underwhelmed

at this;  I'm not saying it's bad, but everyone said was spectacular (it is not). . .

but, maybe, this will be good . . .

[yes, I already know I'm not a graphics design artist]

defining god's people

John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel Volume 1 (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003).

Although I have had Goldingay's theology on the shelf since its publication, I do owe Tilling (and also McKnight) a bit of gratitude for inspiring me to finally dust it off and dive in.  It hasn't been because of a lack of desire but rather that I've been preoccupied with other things that a volume this size was just beyond my reach.  Now that I've pushed away the excuses, I must admit that this work is quite incredible.  There is so much within it that I will not attempt a review, but will work through some of the material at random.

In his chapter which primarily covers the material found in Joshua and the conquest (Chapter 7: God Gave), Goldingay makes some interesting observations regarding the people of Israel and the Canaanites.  The narrative does indeed seem to demonstrate that the Canaanites were not destroyed or dispossessed simply because they were Canaanites, but because they were not Israel.  This is an important distinction as it removes the theology of God choosing favorites among the humans - blessing some and damning others - and instead pushes the idea of Israel being defined as those God has chosen to bless the world.

The way in which Goldingay identifies this distinction is to consider the many cases in which native people of the land (e.g., Rahab and the Gibeonites, who may or may not have started a touring R&B group by the same name) have the opportunity to participate in the community of Israel: "Their story also shows how the native peoples who come to recognize Yhwh may indeed join Yhwh's people, despite Moses' strict injunctions" (511).  The notion of Israel being a nation which secluded itself from others, primarily by ridding the land of those who were not Israel (ḥērem) is thus more appropriately understood as a theological purity of the covenant community: "The ḥērem was always a theological principle rather than a practice.  It constituted an assertion that Israel must not allow itself to be led astray by the traditional religion of the land" (500).

So it appears as though the initial idea set forth for Israel did not intend to be as much of a closed system as it later became.  It further appears, at least from Goldingay's reading of the narrative, that the nation of Israel was not intended to be defined on the basis of ethnicity alone.  "In principle Canaanites must be eliminated, but Canaanites who behave like Israelites may take their place within the people of God . . . For people of unquestionable pedigree, too, real membership of Israel involves choice, the decision to serve Yhwh rather than the gods of Canaan" (511, emphasis mine).

As one of the earliest biblical texts defining Israel by comparison to the world, it would appear that the definition of the people of God is based upon commitment to his statutes.  Perhaps, then, Jesus' radical redefinition of the kingdom is partly a return to the original ideal.  I agree with N. T. Wright (and others) that part of Jesus' radical redefinition was that he was drawing the lines of the kingdom around commitment to himself, but if that is part of his restarting Israel, then this portion is actually a return to the earliest definition of Israel.  That is, Jesus standing as yhwh over the twelve disciples/tribes demonstrates the same distinction between the people of God and the world.  My point being that Jesus' definition of God's people need not be interpreted as being quite as novel as first thought.

dude, where are my miracles?

"Christians helped the cause of modern rationalism by their jealous determination to sweep out of the world all miracles and magic except their own.  Some of this generation of scientists argued that Christian miracles themselves could not be vindicated unless it could be assumed that the normal workings of the universe were regular and subject to law."

Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800 (New York: Free Press, 1965), 7.

the living church (8)

John Stott, The Living Church (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007).

[The final part of the review: I leave the conclusion and the appendices for the reader]

Chapter Eight: Impact

"One of the most important questions facing Christians in every age and every place is this: what values and standards are going to dominate our national culture?" (128).  A great starting point and very poignant question over which the church must wrestle.  Stott recognizes this as both an ecclesial question as well as a social and cultural one.  Certainly, we are at no current loss of perspectives for just how church and culture (or government) should go together.  It is rather unfortunate that Christians have allowed such secondary issues to disrupt the primary unity of the faith, both sides claiming the other is the guilty party (cf. Matthew 7:3-5).  Yet according to Stott, "There can surely be no doubt that our Lord Jesus Christ wants his values and standards to prevail" (129, emphasis in original).

"So he sends his people out into the world both to preach the gospel and make disciples, and to sweeten the whole community and make it more pleasing to God, more just, more participatory, more free" (129).

On one level, there is nothing particularly new within this chapter.  Stott returns to the images of salt and light, briefly explaining their specific usefulness in Jesus' context.  But I do appreciate his outworking of the images - a mode for the symbols to find meaning and significance in the life of the church.  "First, Christians are radically different from non-Christians - or ought to be" (130, emphasis in original).  Stott is right to point out that this is one of the major themes of Scripture - God's calling of a people from among the rest.  And there have been points within church history where we can clearly see the church making a definitive statement in its counter-culturalism (yes, sometimes to error), but it has been a long time since we as believers have collectively given our culture the bird.  We misunderstand assimilation, I fear.

"Second, Christians must permeate non-Christian society" (131, emphasis in original).  This is precisely the point of not hiding the light under the bowl.  Similarly, the salt would have no effectiveness without it actually touching the meat it is meant to preserve.  How are believers supposed to pull this off?  "One way to permeate secular culture for Christ is through our daily work" (132).  We need to rid ourselves of the mentality that only professional minister do the ministry and everyone else is along for the ride a few hours a week.

"Third, Christians can influence and change non-Christian society" (133).  I continue to be amazed at how many churchgoers remain so skeptical about the effectiveness of the gospel.  So many people pay lip-service to the power of the gospel but do not really expect it to change the world in their hearts, minds and (especially) efforts.  Stott labels this section more 'controversial territory' but I would beg to differ - so long as we are willing to drink the kool-aid we're trying to sell.

After reviewing these areas, Stott considers six *weapons* for making this change a reality: prayer, evangelism, example, argument (reason), action, suffering (135-139).  All of this boils down to the need for Christian distinctness - the ability for the salt to retain its saltiness.  It is the mark of a well-thought and highly reflective ecclesiology that Stott includes this chapter, with this specific tone - that the edification of the church finds its culmination in the outworking of the kingdom of God.

the living church (7)

John Stott, The Living Church (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007).

Chapter Seven: Giving

"Christian giving is an extremely important topic on the contemporary church's agenda.  Local churches are often preoccupied with financial concerns, and worldwide I doubt if there is a single Christian enterprise which is not hindered and hampered by lack of funds" (111).  I suppose this is Rev. Stott's way of saying that my church isn't alone in its tendency to jump off the deep-end when it comes to finances and *church business* - as though financial meetings are the church business and the ministry end of things is not.

In reflecting on this aspect of the church, Stott gives ten principles.

1. "Christian giving is an expression of the grace of God" (112).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 8:1-6, where Paul refers to the generosity of (not the church, but. . .) of God.  The grace we have received is our inspiration to give.

2. "Christian giving can be a charisma, that is, a gift of the Spirit" (113).  Along with other gifts of the Spirit, we have been called to a certain life even though some are more slanted toward various aspects than are others.  "Many of God's gifts are both generously bestowed in some measure on all believers and given in special measure to some" (114).  It is as though he anticipates the argument: No, naming it as charisma does not mean some people do not have to give.

3. "Christian giving is inspired by the cross of Christ" (114).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 8:8-9.  In light of the cross, how is it that Christians remain stingy?

4. "Christian giving is proportionate giving" (115).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 8:10-12.  I am reminded of the superb study which draws the same conclusion (among others): Craig L. Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches (Downers Grove: IVP, 1999).  A review of materialism and giving in Scripture will show that our best attempt at achieving the biblical ideal is in the 'graduated tithe' approach.

5. "Christian giving contributes to equality" (116).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 8:13-15.  Stott contends that this does not mean egalitarianism (a socialistic approach to income and lifestyle), but that it provides an equal opportunity for those in need.  ". . . equality sees an end to extreme social disparity" (118).

6. "Christian giving must be carefully supervised" (119).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 8:16-24.  Although this could easily (and often does quickly) turn into the abuse of power and control within the church, Stott is right to include it into the discussion.  Our ability to disrupt a practice does not make such practice inherently bad, but that we need to continually surrender ourselves to Christ.  Sometimes in order to ensure that the church is not disrupted by money we need to take extra steps to safeguard the giving process.

7. "Christian giving can be stimulated by a little friendly competition" (121).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 9:1-5.  Sometimes the *fun* of giving needs to be infused.

8. "Christian giving resembles a harvest" (122).  On this, see 2 Corinthians 9:6-11.  Stott provides two 'harvest principles' here: a) we reap what we sow; b) what we reap has a double purpose - for eating and further sowing.  This is not a case of Paul's endorsement of the prosperity gospel, but that the means we receive have an ongoing purpose.

9. "Christian giving has symbolic significance" (124).  "Paul looks beyond the mere transfer of cash to what it represents . . . for it was a deliberate, self-conscious symbol of Jewish-Gentile solidarity in the body of Christ" (125).  How we give demonstrates what we believe.

10. "Christian giving promotes thanksgiving to God" (126).  Throughout the passage in 2 Corinthians which has been used in this chapter, Paul returns to the notion that when the Corinthians give there will be an increased thanksgiving and praise to God.

"What an awesome privilege we have in helping others right across the world to give glory to God.  Releasing more of the money which he has entrusted to us as stewards will end in this.  And to increase thanksgiving to God for the sake of his own glory is surely our highest goal" (127).

restoration and division

Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1972).

A classic essay on restoration has recently gained my attention, published in book form as part of Jervell's collection on Luke-Acts.  "The Divided People of God" highlights many of the ins and outs of Jewish restoration and Gentile mission in Luke-Acts and the early church.  Richard Bauckham, in a fabulous essay says, "Jervell convincingly showed that in Acts it is not Israel's rejection of the Gospel that clears the way for the evangelizing of the Gentiles, but rather Israel's acceptance of the Gospel which makes it possible for the Gospel to reach the Gentiles (Richard Bauckham. "The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts." In Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, 435-487. Leiden: Brill, 2001. 484, emphasis mine.)

Jervell identifies the restoration of Israel as the primary reason why the mission to the Gentiles can occur.  It is the Jewish acceptance of the gospel which enables Gentile inclusion to the covenant community.  Thus, Luke goes to great lengths to show that not all of the Jews have rejected the gospel message (especially in Jerusalem) and that their division is a sign of the acceptance of the gospel and the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel.  It is this division, reminiscent of Simeon's (although Jervell does not make this explicit connection), which ". . . reveals who really belongs to Israel" (55).

It is a convincing essay overall, with a few details not entirely spelled out - although the seeds are certainly sown.  In regards to the division of Israel he writes, "A conversion of all Israel was not a problem for Luke because it is God's will that some should be excluded.  According to Luke, James can rightly say that the conversion and restoration of Israel can be the basis for the Gentiles' seeking the Lord" (54-55).  At first blush, there appears to be a contradiction of restoration and exclusion as aspects of the will of God.  Perhaps this is why Conzelmann held that it was the repudiation of the Jews which makes the Gentile mission possible, thereby divorcing Christianity from Judaism as a precursor for the outward movement of the gospel.  But if Jervell is correct in what he posits, it is not the exclusion of the Jews which is the thrust of the missionary movement but rather the purification of Israel which fulfills the prophetic expectations for a restored Israel.

It is an interesting perspective on the historical movement of the gospel from Jewish to Gentile circles.  Perhaps many interpreters have viewed Gentile inclusion as assuming Jewish exclusion, which is never explicitly stated in the text.  Jervell states, "The addition of Gentile is part of the restoration of Israel" (60).  If restoration is truly happening among the people of God, then the light to enlighten the nations must shine even more!  Further, M. Fuller ties this event to the ascension of Jesus (in a move inspired by NTW, no doubt) as the final cap on the lordship of the Messiah and the restoration of Israel - though I am yet to be convinced on his views of the Twelve being tied to the land (cf. Michael Fuller, The Restoration of Israel: Israel's Re-gathering and the Fate of the Nations in Early Jewish Literature and Luke-Acts. Berlin: Walter deGruyter, 2006. 263.).

At the end of the day, Jervell has placed the effect of the gospel well within the hopes and expectations of the restoration of Israel that shaped Second Temple Judaism.  Rather than a movement away from Jewish belief, the church fulfills its role as the true Israel which has now been opened up to all.  It is, as Jervell states, ". . . but that the Gentiles have gained a share in what has been given to Israel" (53).

the living church (6)

John Stott, The Living Church (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007).

Chapter Six: Preaching

This chapter of Stott's reflections on the church is built upon 'five paradoxes' which he presents as the heart and soul of what preaching should be to the life of the church.  His opening statement demonstrates his perspective: "The contemporary world is decidedly unfriendly towards preaching.  Words have largely been eclipsed by images, and the book by the screen.  So preaching is regarded as an outmoded form of communication, what someone has called 'an echo from an abandoned past'" (97).  A quick survey of many Western evangelical churches will reveal that this is indeed the case, much to our culture's detriment.

What are the five paradoxes?

Biblical and Contemporary

"It is an exposition of Scripture which is related to the world in which we live" (98).  This is perhaps one of the greater challenges not only to preaching, but to the life of the church altogether - that we hold to an ancient faith but struggle to be relevant in our present and make ways toward the future.  Various models have been more or less effective (the Pope's recent reception in the United States helps us identify our own fascination with things ancient and traditional, but the rising trend of emergent churches also shows how our culture is looking for such ancient things to be in motion).  In regards to preaching Stott says, "I hope we are agreed that all Christian preaching is biblical preaching" (98).  This, unfortunately, will be vastly more readily agreed upon in theory than in practice.

Authoritative and Tentative

There is a manner in which the message from the pulpit is to be definitive and authoritative, but I agree that there is a danger in becoming overly fixed in one's own traditional reading of Scripture that it blocks out sound alternatives and new developments to understanding the text and shaping our faith.  But, as Stott reminds us, our authority is found in the text that we have before us and not, importantly, in the Spirit alone who speaks through the preacher (cf. 101).  Too often church leaders have gone only 'by the Spirit' as an excuse for not being diligent in their quest for the truth which is revealed in the Word of God.  No, we do not have to have the brilliance of a world-renowned biblical scholar but we do need to have a hunger and passion for Scripture's message.

Prophetic and Pastoral

Again, the paradox mentioned here extends beyond preaching and into the larger life of the church (103).  There is to be a balance between the voice which speaks loud and clear to definitively broadcast the gospel and the character which exhibits the care and grace which comes from living the gospel into the world.  Stott is right to show how many preachers and leaders usually fall on one extreme or another, but that the most effective work and witness is found in a balance struck (104-105).

Gifted and Studied

This ties in to comments made above, but still needs to be spelled-out.  In the author's words: "Does God create preachers?  Or do they have a share in the creative process?  The answer to these questions must again be 'both'" (105).  In the face of many congregations and denominations who are motivated by factors from all across the board but have no real understanding of the role of a church as a ministry of the kingdom, Stott challenges the selection of preachers: "The church has no liberty to ordain those whom God has neither called nor gifted" (105).  There must be a clear balance of both, with many churches and families paying the price for a failure to heed this fundamental principle.

Stott quotes from Bishop Phillip Brooks, from the 1877 Yale Lectures: "The preacher's life must be a life of large accumulation. . .Learn to study for the sake of truth, learn to think for the profit and the joy of thinking.  Then your sermons shall be like the leaping of a fountain, and not like the pumping of a pump" (107).

Thoughtful and Passionate

This is another of the paradoxes which so easily become pushed to one side or another, lacking a proper balance.  Many preachers who are great expositors of the word, pouring over their exegesis throughout the week and presenting sound doctrine often do not have the passion which should come from the truth of the gospel.  Others (indeed, many televised speakers) are quite passionate and exciting but have no foundation for their belief or their truths.  Some do not even use Scripture to make their points, appealing only to the emotion.

Stott states, "All preaching should lead people to the Scriptures" (103).  It's no wonder why people such as Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer and Jeremiah Wright get it so wrong.  They fill seats and make noise, but to no avail.