Gary Millar’s Evaluation of Christopher J. H. Wright – Part Two

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

This is the second post in a series critiquing Gary Millar’s “A Biblical Theology of Mission: An Evaluation of Chris Wright” delivered at the 2013 Gospel Coalition National Conference.  This post will take one or more of Millar’s main sections, as outlined here, and further develop his content as well as offering critique when necessary.

Posts in this Series

Summary

The Mission of God Overview

Summarizing Millar’s overview.  Millar mingles overview with critique so it is helpful to begin by distilling his overview into a positive summary of the four sections contained within Christopher J. h. Wright’s The Mission of God.  This is both helpful in understanding Wright’s work and the broader context into which Millar’s critique fits.

  • Part 1: The Bible and Mission – The main argument here is that mission is God’s mission, mission is central to the whole Bible, the bible was written on mission, we need to read the Bible with a missional hermeneutic, and the whole Bible should shape our mission.
  • Part 2: The God of Mission – There are two key locations where Israel comes to know their God, the exodus and the return from exile.  He defends monotheism, discusses idolatry, and critiques religious pluralism.
  • Part 3: The People of Mission – Here he      argues for the primacy of mission in the election of Israel, this is the      controlling idea in the Old Testament.       He then demonstrates how the Exodus and the Jubilee encapsulate the      heart of God’s missional agenda.  Finally,      the priesthood of Israel is also presented as a controlling idea in the      Old Testament.
  • Part 4: The Arena of Mission – Here he      begins to spell out how this affects how we do mission today particularly      as it pertains to creation, the image of God, and the nations.

Examining Millar’s overview.  Now we will work through Millar’s summary both to develop his content and offer critique when necessary.

  • Part 1: The Bible and Mission – The main argument up to this point is that mission is God’s mission, mission is central to the whole Bible, the bible was written on mission, we need to read the Bible with a missional hermeneutic, and the whole Bible should shape our mission.

Millar begins by explaining that the first part of the book is where “he [Wright] justifies his approach and introduces his key terms and conclusions.”  Here Wright begins with a brief autobiography, and Millar makes emphasis of their shared Northern Irish origins, explaining what it was like to grow up with the understanding that only proclamation evangelism can be considered mission and that only when done outside of your homeland.  From this Millar concludes that this book is reactive not proactive.

Wright then moves to define what he means by “mission,” “missionary,” “missional,” “missiology and missiological.”  Without any explanation regarding Wright’s definition of “mission” Millar quips,

Which, if you were listening this morning, you will see is rather different than the one that uh that John offered.  Chris quickly identifies the mission of God is the driving force behind all that we do.  The engine room of the whole book and actually a helpful insight is the quotation we have already seen a couple of times that fundamentally our mission is participation in God’s mission.

Earlier that morning John Piper, in a sermon entitled “The Heart of God in the Call to Proclaim: A Joyfully Serious Courage in the Cause of World Missions,” gave the following definition of mission,

Missions is the great and glorious calling of Jesus for the church to make disciples among the remaining unreached peoples of the world. Local evangelism and frontier missions are not the same. Frontier missions is the specialized calling to plant the church in a people group where the church hasn’t yet taken root.  (This is the wording given in the transcript, available here.  It has been slightly altered from the exact language of the conference but expresses the same thought.)

With that definition of missions in mind Millar dismisses Wright’s definition of mission without any examination or counterarguments.  He simply implies that Wright does not define mission the same way Piper does therefore Wright’s definition is to be dismissed and he moves on to define Wright’s key terms.  Now, is this actually the case?  Does Wright define missions all that differently than Piper does?  Beyond that is Piper’s definition so universally accepted and argument so airtight that there is no room for critique?  In his book Let The Nations be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions John Piper defines missions in strikingly similar terminology to that of Wright.

Piper argues with Wright that mission belongs to God and that our mission is participation in God’s mission as demonstrated by the following three quotations from Let the Nations be Glad.

Missions flows from the fullness of God’s passion for God, and it aims at the participation of the nations in the very passion that he has for himself (cf. Matt. 25:21, 23; John 15:11; 17:13, 26).  The power of the missionary enterprise is to be caught up into God’s fuel and God’s goal.  And that means being caught up in worship.[1]

God’s goal is that his Son’s name be exalted and honored among all the peoples of the world, for when the Son is honored, the Father is honored (Mark 9:37).  When every knee bows at the name of Jesus, it will be ‘to the glory of God the Father’ (Phil. 2:10-11).  Therefore, God-centered missions exists for the sake of the name of Jesus.[2]

God is pursuing with omnipotent passion a worldwide purpose of gathering joyful worshippers for himself from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.  He has an inexhaustible enthusiasm for the supremacy of his name among the nations.  Therefore, let us bring our affections into line with his, and, for the sake of his name, let us renounce the quest for worldly comforts and join his global purpose.[3]

Millar’s dismissal of Wright’s definition of mission, because it is different from Piper’s, is without basis as both Piper and Wright argue that our mission is participation in God’s mission, in God’s global purpose.

There are distinctions to be drawn between the missiology of Piper and Wright; however, these distinctions have nothing to do with Wright’s definition that Millar so quickly dismisses.  The distinction lies between their understanding of the similarities and differences between missions and evangelism; this is evident in the excerpt from Pipers sermon above.  However, in Let the Nations be Glad Piper takes a less polarized stance and even admits to the difficulty of drawing distinctions between these two tasks.  He explains,

The task of evangelism is not the same as missions.  Missions is what moved Paul away from the peoples of Asia Minor and Greece (even from those who were still unconverted!) and pressed him toward the unreached peoples of Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28). . .  there are not two clearly distinct tasks (domestic evangelism vs. frontier missions) but rather graduations of cultural distance from the Christian community.  Where that distance becomes so great that we start calling its penetration “missions” is not always clear.[4]

So while Piper maintains a distinction between missions and evangelism, which Wright does not do, he does so admitting that these tasks are not distinct and delineating points of distinction is a difficult if not impossible task.  Whereas Wright would not draw a distinction between missions and evangelism Piper draws a distinction while admitting the difficulty of and lack of clarity in doing so.  Millar’s dismissal of Wright’s definition is therefore unwarranted.

This unwarranted dismissal is quite unfortunate in terms of Millar’s central argument.  If Millar truly believes his concluding thought, that this book will result in the end of mission, then he should not be dismissing Wright’s definition so casually.  This is a major support structure for Wright’s entire argument in The Mission of God and therefore Millar should be dealing with it accordingly.  He should demonstrate why this definition is incorrect, unbiblical, and cannot support the weight of the argument which it serves to support.  While this reviewer disagrees with Millar’s fears if there is any merit to them then they necessitate a far more serious examination of Wright’s definition than the one given in this talk.

After defining what he means by “mission,” “missionary,” “missional,” “missiology and missiological” the reader is introduced to Wright’s concept of a missional hermeneutic.  Millar explains two ways that Wright uses “missional hermeneutic.”  First, “that the mission of God is the central idea in biblical theology.”  Millar notes that this would simply put Wright’s work in the realm of other biblical theologies which argue for a central unifying theme in the biblical narrative and the reader would simply be tasked with evaluating whether or not this is indeed the case.  Secondly, Wright uses this to describe a method of reading the Bible.  Millar argues this is confusing as he never adequately explains this.  Millar asks “is this then the only way of reading the Bible?  Is it one of many ways of reading the Bible?  Is this the best way of reading the Bible?”  He then argues that Wright has likely set aside the doctrine of Scripture due to much conversation with missiologists who have a lesser view of Scripture than himself.

Before addressing Millar’s critique of Wright’s missional hermeneutic, as he has more to say about it, this accusation must be addressed.  This accusation is misleading and without support as the discussion of a missional hermeneutic takes place within a larger explanation of biblical authority where Wright urges the reader to move beyond proof texting and recognize the larger authority structure of Scripture.  He begins by explaining the importance of the authority of the commands of Scripture, and then moves to explain how reality has an authoritative structure.  Within reality we are confronted with the reality of God, the reality of the biblical narrative, and the reality of our identity as the people of God.  Finally, he concludes with the authority of Jesus, where all of the previous structures find their authoritative climax.  As the word of God the commands of Scripture are the commands of Christ, in Christ we meet God, the entire biblical narrative finds fulfillment in Jesus, and our identity as the people of God is defined in Christ.  Wight explains how this works using the giving of the law.  “The narrative expresses the indicative: Here is what has happened in your history, and these are the things that YHWH your God has done.  Then the law expresses the responsive imperative: Now then, this is how you must behave in the light of such facts [in the light of reality].”  Nowhere is there any hint of Wright setting aside the doctrine of Scripture; rather he upholds it and presents the reader with a robust theology of biblical authority in the process.

In an attempt to support his critique Millar quotes a key summary statement made by Wright,

So a missional hermeneutic must include at least this recognition—the multiplicity of perspectives and contexts from which and within which people read the biblical texts.  Even when we affirm (as I certainly do) that the historical and salvation-historical context of biblical texts and their authors is of primary and objective importance in discerning their meaning and their significance, the plurality of perspectives from which readers read them is also a vital factor in the hermeneutical richness of the global church (39).

Millar jests, “There you go if you can explain that to me I would be most delighted, come and tell me what it means after.”  At this point a trend has emerged which causes this reviewer to seriously consider the spirit in which this critique is being given and casts suspicion and doubt upon the sincerity of Millar’s introduction pointing to their shared Northern Ireland origins and his fondness of Wright’s work.

For anyone remotely familiar with missiology and contextualization Wright’s point in the quote above is quite clear.  After Millar feigns confusion he states, “I think he’s saying that a missional hermeneutic sometimes makes sure that we don’t assume our culture is the only one who can read the Bible properly.”  While that is an important thought Wright actually goes further to state that the global church benefits from the plurality of perspectives from which we approach the biblical text.  The global church benefits from the gleanings of collectivist cultures and individualistic societies.  It benefits from those who read from a power and weakness worldview as well as from those who read from an honor and shame worldview.  Wright is arguing that as we approach the text from these different perspectives we are able to see how one individual’s culture affects their reading of the text, for better and for worse, and they are able to do the same for us.  Therefore, the global church is better able to arrive at a culturally unbiased reading of the text as we interact with one another then we could arrive at when left on our own.

Millar then makes another dismissive critique, “in fact at one point Chris argues that his missional hermeneutic, as he calls it, actually subsumes liberation theology, post modern readings, overcomes them all, but doesn’t become relativistic.  Now, these are huge claims but they are not defended all that robustly.”  Once more Millar offers no explanation of the weaknesses in Wright’s defense and paints no picture of what a more robust defense might look like.  Wright’s thought here comes out as an implication of a missional hermeneutic.  Because of “the multiplicity of perspectives and contexts from which and within which people read the biblical texts” the global church is able to learn from liberation and postmodern readings while recognizing and correcting the points at which their culture moves from illuminating the text to being imposed upon the text. Using postmodernity as an example he notes the importance of narrative within the postmodern mind and so we accept this correction but we do so while maintaining that the biblical narrative “is nevertheless actually the story” and all of our little stores make sense only within this larger story.  So a missional hermeneutic allows for postmodernity’s correction of modernistic readings and allows the church to better balance truth as proposition (modernistic readings) and truth as metanarrative (postmodern readings).  While Wright offers far more depth in his explanation that overview should be sufficient enough to demonstrate once more that Millar’s dismissive critique is without basis.

Wright then explains that the Bible is both about mission and a product of mission.  Millar agrees and notes that this is particularly obvious in the New Testament epistles.  Then Millar explains how Wright introduces the third major conclusion of this text that “the Great Commandment is as important as the Great Commission in seeking to reach the world.”  This comes as Wright explores the relationship between mission and authority which Millar explains as summarized best by Wrights statement, “A missional hermeneutic takes the indicative and the imperative of the biblical revelation with equal seriousness, and interprets each in the light of the other” (61).  Wright then concludes the first section of his book by drawing a hermeneutical map where, “not only do the major features of the landscape stand out clearly but also other less well-trodden paths and less scenic scholarly tourist attractions turn out to have surprising and fruitful connections with the main panorama” (69).  The main argument up to this point is that mission is God’s mission, mission is central to the whole Bible, the bible was written on mission, we need to read the Bible with a missional hermeneutic, and the whole Bible should shape our mission.

[1]John Piper, Let The Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God In Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 36.
[2]Ibid., 38-39.
[3]Ibid., 43.
[4]Ibid., 194-95.

Gary Millar’s Evaluation of Christopher J. H. Wright – Part One

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

This is the second post in a series critiquing Gary Millar’s “A Biblical Theology of Mission: An Evaluation of Chris Wright” delivered at the 2013 Gospel Coalition National Conference.  This post will take one or more of Millar’s main sections, as outlined here, and further develop his content as well as offering critique when necessary.

Posts in this Series

Summary

Three Reasons this Matters

Millar begins by giving a brief biography of his interactions with Christopher J. H. Wright and why this has led him to feel reluctant to critique The Mission of God.  He then explains the three reasons why this book matters.

  • “The Mission of God is now basically the standard evangelical work on mission.”
  • “The Mission of God represents a strand of thinking about mission that’s almost universal in the evangelical world and I’ve noticed that it tends to be simply stated and taken for granted, rather than argued or defended.”
  • “I think that The Mission of God contains key flaws; which if left unchallenged will lead to the dilution of the missionary efforts of the evangelical church across the world.”

Regarding the last point Millar explains, “Now please do not mishear me today.  I am not saying that that’s Chris Wright’s intention that is simply not true.”  We will return to this at a later point in the discussion of Millar’s critique.  He then explains that Wright loves Jesus and is committed to the gospel and the Scriptures and because of this Millar approaches this with a sense of his own weakness and a prayer that whatever unhelpful things he says would be forgotten.

I would add to Millar’s three reasons a fourth, namely the renewed interest in biblical theology in both the church and the academy.  The number of biblical theologies written in the past decade is quite astounding and so this book arrives as a significant work for missiologists and theologians as well as pastors and their congregations.  There have been books and journal articles in the past which have attempted to approach missions from a whole bible or biblical theological perspective but nothing on this scale nor anything providing such an in-depth analysis of the Old Testament on this subject, a point Wright makes very early on in this volume.  The renewed interest in biblical theology as well as this volumes breadth, depth, and timely arrival have and will continue to garner a wide reading.

Summary of Key Conclusions from The Mission of God

Millar then moves to summarize what he believes to be the four key conclusions drawn by Wright in The Mission of God.  He does so by reading several quotes from The Mission of God which I have included below.

  • Mission is the Mission of God

Fundamentally, our mission (if it is biblically informed and validated) means our committed participation as God’s people, at God’s invitation and command, in God’s own mission within the history of God’s world for the redemption of God’s creation (22).

  • Everything is Mission

A different way of thinking about mission would be to imagine a whole circle of all the needs and opportunities that God calls (or sends) us to address in the world (317).

Is the church, through the combined engagement of all its members, applying the redemptive power of the cross of Christ to all the effects of sin and evil in the surrounding lives, society and environment (322)?

He then reads this quotation for a second time adding an interjection, “applying the redemptive power of the cross of Christ [‘whatever that means’] to all the effects of sin and evil.”  This is one of the critical flaws in Millar’s argument that will be noted throughout this review.  At this point he feigns ignorance and at others he will argue that Wright lacked clarity or ample explanation of his thought when this is clearly not the case.

The quotation in question comes at the end of chapter nine which explores the jubilee as a model of restoration, this is intimately tied to the argument of chapter eight which examines the exodus as a model of redemption and the two chapters preceding that which examine God’s chosen people.  The jubilee is closely tied to the exodus because what the exodus embodies as a singular event the jubilee embodies in an ongoing commitment (289-90).  Wright works through the social, economic, and theological aspects of the jubilee both in its original context and then demonstrates how it “lies behind our practice of mission” (300).  He then examines how Jesus both proclaims and embodies the jubilee and how the church, in both her proclamation and practice, is both a Spirit empowered echo of the jubilee and a foretaste of the age to come.  Before explaining how this is to be applied within the church he must first relate the jubilee to the cross.  Wright begins,

Any theology of mission that claims to be biblical must have at its core that which is at the very core of biblical faith – the cross of Christ.  So if we are to establish that a truly biblical understanding of mission is holistic, integrating all the dimensions we have been surveying hitherto, then we must ask how all of that coheres around the cross (312).

Holistic mission is cross-centered mission because “in all forms of Christian mission in the name of Christ we are confronting the powers of evil and the kingdom of Satan—with all their dismal effects on human life and the wider creation” (314).  After all,

Only in the cross is there forgiveness, justification, and cleaning for guilty sinners.  Only in the cross stands the defeat of evil powers.  Only in the cross is there release from the fear of death and its ultimate destruction altogether.  Only in the cross are even the most intractable of enemies reconciled.  Only in the cross will we finally witness the healing of all creation (315).

If the cross is the answer to all of these varying issues then how does the church go about “applying the redemptive power of the cross?”  He answers this question using night blindness as an example.  Night blindness is caused by a vitamin A deficiency, which is usually the result of malnutrition that can be traced to social injustice which has its roots in the human heart in the form of greed.  Along this string of relationships and events the redemptive power of the cross is applied from the alleviation of present suffering, to the reconciliation of the oppressed to their oppressors, and the reconciliation of individuals to God.  Beyond night blindness he returns to the exodus and reminds the reader of how redemption was applied in that context as God addressed a range of social and economic issues working towards the end that all peoples, but specifically Israel, know and worship Him.  This is how Wright expects the church to apply the redemptive power of the cross by proclaiming and demonstrating how the cross radically confronts the powers of sin and evil and provides a future eschatological hope that has been inaugurated in the present. These concepts should not be lost on the reader nor should it be lost on a reviewer such as Millar.

  • The Great Commandment is as Important as the Great Commission in Seeking to Reach the World

Conversely, a missional hermeneutic of the whole Bible will not become obsessed with only the great mission imperatives, such as the Great Commission, or be tempted to impose on them one assumed priority or another (e.g., evangelism or social justice or liberation or ecclesiastical order as the only “real” mission).  Rather we will set those great imperatives within the context of their foundational indicatives, namely, all that the Bible affirms about God, creation, human life in its paradox of dignity and depravity, redemption in all its comprehensive glory, and the new creation in which God will dwell with his people (61).

  • The Exodus and the Jubilee form the Key Paradigms for Understanding our Mission

So although the exodus stands as a unique and unrepeatable event in the history of Old Testament Israel, it also stands as a paradigmatic and highly repeatable model for the way God wishes to act in the world, and ultimately will act for the whole of Creation.  The exodus is a prime lens through which we see the biblical mission of God (275).

There are certainly other conclusions that can be drawn from Wright’s work that are equally important as the ones pointed out by Millar.  Central to the argument of this volume is Wright’s understanding of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, between the indicative and the imperative.  I will further explain this key conclusion later as it is clear that Millar does not understand the significance of this in Wright’s thinking.

Gary Millar’s Evaluation of Christopher J. H. Wright – Outline

Posted on by
Reply

Introduction

This is the first in a series of posts critiquing Gary Millar’s “A Biblical Theology of Mission: An Evaluation of Chris Wright” delivered at the 2013 Gospel Coalition National Conference.  Below is a summary of this talk.  The posts that follow will take one or more of Millar’s main sections, as outlined below, and further develop his content as well as offering critique when necessary.  As he begins his talk and in his final summary, as quoted below, he explains his reluctance in doing this critique as well as his desire not to overstate the case.  This series of posts will demonstrate that Millar does indeed overstate the case and quite unnecessarily, and I would add quite unfortunately, so.

Posts in this Series

Summary

Three Reasons this Matters

  • “The Mission of God is now basically the standard evangelical work on mission.”
  • “The Mission of God represents a strand of thinking about mission that’s almost universal in the evangelical world and I’ve noticed that it tends to be simply stated and taken for granted, rather than argued or defended.”
  • “I think that The Mission of God contains key flaws; which if left unchallenged will lead to the dilution of the missionary efforts of the evangelical church across the world.”  He argues that this is not Wright’s intention.

Summary of Key Conclusions from The Mission of God

  • Mission is the Mission of God
  • Everything is Mission
  • The Great Commandment is as Important as the Great Commission in Seeking to Reach the World
  • The Exodus and the Jubilee form the Key Paradigms for Understanding our Mission

The Mission of God Overview

  • Part 1: The Bible and Mission – The main argument here is that mission is God’s mission, mission is central to the whole Bible, the bible was written on mission, we need to read the Bible with a missional hermeneutic, and the whole Bible should shape our mission.
  • Part 2: The God of Mission – There are two key locations where Israel comes to
    know their God, the exodus and the return from exile.  He defends monotheism, discusses idolatry, and critiques religious pluralism.
  • Part 3: The People of Mission – Here he argues for the primacy of mission in the election of Israel, this is the controlling idea in the Old Testament.  He then demonstrates how the Exodus and the Jubilee encapsulate the heart of God’s missional agenda.  Finally, the priesthood of Israel is also presented as a controlling idea in the Old Testament.
  • Part 4: The Arena of Mission – Here he begins to spell out how this affects how we do mission today particularly as it pertains to creation, the image of God, and the nations.

Chris’ Argument Throughout the Book Summarized

  • Mission is the mission of God.
  • Mission is central to the whole Bible as God is central to the whole Bible.
  • The Bible is written on mission that it is the product of God’s people on this journey to perform his mission.
  • We need to read Bible through a missional lens, a missional hermeneutic.
  • If all the Bible is about mission, then we need to allow The whole Bible to shape our mission, not just the great commission.
  • He argues that sin is all-pervasive, between individuals, between generations, in countries.
  • The paradigms for mission are the Exodus and the Jubilee and therefore, God’s mission is all-embracing, setting all nations, all peoples, free from the all-encompassing sin that we encounter.

Thoughts on Clarity

“I hope I have represented him fairly.  It is a very sweeping vision, or re-visioning of the idea of the mission of God.  That’s what he argues, ok.  Now, if you’ve never read The Mission of God that’s as clear as I can make it.  It is not the clearest book that has ever been written.”

Some Things Millar Loves

  • The God-centeredness of the approach.
  • The defense of the uniqueness of Christ in the face of religious pluralism “winsome clear and powerful.”
  • His insights into key Old Testament texts.
  • The discussion of Old Testament missiological texts “This is the most complete, comprehensive, and theologically nuanced discussion of mission in the Old Testament I’ve seen.”
  • He clearly articulates what God asks of us.
  • At points he affirms that evangelism is at the heart of mission.

Some Things Millar Noticed

  • Confusing Terminology
  • A Tendency to Overstate the Case
  • A Strange Aversion to the Idea of Going Anywhere
  • An Annoying Habit of Using Straw Man Arguments

The Things that Concerned Millar Deeply

  • An Absence of the Bible at Key Points in His Argument
  • There is a Persistent Exegetical Carelessness
  • There is an Unwillingness to allow the New Testament to Shape the Way We Read the Old Testament
  • The Contention that Chris Makes that Evangelism is Ultimate but not Primary
  • The Weak Doctrine of Sin and Judgment in the Mission of God
  • The Gospel is Never Defined nor Discussed Nor is it Cited as the Driving Force Behind Mission

Millar’s Concluding Summary of His Concerns

“If this book dominates evangelical and reformed thinking on mission for the next twenty or thirty years then where will we be?  Very simple, my fear is that we will be in a place where there is no hell, no judgment, not really any hope for a cross.  My fear is that no one will go anywhere, that no one will preach to anyone, that no one will actually care.  Why not?  Because I am not sure that God actually cares that much, because everything is mission, because being will take away the need for going.  Would Chris Wright argue for any of these positions?  Of course not but even the best of us are capable of missteps, of misleading, of missing the point.  I think that’s what has happened in this book.  That is why I think it would be disastrous if we took our theology of mission from The Mission of God.  That’s why, however reluctantly, I agreed to do this critique.  It’s not so much what’s in the book, as what’s left out.  And my fear is that if we leave out what’s left out of The Mission of God then there will be no going, there will be no preaching because who would stand up and preach a gospel that may get us persecuted if there is an option, there will be no evangelism, there will be no hell, there will be no judgment, there will ultimately be no need for a cross.  I do not want to overstate it but ultimately there would be no mission.”

Reflecting on the SBC Calvinism Advisory Committee’s Report

Posted on by
3

Introduction

The Calvinism Advisory Committee, organized in August 2012 by Frank S. Page, issued their final report “Truth, Trust, and Testimony in a Time of Tension.”  For quite some time it appeared as though tensions over soteriology would lead to a significant and potentially damaging conflict within the SBC.[1]  Southern Baptists should be very excited to read this report and see how the findings of this committee will lead to a stronger SBC unified around theological commonalities, as defined by The Baptist Faith and Message, and the Great Commission.

Summary

There is a lot to be thankful for in this report.  The report begins with a helpful explanation of and commitment to the source of Southern Baptist unity.

Southern Baptists are Great Commission people. We are also a doctrinal people, and those doctrinal convictions undergird our Great Commission vision and passion. We are a confessional people, who stand together upon the doctrines most vital to us all, confessed together in The Baptist Faith and Message.

Within this common confession, we sometimes disagree over certain theological issues that should not threaten our Great Commission cooperation. . .  It is, therefore, our responsibility to come together with open hearts and minds in order to speak truthfully, honestly, and respectfully about these theological and doctrinal issues that concern us, threaten to divide us, and compel us into conversation. Such engagement is appropriate at every level of Southern Baptist life including local congregations, associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention.

The committee then introduces and summarizes their findings,

Four central issues have become clear to us as we have met together. We affirm together that Southern Baptists must stand without apology upon truth; that we do indeed have some challenging but not insurmountable points of tension; that we must work together with trust; and that we must encourage one another to testimony.

In what follows they elucidate the truth that unifies, explain the points of tension, affirm that which builds trust while denying that which betrays it, and proclaim the gospel as the unifying word of our testimony.

The report then concludes with several points of encouragement.

Where do we go from here? We must celebrate the unity we share together in our common Great Commission purpose, while acknowledging and celebrating variety among us. We must clarify the parameters of our cooperation where necessary but stand together without dispute. . .

We should call upon all Southern Baptists to promote the unity we share within The Baptist Faith and Message and, while recognizing that most Southern Baptists will believe and teach more than what that confession contains, we must never believe or teach less. . .

In order to prevent the rising incidence of theological conflict in the churches, we should expect all candidates for ministry positions in the local church to be fully candid and forthcoming about all matters of faith and doctrine, even as we call upon pulpit and staff search committees to be fully candid and forthcoming about their congregation and its expectations. . .

We must stand together in rejecting any form of hyper-Calvinism that denies the mandate to present the offer of the Gospel to all sinners or that denies the necessity of a human response to the Gospel that involves the human will. Similarly, we must reject any form of Arminianism that elevates the human will above the divine will or that denies that those who come to faith in Christ are kept by the power of God. . .

Finally, the report concludes,

We have learned that we can have just this kind of conversation together, and we invite all Southern Baptists to join together in this worthy spirit of conversation. But let us not neglect the task we are assigned. The world desperately needs to hear the promise of the Gospel.

Evaluation

While the report is encouraging and rightfully explains why Baptists can, and indeed should, maintain unity despite theological differences the report’s language leaves considerable doubt as to whether or not any real unity will result from its publication.  The committee was comprised of a wonderful balance of influential pastors and scholars which makes the lack of balance in the language used even more surprising. At any rate there are several critical reasons why the text’s language betrays its intentions.  After listing these reasons this author will lay fourth a series of suggestions as to how the language of this report should be altered to achieve greater balance which will be followed by some concluding remarks on the report as a whole.

Linguistic Imbalance

First, the committees name is profoundly misleading and betrays the unity which this statement aims to bring about.  The title Calvinism Advisory Committee seems to indicate that the problem is Calvinism and Baptists must find out what to do with it.  This is more clearly seen in the statement “significant theological disagreement on such issues has occurred with respect to Calvinism.”  There is a disagreement about Calvinism and therefore Calvinism is problematic.

Second, throughout the article the conflict is phrased as being between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.  The only point within the text that Arminianism is mentioned is in reference to a denial of what appears to be openness theology.  This would appear to give the impression that you have Calvinists one the one hand and then normal Christians on the other.  The constant and consistent use of non-Calvinism would seem to indicate that Calvinism is some sort of aberration when compared to traditional or normal Baptist belief.

Thirdly, if the report had been issued by the Arminianism Advisory Counsel and was written to address tensions and the transcendent source of unity between Arminians and non-Arminians the language would remain just as imbalanced as it currently stands.

A Better Way Forward

First, and foremost it must be acknowledged that Calvinism is no more the problem than Arminianism.  The problem is not that these positions exist or even that both of these positions can be held by individuals who affirm The Baptist Faith and Message.  The problem is that tension exists between Baptists who hold to these two theological positions; specifically as it pertains to particular points of their respective soteriology.  With that in mind it might have better expressed the reality of these tensions and maintained less biased language if the committee were called the Soteriological Advisory Committee.  That would have correctly pointed us to the real issue; tensions created by the wide range of Soteriological positions allowed within The Baptist Faith and Message.  That would have prevented the blame from being placed upon any group as the source of the problem.  This also serves to reinforce our unity, encourage cooperation, and promote trust as we have Soteriological unity in our common confession of The Baptist Faith and Message despite our difference around certain particulars.

Second, as noted above the problem is not Calvinism but rather theological tensions resulting from varying positions on soteriology.  As such the article cannot phrase the tension in the misleading terms of Calvinism and non-Calvinism but must rephrase it in terms of soteriological difference.  The authors could, of course, rephrase it in terms of Calvinism and Arminianism, or Arminianism and Calvinism, as this would be an honest explanation of the two main systems of thought between which these tensions exist.

Finally, the authors note “We affirm that, from the very beginning of our denominational life, Calvinists and non­Calvinists have cooperated together.”  This further confirms the first critique and reaffirms the necessity of the first suggestion.  The problem is not Calvinism, nor is it Arminianism as they have been a part of the SBC’s denominational life since its inception.  This also both confirms the second critique and demonstrates the necessity of the second suggestion.  As Calvinism has been a part of the SBC since its inception and therefore it cannot be the cause of this tension it is incredibly misleading to phrase the tension in terms of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.

Conclusion

With such a long history of cooperation between Arminians and Calvinists there must be other factors at play to create the current levels of tension beyond mere theological difference.  If these two groups have cooperated to fulfill the great commission in affirmation of common theological bonds “from the very beginning of our denominational life” then any explanation that fails to discuss what recent change has occurred to disrupt this longstanding peaceful cooperation and raise tension levels to their current position is simply inadequate.  That is the ultimate weakness of this document.  It fails to perceive the heart attitudes and actions which have led to this current situation and since these attitudes and actions are not mentioned they cannot be corrected which really leaves us in a slightly better place than where we began because at least now there is dialog, regardless of how helpful it may prove to be.

[1]For more information on the history of this committee I would recommend reading “Finding a Way Forward: Calvinism Advisory Group Presents Report to EC’s Frank S. Page.”

Prayer and Suffering Display the Worth of the Gospel

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday mornings we are doing a class entitled The Church, the Gospel, and the Ends of the Earth; these are my notes from today’s class on prayer and suffering.

I. Prayer Displays the Worth of the Gospel

A. Isaiah Models Missional Prayer

The first passage that comes to mind when talking about the missional nature of prayer I immediately think of Isaiah 6.

1In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train[a] of his robe filled the temple.  2Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.  3And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

4And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.  5And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!”

6Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar.  7And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

Isaiah is confronted by the glory of the Lord, responds to it in broken humility over his sin and the sin of Israel.  Then a seraphim flies to Isaiah holding a burning coal taken from the altar.  The temple is filled with smoke because a sacrifice has been made on the altar and this seraphim takes a burning coal from that sacrifice and touches it to Isaiah’s unclean lips.  This sacrifice is applied to Isaiah and it takes away his guilt and atones for his sin.

Isaiah hears the intertrinitarian conversation as the Lord asks Himself “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”  Having just seen the Lord upon His throne and experiencing His atoning sacrifice for sins Isaiah exclaims, “Here am I! Send me.”  The prophet cries out, “I will tell of your glory, I will make your gracious atonement known!”  The Lord’s reply is devastating as He exhorts Isaiah to proclaim, “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive” and commands him to “Make the heart of this people dull . . . [lest they] turn and be healed.”  Isaiah, having just experienced the Lord’s atoning sacrifice for sins, would not be proclaiming that great salvation to his people; no, his message was one of judgment and its purpose was to harden Israel’s heart so that she would not turn to the Lord in repentance.

Upon hearing this Isaiah replies asking, “How long, O Lord?”  There are two primary ways in which Isaiah’s question has been interpreted; first, “how long must I proclaim this message?” and second, “how long will their hardness persist?” or “how long until you redeem your people?”  Based upon Isaiah’s emphasis upon the fulfillment of YHWH’s covenant promises, his understanding of the blessings and curses of those covenants (cf. Deuteronomy 28; 30:1-10), and the Lord’s reply the later understanding of his reply best fits within the context of his ministry.  In this sense Isaiah cries out “How long until your people repent and you restore your blessing to them?”  The Lord’s reply glimmers with though Israel will be scattered in exile and the Promised Land laid to waste and burnt to the ground like a tree its stump will remain.  Later in Isaiah we see that this stump is Jesus Christ who is the atoning sacrifice, “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).  That is the hope the Lord offers in His reply.

We must regain Isaiah’s missional understanding of the Lord, his missional zeal for his people, and his missional petition on their behalf.  We must come to view God as Isaiah did; as a God who sends and saves, who graciously self-discloses Himself, and who makes atonement for the sins of His people.  We must be broken over our sin and over the sins of our culture crying out in intercession, “How long will our cities be ravaged by the worship of idols?  How long will this people persist in self-reliance?  How long will they perceive your invisible attributes and continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness?  How long will they harden their hearts against you?  How long will they keep on hearing, but not understand?  How long will they keep on seeing, but not perceive?  How long will you make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes?  How long until they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts?  How long until you turn them to yourself that they may be healed?  . . . How long, O Lord?”

Along this line of thought David Garrison in his book, Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World, writes, “Prayer is the soul’s deepest cry of rebellion against the way things are, seeing the lost of this world and crying out, ‘This does not glorify God, and so, by God’s grace, it must change!’  Prayer comes from God and ascends back to God on behalf of those who do not know God.”[1]

B. Prayer and Proclamation

Commenting on Ephesians 6:16-18 John Piper explains, “Prayer is the power that wields the weapon of the word.  And by the word of God we do battle against sin and unbelief in our own lives and in the world.”[2]

C. Prayer and Mission

“We cannot know what prayer is for until we know that life is war. . .  Prayer is primarily a wartime walkie-talkie for the mission of the church as it advances against the powers of darkness and unbelief.  It is not surprising that prayer malfunctions when we try to make it a domestic intercom to call upstairs for more comforts in the den.”[3]

II. Suffering Displays the Worth of the Gospel

A. Introduction

It was March 15, 2004 and five Southern Baptist missionaries driving through Mosul, in northern Iraq, were ambushed and four of them were murdered.  Months before Karen Watson had given a letter to her pastor in Bakersfield, California that was to be opened upon the event of her death.  In it she wrote, “When God calls, there are no regrets.  I tried to share my heart with you as much as possible, my heart for the nations.  I wasn’t called to a place.  I was called to Him, to glory.  To obey was my objective.  To suffer was expected.  His glory was my reward.  His glory is my reward.”[4]  She then writes, exhorting the reader, exhorting us, “Care more than some think is wise.  Risk more than some think is safe. Dream more than some think is practical, and expect more than some think is possible.  I was called not to comfort or success but to obedience.”[5]

Al Mohler, speaking in chapel at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explained, “As we first heard this word (of the four deaths), we realized that the cause of the Gospel needed at least four more.  That’s just status quo, four more. But advance is going to take far more than four.”[6]

And indeed advance has come, and will continue to come, at a high cost.  The twentieth century alone saw nearly fifty million martyrs, that is almost 1,250 people martyred daily.[7]  For those of us in this room, in comfortable America, that reality is almost incomprehensible.

B. Suffering and Persecution Defined

Suffering and persecution are related.  Persecution can result in suffering but not all suffering is the result of persecution.  Looking at Paul’s statements in II Corinthians 11:23-28 we can see the difference between these two things.  Acts of persecution are underlined, suffering is in boldface, and suffering as a result of persecution is underlined and boldfaced.

23Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death.  24Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.  25Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.  28And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches.

Suffering is important as a display of the gospel.  We saw that recently when we spent a weekend studying Hebrews.  We, as a church, need to see individuals looking to Jesus and running the race with endurance.  As they suffer through cancer and disease exhorting us that Jesus is worth it, that this present affliction is light and momentary compared to the eternal weight of glory (Romans 8:18; II Corinthians 4:17-18; Hebrews 12:1-2).

Charles L. Tieszen defines persecution as, “Any unjust action of varying levels of hostility perpetuated primarily on the basis of religion and directed at Christians, resulting in varying levels of harm as it is considered from the victim’s perspective.”[8]

  • Any unjust action
  • varying levels of hostility/resulting in varying levels of harm
  • perpetuated primarily on the basis of religion
  • directed at Christians
  • considered from the victim’s perspective

C. American Exceptionalism and Global violence

We come to this discussion from an incredibly unique vantage point.  For us as Americans the global reality of persecution is almost incomprehensible.  There are countless issues facing the global church that are completely foreign to us and because of that we are not addressing these things theologically.  So I want to force our hand this morning and address some of these things and hopefully force us to view the world from a different perspective.

1. Islam Does Not Have a Monopoly on Violence

I think our understanding of persecution and the relationship between followers of Christ and Islam is shaped more by American foreign policy than by Scripture and the global context of religious violence.

Charles L. Tieszen explains, “Persecution can be perpetuated on the basis of ethnicity, political persuasion, nationality, or any number of other factors.  When religion is involved, adherents of any religion or belief can be targets.”  And I would add that adherents of any religion or belief can be perpetrators.  He continues, “In this light, Baha’i communities are persecuted in Iran; Muslims are persecuted in India and Nigeria; and Tibetan Buddhists are persecuted in China.  Similar examples are numerous.”[9]

In the global context there are countless religions and belief systems that have resorted to religious violence and we only looked at four countries.  We could go a step further and break it down to people groups within countries and see just how pervasive violence is.  The main point I want us to see here is that Islam does not have a monopoly on violence.  We have to step out of our American experience of terrorism and the current foreign policy discussion of America and Islam and come to see this within the global religious context.

2. Christians are, Unfortunately, Not Always Passive

These are questions that we don’t have to ask ourselves.  When something happens locally we have the police and various government agencies that assure us that the perpetrator(s) will be found and brought to justice and the same thing happens globally with our armed forces.  We are never in the situation that Coptic Christians, in Egypt, found themselves in when during a funeral Muslim youth began throwing rocks and police fired tear gas into the cathedral.  We have never had to decide whether or not to use Molotov cocktails to incinerate protestors at a funeral.[10]

Or we could look at Nigeria where Christians have slaughtered Muslims and burned the bodies on piles of tires.[11]  There one Christian leader has argued for the church to build armies saying, “People say, ‘When they slap your cheek, you turn the other.’  We have turned both, and they have slapped us.  There is nothing else to turn.”[12]  Thankfully within that same context there are others who are arguing, “To fight back is contrary to the position of our Lord Jesus Christ. . .  He said, ‘If they strike you on one cheek, turn the other.’  He did that when he was arrested. It was what he used to conquer the world.”

So the world looks vastly different through non-American eyes.  If we are going to understand persecution then we have to come to grips with how we have been shaped by the American context. This means coming to understand that those who persecute us are not our political enemies but our mission field.

D. Persecution is Guaranteed

There are countless passages we could look at here but II Timothy 3:12 is pretty straightforward, “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”

Luke 14:27 where Jesus says, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple” is also a helpful passage in this regard.  “Bearing ones cross” has been interpreted any number of ways over the years but I want us to hear these words as those listening to Jesus would have understood them.  Rome came to power in Judea in 63BC and it is estimated that they crucified 30,000 during their rule.  Furthermore, Judas of Galilee, who helped found the Zealots, led a revolt against Rome, which resulted in nearly 2,000 men being crucified along the roads of Galilee,[13] an event that many of Christ’s hearers would have vividly remembered.  Jesus is warning the great crowds that had gathered that following Him could result in death.

E. Persecution as Incarnational Ministry

“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.  We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.  For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.  So death is at work in us, but life in you” (II Corinthians 4:7-12).

From this text, we see that through suffering the life of Jesus is manifested in the body, the flesh, of the one who suffers.  What specifically is occurring in this text?  Looking at two other texts will clarify what is occurring here.

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Colossians 1:24).

What is still lacking? Wasn’t Christ’s work on the cross complete?  Paul’s words here almost sound like heresy!  The only other place where the Greek phrase “fill up what is lacking” appears is in Philippians 2:30, “for he [Epaphroditus] nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.”

Paul is writing to the church in Philippi, who had sent Epaphroditus to care for him.  Here he informs the church in Philippi that Epaphroditus had completed what was lacking in their service.

So what was lacking?  How was the church in Philippi’s service to Paul incomplete prior to their sending of Epaphroditus?

“The gift to Paul was the gift of the church as a body.  It was a sacrificial offering of love.  What was lacking . . . was the church’s presentation of this offering in person.”[14]

Understanding Philippians 2:30 allows us to understand what Paul means in Colossians 1:24.  “What is lacking is that the infinite value of Christ’s afflictions are not known in the world.  They are still a mystery (hidden) to most peoples.  And God’s intention is that the mystery be revealed”[15] and they are revealed through our suffering.  “Christ intends for the great commission to be a presentation to the nations of the sufferings of his cross, in the sufferings of his people.  That’s the way the commission will be finished folks!”[16]  Simply stated, suffering is one of the means by which we incarnate the gospel into culture.

F. Persecution as the Means by Which God is Advancing His Kingdom

In Matthew 11 John the Baptist, who is imprisoned, sends messengers to Jesus asking, “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another” (11:3)?

“Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.  6And blessed is the one who is not offended by me” (11:4b-6).

Yes, Jesus is the one He is fulfilling the promise of Isaiah 61 but in His reply He makes no mention of proclaiming liberty to the captives.  Because captive John the Baptist would not be set free John was going to die.  And Jesus then addresses the crowds concerning John and in verse 12 explains, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”  Commenting on this verse Erwin Raphael McManus exclaims, “God’s Kingdom is a Kingdom of war. Not where we kill but where we are willing to let others kill us. Not where we hate but we are willing to embrace the hate of others. Not where we are violent but where we take the violence of the world upon ourselves and allow the love of God to prevail. I wonder how many of us actually believe God can prevail if we love the worst of sinners; if we extend our lives into the most dangerous situation in the world?”

[1]David Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World (Bangalore, India: WIGTake Resources, 2004), 176-177.
[2]John Piper, “The Weapon Serves the Wielding Power,” Desiring God [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/3/1841_The_Weapon_Serves_the_Wielding_Power/; Internet.
[3]John Piper, Let The Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God In Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 45.
[4]David Roach, “Mohler: Slain missionaries spotlight need for worldwide Gospel proclamation,” SBTS [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://news.sbts.edu/2004/04/01/mohler-slain-missionaries-spotlight-need-for-worldwide-gospel-proclamation/; Internet.
[5]Ibid.
[6]Ibid.
[7]Charles L. Tieszen, “Mission in Contexts of Violence: Forging Theologies of Persecution and Martyrdom,” in Missions in Contexts of Violence, Evangelical Missiological Society Series, no. 15 (Pasedena, CA: William Carey Library, 2008), 86n6.
[8]Charles L. Tieszen, “Mission in Contexts of Violence: Forging Theologies of Persecution and Martyrdom,” in Missions in Contexts of Violence, Evangelical Missiological Society Series, no. 15 (Pasedena, CA: William Carey Library, 2008), 80.
[9]Ibid., 80.
[10]David Kenner, “Egypt’s Christians are under fire,” Foreign Policy [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/08/egypts_christians_are_under_fire; Internet.
[11]“Bodies pile up after Nigeria riot,” BBC [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4743672.stm; Internet.  See also “Riots in Nigeria leave many dead,” BBC [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4738726.stm; Internet.
[12]Sunday Oguntola, “Church Leaders Debate Self-Defense,” Christianity Today [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/self-defense-debate.html; Internet.
[13]John MacArthur, Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 135.
[14]Marvin R. Vincent, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979), 78.
[15]John Piper, “Called to Suffer and Rejoice: To Finish the Aim of Christ’s Afflictions,” Desiring God [on-line]; accessed 7 May 2013; http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/2/806_Called_to_Suffer_and_Rejoice_To_Finish_the_Aim_of_Christs_Afflictions/; Internet.
[16]John Piper. Doing Missions When Dying Is Gain, October 27, 1996. [Sermon]