of the Christological community.
This view of the church, that is, understanding the church as a universal body of believers that is expressed locally with the ultimate purpose of worshiping and glorifying God will serve as the broad basis within which we inspect the more specific ministry roles and functions of what has come to be known as “spiritual gifting.”

Highs and Lows

This weekend was the Midwest regional tournament in Grand Rapids Michigan. We conquered Northland in the semi-final match after two overtimes and penalty kicks. It was the best win of my life - Moody hadn't beaten Northland since the 2001 national championship season. But alas, the euphoria of that win came crashing down when we lost the next day to Maranatha in the championship game, seeing our hopes of making the national tournament dissipate into thin air. It was a good run, and a good year. My only regret is that I was forced to watch it all on the sideline with an injury and feelings of helplessness.
Now that my competitive playing career is over, it's time to start looking for coaching opportunities.

Sacrifice

So often, as a protestant I have been guilty of reducing the notion of the O.T. sacrifice to an outdated and no longer necessary function of worship. And yet, while the sacrificial system was eradicated by Christ’s culminating sacrifice on the cross, it is His same sacrifice that establishes the precedent for the “pouring out” of our very selves in acts of worship.
Walter Brueggamann understands the sacrifice as “a deep bodied engagement by bodied creatures with the creator” (183). This becomes both more powerful and pertinent when the sacrifice is understood as a specific “religious action” or liturgy – this sacrifice becomes more than a symbolic manifestation of worship as a conscious act of self purification, an act of “making holy”. For the Israelite, that participation in this liturgy of sacrifice was really a participation in a reflection of the salvation drama of Israel.
Paul extends this idea for the life of the new covenant believer in Romans 12 where he establishes the idea of a living sacrifice as an act of worship. He does this by drawing a link between the O.T. system of redemption and worship and the N.T., where the believers are the sacrifice and what they do in body and mind is offered up in worship as a sacrifice to God. We the believers then are able to participate in the cosmic salvation drama, and as actors in this drama participate in this divine act of becoming holy. Not only are we ourselves reconciled through this kind of participation in the divine nature, but so too is the world around us via our demonstration of the cosmic act of redemption. This kind of imaginative engagement in worship has the potential for grand transformation.

Art as Worship

If you are interested in a great article discussing art as a medium for worship then check out these articles written by my friend Adam here: part I and part II. He is writing as a pastor of worship and arts at South Point Church in Atlanta - the article is both informative and challenging and I would encourage all to read it!

War: What Is It Good For?

War is good for killing.
So why are we so surprised when our soldiers come back from combat and are involved in a high number of homicides and violent crimes? We want to come down and punish these men for their atrocities, but what have we done to assimilate them back into civilian life? We paid for their education of death with our own tax dollars. We sent them to war with the representatives we voted into office. And now we want to condemn them and throw them into prison. Do we understand what is going through their minds? Can we even begin to understand some of the things they have seen?
I am not condoning any atrocities that have been committed by veterans. These actions are still wrong and they must still have consequences. However, I would like to see more of an effort towards re-cilvilianizing our brave soldiers, killing machines though they may be. Truth be told, I am glad they are trained to be killers. They do their job well, and in so doing protect you and I. It is a job we can wish they did not have to do, but can be thankful that they do it well. And so, I tribute to our soldiers.

I’m going away, I’m going away to stay,
Say goodbye, Pack my bags, Let me go
I’m on my way, I’m leaving today.

Here I go to unknown lands,
Carrying my peacemaker in my hands.

I killed today, drew blood from the enemy’s hand,
Raised my piece, Squeezed a burst, All in thirst,
In the violence of things, I took lives today.

Here I am in unknown lands,
Carrying my peacemaker in my hands.

Ice runs through my veins, I can’t see the stains,
Smears of blood, Clots of mud, Adorn my tattered uniform,
I feel no more pain, War has deadened my brain.

I’ve gone away to unknown lands,
My peacemaker’s been active in my hands.

I’ll never come back now, You can’t tell me how,
It feels to sacrifice, Your very life, Or what it’s like,
To fill a vow, I can’t come back now.

It’s over for good in foreign lands,
My peacemaker’s quiet in my hands.

But that’s just fine,
For I’ve passed on in the line of duty,
Which called my name, Claimed my life, to end the strife,
Of a warring world, In unacknowledged valor.

I’m buried away in unknown lands,
My peacemaker rests silent in my hands.

Theodicy

This is a reflection on an entry titled "Theodicy" from Walter Brueggamann's 'Reverberations of Faith: A Theological Handbook of Old Testament Themes'.
I am becoming ever aware of the coldly logical constructs by which I have long attempted to bind God. It seems that the more I come to know Him the less He fits into my categories for Him. This has at certain times caused me to experience great existential tension, and pushed me to consider whether or not I actually believe God to be good, sovereign, and faithful. I confess that I have at times thought of God as a cosmic abusive father.
And yet, it is a definitively Western and metaphysical notion of God that puts such parameters on Him. He should be understood as He revealed himself – in a relational manner. The Old Testament does not deny that bad things happen to good people; in fact, it poignantly affirms this truth and cries out to God for understanding. This is illustrated most clearly by the story of Job. However, even in Job’s case God does not provide a rational for the things that occur.
In the end there exists for the human no answer to satisfy the rationally driven mind. And yet, for the individual dedicated to communion with God there exists such a relationship that as Old Testament theologian Walter Brueggamann says, “makes available God’s own engagement in the midst of inexplicable suffering.” This kind of relationship based on a covenant of mutual fidelity allows us to bring our legitimate complaints to and even against God with the knowledge that he will not only hear our cries but that He will comfort and sustain us through the pain that we suffer. It is nothing short of beautiful that the Sovereign of All would offer himself to us in such a way as to identify with us in the pain that we experience.
It is faith that allows us to dismiss this question of theodicy and respond to intense crisis; a faith that is based upon the historic nature of God’s provision. Or as Brueggamann has more deftly put it, “The practice of faith in all its dangerous commitment provides a way of responding to the inexplicable mystery of evil.”

The End.

I'm not usually one to post much explicitly personal content, but as much as this blog reflects fragments from every part of my life I think it is fitting for me to share some of my life experiences from time to time.
I recently suffered an injury that abruptly ended my senior soccer season. With six minutes left in double overtime I suffered a broken tibia and fibula - requiring immediate surgery. It is definitely not the way i anticipated spending my senior season. But a rod, four screws, and a few weeks time has me on the mend - and thinking that this mishap could be the break that I've needed for so long. I don't know why unfortunate things happen and I won't pretend to be able to read any significant insight into my situation except to say that it has been a good change of pace for me, it has caused me to live in greater faith, and it allowed me to experience the love and care of my community. And so while there is a lot about this situation that remains frustrating, I welcome any circumstance that will affect me to live out a life of the faith I experience.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

Ever a proponent of theology that is anchored in God’s work of cosmic redemption Wolfhart Pannenberg argues that the historical character of the redemptive event must be maintained and asserted in the dialogue with theologies of existence, redemptive history, and with the principles if critical-historical investigation. He does this in response to Bultmann who “dissolves history into the historicity of existence” and against Kähler and Barth who attempted to argue that the “real content of faith is suprahistorical” (or pre-historical in the case of Barth) (314). He sees both of those theologies as yielding to the method of critical-historical investigation for purposes of scientific verification, which in the end has pushed any notion of redemptive event out the door.
Pannenberg goes on to further define history as “event so suspended in tension between promise and fulfillment through that promise [that] it is irreversibly pointed toward the goal of future fulfillment (317).” Understanding that God is a God who acts again and again, that He is a living acting God is what forms the basis for Israel to understand reality as a linear history. Ultimately, Pannenberg will show that “history is reality in its totality”; that is to say that history is the full realization of reality from beginning to end. Or perhaps better stated, history encompasses all of reality past and present simultaneously – of course, this is only possible if it is anchored in God who transcends it all and in the Christ-event which brings the end of history into the midst of history.
Viewing history as the tension between promise and fulfillment brings a new perspective to the nature of our Covenant God and his work in the world. Further, if I am able to properly locate myself within this “history”, then understanding the Christ-event as the ultimate fulfillment of history, as God’s final act of cosmic redemption in the midst of history unfolding, then my location in this promise/fulfillment (what we may call the New Covenant) becomes the basis for my participation in history, empowering my existence towards redeeming the world around me. The implications of these ideas are huge and the reverberations long lasting for believer as we try to live out God's redemption on a daily basis.

Confession

O God,
I confess that I have seen You at work in, even on my life.
I have seen You at work, I have heard You calling out, but I confess that I have responded sluggishly.
I thought I could put my life together
I wanted to have my life together
But I didn’t. I was missing You.
Not formally missing You - You were there on the stand in Your place by the Bible on the shelf – but missing You. I let You have a place, but I disgraced You by not giving You the place You deserve, that place that You require.

If I truly believed I would bind my soul to You and declare an oath of eternal fidelity; instead I have been content to leech from You a “free gift” and I have become a whore-mongering taker, interested only in self-indulged hedonism.
Forgive me, O Giver of All,
For I have used You
I have usurped You covenant promise
I have presumed upon Your grace
And made a mockery of Your mercy, while tempting Your wrath and testing Your justice.
I, Your vassal, beg of You O God to be gracious,
For I have not kept my oath of fidelity.
I have sought happiness from personal accomplishment
I have sought fulfillment from love and temporal relationships
I have sought gratification from the accumulation of wealth.

Enable me to live like Your servant Paul of Tarsus, cruciform, a life of servitude – even slavery to You. Let me affirm my oath by pouring out my life as an offering in worship to You.
May Your Holy name be ever praised, O Lord of my salvation.

What Happened?

sometimes life is hard.
but i think that death is always harder.
especially when there aren't many answers.


Life can't be that bad for anyone.
I know you hate this world, but please put down your gun.
Believe me, no one wants to see you dead.
Just start a new life and forget the past instead.
And it's okay, if you never, forgive me.

What happened?
I saw you way back with your friends.
They left you, they broke you, they ripped you apart.
Worst of all she broke your heart, it's not your fault.

What happened?
Your parents loved you so much.
You're bleeding, and crying, and screaming out loud.
There in the corner with it figured out, don't give up now.

Life can't be that bad for anyone.
It's not so easy to say that now that you're gone.
Someday I will see you again,
And we'll both be in heaven not thinking about what happened.

What Happens In The Dark.

Just as I had slept

To achieve solace

In dreamy escape

I was now awaked;

Thrust once more into the arena,

That fire filled hell ring some call life.

Midnight’s lightning blade

Saved me from drowning

In acid darkness,

But scarred memories

Became the end of my pain-filled dream,

Re-beginning my hate filled life.

It's been almost two months since my last post, but I feel that it is time to end my sabbatical. I had an awesome summer interning at Grace, absolutely loved my time in Europe, and now I'm gearing back up for my senior soccer season - which looks quite promising. I don't know how much I'll post about all these experiences, so if you want to here about them your best bet is to e-mail or call me. I will however resume creating my shattered mosaic.

Reflection

A Reflection on the July 4^{th entry of "My Utmost For His Highest" by Oswald Chambers} – Oh how tremendously wicked I am. I worry and wonder constantly over whether or not things will go “favorably” for me. But what is this? It is nothing but the selfish wanting of my own corrupt soul, a soul not properly influenced by the powerful and peaceful shadow of our God. I worry about money and try to figure out how I can get more. I lose sleep over a girl and try to get her to like me. I get anxious about my future and try to plan out where I will be and what I will do. My mind sleeps in a state of constant apprehension keeping rest from being truly restful. All this, while I claim to believe in a sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent God.

But that is not belief. It is the seed of sin sprouting into black flowers of ungrateful contempt. It is the growing cloud of selfish ambition. It is the anti-God, the voice of pride calling out in scorn “My will, not thine.” It is nothing other than the ancient snare of self-love that Lucifer fell prey to before the age of men.

Constant state, Paranoia, Embezzler of life,
Captures Conscience, burns him upon the Stake of Trepidation.
Mind breached, Mistrust thrusts her blade Suspicion deep into Heart,
Cutting out Trust, rendering Heart loveless.
Empty of right, know only wrong,
Devoid of love, loss of life.
Speaking treason to Heart, Mind betrays, enslaves, to suffer an existence of miserable apprehension obsession.
King Terror and Queen Fear make hate;
Prince Unrest is begotten.

Refresh.

For reasons of mental and spiritual health I decided to take a short sabbatical from my usual routine. This involves abstinence from engagement in any sort of formal theological inquiry, supplemental reading, and anything of the nature. (Except of course what is required for me to adequately teach my American Church History class.) I will continue the series on Romans 4.1-9 at a later date.

Instead, I am taking this time for prayerful reflection and contemplation. I think that soul searching is something that all of us need to do once in a while. And I feel that with my internships, upcoming ministry trip to Europe, and various other events in my life it is a good time for me to take a break from "thinking" as my sister Candace says and try to focus on a simple, even mystical faith.

In the meantime, if you haven't read any of my early posts I would encourage you to. They are much different from what I have been doing recently and are more artistic in nature. Also, check out my brothers blog over at mycollegedebt.org.

Sola Fide: Part 3

Our righteousness

The primary discussion taking place in Romans 4:1-8 is a matter of how or by what God regards his children as righteous. This is commonly referred to biblically and extra-biblically as justification. The idea behind justification is that because of some reason God in some way deems the unrighteous human being as righteous and therefore worthy of communion with himself.[1]

But what is this “righteousness?” Or rather, what does this term “righteousness” refer too? According to W.E. Vine “righteousness” may carry a couple of different ideas with it. The first is the idea of “righteousness” as “right action.” We see this usage employed by Paul on five occasions in Romans 6, in Ephesians 6:14 and in other places throughout the New Testament. The other usage implies that of a gracious gift given by God to bring those who believe in Jesus Christ into right relationship with himself (Vine, 980).

In my estimation it seems to be this second definition which Paul is implying in his use of the word righteousness. There are two primary reasons here in support of this definition. The first is that we see this idea prominently throughout Paul’s writings and especially in close conjunction to his discussions of justification and reconciliation before God. II Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” just after urging the Corinthians to be reconciled to God in verse 20. Titus 3:5 shows that our salvation is not because of any righteous works that we have committed but because of God’s own mercy upon us. Paul states a similar idea in Ephesians 2:8-9 and says that it is by God’s grace alone that we are saved through our faith with no relation to ourselves and completely apart from any works. And lastly Paul gives us these ideas in Romans just prior to the passage in question. No one will be declared righteous because of law observance, but the righteousness we do have is from God, apart from the law, and through faith in Jesus Christ.

The second reason for my understanding of the word “righteousness” is that if we take “righteousness” to mean “acts of rightness” or “right action” then all of the above statements by the apostle implicitly contradict themselves. We cannot affirm that our righteousness is granted to us apart from our own action while at the same time claiming that it is by our righteous action that we were justified before God. For if we do then either we need to seek a new understanding of such statements, or they must be accepted as logically false statements in which the case we must reject the whole of the gospel.

I believe that Paul was quite intentional of his use of the word righteousness. He quite clearly departed from Jewish tradition showing that the right action idea was wrong. According to both Josephus and Philo righteousness is an “ethical conception” or “chief cardinal virtue which originates in the soul” and “is meritorious” (Bromiley 171). So when Paul goes against the grain of popular Jewish thought and pairs righteousness with faith he is quite clearly making a statement about what he believes righteousness to be and how he thinks it should be viewed in light of the gospel message he is preaching.[2]

---

[1] The reason and way of God’s justification has yet to be addressed. The focus here is on Paul’s understanding of righteousness and how exactly God views this righteousness. Discussion of the means of obtaining righteousness will be included under point II (consult outline for reference.)

[2] It should be noted that Paul’s argumentation against the Jewish train of thought is important to this passage and integral to its proper interpretation. This idea of Paul’s argument against popular Jewish thought will be addressed more completely further on.

Sola Fide: Part 2

Literary Context:

Romans is a letter that contains a number of personal elements to it. But despite its status as an epistle, the body of the letter much resembles that of a treatise owing to its tight argumentative structure and heavy theological content.

In order to gain an understanding of any particular passage in Romans, one must first understand Romans as a literary whole. Paul begins Romans with a prologue in 1:1-17. Then, starting with 1:18 and running through 8:39 Paul shows how God’s righteousness is revealed in His universal plan for salvation. In chapter 9 extending through 11:36 Paul discusses at length Israel’s rejection and the Gentile inclusion into the New Covenant. Chapter 12-15:13 displays precepts for righteous living. The remainder of the book functions as an epilogue.

As we approach Romans 4:1-8 we must notice that Paul has been demonstrating God’s righteousness and man’s lack (and therefore need) of that righteousness. 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Quite clearly Paul is making a statement as to mankind’s hopeless position before God. With this statement Paul begins to give the answer to man’s problem – faith in Jesus Christ.

Because of the theological issues going on at the time, namely how the law was interpreted and how that came into play with Christianity, Paul then takes the opportunity in 3:27 to introduce the idea of righteousness being obtained through faith instead of observance of the law. And it is here that we find ourselves looking at 4:1-8 and trying to determine how and by what exactly we are justified.

This would have been an important issue in Paul’s day as there were high tensions about whether continued law observance was a necessary part of the conversion experience. We see even among the apostles disagreements happening over this issue, and so Paul seeks to set the Romans straight that they might not fall into some of the same doctrinal traps as other branches of the early church had a tendency to do.

Sola Fide: A Discussion of Abraham's 'righteousness' in Romans 4.1-8 and its implicaitons for the believer.

Yes, this is another multi-part series. I know that some of my readers probably appreciate a single stand alone post, but if I were to attempt that with some of the recent topics I would have to post a short treatise all at one time. Consequently, it is much easier for me to post a page or two at a time and hopefully it allows you to more fully digest the content by taking it in smaller portions.

Part 1: Historical Context:

Unlike some of the other Pauline epistles, Romans is almost undisputedly agreed to have been written by the apostle Paul. Although this is the case, some still argue the integrity of the letter because of the role of a certain Tertius, who is supposed to have been Paul’s amanuensis for this letter. This debate comes into play to determine if we have Paul’s final work or Tertius’ re-mastery of Paul’s ideas. Most likely Paul dictated his letter word for word to Tertius who the copied it down. Structurally, Romans matches up with other Pauline texts that have been accepted as authentic.

Reconstructing Paul’s journeys and the history of the New Testament leads us to conclude quite conclusively that Romans was written sometime between A.D. 55 and 58 from the city of Corinth. If we look at the book of Acts we find numerous evidences that lead us to accept Corinth as the most plausible place of authorship, specifically during his three month visit in Acts 20:2-3. Less certain is the date of writing, but taking Paul’s experience before Gallio the proconsul of Corinth in Acts 18:12-17 to have happened in 51 (according to Cranfield) and adding two years for Paul’s stay in Ephesus (Acts 19:10) plus any significant travel time, the earliest conclusion we can come to seems to be 54 and even more likely sometime between 55 and 58 (Schriener 4).

Perhaps even more pertinent to a discussion of Romans is to observe the audience to which it was written. Due to internal evidence within Romans the conclusion can be made that it was at least written to gentile Christians in the city of Rome, and probably a number of Jewish Christians as well. Some would argue that it was written more for a Jewish audience, however the Jewish population was only just being allowed back into Rome upon the death of Emperor Claudius[1] and so a gentile population would clearly be dominant (Morris 4). Within this context it should be noted that even the gentile Christians would have had a strong grounding in the Old Testament and a familiarity with Jewish customs and ways of thinking. This is because of the influence of the synagogues and Jewish Christians who no doubt played an important part in forming the early Roman church.

As with any letter and especially in the case of one to which we are not privy to have the specific context of, we must ask of the authorial intent. The purpose of Romans seems to be twofold. First, Paul seems to be writing to introduce himself to the Roman church and telling them of his intended visit. In this way his letter is sent out ahead of him to preface his coming and allow for some preparations to be made on his account. Second, Paul writes to address the social-political atmosphere of the church in Rome. As can be seen in a number of other New Testament books, Jew-Gentile relations were high throughout the Christian communities, so Paul writes in order to stress the unity of the body. But in order to do so he first had to establish the credibility of his gospel, which as we notice in 1:11ff was already under substantial attack. This purpose would account for the systematic account of the gospel as well as the prominence of the topics of the Mosaic Law and Israel’s place in redemptive history.

---

[1] Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from the city of Rome, but the decree ended with his death in A.D. 54 allowing Jews to return to the city.

The Least of These (Part 2)

Poverty in the N.T.

Just as we began in the O.T. by looking at the ways that God had prescribed for dealing with the poor in a “perfect” community, we will continue on in the N.T. by looking at the life of Christ and the way that he handled the poor as the perfect man.

The first observation that we make is that while the gospel make mention of many different times that Christ sought to provide for someone in need, it rarely records His discussion of the poor. This is because what mattered for Christ was the doing. He understood more truly than any that the “walk talks louder than the talk talks” and sought to live a life of sacrifice and love for others. We might mention one of the many times He healed a beggar or provided for a widow. We might cite one of His numerous parables involving the poor, or His discussion with Zacchaeus. But in the end there is only one act that needs to be discussed, and it is the act of ultimate provision. Christ gave up His position in heaven and then His life on earth – He became poor – so that we, as spiritually impoverished people, might partake in the divine nature of God and His rich blessing.[1] For Christ, nothing mattered but what He could do for others, especially those who could do for themselves.

Observation of the apostles and their writings also lends to our understanding of what we are to do for the poor, and especially helps to provide us some ways in which we might practically apply these principals to our lives.

The first thing that we notice is that the poor were being cared for within the body of the Church; that is, it was seen as a serious responsibility of the Church to care for the poor. This is evidenced by the fact that there was a conflict over how much the gentile widows were receiving in aid and that the apostles appointed specific people to take care of this area of church ministry.[2]

The second thing is something that is drawn out in the book James. In chapter two James establishes the rich man and the poor man as equal and encourages those in the Church not be partial to the rich simply because they are materially blessed. This is a strand that we also see in Paul when he says that there is no distinction of social class for those who declare themselves to be in Christ.[3] This is significant because it draws the body of Christ closer together, making each individual the responsibility of the rest of the Church. It carries an implication of “no man left behind.” In essence, it makes the responsibility of caring for the poor less a responsibility or task of the church and more of the very definition of what it means to be Christian and live Christ.[4]

Conclusion/Application for the Global Church

Since we are discussing a “global” theology I thought it would be most fitting to try and make this theology of the poor relevant to the worldwide situation our Church finds itself struggling in. We know that the majority of the Church throughout the world is made up of what is materially and financially considered the “lower class” while in America we enjoy the benefits of a nation with a good economy and a stable government. So how is this reconciled? Is it our responsibility as the Church in America to provide aid to the Church in other parts of the world? I would posit that yes, it is our responsibility to address the needs of our fellow believers, no matter where they live.

On a couple of different occasions we see Paul requesting financial support for groups of believers in other geographical locations, and we see specific local churches responding and seeking to help those other churches in need. I think specifically of Macedonian church mentioned in II Corinthians 8-9 whom Paul praises for their generosity even in their own need.[5]

The foundation is laid and the precedence set; all that is left is for us to respond. We have been graciously gifted with much more than we need and it is our responsibility and our privilege to be able to express God’s love to our fellow brothers and sisters around the world. A little self-sacrifice is the least we can do in the name of the one who forfeited everything to ensure that we would not have to spend an eternity living in spiritual poverty.

---

[1] II Corinthians 8:9

[2] Acts 6:1-6

[3] Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11

[4] The distinction between the saved and unsaved here is important to note. As Christians we are called to serve the poor whether saved or not. However, we have a special obligation to provide for fellow brothers and sisters of the faith who are in need.

[5] We might also look to the Philippian church who supported Paul, and the aid sent to the Jerusalem church by the other churches – which, in fact is what we take Paul to be referring to in the II Corinthians passage.

The Least of These (Part 1)

Historically the poor have been one of the most overlooked and compromise people groups in every society, and the world of the present is no exception. As the face of the worldwide church continues to configure itself more and more like the church of the south the poor are becoming a reality we can no longer ignore. Tragically, it seems that in recent years the church has offloaded its responsibility to care for the less privileged to government agencies or Para-church organizations. I submit that God has made it the responsibility of His people to care and provide for the “poor” of society, which I will attempt to show with the support of Scripture.

The first thing to be understood when constructing a theology of the poor is the nature of “poorness” or poverty. Poverty is an opportunity to show God’s love and fulfill our humanity, not a sociological problem with an answer or a disease to be eliminated.[1] In fact, Deuteronomy 15:11 tells us that we will always have the poor to deal with, and sets it [poverty] up as an opportunity to minister to our brothers and sisters in need.[2]

Poverty in the O.T.

When God gave the law to Moses he was not simply setting up a moral code of ethics for which the nation of Israel was to abide by, He was also constructing for them a culture and a way to do life. This is significant because this was the prescribed community of God. If properly instituted and obeyed this would be the prime model of life in community. This was no creation of man, but a series of constructs provided by God. The Pentateuch reports an extensive social policy for the provision of the impoverished. If a man was forced to sell his home and possessions, another was to support him as though he were a guest.[3] Owners of farms, orchards, and vineyards were to leave some of the harvest behind so that the poor and needy would not go entirely without food.[4] Employers were even commanded to pay their workers before the sun set on the same day of their work.[5]

As we continue to follow poverty through the O.T., it is next enumerated upon in the wisdom literature. The nature of poverty and its affects are discussed at some length, but we are more interested in the way that Solomon seeks to deal with those who are poor. There seems to be two common themes here; the first being that the man who blesses the poor will himself be blessed while those who take advantage or subjugate them will be punished.[6] The second theme is the idea of giving the poor the justice that they deserve and yet rarely receive because they lack the means to provide it for themselves.[7]

Finally, we approach the prophetic books, and while at first it be surprising that they include so much discussion about the poor, it is understandable. We must remember the things that the nation of Israel was experiencing at the time. They were constantly under attack from enemy nations and were eventually displaced from their homeland. Many of them were forced to begin new lives in a foreign land with virtually nothing of their own. It was in this setting that the prophets stressed to the people of Israel God’s retribution to those who oppressed them, encouraging them by reminding them of God’s covenant with them.[8]

---

[1] This is important because Matthew 22 tells us that the two greatest things a human can do is love God and love others, which often becomes the same thing in practice – that is, loving others is loving God. This mandate for love is really just the human doing what he was meant to do. Man was created in the likeness of God, who is the very definition of love. So if man is to fulfill and live out the image of God, then it is necessary that he love others. In fact, one could go so far as to say that he who ceases to love his fellow human beings has forgotten what it means to be human; likewise if we treat the poor as less than human we not only rob them of the dignity that they have as image bearers of God, but we also strip ourselves of our own humanity (Proverbs 14:31; 17:5).

[2] Deut. 15:11 - For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.' (ESV)

[3] Leviticus 25:25, 35; Deuteronomy 15:7

[4] Leviticus 23:22

[5] Deuteronomy 24:15

[6] Proverbs 14:21; 19:17; 22:9; 28:27

[7] Proverbs 29:7; 29:14; 31:9

[8] Ezekiel 16:49; Amos 4:1-3; 8:4-7; Zechariah 7:10-14

Christianity and Socialist Society

In his article Adapting Christianity to Socialist Society: Theological Changes Xiao Anping postulates, “that changing times and social development also bring about changes and development in theology” and then considers the way in which the adaptation of Christianity to Chinese socialist society should be viewed, which according to Anping is from the perspective of changes in theological thinking – presumably historically, politically, and socially.

Indeed, the whole argument of this article seems to be focused around creating an understanding of the necessity of theological reconstruction within Chinese Christian theology. It should be understood here that Anping is not seeking to change the theology of the Chinese Church for mere change sake, but to contextualize his Christianity into a new and changing socialist society. For legitimate reasons, Christianity has historically been associated with Western civilization. But China is an Eastern civilization with a developing socialist society containing a unique set of social ideals. In many ways it is a world that is completely foreign to the Western mind. And if we as Westerners struggle to understand and integrate ourselves into Eastern culture, then we can’t expect anyone to conform to our ideas of something as central as ones faith.

Anping then demonstrates the flexibility of Christianity to adapt to its socio-political climate by tracing the development of Christian thought from the early Middle Ages through the Reformation. He says that a history of theology is, “the history of the contextualization of theology in different societies and cultures, and its development within that context.”

Here it is interesting to note that a significant assumption of Anping’s is that the progress that is made within Christian theology is also an advancement in and to society. For example he says, “the religious reformation became… directly involved in the great transformation in thinking that took place. Thus the religious reformation can be seen as the expression of humanism within the church, not only causing changes in theology, but also promoting the advancement of the whole of European history and society.”

But while Anping says that theological evolution is a social development, his understanding of this concept is unclear. It seems that while he is arguing for this need of “contextualization” in theology due to an existing socio-political context, he also wants to argue that this change in theology contributes to a change and development in society. He seems to create for himself a contradiction between these two ideas. However, I think that perhaps a better way of looking at this is to view this relationship as a parallel “both and” relationship as opposed to one of cause and effect. Because religion and culture cannot separate from each other. In fact, it is not that one is always influenced by the other, it is that each is continually impacted by the other.

But Anping claims that, “changes in theology are not in contradiction to the Bible” – a statement that may or may not be true depending on the specific nature of the change he discussing. We could accept his statement if it were clear that he were only talking about shifts within orthodox Christian thought. However, he does not make this clear, and only succeeds in creating more questions as to what the specific nature of these theological “changes” entail when he attempts to support this point scripturally.

He first cites the difference in some individuals’ notions of God and how that differed between the Old and New Testaments (where some view God as a strict disciplinarian in the O.T. and as love in the N.T.). This is problematic for two reasons. First, because we numerous cases of God’s love, mercy, and redemption in the O.T. and His justice and righteous indignation in the N.T. And second, because these individuals who might have held such a specific view of God were not (to any fault of their own) privy to the complete spectrum of theological revelation that we are today which could have led them to an incomplete, albeit uninformed, view of God.

Second, and perhaps even more speciously, Anping uses the Acts 15 text of the meeting of the Apostles in Jerusalem to argue that theological change is not in contradiction to the Bible. He says that the shift away from a Christianity that required certain law fulfillments to a Christianity that was characterized in “justification by faith” only demonstrated to people that Christianity was not exclusively for the Jews and served as a severance point from Judaism. But, while those things are true, I would argue that the very reason that the Jerusalem council was held was because the gospel that Peter and others were preaching was a gospel that was in contradiction to the gospel of Christ (and by implication the gospel of the Bible). This can be seen by the very fact that Paul has to publicly confront Peter and condemn his behavior towards the gentile believers.[1] In fact, even were the Judaizing gospel the biblical gospel, the shift that we see here in Acts 15 is a contradictory change in theology; the change from the “Judaizing” theology to “Paul’s” theology is a change from a works based theology to a faith based theology – such a drastic change in theological systems as to warrant one or the other outside of orthodoxy.

When we understand the backdrop from which Anping writes, then we begin to be able to understand his reasons for advocating theological change and his means of doing so. Anping is actively involved as Dean of Zhongnan Seminary and is a part of what is commonly known as the “Three-Self Movement”, which is the legally licensed and recognized Christian church in China. As someone involved in the Three-Self Movement, Anping is concerned with national pride and development as a part of his local Chinese theology, which is probably why he spends such a great deal of time discussing the need for theology to be contextualized. Further, he probably does not hold a very high view of the non-registered church movement, as he thinks that they tend to be more what we might refer to as “traditional”, of which he would say that such a theology is irrelevant to the modern Chinese and therefore incapable of reaching him.

In conclusion I would say that Anping is accurate in his assessment of the need for theology to adapt to its socio-political context and that this is the perspective from which we should view Chinese theological reconstruction. However, I am wary of the ambiguous nature of his needed theological “change”, and curious as to the bounds of his defined Christian orthodoxy and how far this said “change” is allowed to develop before it becomes something that is unrecognizable.

---

[1] Further, we have texts like those in Galatians where Paul explicitly condemns the “Judaizers” and their heretical forms of the gospel.

Essays on I Thess. 2.7-12 (Part 6)

‘For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory’ (NIV).

Paul concludes the passage in vv. 11-12 by casting himself in the role of the father of the Thessalonians. This metaphor is perhaps the most important image in the chapter; Paul’s understanding of it illumines all of what he has said thus far and sets precedence for his further discussion.

As the leader of the Roman family the father had complete authority over his household. This included especially the didactic and pedagogical duties that a parent would perform (v.12) and would also include aspects of providing an example by which those children could pattern their lives after. Often times the Roman father was cast as a harsh and domineering figure, however Burke shows that the Roman father could also be very affectionate, which would further elucidate his use of a maternal metaphor as an auxiliary explanation of his fatherly affection.[1]

Verse 11-12 then states the ways in which Paul interacted with the Thessalonians. Mention should be made here that v.11 possesses no verb of its own and should instead be seen as an extension of v.10, in which case “dealt” is probably better translated as “brought up” or “trained,” centering on the didactic role of Paul’s fatherhood.[2]

The three participles in v.12 describe the specific nature of Paul’s paternal care; that is, “encouraging, comforting, and urging.” The first two of these participles are often used interchangeably and are closely tied. Here “encourage” most probably means “to exhort the Thessalonians towards Christian conduct” whereas “comfort” is likely looking back on their distress upon becoming converted (seen in 1.6).[3] The final participle “urging” is the strongest of the three and perhaps the most important as it conveys an idea of insistence, which suggests a “strong moral thrust where he [Paul] charges his converts about the necessity to live radically different lives compared to their previous way of living.”[4] This notion of the way a Christian was to live his life is further supported by Paul’s metaphor of a spiritual walk, of which Paul has provided an example in 2.10.[5]

Verse 12 closes with Paul making mention of God as He who “calls you into his kingdom and glory.” With this he makes reference to the eschatological aim of the believer’s life “[indicating] a believer’s ultimate goal: to live under the dominion and in the presence of God” which is both a partial present reality and future expectation.[6] The Thessalonian believers could identify with this as it referenced the “royal theology” which had already been presented to them (Acts 17.7) and pushed them towards the kind of living involved in God’s “kingdom and glory.”[7]

---

[1] Burke, 148-49.

[2] Wannamaker, 105-06.

[3] Burke, 144.

[4] Best, E. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: A. & C. Black, 1977), 107; Burke, 144.

[5] This metaphor is traded out in the NIV to simply say, “live lives worthy of God.” The meaning of the phrase remains unaffected.

[6] Holmes, 68. Here I would like to note that Gorman’s theology of cruciformity, that idea that our Christian experience should reflect the experience of Christ himself, effectively unites all of the differing ideas in this passage together. There is talk of moral instruction, righteous living, and God’s kingdom. These ideas are united in what it means to be a follower or imitator of Christ. Paul himself was a living example of this theology in action as he not only taught others the “way of Christ” but lived it out himself as a self-sacrificing servant, who in living as Christ lived experienced what he came to call “life in Christ” which is regarded as that partial present reality of the future participation in God’s presence and glory.

[7] Green, 138.