A Christian Doctine of Creation

“That God is the Creator of the world is accepted even by the those very persons who in many ways speak against Him, and yet acknowledge Him, styling Him the Creator...all men, in fact consenting to this truth.” – Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2.9.1

In the first chapter of his book The Triune Creator, Colin Gunton argues that Christian theologians have often claimed that belief in creation is universal in the human race. Cultures throughout have history have given account of why there is something instead of nothing, why there is a meaningful universe.

There is a common idea of creation. However, Gunton argues that the Christian account of Creation is distinctive. Unlike other explanations, such as Plato’s Timaeus, which describe the creation of something out of ore-existent reality, what we find in the pages of scripture is different.

“Far from being one ancient myth among many, this was unique in saying things no other ancient text was able to say.”

Partly this is an awareness within Christianity not only of the universality of creation accounts amongst humans, but also a universal inability to know God through his creation:

“...pagan thought totally fails to understand the true nature of things. Its chief mistake is in confusing the creature with the creator, but there is also a general human to recognise God for what he truly is”.

As Calvin would put, we are idol factories. Humans exchange the truth about God for a lie; we cannot truly comprehend ourselves and the world around us.

For Gunton, the Christian account says things that have not elsewhere been said because the doctrine of creation is ‘bound up with beliefs about Christ and redemption’. Firstly, for Christians the doctrine is creedal, and hence ‘part of the fabric of Christian response to revelation. This doctrine is not self-evident or attainable through cold reason, but only is revealed by ‘God the Father, maker of Heaven and Earth.’ Secondly, although is not unambiguous within the scriptures, the unique contribution of the Christian doctrine is that God creates out of nothing (cf here). He is not one of the primordial gods of other creation myths who makes out eternal matter, and is then worn out by the process.

“In general, Greek though held that matter was both eternal and inferior to mind or spirit. The intellectual breakthrough of second-century Christian theology came from contending against both these doctrines, in teaching that matter both had a beginning and, for that reason was not inferior but intended by a good creator.”

Thirdly, creation is the work of the whole Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

After these three concepts, Gunton then offers seven distinctive features of the Christian doctrine of creation that set it apart from other creation accounts:

1. Creation was out of nothing. God relied on nothing outside of himself to create the world, which makes the world an act of personal willing that there be something other. Creation is an act of divine sovereignty and freedom. It also means the cosmos is neither eternal (as it has a beginning), nor infinite.

2. Therefore, creation was not arbitrary. It derives from the love of God, not simply its will. And it was designed with a purpose. Which is where the Trinitarian shape of the Christian account is important; creation is contingent. Preexisting creation in a communion of persons existing in loving relationships, we are able to say God wills the existence of something else simply for its own sake, and is given a value as a realm of being in its own right. The created order is itself ‘very good.’

3. Creation remains in close relation to God, and yet is free to be itself. The created order is not overwhelmed by God; it is not god itself. Here we are able to understand how God works in and towards the world, through what Irenaeus called the two hands of God: Christ and the Spirit. Creation is structured to and through Christ, the very one who became incarnate and remains in loving relation with it. And for Basil of Caesarea, it is the Holy Spirit who enables the created order to be truly itself; he is the perfecting cause of creation.

4. As God work in and towards creation through Christ and the Spirit, our understanding of the divine work of creation is not limited to its beginning and end. God continues to uphold and care for his creation – he is not the god of deism who leaves the work of creation half finished. And God also provides for the needs of the creation, and enables it to achieve the end that was purposed for it from the beginning.

5. Because all that God creates is good, that means that evil must be something ‘extraneous to or parasitic upon creation as a whole.’ If the world was created good and with a telos in view, then evil is what thwarts the divine purpose for it. Central to this problem is human sin, which is some way involves the whole created order in evil.

"Its existence [evil] means that creation's purpose can be achieved only by its redirection from within by the creator himself...Given the all-polluting power of evil and its centre in human sin, redemption can be achieved only by the one through whom the world was created becoming incarnate, dying and rising as the way through which the creation can be redeemed (brought back) from its bondage to destruction."

Within the Christian tradition there have been a range of views of the relation between creation, the fall and redemption.

a) Restoration: For Origen and Augustine, the creation was so completely finished in the beginning, that the fall is a move away from perfection, and redemption can then only mean a return to that perfection.

b) Evolution: A more recent view shaped by Hegel and Darwin would see the fall either as minor impediment or an essential step on the way to perfection. The fall then becomes the means by which creation reaches its perfection. But this view tends to minimise the problem of evil, and the achievements of Jesus’ death.

c) Transformation: Gunton’s preferred view is that creation was made to go somewhere, but that goal can only be reached through a radical redirection, because sin and evil have reshaped its direction. This is the movement towards an end greater than the beginning, and redemption is the defeat of evil and the restoration of the created orders original direction.

6. No theology of creation is complete without giving an account of humanity. Humans are created in God’s image, and for Gunton this is humans existing in relation to God, other humans and the rest of the created order. The relating to the created order is described as dominion:

“...a calling to be and to act in such a way as to enable the created order to be itself as a response of praise to its maker. However, the distinctive place of human creation cannot be understood apart from Christology. Genesis makes the human race both the crown of, and uniquely responsible for, the shape that creation takes. By speaking of Jesus Christ as the true image of God, the New Testament shows that this responsibility is realised only in and through him.”

7. If God’s purpose is for the redemption and perfection of the whole creation, "then all [italics original] human action" will involve the human response to God we call ethics. Ethics encompasses not simply principles of action but a whole way of being in the world, which makes it integral to a Christian doctrine of creation. This will be shaped by both how we view the world, and our eschatology.

Christ was Anguish

Christ was all anguish that I might be all joy,
cast off that I might be brought in,
trodden down as an enemy
that I might be welcomed as a friend,
surrendered to hell’s worst
that I might attain heaven’s best,
stripped that I might be clothed,
wounded that I might be healed,
athirst that I might drink,
tormented that I might be comforted,
made a shame that I might inherit glory,
entered darkness that I might have eternal light.
My Saviour wept that all tears might be wiped from my eyes,
groaned that I might have endless song,
endured all pain that I might have unfading health,
bore a thorny crown that I might have a glory-diadem,
bowed his head that I might uplift mine,
experienced reproach that I might receive welcome,
closed his eyes in death that I might gaze on unclouded brightness,
expired that I might for ever live.
O Father, who spared not thine only Son that thou mightest spare me,
All this transfer thy love designed and accomplished;
Help me to adore thee by lips and life.
O that my every breath might be ecstatic praise,
my every step buoyant with delight, as I see my enemies crushed,
Satan baffled, defeated, destroyed,
sin buried in the ocean of reconciling blood,
hell’s gates closed, heaven’s portal open.
Go forth, O conquering God, and show me the cross, mighty to subdue, comfort and save.

- Puritan Prayer from The Valley of Vision.

Tremble

I've been working on a sermon for church on Jesus crucifixion. On reflection, I can't think of any other event that has been so consistently mediated upon. This one moment in human history has been the subject had been reflected in poetry, in prose and in paintings. I find that quite incredible. I've had the song "Where you there when the crucified my Lord?" rolling around my head this week - I remember singing it at an early morning church service at Easter a few years ago. But when it's in my head, I always imagine Johnny Cash singing it:

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part II

Coming to Terms With Jesus
Intro | Part I

How do you explain the rapid spread of Christianity? Within the world of academia, litres of ink are spent trying to explain, understand and justify this phenomenon. In articulating the enormity of what took place, Tom Wright writes:

“The single most striking thing about early Christianity is the speed of its growth. In A.D. 25 there is no such thing as Christianity; merely a young hermit in the Judean wilderness, and his somewhat younger cousin who dreams dreams and sees visions. By A.D. 125 the Roman emperor has established an official policy in relation to the punishment of Christians…”

Christianity exploded into the Greco-Roman world. What had started in Jerusalem had, within 100 years spread as far as southern France, Ethiopia and possibly even India. This is quite remarkable, given what we said about Jesus in the previous post. Jesus saw himself as the pinnacle of God and Israel’s story, limiting his ministry almost exclusively to Israel. What he offered, and what he embodied, was a new way forward for Israel. So how did we end up with the church? Although the church’s praxis in 125AD bore some continuity with Israel, the church’s shape and life was also looked quite different from Israel.

Various reasons have been suggested to explain this. For instance, was this the work of the Apostle Paul, distilling Jesus’ call to Israel into a more palatable message for non-Jews? Or perhaps the fourth century ‘pagan’ Roman Emperor Julian was right when he argued the church grew because of their love and hospitality:

“These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.”

There’s some truth in this, and we’ll explore Julian’s raison d’être for the growth of the church more in a future post. However, I want to suggest that the answer lies in a major shift in the worldview of the Apostles and the early church. They came from a Jewish background, and held a worldview consistent with first century Judaism. Yet for some reason their worldview had totally changed. I want to suggest that the resurrection of Jesus was a complete shift in the first century Jewish worldview.

That the early Christians believed in the resurrection is unsurprising – it was part of the standard Jewish worldview. However, what stood at the periphery of the Jewish worldview was now front and centre of the Christian hope. The conviction of the early church was that the resurrection had happened, not at the end of history as the Jewish worldview believed, but now in the middle of history. The resurrection of Jesus changed everything. We can trace what this meant for the early church in Paul’s letter to the Roman church (see Romans 1.1-6). The resurrection of Jesus declared that he was the Son of God, the Messiah; the true descendant of David and hence Israel’s true King.

The resurrection showed that Jesus was Israel-in-person, Israel’s representative, the one in whom Israel’s destiny had reached its climax. He was Israel’s King – raised from the dead. And if he was Israel’s King, then the Psalms and the prophets insisted he was also the world’s true Lord:

“Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations.” Romans 1.5-6

This is why Christianity developed new practices and symbols apart from Judaism. The early Christians understood that Israel’s story had come to fruition in Jesus. The old symbols of God’s people would have to find new meaning in him. So the church started meeting on Sunday’s to celebrate his resurrection. They broke bread and drank wine together to commemorate his death and remind each other that they belonged together in him. The prayed and sang to him, because the story of Israel and the world was now focused around Jesus. And they were now on a mission. Jesus had fulfilled Israel’s vocation to be a light to the nations; now the nations must be brought into allegiance to him. It was time for the nations to join in God’s promises Abraham.

“For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God's truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.” Romans 15.8-9

This raised questions about the continuing connection between the church and Israel, and the place of the law and Israel’s symbols in the life of the church. The early Christians only started to answer this question as they came to terms with who Jesus is and what that means for the world. The church grew first and fore mostly because they understood themselves to be on mission. Jesus has been raised, and he is the King, of both Jews and Gentiles.

________
I feel that it’s all too easy for us to underestimate how big an issue this was for the early church. Yet this was the major issue in the first century church, that the gentiles could be “fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus”. We do ourselves a disservice when we screen this issue out of our reading of the New Testament.

My other reflection on this post is that mission and theology need to be more closely held together than is often case today. From what I’ve seen, the two ‘disciplines’ are often at arm’s length of each other. Yet, in one sense, it was because of theological reflection that the early church launched into mission. I wonder what would happen if our missionaries, church planters, evangelists etc. spent more time talking to theologians, and vice versa because the theological reflection in Acts often happened after the Holy Spirit took the initiative to bring gentiles to Christ.

For Further Reading:

• NT Wright: The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003. RSG is a tour de force. Read this if you want to understand more fully how the resurrection of Jesus changed the worldview of the Apostles and the early church. If 800+ pages isn't your cup of tea, try Wright's Surprised by Hope, 2008.
  
• James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 2003 and Beginning from Jerusalem, 2008. I've only just managed to look through these. Massive and magnificent!
• Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 1997. Stark isn't a historian by training, and is a little bit sketchy when he moves away from history. Nevertheless, this is a important book. Helpful to have a sociologist's perspective.
  

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part I

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part I: The Genesis of Church History

Church history matters because the Church matters. It was with such a grandiose statement that I launched the ambitious 20 centuries in 20 posts project. History has always played an important role in the Christian story. From the writers of the Gospel narratives and Acts, through Eusebius and Bede down to today, reflecting on and understanding the past has played an important role in Christianity. And this is because of a distinctly Christian understanding of the past. Church history matters because history itself matters. Central to the Christian worldview is not a timeless, sapiential philosophy; what is central is the conviction that God acts and has made himself known in our space/time universe. And God has ultimately does this in Jesus Christ.

The Christian story begins starts with the in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. This is where most church histories will start their narrative. Yet there is something wrong about this, both historically and theologically. Jesus did not just walk in out of nowhere and start proclaiming the Kingdom of God (Mark 1.1-15); he had a context, and saw himself as part of the long story of God’s dealings with Israel. I think that liberal theologian Marcus Borg is on to something when he says:

“We commonly think of Jesus as the founder of Christianity. But strictly speaking, this is not historically true. Instead, his concern was the renewal of Israel.” - Marcus Borg, Jesus: A New Vision, p. 125

To do church history well, I suggest that we need to integrate Israel into our narrative, as some historians have started to do. When we do this, it helps us as Christians to read the Old Testament and what the New Testament says about God’s covenant. It helps you understand the first 200 years of Christianity – which was largely a Jewish movement for the first two centuries of its existence – and in particular the context and issues the apostles write about in the New Testament. But most importantly, grounding Christian history in Israel’s history helps we make sense of Jesus, and what he was doing. He saw himself as the climax of a story that involved Adam and Eve, Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, David/Solomon and the kings down to Zedekiah, and the aftermath of exile. It’s by understanding God’s history with Israel and by plotting Jesus on the map of his own particular context – Second Temple Judaism – that we can understand how Jesus interpreted his mission. Briefly, this is what his mission looked like:

1. Jesus focused exclusively on Israel: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” Matt 15.24, and “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matt 10.5. Except for three exceptions, Jesus ministered only to Israelites, because his mission was to restore the lost in Israel and renew the nation.


2. Jesus announced the nearness of the kingdom: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the gospel!” Mark 1.15. The Kingdom of God is where God's climatic authority is known and done on earth as in heaven (see Isaiah 40).


3. Jesus performed acts of power: "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" Matt 12.28. Jesus enforced the Kingdom through his miracles. He taught that the Roman occupiers weren't Israel’s real enemy, but the spiritual forces that had enslaved the nation in darkness and sin (see Mark 3.23-28).


4. Jesus called and sent twelve: “You are those who have stayed with me in my trials, and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that we may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" Luke 22.28-30. Jesus gathers twelve Apostles, a parallel of the twelve tribes of Israel. These twelve are connected to Jesus, and through him the renewal of Israel that they longed for would happen.


5. Jesus ate with sinners and outcasts: "And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?' And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.'" (Mark 2.16-17). Jesus welcomed the lost of Israel, those generally despised and referred to as "sinners", whilst exposing the hypocrisy of Israel’s leaders.


6. Jesus announced God's grace (especially for the destitute): “Blessed are we who are poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God." (Luke 6.20).


7. Jesus taught a new way of living as God's people: “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” Luke 6.35-36).
   

Jesus saw himself as the pinnacle of God and Israel’s story. So what he offered, and what he embodied, was a new way forward for Israel; a profound movement of renewal of Israel in the light of the coming climax of God's dealing with his people. We need to understand this to understand Jesus. Without Israel there is no Jesus.


Church history matters only because history matters. At the heart of Christianity is history: that God promised a Middle Eastern shepherd that through him his family and indeed the whole world would be blessed. At the heart of Christianity is an event that is interpreted as fulfilling that promise: that Jesus, the Jewish King, was killed for the sins the people; that he was raised from the dead, and now reigns as the Lord over all, the first-born of the new creation. This is church history; this is the gospel.


For Further Reading:

• Diarmaid MacCulloch, A History of Christianity, 2009. MacCulloch is an eminent church historian, and his epic book/BBC series helpfully locates the church's history in Israel's history.
  
• NT Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 1996. Wright offers rigorous scholarship, reconstructing the worldview of Second Temple Judaism, making sense of Jesus' aims and self-understanding within that world. A great piece of historical scholarship. Simply put, this book changed my life.
  

Jesus Stands Over the Church

“There is at Easter no Christ who simply seals our righteousness and innocence, no guarantor of our status, and so no ideological cross. Jesus is alive, he is there to be encountered again, and so his personal identity remains; which means that his cross is his, not ours, part of the history of a person who obstinately stands over against us and will not be painlessly assimilated into our own memories.” – Rowan Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel, pp. 71-72.

Again, h/t Michael

Saying No To The HUP

No, it's not a new disease or government initiative known only by abbreviation. The Homogenous Unit Principle - or the HUP amongst it's hipster friends - is the missiological idea that "people like to become Christians without crossing racial, linguistic or class barriers" (McGavran and Wagner 1970). And to a certain extent, it works. So as you look around the contemporary church scene, you'll find a church for almost every social and cultural group in Australia. Armed with pragmatic, 'missional' ecclesiology, churches have been started that minister to artisans, entertainers, etc. "Homogenous churches are those in which all the members are from a similar social, ethnic or cultural background. People prefer to associate with people like themselves – ‘I like people like me’. And so we should create homogenous churches to be effective in reaching people" (Tim Chester).

The only problem with the HUP is that's questionable just how biblical actually is. According to Tim Chester:

"The main criticism of the homogenous unit principle is that it denies the reconciling nature of the gospel and the church. It weakens the demands of Christian discipleship and it leaves the church vulnerable to partiality in ethnic or social conflict. It has been said that ‘the homogenous unit principles is fine in practice, but not in theory’!"

A central picture in New Testament of the church is of Jews and Gentiles with one voice glorifying the the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Romans 15). In Christ two peoples become one; Christian Jews and Gentiles become one new people of God, part of the one body of Christ. So then "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (cf. Galatians 3.28-29). Or again in 1 Corinthians "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12.13). And according to Ephesians 3, it is the unity of the church "across barriers that have hitherto divided humankind is the sure sign to the powers that their time is up, that they are not masters of the world and that Jesus is" (NT Wright). The very fact that "Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free" (Colossians 3.11) can praise God together in and of itself declares that Jesus Christ is Lord.

So this year, at Sydney Uni in the eu postgrads & staff faculty, we've said no to the HUP. Campus life is already segmented enough as it: between arts and science, staff and students, academics and support staff. According to Alasdair MacIntyre this results in:

“the graduates of the best research universities tend to become narrowly focused professionals, immensely and even obsessively hard working, disturbingly competitive and intent on success as it is measured within their own specialized professional sphere, often genuinely excellent at what they do; who read little worthwhile that is not relevant to their work..." (MacIntyre 1999).

Instead of organizing our groups by schools and faculties, this year our small groups, prayer groups and reading groups will be organised by broad geographical terms, i.e. Darlington, Fisher, Manning, etc. So in 2011 we're making the English and Physics postgrads sit down and read the Bible - together. We are convinced that they have great things to offer each other, and by talking to each other they'll become more rounded academics. But more importantly, we are convicted that the gospel tears down whatever barriers people place between themselves. We are convicted that what defines as people isn't our academic disciplines (and the expectations these entail) but our identity in Christ. And we are far more united than the academy would have us believe.

We don't do this to ignore the different academic disciplines. The Physics postgrads will still need to support and talk to each other as the live out the Christian life in their school. We're not intending to force people to blandly assimilate. Rather, as we acknowledge the wealth of diversity across eu postgrads and staff, we realise that their is more that unites us than divides us. "...[F]or the same Lords is Lord of all" (Romans 10.12).

The ‘Desacralisation’ Of Politics

"But secular authorities are no longer in the fullest sense mediators of the rule of God. They mediate his judgments only. The power that they exercise in defeating their enemies, the national possessions they safeguard, these are now rendered irrelevant by Christ’s triumph. This is what might properly be meant by that misleading expression, the ‘desacralisation’ of politics by the Gospel. No government has a right to exist, no nation has a right to defend itself. Such claims are overwhelmed by the immediate claim of the Kingdom. There remains simply the rump of political authority which cannot be dispensed with yet, the exercise of judgment." - Oliver O'Donovan

Through Christ's life, death, resurrection and ascension he has been given all power and authority in heaven and earth. And if he has all power and authority, than our governments have been stripped of their power; they have been reduced to providing justice (Romans 13). To do anything else would be a dangerously idolatrous encroachment on Christ's rule.

To Live a Christ-formed life...

...is to flourish as a human being, argues Miroslav Volf.

Why Karl Barth?

So my box set of Church Dogmatics arrived this week - appropriately on my birthday.

There is a lot to admire about Karl Barth and his massive, unfinished project. I recently had the joyful experience of explaining who Barth was to someone in Manning Bar who had never heard of him. He was a theologian who called his readers to focus on Jesus. His opposition to liberalism, Nazism, and Cold War's partianship was because of what Barth knew God had done in and through Jesus Christ. When asked by a reporter how he would summarise his work after all his years of study, Barth replied "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."

Maybe I should have shown them this video:

The impact of Barth's scholarship during and after his life time has been far reaching. Yet far more influential than the volumes of his writing was his commitment to the gospel. After Barth died in 1968, the translators of Church Dogmatics into English - TF Torrance and GW Bromiley - made reference to this in their preface to CD IV.4:

"When the proofs of this book were still in our hands, new came in that Karl Barth was dead. God took him to his rest in the early hours of December 10, 1968, the great Church Father of Evangelical Christendom, the one genuine Doctor of the universal Church the modern era has known. It is in the Church Dogmatics above all that we must look for the grandeur of this humble servant of Jesus Christ, for the work he was given to accomplish in it will endure to bless the word for many centuries to come. Only Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin have performed comparable service in the past, in the search for a unified and comprehensive basis for all theology in the grace of God.

The Church Dogmatics represents an immense struggle for the understanding of the eternal Word of God and its rational articulation in the modern world in which the thought-forms of man are obediently and pliantly yielded to the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ according to the Holy Scriptures."

If this has whet your appetite, you might like to check out the highlight package of Church Dogmatics at Faith and Theology: Church Dogmatics in a Week. And remember to love God and keep your pipe lit.

NT Historicity Readings

Here are the books I'm recommending in my AnCon seminar (Ancon, if you're interested, currently has over 630 registrations). Are there books any that you would add, or subtract?

Short and easy to give away
Andrew Errington, Can We Trust What the Gospels say about Jesus? Matthias Media, Sydney, 2009. Andrew has a MA in early Christian and Jewish Studies and is a former EU president.

Murray Smith, Jesus: All About Life, The Bible Society, Sydney, 2009. Murray is currently completing a PhD on Jesus and Early Christianity. He’s also a former EU president. Reviewed here and here.


If you want to know more
Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament History?, revised edition, Aquila Press, Sydney, 2003.

John Dickson, The Christ Files: How historians know what they know about Jesus, Blue Bottle Books, Sydney, 2006.

John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life, Lion Books, Oxford, 2008.

John Dickson, A Spectator’s Guide to Jesus, Blue Bottle Books, Sydney, 2005.

John Dickson, Life of Jesus course guidebook, Centre for Public Christianity, Sydney, 2009.

Audio
John Dickson, Jesus: Reconsider? SUEU re:Jesus festival 2008, www.sueu.org.au/resources/eu_media/, accessed 17 June 2010.

Chris Forbers, Does the Historical Jesus Have a Leg to Stand On? SUEU Think Weeks 2006, www.sueu.org.au/resources/eu_media/, accessed 17 June 2010.

More serious books
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 2008.

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, second edition, IVP, Leicester, 2008.

Doubting Jesus

"[G]iven that there are no contemporary references to Jesus while he was supposedly alive, we may even doubt his existence. There is not one mention of him in the many missives that passed from Palestine to Rome." Chris Gaffney (the Secretary of the Victorian Labor College), The Australian Rationalist (Spring, 2005).

As John Dickson has pointed out, if Gaffney has discovered some missives that passed between Palestine and Rome, there are plenty of historian who would love to see them. Because there has been none found so far.

"Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion.

Frustratingly, Dawkins doesn't reference any reputable biblical scholars. He does rely on G.A. Wells, who is probably the most famed academic to deny the existence of Jesus. And yet Wells had no background in history, let alone the history of Jesus. He is a professor in German!

Bauckham - The Canonicity of the Four Gospels

I just read a cracker of an article by Richard Bauckham on "The Canonicity of the Four Gospels" (and the lack there-of for the 'gnostic gospels). Here is part of what Bauckham has to say:

"What we have in the four Gospels, in my view, is good access to the apostolic testimony about Jesus. I stress the term testimony. The eyewitnesses from whom these Gospels derive were not disinterested observers. They were involved participants in the events they later recalled and narrated. They were committed believers in the Jesus whose story they told. They and the Gospel writers were thoughtful interpreters of the significance of that story for human salvation. As we have noticed, all too briefly, they interpreted that significance very differently from the way the Gnostic Gospels do. But let me make two important points about this form of history – what I’m calling apostolic testimony. First, as we have seen, history matters to this testimony, as it does not for the Gnostic Gospels. It matters for the apostolic testimony that Jesus was a real participant in real history, and therefore it matters that the accounts are well based on the way the eyewitnesses told the story. The history is interpreted, of course, but it is history that it is interpreted. Secondly, the testimony of the eyewitnesses was in fact the kind of testimony that was valued by ancient historians – that of involved participants, people who could convey something of the reality of the events from the inside. It’s the kind of testimony we need if we are to grasp anything of the meaning of events as exceptional as those of which the four Gospels tell. We cannot and don’t have to polarize fact and meaning. The four Gospels give us at the same time both the most reliable access we have to what happened in the history of Jesus and also the meaning that those who were closest to Jesus and the events perceived in them when they found them to be life-changing revelation of God.

This inseparable combination of fact and meaning, history and interpretation that we have in the four Gospels qualifies them for the authority that these Gospels came to have for the mainstream church of the second and later centuries. Appropriately they came to be regarded as both the best access we have to the history of Jesus and the normative understanding of the significance of that history for Christian faith."

I love the way Bauckham concludes this paper:

"I guess the question comes down to: is there a real Jesus, a Jesus who lived in first-century Palestine as well as being alive and accessible to believers today, and does it matter what sort of God this Jesus revealed? If the answers are yes, then I think we have to face the same unavoidable decision that the early church had to make between the Jesus of the four Gospels and his God, and the very different Jesus of the Gnostic Gospels and his god." - The Canonicity of the Four Gospels

Now to use this for my AnCon seminar.

Christ is risen from the dead: A Paschal Hymn

Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered; let those who hate Him flee from before His face.

Christ is risen from the dead,

Trampling down death by death,

And upon those in the tombs

Bestowing life!

As smoke vanishes, so let them vanish; as wax melts before the fire.

Christ is risen from the dead,

Trampling down death by death,

And upon those in the tombs

Bestowing life!

So the sinners will perish before the face of God; but let the righteous be glad.

Christ is risen from the dead,

Trampling down death by death,

And upon those in the tombs

Bestowing life!

This is the day which the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Christ is risen from the dead,

Trampling down death by death,

And upon those in the tombs

Bestowing life!

- From the Byzantine Rite.

Let Light Shine out of Darkness

⁶

"For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

If there is one thing that stood out to me as during student during my time at Sydney Uni, it is the EU's commitment to the t-shirt truth that "Jesus Christ is Lord." This is the gospel we proclaim and live out on campus.

Photo: The light tower of the new law building library.

Pomo III

Pomo usefulness 'a' - Modernism

Can anything useful come from postmodernism? This highly skeptical, highly relative ideology - doesn't it seek to destroy the very fabric of our society? These are charges that you may have heard about postmodernism. The fear behind them lies in the power of the necessary critique postmodernism has given to modernity. In preparation for this post, I've found it hard to find a concrete definition of what modernism actually is. The simplest definition that I can come up with is this: the narrative of progress.

Modernism told a great story of progress, enlightenment, and development, and insisted that this story — in which, of course, the Western world of the eighteenth century and subsequently was the hero — be imposed on the rest of the world, in a secular version of the Christian missionary enterprise that was burgeoning at exactly that time. It is the belief that a scientific approach and the authority of reason can solve all problems. In fact, modernism argues that the major problem in the world isn't evil or sin, but ignorance (a malaise solved be education). The world will keep getting better and better, as long as we continue our pursuit of economic wealth and the secularization of society.

The West's idolization of modern secular democracy saw the centralization of society under the nation states. In a country like France which had a rich heritage of several regional cultures this had severe repercussions including the death of such cultural diversity. And many far flung lands where brought to heel under Western commercial and imperial ambitions - all in the name of progress, of course. Modernity implied a narrative about the way the world was. It was essentially an eschatological story. World history had been steadily moving toward, or at least eagerly awaiting, the point at which the industrial revolution and the philosophical enlightenment would burst upon the world bringing a new era of blessing for all. This narrative did bring benefits and improvements. But it has been conclusively shown to be an oppressive, imperialist, and self-serving construct. It has brought untold misery to millions in the industrialized West, and to billions in the rest of the world, where cheap labor and raw materials have been ruthlessly exploited. It is a story that serves the interest of Western industrial capitalism.

This story has also played havoc with the church. Under the guises of liberalism and Marxism (Marxism is the story of progress from aristocrats to the bourgeois and ultimately the dictatorship of the proletariat), Christianity was excluded from the public space. Irrational, irrelevant and out of date. Instead of these superstitions, we should be rationally lead by reason and logic. Science - the great herald of progress - became the greatest virtue of all. God was banished from the public discourse - the humans were no in charge and through their intellect nothing was impossible. The result being modernism has simply removed Christians who stood in stood in it's way, either by killing them or by attacking they're credibility and treating them like a cult.

In this instance, the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Postmodernism declares that all such large stories — “metanarratives” — are destructive and enslaving, and must be deconstructed. The pomo attack the gospel denying modernism is useful for us. Postmodernism is a necessary critique of modernity. But the current problem is that though the postmodern turn in philosophy and culture has sneered at the great modernist imperial dream, it hasn’t been able to shake it. We live in a time where modernity and postmodernity refer not so much to a datable chronological period but more to two different moods and controlling narratives. Our world is both modern and postmodern. And I don't see this changing for sometime. We can not go back to being just modern. And could postmodernism survive without the thing is it critiquing? The two ideas have become utterly dependent on each other.

It is into this 'vacuum' that Christianity must step in and be a light to the world. Like Paul, we must be ready to give a good account of our faith. The story he tells certainly is a grand overarching narrative, beginning with Israel and reaching out to embrace the world, but it is a story that leaves no human being, organization, or ethnic group in a position of power over others. It is the Jewish story, but it is not the typical Jew who says, “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” This is the story precisely of how those who were kept as second-class citizens are now welcomed in on equal terms. This is a metanarrative like no other.

Williams on the Ascension

Following on from yesterday's post, here is a quote from Rowan Williams on the ascension:

"This is the transition that Ascension Day marks … it’s the moment when Jesus ‘goes away’, stops being an object we concentrate on in itself, and yet becomes more deeply and permanently present: ‘I am with you always, to the end of time.’ He is with us as the light we see by; we see the world in a new way because we see it through him, see it with his eyes." - Rowan Williams, Open to Judgement, p 82.

h/t Chris Swann who has some excellent comments related to this quote.

Calvin on the Ascension

Today is Ascension Day, the church's celebration of Jesus' real absence from us because he is ruling all creation from his Father's right hand. It's also a public holiday in Vanuatu, Indonesia (!) , and the highly secularised European nations of: France, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands. Anyway, here is some gold from Calvin:

"Christ in whom the Father wills to be exalted and through whose hand he wills to reign, was received at God’s right hand. This is as if it were said that Christ was invested with Lordship over heaven and earth, and solemnly entered into possession of the government entrusted to him -and that he not only entered into possession once and for all, but continues in it, until he shall come down on judgment day… both heavenly and earthly creatures may look with admiration upon his majesty, be ruled by his hand, obey his nod, and submit to his power." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II Ch XVI 15

Andrew Errington: Can we trust what the Gospels say about Jesus?

My friend Andrew Errington has been published by Matthias Media! His booklet, Can we trust what the Gospels say about Jesus? "[I]s designed to be a brief and readable introduction to the questions that bear on the historical reliability of the Gospels. There are good books on this question out there already; but in my experience, not many people bother to read whole books on this topic — and giving a friend a book can be a bit daunting." - Andrew Errington.

Andrew has used the material for a number of years know with teenagers on camps that he leads on. Although there are lots of books out there on this subject, this one is short (which in this case is a good thing) I expect to be a quite engaging to resource for discovering Jesus (an earlier version was once available on Andrew's resource page).

Matthias Media even have an online sample that you can check out.

Resurrecting the Gospel

A few years ago when I was at uni, the EU was using Easter as an opportunity to witness to the university. We gave out hot cross buns, books about Jesus, and had lots of good conversations. But the center-piece of this event was a large banner, which in giant letters stated ‘We believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’ The banner also bore the names of hundreds of students and lecturers who agreed with the statement and wanted to proclaim it to a doubting and skeptical university. We were declaring the Christian gospel –Jesus Christ is Lord and God has raised him from the dead (Romans 10.9). As the Evangelical Union, the gospel union, we were committed to declaring the same gospel that the Apostles had declared thousands of years earlier. It is from their eyewitness accounts that we believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The very shape of Christianity is determined by the events that first Easter – a fact that the Apostles were acutely aware of. For the Apostles, the resurrection was the core foundation of their gospel: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15.3-4). In his resurrection, Jesus is designated as the Son of God, the King of Israel and true heir of David (Romans 1.3-4, also 2 Timothy 2.8), and is marked out as the one who will judge the world: “…Now God commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17.30-31, also 10.39-43). As the one who is to judge, the apostles believed that Jesus was not just the King of Israel, but the Lord of all creation and to him belongs obedience from all nations (Romans 1.5, 15.12).

As the King that Israel had long waited for, the apostles knew that Jesus’ resurrection was significant for understanding the purposes of God. When Paul states that the gospel was “promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures”, he doesn’t have a couple of proof-texts in the back of his mind. The gospel – the death and resurrection of Jesus – is the climax of God’s covenant with Israel. In raising Jesus from the dead, God has shown himself faithful to his promises to Abraham and David, and has ultimately triumphed over sin and death – the evil powers that have held the world captive since Genesis 3. Jesus is the Christ promised by God to Israel in scripture. His death and resurrection reveal God’s plan for Israel and the world.

For the Apostles, this meant two things. Firstly, forgiveness of sins was now possible for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus (Acts 13.37-38, 5.31). All people every where must now repent and follow the true king. Secondly, the resurrection of the dead, which Israel didn’t expect until the last judgment, had already happened to Jesus. The newly risen Lord now reigns over creation and guarantees us a resurrection like his when he returns (1 Corinthians 15:20ff). This was the gospel the apostles proclaimed – Jesus is Lord and he offers forgiveness for all and a living hope of a future resurrection.

Our challenge today is to continue announcing the resurrection of Jesus and allowing it to shape our lives. Despite living amongst many competing world views including post modernity and materialism, the resurrection of Jesus, God’s King, shows these up as idolatry by announcing the reality of Jesus’ Lordship. Like the apostles, evangelicals today must keep the resurrection central in our understanding and proclamation of the gospel.