Jeff Ling

Modern Reformation put out a book called “Justified: Essays on the Doctrine of Justification” that includes a chapter by Michael Horton entitled “Engaging N.T. Wright and John Piper.” Horton does a good job of setting the debate within an understanding of reformed covenant theology that takes both authors to task: Wright for his justification maintained by works and Piper for his resistance to embracing the sweep of covenantal justification that runs through both Testaments. Horton finds himself defending Wright’s claim that “covenant theology is more crucial for understanding justification than Piper suggests” however, “Wrights version of covenant theology… generates false choices.”

Horton uses the term “covenantal nomism” to describe the view that Wright champions. Covenantal highlights the gracious work of God on behalf of His people, while nomism highlights the obligation of God’s people to His law. Here in lies the problem for Horton. Wright blends two differnt covenatal streams into one that results, as E.P. Sanders says, in a “get in by grace, stay in by obedience” view. Horton maintains that classic reformed theology “begins with a covenant of redemption within the trinty from eternity.” From the beginning, the covenantal commitment of the Father is to give a bride (the elect) to His Son. The Son will provide the propitation that makes such possible and the Spirit will function as the one who brings the bride to the Son. Flowing from this starting point, “federal theology gathers various Biblical covenants under two broad types: law and promise, or the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.” There are two distinct covenantal relationships present in God’s dealings with His peoplen  that must remain distinct. On the one hand you have the covenant of grace that obligates only God and that God is entirely responsible for fulfilling. (Ex. Noah, Abraham, David) The other is a covenant of law keeping that God’s people enter into and carries promise of temporal blessing if obeyed and punishments if not. (Sinai)

At Sinai, the covenant made is one of law. God provides the land for Israel but it is for the express purpose of them fulfilling their covenantal mission under Abraham. It is based on law and failure to adhere to the law will bring dire consequences. The splashing of blood by Moses on the people is not a messianic promise. It’s a threat.

“The ultimate promise of a worldwide family of Abraham – sinners justified and glorified in a renewed creation – is unconditional in its basis, while the continuing existence of the national theocracy as a type of that everlasting covenant depended on Israel’s obedience. The ceremonise of the law pointed to Chriist and His gospel, but the terms of remaining in the typological land as that beacon to the world was conditional on obedience. Yahweh imposed the conditions with the promise of life for obedience and death for disobedience, but did not acept any conditions.” (Horton, Pg. 15 emp. mine)

I appreciate how Horton describes the relationship between Israel and God: “Yahweh’s relationship with Israel was marital – simultaneously legal and deeply personal, yet divorce was always a real possibility in the case of adultreous breech.”

Abraham experieinces a covenant of grace – God is the one making the oath – swearing by himself! God’s promise is to make of him a great people of blessing. This is something Abraham cannot do for himself physically or politically. God promises both. His commitment to His own purpose is on display in vivid imagery in Gen. 15 with Abraham only able to look on. God does the same with David, promisinng that David’s line will remain on the throne. This promise is not maintained obviously(!) by David’s own obedience but by God’s commitment to His own purpose. David is the beneficiary of the promise, not the responsbile party.

Continually throughout Israel’s history, God relentlessly moves forward in keeping His own promise (fullfilled in Christ) while prosecuting Israel for her apostasy. So Horton makes the point that “the deepest distinction in scripture is not between the Old and New Testaments, but the covenants of law and the covenants of promise that run throughout both.” (pg.17)
Horton draws from sources you wouldn’t anticiapate: Jewish scholar Jon Levenson and Pope Benedict XVI. Both of these in their exegesis of scriptrure end up with a covenant of grace that includes a justification by faith alone, but end up retreating into a works maintained righteousness. Levenson admits that the idea of the covenant of law (Sinai) and the covenant of grace (Zion) are clearly delineated but he asserts that Sinai trumps Zion. Clearly the veil remains. (2 Cor. 3:14-16) Benedict does the same, aknowledging the differences, especially in Galatians, while ending up in a law trumps grace conclusion. Horton answers both with great effectiveness.

One espescially powerful pragargh states:

“”…in the covenant theology of the Reformed tradition, these two covenants and “mountains” (Sinai and Zion) meet in Christ, who as the covental head fulfills the Sinaitic law (already anticipated in the Adamic covenant) and as the covenant mediator dispenses the fruit of his labors to his heris in a covenant of grace. Rather than set aside the law-covenant, he fulfills it (positivly) and bears its curses (negatively), so that the inheritance can legitnately (legally) be conferred on the terms of grace alone.” (pg. 20)

Horton concludes the essay with some implications for the issues of imputation, obedience and justification, and apostasy and perseverance. His comments on these, especially his insights on the apostasy passages in Hebrews are well worth the read.

I’m in Nashville this week for the Messenger Summit. Messenger Fellowship is my ordaining body and filled with friends that are long time and close to my heart. The purpose of this summit is addressing the issues that divide the church in our day. There’s a particular focus here as it relates to the streams that seem to be polarized – particularly the missional vs revivalist (charismatic) elements within the Body of Christ. Think Andy Stanley vs. Mike Bickle.  (Their example) To me, this is a very narrow way of identifying the issue. It seems to me the issues dividing the church involve polarization and division but it’s hardly a simple issue to define.  It exists on different levels, almost like those multiple level chess boards you’d see on Star Trek. It’s not “evangelicals vs charismatics.”  What do those labels mean? Most of the people at this summit would agree that Andy Stanley and Bill Hybles are evangelical but I’m aware of a large swath of the Body that would question that. Is Brian McClaren and other emergent leaders in his stream evangelical? Would Mark Dever, John Piper and Sinclair Ferguson agree to share that label with them? On the other end, Mike Bickle is probably not a good starting point for the charismatic stream. There are more conservative starting points! But IHOP and Bickle are hardly the extreme. On the fringe are the Patricia Kings and John Crowders. So the issues as I see it revolve around at least three critical components

Gospel/Authority – the church faces a strong surge of renewed liberalism riding the white horse of justice and inclusiveness. The authority of scripture is being undermined while the gospel of God’s wrath propitiated by the atoning work of Jesus is being dismantled. As Brian McClaren himself as said – “that’s not a God worth believing in.” Where do we draw the lines that allow us to fellowship or require us to separate?

Revivalism – At what point does the church risk becoming either a gnostic community formed around ever increasing mystical experience or like the New York of post -Finney revivalism, a burned over district? How do we pursue the empowering grace of the Spirit and His gifting without creating a culture defined by the experiences we have instead of the gospel we proclaim in word and power. It seems to me that in the extremes, you can pick your entertainment: the skits and comedians of the seeker variety or the “toking the Holy Ghost” variety of John Crowder. Both means lead to ends that are self-serving for those wanting the entertainment whether they prefer the darkened auditorium of  anonymous observation or the spotlight of narcissistic outdoing of the other in goofiness.

Worship/Government – I’ll save comment on these for later. The governmental issues are less urgent for me as I do think there is latitude for understanding how church leadership functions but we do have to note an increased anti-authoritarian spirit on the loose. I’m anti-authoritarian as well when it comes to shepherds who would rather be served than serve. But leaders who are godly, responsible and loving in their leadership will always be needed. Worship requires a long hard look. Something seems askew to me. I fear we’ve laid upon music and “worship leaders” a burden that is going to be unsustainable in the years to come. I’ll save that for another time.

“Support by US Episcopalians for homosexual clergy is contrary to Anglican faith and tradition. They are leaving the family” – Wright

Article is from the The Times of London: Link here

In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

Read more…

Reading two books at the same time that should prove to be really instructive or send me hurtling into a deep theological vortex from which I may never recover.

John Piper’s  The Future of Justification is on my Kindle. (Amazon seems to like Piper, as almost anything  he does goes right to Kindle) Piper says that while N.T. is not preaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8-9) he is portraying the doctrine of justification in such a way that is “sodisfigured that it becomes difficult to recognize as Biblically faithful.” Piper will proceed to clarify what he views as the correct doctrine of justification. As for Wright, his Justification, recently released and so far only available in harback, is a response he wrote to Piper’s work to clarify his stand on justification. From what I’ve read in the introduction, Wright’s view is not that Piper’s stand on how justification occurs is not wrong, but rather insufficent to communicate the vast implications of the saving work of Christ. I hope that reading them together will be a blessing and not a burden.