Body of Liturgy

For sometime now there has been a Hauerwas' quote floating around the internet about the value of liturgy. It goes like this: 

"One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend." — Stanley Hauerwas, The Truth About God: The Ten Commandments in Christian Life, p.89.

I first came across this quote seven years ago, and at the thought it was overstatement and hyperbole. But recently, thanks to James K.A. Smith and the Journal of Biblical Counseling, I think I now understand how it could be true. What we do with our bodies matters. As embodied beings, our habits and practices are training our hearts and our minds in particular ways.Smith defines liturgy as the habit-forming practices that shape and mould our love and desires:

“Liturgies—whether ‘sacred’ or ‘secular’—shape and constitute our identities by forming our most fundamental desires and our most basic attunement to the world.” James K.A. Smith, Desiring the Kingdom, 25.

This is a broader definition of what liturgy is, which usually describes what happens in corporate worship. These include the customary patterns of church, but also include the habits of daily life, including sitting in front of the television for three hours each evening, or visiting the shopping mall. Smith defines liturgies as the habitual practices which have power to shape what one ultimately loves. Inasmuch as liturgies are the embodiment of our desires, they are pedagogical stories told by – and told upon – our bodies, thereby embedding themselves in our imagination, becoming part of the background that determines how we perceive the world. Our habits train our desires, and nurture our love towards something. For example, one does not wake up and suddenly decide to ignore one’s family; it is an attitude that has been formed by years of tardiness and missing family meals.

Habitual actions matter in our sanctifcation, whether  seemingly  mundane  (brushing  your  teeth),  or  seemingly  unproblematic (going to the mall), or presumably serious (participating in worship). “Our heart’s desires are shaped and molded by the habit-forming practices in which we participate daily and weekly."

Balance

Douglas Moo defines the New Perspective on Paul

One of the difficulties with grappling with the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is coming to terms with the variegated nature of the movement. Despite the build-up of the NPP as one large, monolithic bloc affecting Biblical studies, doctrine, and early church history, the reality is far more complex. Although the leading lights of the NPP share a same interest in research and methodology, their origins and conclusions are quite diverse. This must lead to a chastened humility when outlining the NPP on general terms.

Nevertheless, Douglas Moo’s essay in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul offers a profitable introduction to both perspectives: the claims of the NPP and misgivings of the Old Perspective on Paul (OPP). In ‘Israel and the Law in Romans 5-11’, Moo observes that what NPP has attempted is in effect “a rotation of Paul's central theological axis”. That has lead to a flip from a vertical to a horizontal orientation. What does this look like? According to Moo it means an ethnocentric rather than anthropocentric reading, privileging the background over the foreground and the corporate rather than the individual. For Moo this is witnessed in an emphasis of ecclesiology over soteriology or union with Christ over imputation, or a macro reading over the micro. At the risk of caricature, this last point is seen in some NPP’s love of describing the big picture, but failure to engage in close exegesis.

 I find Moo’s description helpful because I don’t want to place the weight at the one end of these dichotomies. I don’t want to emphasize the horizontal over the vertical, or focus on the background and neglect the foreground. If Moo is right, this is a helpful corrective of the NPP.

However, I think Moo’s definition also shows-up some of the problems with what I’ve generally  described as the OPP. By placing things in such a dichotomised way merely moves the problem towards the other end of seesaw. What arose from the OPP in 19th and 20th century liberal Protestantism is people who could provide a theologically apt account of salvation, but then turn around and deny the historicity of Jesus. Surely this is a problem? Surely it’s a problem when Christianity is reduced to a timeless philosophy or morality? But this is what has tended to happen when people have bought into an ‘either or’ dichotomy. Instead of neglecting either the horizontal or the vertical, don’t we want both? Don’t we want both soteriology and ecclesiology (which Calvin’s doctrine of ‘union with Christ’ provides by the way)? Can’t we have both the foreground and the background? Without the background we lose the historical, social, religious and theological context/worldview that the foreground arose in. And without the foreground, the background loses relevancy. Why can’t we have both? Instead of arguing for the anthropocentric over the ethnocentric, does not a reading of Paul push theocentricism center of stage? Likewise the individual verses the corporate; aren’t the two brought together in Christ? He loved me and gave himself for me at the same time that he ransomed for God a kingdom from every nation and tribe and language.

Moo’s definition is very useful in grappling at general terms with the shortcomings of the NPP. But by resorting to such dichotomies, I’m not sure that he leaves us in a better position. Indeed the NPP arose out of the OPP’s reduction of Paul and the gospel to individualism and tendency away from ecclesiology and context. Instead what is needed is balance. Balance because the announcement that Jesus Christ is Lord results in both vertical and horizontal – you might say cosmic – reconciliation. Balance because the gospel was announced in a particular context means it is even more meaningful when it is announced today.  Balance because the news that you are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8) fundamentally alters who you relate to your siblings (Ephesians 4:32). Balance, because Christ came to preach to those who far off as well as those who were near, reconciling them both in his body under the on Father.

How to Guard the Gospel

The gospel of the crucified, risen and ascended Messiah - Jesus - is a precious gift from God. As Paul explains to Timothy, it is a deposit that it to be unashamedly guarded:

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. - 2 Timothy 1:13-14.

The truth entrusted is to be guarded against erroneous and strange doctrines. According to Paul's instruction to Timothy, the gospel is something that is to be suffered for (1:8, 12). It is something that is to be proclaimed, and therefore taught and preached without embarrassment (1.11). And finally it is something to be guarded from unsound teaching. It is to be held fast too, without variation or departure.     

But there is a particular shape to guarding the gospel. That is, Paul not only gives Timothy instructions on what to do - guard the gospel, but how to do it. Verse 13 says "in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." Timothy's theological convictions and catechism of others is, even in the context of the hostility outlined in verses 15-18, to be done in faith and love.

Amongst evangelicals, one of the most frequent rallying cries is: "Guard the gospel!" We talk about the ease of losing the gospel, of generational change and slippery slopes. So we want to guard the good deposit, fight the good fight, and entrust the gospel. But I am not sure if I have ever heard the connection explicitly drawn between guarding the gospel, and doing so "in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus". Without this link, defending the gospel quickly descends into a climate of bullying, group-think and uniformity.

I stand within a tradition that has gallantly guarded the gospel: within the cloisters of the university, within our para-church organizations, within denominations, and within parishes and churches. It is a heritage that has done much to preserve the faith once for all delivered to the saints from erroneous and strange doctrine.

Yet my observation is that other motivations besides guarding the gospel creep into people's behaviour - especially when the guarding is divorced from the faith and love of Jesus.

In seeking to guard the gospel, we forget to guard our own hearts. We are  motivated by a fear of change and difference; or an immaturity to rest confidently in what Paul says in verse 12 God is able to do. As I've observed this, I've noticed that guarding the gospel without faith and love isbeen characterised by:

• A lack of theological depth in being able to handle both the unity and diversity of the body of Christ. This is particularly evidenced in people only reading books that they will agree with.
• A lack of epistemic humility is the consequence; an inability to understand difference and relate generously to those who are different to you as your brothers and sisters in Christ.
• This is followed by tribalism, as we draw ever smaller and smaller circles around who is 'in' and 'one of us', and who is 'out' and suspicious.

This runs something like 'we need to guard the gospel, otherwise the church/institution will slide into error. And we cannot be gracious in the way that we deal with this, because being gracious and generous is part of the problem.' Except that to some extent, if you guard the gospel without being gracious, you have in effect lost the gospel (see for example, 1 Corinthians 13). Because it matters how you guard the gospel. The combination of these characteristics seems to allow for Christians to act like jerks in their ministry. That is, they are pastors who hurt people by justifying ungodly practices.

Graciously guarding the gospel fits with the New Testament trajectory of not arrogance, but humility and gentleness, patience and kindness, love, joy, peace and self-control. Graciousness is not the slippery slope that will lead to, say liberalism (cf. The Dying of the Light by James T Burtchaell). Graciousness is the fulfillment of guarding the gospel in the faith and love in Christ. This is not laying down the gospel and leaving it open for attack. Instead, this is resting humbly but confidently in the gospel. This confidence in the gospel allows you, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to get on with the business of guarding the gospel. Carson describes it in this way:

"You do not finally guard the gospel by raising the mote, circling the wagons, going into defensive mode alone, so as not to be contaminated by the interaction with the world. You preserve the gospel by gospelizing. That’s why any form of apologetics that becomes primarily defensive is finally spelling its own demise." - Don Carson

The way to get on with guarding the gospel in faith and love is not through closed sets, but through proclamation and training. Through passing on the good deposit, growing people in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and confidently proclaiming it. As Carson puts it, you guard the gospel by giving it away, by training people in it. This means neither denying or hiding the gospel, or making everything the gospel, but confidently holding to the core. Graciously guarding the gospel likes this does not create a culture of fear that exists around the slippery slope to liberalism. Graciously guarding the gospel likes this is confident that Christ will build his church. Hence graciously guarding the gospel like this allows you to (with thanks to Byron Smith):

• Recognize differences between Christians without declaring everyone who disagrees with you to be an enemy of the gospel.
• Avoids an anti-intellectualism that assumes that others - even those I disagree with - have nothing to teach me.
• This leads to a hermeneutic of trust. That is, generosity to all others who call on the name of the Lord - our first move is towards them, rather than suspicion or distancing yourself from them.
• Avoids tribalism; guru-ising those we agree with and demonizing those with don't.
• Prevents an arrogance that assumes that 'God is lucky to have us'.

Graciously guarding the gospel is the refusal to use power in a way that subverts the gospel. It's the refusal to resort to ungodly patterns of relationships, but seeks to be above reproach as the word of Christ is taught and dwelt richly in.  Now that is guarding the gospel in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Guest Post: Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices

Originally posted by Alison here.

I bought Matt a CD for Christmas last year. It was a bit of a gamble. I had never listened to it before, I was banking on the fact that we own a previous album from the band and we both love it. The gamble paid off. Late summer and autumn has been spent settling into the music, then soaking it up and basking in its greatness as we listened to it over and over again. I think it's going to be one of my favourite albums ever. Welcome to this review of The Welcome Wagon's Precious Remedies Against Satan's Devices For those who haven't yet come across The Welcome Wagon, the outfit is made up of a husband and wife, Monique and the Rev Vito Aiuto, accompanied by a killer band and choir and produced by Asthmatic Kitty Records. Vito's full time job is as a Presbyterian pastor, Monique is an artist. Neither are musically trained but somehow they have pulled off an amazing second album which, by my reckoning, is even better than their first. The beauty of the album comes not from new lyrics - Most of the songs are 'covers', adapted music and lyrics from The Cure, David Crowder, King David, Charles Wesley... No, the beauty of the album lies in its friendly musical style. The sounds and content evoke an image of brothers and sisters coming together in simple worship, which I gather was the Welcome Wagon's main aim. At the album's release Vito explained that Precious Remedies has a liturgical structure, plainly seen as the album ebbs and flows between confessions of sin, declarations of forgiveness, bold announcements of what Jesus has done, moments for Christ's people to share in love and support and even a sending out at the end. 

The Welcome Wagon themselves are the epitome of Christian hipster with their aesthetic, their embracing of old traditions, their glockenspiel, their celebration of community. The fact that they are Presbyterians. In New York. Guys. Did you see the Breakfast-At-Tiffany's animal mask in that video!? But then, even coated in five hundred hipster cliches, this album is amazing. I don't care whether they were hipsters before or after it was cool. I hope they don't either. They sound fantastic and they turn our attention to Jesus, which is definitely the best part of their music. This album has been a huge blessing in the lead up to Easter. I am really looking forward to playing Precious Remedies again on Easter morning and singing along to all my favourite songs with Matthew in our living room.


Track list I'm Not Fine ("I told you I was sorry, doesn't feel like it's enough") My God, My God ("Please be not far away from me, I have no source of help but thee") I Know That My Redeemer Lives ("He lives, my Prophet, Priest, and King") Rice and Beans ("Worn through shoes, cheque may bounce") High ("When I see you take the same sweet steps you used to take") Remedy ("He is the one who has come and is coming again, He is the remedy") Would You Come and See Me In New York? ("I'm not mad, the past is through") My Best Days ("Those are my best days when I shake with fear") Lo He Comes With Clouds Descending ("The tokens of his passion still his dazzling body bears") Draw Nigh & Take the Body of the Lord ("Offered was He for greatest and for least") The Strife is O'er, the Battle Won ("Hallelujah!") God Be With You Until We Meet Again ("With his sheep securely fold you") Nature's Goodnight ("Trees now dressed in faded brown")

The album is available for purchase here, it's a steal at US$8 for the mp3s or US$10+shipping for a physical album to be delivered to your front door. I know that my redeemer lives. Happy Easter.

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.

Moments of Recapitulation

Here is an interesting and novel thought: what the Church does in ministry should reflect what the gospel is. I've been spurred along in this idea recently by Tim Keller, who argues that the gospel should fundamentally shape our doing of ministry. Following DA Carson, Keller argues that the gospel consists of three moments in Jesus life: 

1. The Incarnation (what Keller describes as the upside-down aspect of the gospel) where Jesus, though he was rich, became poor, and made himself the servant of all. This creates a community of service, where people live out an alternative way of being human, seeking neither moral, financial or social superiority.
2. The Atonement (the inside-out aspect of the gospel), which speaks of the way we are justified by grace and not by works. Grasping this changes the way we relate to God, to others and ourself.
3. The Resurrection (the forward-back aspect of the gospel); Jesus is reigning now, and Christian live in the light of this reality, looking forward to the day when Jesus ushers in the new creation. So now we live by faith, hope and love, especially love.

Few churches will follow through on the implications of the gospel: the upside-down, inside-out, forward-back kingdom. But for Keller, the gospel is the Christian life, and the church that comprehends the Gospel of Jesus Christ will "champion and cultivate" all three aspects of the gospel.

Oliver O'Donovan proposes a similar idea in The Desire of the Nations, that the Church's life and ministry is a recapitulation of Jesus's own life and ministry. And what we see in the sacraments is a visual reflection of Jesus own kingdom announcement. O'Donovan traces God's political authority within Israel. The Lords reign is, first, an exercise of power that gives Israel victory or salvation; it is, second, the execution of judgment or justice within Israel; and it is, third, the establishment of Israel's communal identity as a people existing over time (an identity connected at first with the land and, later, with possession of the law). These three aspect summarize what it means to say that the Lord rules as king in Israel, and a fourth aspect is added by O'Donovan. The Lords rule is acknowledged—though not established—in the praise Israel, as a worshiping community, offers (which incidentally, provides a stinging critique of liberalism's view of authority).

These four aspects of God's kingship are recapitulated in the career of Jesus. He does mighty works of power that bring salvation; he proclaims the judgment of Israel; he reforms the understanding of the law upon which the identity of a restored Israel is based. The praise that acknowledges Gods rule corresponds now to faith that recognizes the reign of God in Jesus.These four moments are 

1. the advent of Christ to save 
2. the passion of Christ in which the judgment of the world is given
3. the restoration of Christ, which affirms Israel's new identity in its representative
4. the exaltation of Christ, the coronation of the one who has triumphed over the powers that oppose Gods rule.

Christ is the head over the church, and O'Donovan argues that these moments of his Kingship are recapitulated within the church's life. They structure the church:

"The church represents God's Kingdom by living under its rule, and by welcoming the world under its rule. It recapitulates the Christ-event  in itself, and so proclaims the Christ-event to the world. The Christ-event, then, is the structuring principle for all ecclesiology, holding the key both to the church’s spontaneous ‘catholic’ existence and to its formal structure."

As Chris Swann has noted before, their are four moments that enact the distinctive shape of the church’s identity:

1. Advent – gathering community – Baptism. Marked by the sign of baptism, the Church now gathers to herself those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord
2. Passion – suffering community – Eucharist. Marked by the sign of the Eucharist, the Church now suffers—paradigmatically in her martyrs, but in countless other ways as well.
3. Resurrection – glad community – Keeping the Lord’s Day. Marked by the sign of her keeping of the Lords day as a little Easter, the Church now rejoices in the restoration of the creation.
4. Exaltation – community that speaks the words of God – Laying on of Hands. Marked by the sign of the laying on of hands, the Church now speaks Gods word in prophecy and prayer.

O'Donovan is in agreement with Keller, that churches have often been tempted to understand themselves in terms of one of these “moments” alone—as marked by mission alone, by suffering alone, by triumph alone, or by social responsibility alone. But such truncated understandings cannot recapitulate the narrative coherence of the moments in the story of Christ.

It's quite a big claim, "the structuring principle for all ecclesiology". And it's different to other accounts I hear of the Church's life and mission. Yet I find it quite compelling, that the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the true Israel, orders the Church, giving it cohesion and definition.

Postscript
At this point it may seem that O'Donovan sees fours in everything, as O'Donovan also offers a tantalizing, though fleeting, correlation between these four moments of recapitulation and the order of ministry within the church:

1. church gathers – ministry of recognising Christians – primatial bishop
2. church suffers – ministry of suffering service – deacon
3. church recovers creation order – ministry of instruction – presbyter-bishop
4. church as prophet – ministry of diverse administration to build up the community – lay charism

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part V - Appendix

The Coming of Christendom Appendix: The Arian Controversy

9th Century Image of the
Council of Constantinople

Intro | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V a | Part V b |Appendix

Readers of the previous post in this series may have been surprised when they noticed a sizable gap in the history of the third and fourth centuries. While there important political developments that occurred after Constantine’s rise to power in the early 300’s, some famous theological achievements also occurred to. Punctuated at either end of the century by the first and second ecumenical councils, the fourth century had been described as the achievement of orthodoxy. Indeed you are more than likely familiar with the narrative; that in the year 318 “a wicked Alexandrian presbyter called Arius chose to propound a doctrine of relation of the Son to the Father which was completely unorthodox and heretical, and which was condemned by the first General Council of the church in Nicaea in 325, but that by various means the base and crafty supporters of this heretical doctrine managed to keep the orthodox out of influential positions and to continue to propagate their wicked ideas for another 60 years after Nicaea, until, almost wholly through the selfless efforts of a noble and courageous champion of orthodoxy, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, the their politics were frustrated, their heterodoxy exposed, and the truth enshrined” in the creed of the Council of Constantinople in 381 (Richard Hanson, The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the fourth century AD).

The problem with this account of history is that it bears no resemblance to what happened. Orthodoxy had been passed down for the proceeding three hundred years through the rule of faith, the Roman baptismal creed (which has most likely come to us as the Apostles Creed), the scriptures – primarily the fourfold Gospels, and the gospel itself. But across those preceding centuries emerged different strands relating to the theology of the person of Jesus: North African theologian Tertullian developed an idea of the ‘economic trinity’; Alexandrian Origen talked of the eternal generation of the Son. Even the language used to describe the relation between the Father and the Son – ousia, hypostasis, substantia, persona etc. ¬ had different meaning depending on whether you spoke Greek or Latin. The Arian controversy was one that resulted in determination of orthodoxy, rather than one consisting solely in the defense of orthodoxy.

When Arius’ teachings in Alexandria were brought to attention in 318, he found many supporters, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and the powerful Eusebius of Nicomedia, who understand him standing in one of these “orthodox” traditions. Arius’ doctrine may have been motivated by a rivalry between him and his bishop, Alexander. But at the heart of Arius’ struggle was an attempt to grasp with the metaphysical and soteriological implications of the New Testament’s witness of a suffering God. Exploiting the Hellenic philosophical heritage of the ancient world, the Arian answer to this issue was to postulate the existence of two gods: one high impassable God, and a lesser God who suffered for him. According to the eminent historian of this period Richard Hanson:

“The Arians were among the few theologians of the early church who seriously understood the scandal of the cross. But the price which they thought it necessary to pay for this theology was too high.”

As a lower God, the logos was of a different essence and status to the Father. Using philosophical logic, the Arian position reasoned that the Son, as the first born over creation (Colossians 1:15) was an emanation of the Father. He was important, but in the words of one Arian song of the day "There once was a time when the Son was not".

Nicaea was intended to end several years of back and forth between Arius and his supporters and Alexander and his supporters. Arius was exiled, the doctrine of Alexander and his young deacon Athanasius upheld, and almost all present at the council signed the Creed under Constantine’s pressure for one unified church and empire. But the words of the Nicene Creed only added to the confusion. It taught the Son was ‘from the substance’ of the Father, ‘consubstantial’ with him, and condemning anyone who taught that the Son was ‘from another hypostasis or ousia’. But what these two words meant could be interpreted by different sides. The word homoousios (same substance) was also inserted into the Creed because it had been specifically rejected by Arius. But given it’s etymology in Gnosticism, it too was disputed by the Arian supporters who continued on the fight after Nicaea – the subordinates led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. In its place was proposed the word homoiousios (like substance).

The Nature of the Debate

Athanasius
Patriarch of Alexandria

Debate continued for the next several decades over the interpretation of the words in the Creed. Athanasius (296-373) succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in 328. He is famously said to have stood alone against the world in his defense of the Nicene position. Athanasius was exile five times over the course of his episcopacy with the rise and fall of theological parties at the Imperial court in Constantinople (although he was also ostracised for a period of twenty years for his abuse of power and use of violence in suppressing his enemies in Egypt). It was a debate that was largely conducted in Greek philosophical categories. All sides appealed to the Scriptures, and biblical language was used by both sides. Both sides then were driven to using the only alternative vocabulary at their disposal: Stoicism, Middle Platonism and Neo-Platonism. There was none other available. But it was language that was used for theological purposes rather than for strictly philosophical ends.

It was a debate that was carried out in the political sphere as well. Each party attempted to bring Constantine and his successors on side.

“And inasmuch as the peace and stability of the Empire was to some extent bound up with the peace and stability of the church, it was virtually unavoidable that the Emperor should become involved. But because the secular power was involved, it does not follow that the controversy was simply a story of man grasping at secular power under the mask of theology” – Hanson.

The majority of the theologians of the fourth century were bishops. They all had pastoral responsibility, charged with the spiritual welfare of their flocks, the men and women who held them account. “They were conscious of a praying and worshiping church” (Hanson). And the words they used to describe orthodoxy come from the word eusebia, which besides meaning ‘true’ and ‘correct’ meant ‘devout’ and godly’. It is a mistake to consider the debate of the fourth century as either an abstracted intellectual exercise, or the political machinations of a few. At the heart Christianity stood both monotheism and the worship of Jesus Christ (rather than the cult of a deified man). This was the faith for which thousands of Christians had in the preceding years died for. The two convictions needed to be reconciled.

Neo-Nicene movement towards 381

The process of reconciliation began in 362. The new pagan Emperor attempted to cause disruption to the church by recalling all exiled bishops. Athanasius returned to Alexandria and used the opportunity to gather Christians from both the Nicene and Subordinate parties. The Council of Alexandria allowed the term homoiousios to be reconciled with homoousios. This provided for people of orthodox persuasion to use homoiousios legitimately when describing the co-equal relationship of the Son to the Father. This was affirmed again at a council in Antioch in 363, and in a letter to the eastern churches from Pope Damasus. This new found unity moved the debate away somewhat philosophical concerns and back to the language to salvation and revelation.

“God become man, so that man might become God” – Athanasius, On the Incarnation

Gregory of Nazianzus
Patriarch of Constantinople

The long term effect of all this was to re-establish the prominence of the term homoousios, and a dispelling of the ambiguity which had been inherent in the term at Nicaea. And so emerged a new ‘Neo-Nicene’ orthodoxy—a fuller and more robust version of the theology which had initially been outlined at Nicaea. This Neo-Nicene faith was embodied primarily in the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus). It was their doctrinal acumen, with the support of Emperor Theodosius that laid the ground work for 381 by shifting the emphasis and grounds of debate. They denied that neither the Son nor the Spirit are subordinate to the Father, but are share an equality that is unaffected by the order with the Trinity. By doing so, they able to argue forcibly for the full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ:

 “The unassumed is the unredeemed” – Gregory of Nazianzus

The Council of Constantinople met from May-July 381. The most prominent feature of the Council of Constantinople was the adoption of a creedal statement, reaffirming and clarifying the Nicene position. Constantinople retained the inclusion of homoosiuos, and unequivocally stated the Jesus – and the Holy Spirit – is fully God: one ousia in three hypostases.  This was the solution to questions that had long vexed the church. It gave rise to other problems, such as the incarnation, but it excluded the Arian formulation of a high God beyond suffering and a lower God who may experience pain. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers excluded the use of the pre-incarnate logos as a philosophical device to explain how a transcendent being could come into contact with transience and human experience without compromising himself. Jesus is either wholly God or he is not God at all. This is still the confession of the church through the Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed today.

“Athanasius above all recognised that if we take the New Testaments seriously we must concluded that Christ is not a safeguard God the Father involving himself with human affairs, but a guarantee that he has done so” – Hanson .

APPENDIX: Comparision of the Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople*

The Nicene Creed (325)

The Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed (381)

We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is from the being of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, ‘There was when He was not,’ and ‘Before being begotten He was not,’ and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different substance or being, or is subject to alteration or change—these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematises.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into being, who because of us men and because of our  salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended to the heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life‐giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

* Changes in the Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed italicized.

Further Reading:

Athanasius, On the Incarnation.

Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit.

Richard Hanson, The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the fourth century AD, The Making of Orthodoxy, ed. Rowan Williams, 1989.

Richard Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 1988.

Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2001.

To See The World

As Alison was reminded of earlier this year, we live in a beautiful world that has been marred by evil. Even the wide open vistas of regional Australia carry the stain of sin. What we see today is, in the words of David Bentley Hart, the 'long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe: that this is a broken and wounded world." Yet the hope of the Christian gospel helps us to see the world rightly. That although this world 'languishes in bondage to the "powers" and "principalities" of this age' (Hart), it will be made new; that the trajectory of this world lies in the body of the resurrected Jesus Christ. That this world is not merely "nature", but God's creation, and the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

'To see the world as it should be see, and so to see the true glory of God reflected in it, requires the cultivation of charity, of an eye rendered limpid by love...But what the Christian should see, then, is not simply one reality: neither the elaborate, benign, elegantly calibrated machine of the deists, smoothly and efficiently accomplishing whatever good a beneficent God and the intractable potentialities of finitude can produce between them ; not a sacred or divine commerce between life and death; nor certainly “nature” in the modern, mechanistic acceptation of that word. Rather, the Christians should see two realities at once, one world (as it were) within another: one the world as we all know it, in all its beauty and terror, grandeur and dreariness, delight and anguish; and the other the world in its first and ultimate truth, not simply “nature” but “creation,” an endless sea of glory, radiant with the beauty of God in every part, innocent of all violence. To see in this way is to rejoice and mourn at once, to regard the world s as a mirror of infinite beauty, but as glimpsed through the veil of death; it is to see creation in chains, but beautiful as in the beginning of days.' - David Bentley Hart, The Doors of the Sea, pp. 60-61.

20 Centuries in 20 Posts Part V b

The Coming of Christendom cont.
Intro | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V a |Appendix

“And now, all rising at the signal which indicated the emperor’s entrance, at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendour of gold and precious stones. Such was the external appearance of his person; and with regard to his mind, it was evident that he was distinguished by piety and godly fear.”   – Eusebius 

The largest gathering of Church leaders ever assembled at that point of time met on 20th of May 325 within the Imperial palace in Nicaea. Over 200 bishops and prelates from across the Roman Empire and the known world had come to Nicaea at the summons of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Although the church had been free from persecution for 12 years, the wounds of the past were still fresh in living memory. This was poignantly brought to mind when Constantine kissed the mutilated eye bishop Paphnutius of Thebes had lost during the last batch of persecutions. Here was the scion of the throne of Augustus, Nero and Diocletian, resplendent in purple and gold, embracing a former enemy of the Empire. The power of Rome was at the disposal of the church, and it remained to be seen how the body of Christ would respond.

It was that question which would shape much of the church’s story for the foreseeable future. Rome was not the first state to tolerate Christians. Nor was Rome the first state to officially accept Christianity as the state religion (which Rome did under the Emperor Theodosius in 391). But this was Rome. And the question of the church and state’s relationship was never far from surface in the theological tensions that punctuated the fourth century. 

One of the immediate responses to “Constantine’s Settlement” was a withdrawal from civil society. The monastic movement had been a growing phenomenon since St Anthony first ventured alone into the wilderness in 270. The monastic movement continued to grow in Egypt and Syria after Constantine’s consolation of power. It has been suggested that this growth had something to do with a growing discontent with the world. The blurring of the church and the world would lead some to maintain their purity in the Libyan Desert. They sought to maintain the separate society of the church amidst a corrupt world. It was this desire which also lead another group out of society.

When persecution broke out in Carthage and North Africa in 303, there were many clergy – including bishops – who handed Bibles over to be burnt by the authorities. With the coming of tolerance in 313, these clerics – described as traditors or surrenders – and other priests ordained by them were readmitted to the church. This was perceived by some as being undisciplined and unorthodox. A group of Christians led by the presbyter Donatus refused to recognise the Episcopal authority of the traditor Caecilian in Carthage, and insisted that traditors needed to be rebaptised and re-ordained. After initially appealing to Constantine to settle the matter, Donatus and his supporters split from the church, organizing their own society and church hierarchy (a similar split had happened in the North African church in the third century: the Novatianist controversy) . With their alternative society, by 350 the Donatist church was the largest church in North Africa. 

Besides withdrawing from society or creating distinct communities, the most common response to the new political situation was to openly embrace it. This can be seen in the many Arian officials who vied for the Emperors support between the councils of Nicaea in 325 and Constantinople in 381. But perhaps the most well known ecclesiastical supporter for the new political climate was Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius’ work gave later imperial propagandists their foundation for giving the Emperor a place in the cosmic divine order. For Eusebius the ascension of Constantine completed Christ’s victory over the Roman tutelary deities. His argument followed the line of many second century apologists; that it was no accident that the church arose at the time when the world had been united under one political power. But Eusebius’s thesis was novel. The political world had been united under Augustus, the spiritual world united under Christ, and Constantine had united both realms in his body. It is with such eschatological certainty that Eusebius writes of the Christian revolution:

“The ancient oracles of the prophets, delivered to us in the Scripture, declare this; the lives of pious men, who shone in old time with every virtue, bear witness to posterity of the same; and our own days prove it to be true, wherein Constantine, who alone of all that ever wielded the Roman power was the friend of God the Sovereign of all, has appeared to all mankind so clear an example of a godly life.”

Constantine’s victory was God’s victory. But had the Parousia come in this Christian Emperor? It was not until the end of the fourth century that an alternative vision began to emerge. It was by-and-large Ambrose of Milan alone who articulated this vision (in the late fourth century Milan was arguably the most important city in Italy). Whilst “Constantine’s settlement” was seen to be a victory over the evil powers – Rome had come to obey Christ – this was not the eschaton. 

For Ambrose, Constantine and his successors might be Christians, but as earthly authorities they belonged to the old order of things. They would one day have to throw their crowns before Christ. Within the emerging movement we now know as Christendom, the task of the church was to remind the government of this. The rulers and authorities would have to one day give account of themselves before the Lord, and they were expected in the meantime to behave as a Christian (O’Donovan, 1996, p 199). And within the emerging Christian society, the church needed to remind itself that it was a separate polity, whose allegiance belonged first and foremost to the resurrected Jesus Christ. It was for this reason that Ambrose refused in 385 and 386 the request of the Emperor Valentinian II to make church buildings available for Arian worship. Ambrose refused to discuss the matter in the imperial palace, arguing that “Matters of faith should be handled in the church before the people.” The laity gathered with their bishop inside the church building, proved their identity as the Christian society. The church building took on a status akin to a modern embassy (O’Donovan, 1996, p 200).

In 390 Ambrose refused to admit Theodosius to communion for several months until he had done penance for the actions of his troops in massacring 7000 people in Thessalonica. Ambrose, who was neither ordained nor baptised when he was selected bishop, was able to require that the Emperor act like a Christian. His theology of church and state would be given further intellectual credence in the fifth century by his pupil Augustine of Hippo.




__________________________
The fourth century witnessed a revolution. It was a revolution won not through strength of arms, but through the obedience of faith as Rome bowed her knee to Christ. It was the beginning of a social, political and religious transformation that grew from the ground up. Contrary to some opinion, Christianity was not imposed from above; when the Emperor Julian attempted to dissolve “Constantine’s Settlement” in 361-363 and restore paganism within the Empire, he failed due to the entrenched nature of Christianity. He complained that:

“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.”

The fourth century begins the period known as Christendom, that cultural and political era that would last for 1500 years. It has in recent times been remarked that this period more so than any other did great damage to the progress of the gospel. There certainly was a temptation within the fourth century, as O’Donovan has noted, “to see the conversion of the rulers as achieved and complete, and to abandon mission.” But that would be to misunderstand Christendom. “Far from seeing Christendom...as an age in which the missionary challenge of the church became derailed, we have to understand that it was perpetually preoccupied with that challenge” (O’Donovan, 1996, p 197). For 300 years Christianity had sought the transformation of society, as individuals came to Christ. It should be expected than that after such widespread social change, that there would be political transformation too. With the population turning to Christ, it would be expected that their political leaders would seek to govern in such a way so as to confirm with the gospel. But this was never the goal of mission. Political transformation followed social transformation. Across the following centuries the church would struggle with knowing which response – Donatist, Eusebian or Ambrosian – to follow. The challenge was to remember that the new political situation was not the end of Christian mission. 





Further Reading: 
Oliver O'Donovan, The Desire of the Nations, CUP 1996.

Biblical and Systematic Theology

Having come through the Anglican Church in Sydney and the EU at Sydney University, Biblical Theology feels like the air that I breath. The impact of Graeme Goldsworthy's books (such as Gospel and Kingdom or According to Plan) has been massive, so that the phrase "God's people, in God's place under God's rule" can rightly be described as well known and widespread in Sydney. And although there are other types of Biblical Theology out there, such as those developed by Vos, Brevard Childs, or even N.T. Wright, it is the three-stage epoch of Don Robinson, further developed by the likes of Goldsworthy, Bill Dumbrell, Barry Webb etc. that holds sway in Sydney.

Put simply, Biblical Theology is concerned with the movement of Scripture's narrative across time from Creation to New Creation, with Christ standing not only at the centre of this narrative, but also the key to understanding the parts and the whole of Scripture. The IVP New Dictionary of Biblical Theology identifies the following features as being distinctive to Biblical Theology:

• Exegesis. At the heart of Biblical Theology is exegesis. Biblical Theology is concerned with a slow, careful reading of the text within its context. At the centre of this exegesis is Jesus, through whom Biblical Theology makes understanding of both the past and the future.
• Pace. Biblical Theology is a slow, methodical meditation on scripture.
• Unity. Biblical Theology is determind to uphold the unity of Scripture when it exegetes a text whilst also being sensitive to the particularities and complexity of the Bible.
• Time. Biblical Theology is concerned about time, such as when things happened, and unfolding progressive self-revelation of God.
• Genre. Related to all of this, Biblical Theology seeks to exegete texts in a way that makes sense of it's literary genre. Biblical Theology seeks appreciate and understand speech/act.
• Narrative. Biblical Theology traces the story, and not just certain themes within the narrative. At the same time Biblical Theology is interested not only how words are used from across the Bible, but also in following the development of themes throughout Scripture.

However, it has been observed that to be intelligble to society, Biblical Theology often requires the services of Systematic Theology. Biblical Theology, though it can’t escape the cultural influence, attempts first and foremost to be inductive and descriptive. Systematic Theology looks to rearticulate what the Bible says with regards to engagement with culture. Systematic Theology is a logical, topical, hierarchical (of ideas) and synchronic organisation of Scripture.  Biblical Theology traces out the history of redemption, and is profoundly inductive, comparative and diachronic. In organising the data that Biblical Theology has collected, Systematic Theology is then able to intelligble engage with culture.


Most of this summary comes from separate chapters of Brian Rosner and Don Carson, in the IVP New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. 

For further reading: Graeme Goldsworthy, Christ-Centred Biblical Theology.

Christianity in the Public Square

"We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all the places that belong to you — cities, islands, forts, towns, exchanges; the military camps themselves, tribes, town councils, the palace, the senate, the market-place; we have left you nothing but your temples."

- Tertullian, Plea For Allegiance

Praying for the World

Out of all the things the Christian church in the west is in need of, books about prayer are certainly not in short supply. There is a plethora of prayer books available, covering everything from the why and how of prayer, to the “who” and “what” to pray for. Litres of ink are spent each year detailing how to overcome blockages of prayer, or using the prayers of others as a model for contemporary prayer life. You can books on the prayers of the Puritans, the prayers of Paul, the prayer of Jabez...the prayers of the past three and a half millennia are examined and dissected in the attempt to produce rich and fruitful prayer lives.

Yet if there is one New Testament passage on prayer that is overlooked more than any other, it would have to be 1 Timothy 2.1-7. Even books that promise a spiritual revolution through the apostolic prayers pay this passage merely a courtesy visit. Perhaps it's due to the exclusion of the church from the public sphere since the enlightenment. Perhaps it's due to our inability to recognise the political nature of the gospel. Whatever the case, the instruction of 1 Tim. 2.1-2 is one we often neglect. And that is a real tragedy; the second chapter of 1 Timothy contains wisdom that, if grasped by the church, would help enable us to not only please God, but also understand God's world and mission.

Paul urges Timothy to "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." In response to false teacher having arisen amongst the church in Ephesus, Timothy is urged to pray for all people, for kings and all in authority. These false teachers have driven the church apart by their teaching, causing dissension and quarrelling within the church. In particular the teaching and interpretation of the scriptures has resulted in an elitism and introspection within the church. But what they have failed to grasp is God's ordering within his creation (from οἰκονομίαν in 1 Tim. 1.4); hence their instruction to abstain from good parts of God's creation like marriage and food (1 Timothy 4.3). As they don't understand this ordering of the world, they have disengaged from the world and society at large.

However, Paul urges that the church moves from introspection to outwards focused prayer; to turn from being disinterested and disengaged from the world to praying for all people, for kings and those in authority. From this passage we learn three things:

Firstly, the church's concern and care for the world is driven by God's concern and care for the world. This is highlighted four times: i. there is only one God, and he desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; ii. Christ Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all people; iii. the apostle Paul is a herald of this gospel to the Gentiles (i.e. all people); so iv. it is fit and proper for the church, in every way and in all circumstances to pray for all people. The church is not only to be concerned with its own life, but the life of the world around it. Therefore the authenticity of a church’s love and service of the world will be seen in the way the church prays for the world.

Secondly, governments have been tasked by God to maintain this order, and it is right then that the church pray for those in authority. The gospel declares that Jesus Christ has been given authority other every other claimant to authority and the day will come when those in authority will lay their crowns before Christ. The Bible is painfully aware that governments are able to abuse their authority, seeking to recreate civilisation or extend their grip on power. In such cases the authorities will be held accountable for such blasphemy. Yet verse 2 is entirely consistent with how the New Testament views the role of government, as ministers and servants of God (cf. Romans 13.1-7 and 1 Peter 2.13-17). Whilst they may not have ultimate authority, they still have a divinely appointed role in maintaining peace and justice, and are therefore deserving of the church’s prayer that they would exercise that role with wisdom and equity. This is also a helpful and liberating way for Christians to engage with government. When we disagree with our governments, when they frustrate and disappoint us, when they are unaware that their authority has been instituted by God, and even when they are violently opposed to Christianity, the church is to regularly, and in every way possible, pray for those in authority.

Thirdly, the government’s role in maintaining order and stability enables the church to get on with its business of being the church. Whilst it is quite nice that good government allows Christians to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity, this is not an end in itself. Paul links the peace and stability that come from good government to mission. As Andrew Errington has written:

“Paul urges prayers be made for government so that people will be able to live in peace – so that people can get on with normal life, uninterrupted by the chaos that flows from the absence of political authority. Interestingly, Paul sees this as right precisely because of God’s desire for everyone to be saved... This makes sense, of course: mission is not aided when people are fearful simply for their survival, or when communication and mobility are impeded. Peace and what is here called “quietness” perhaps free people up to hear the gospel and to engage in the relationships that facilitate mission."

Good government provides the social conditions for the church to freely and without impediment proclaim to all people that Jesus Christ is Lord.

When the Christian community gathers together as the church, during their time together they are to include prayers for all people and those in authority. Praying for the world is an opportunity for each of us to show our love and concern for a world that Jesus gave up his life for. It is an opportunity for each of us to move beyond our own introspection and look outwards to the world. It is an opportunity for us to pray for justice and peace in the world, and to particularly pray for those who are in authority over us who are tasked with maintaining that peace and justice. It is an invitation to move out of our holy huddles and thoughtfully engage the world in prayer. 1 Timothy 2.1-7 is a dense little passage. Paul connects the role and place of government with God’s desire for all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Yet following Paul’s urging will allow us to discern God’s ordering of the world, and so know, love and serve the world as God does.

_______
Postscript: One of my favourite reflections on this passage is this one by Ruth Brigden.
This post is based on a sermon I recently gave at church.

Equip Those Saints!

Rory Shiner, formerly of Frankly Mr Shankly, has started a new series of posts on his church website about "Forgotten Ministry Models". His first post captures an idea I've slowly been coming round too these past couple of years, what Rory describes as the "The Clergy-run church service".

The "priesthood of all believers" is a catch cry of those Christians who have had their worldview shaped by the reformation in some shape or form. But is church the place to express that? What if our church services are the place where believers are to be equipped for ministry, so that they can go out there and do it? You'll find Rory's answer here.

Rory ends by reflecting on the Anglican liturgy (the way to my heart...). He says:

"The Anglican service ends with the priest saying to the congregation: “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.” Quite literally, the clergy told the people at the end of church, “now off you go to do ministry”. That is, they didn’t just serve the Lord in church; they came to be equipped at church to go in peace to love and serve the Lord. Their ministry almost began when they left church. And something about that is right. You might even call it missional."