Continuity in the New Creation?

I used to believe what Gavin Perkins, of the Sola Panel blog, is arguing for here. However unlike him I’m not so sure I can neatly interpret 2 Peter 3:10-13 anymore – as he has interpreted it. I think one of the comments left about that same passage’s use of ‘the flood’ (v6) puts a bit of a spanner in the works for our traditional evangelical interpretations and so Tom Wright might not be completely wrong after all.

UPDATE: Make sure you read the comment stream on Gavin’s post - an interesting discussion is developing.

That thing Called ‘Church’: A Mid-Year Update

In January I posted about my desire to interact with the issue of ‘church’ over the course of this year. ‘Matt the Knight’, a friend of mine, suggested that I give a mid-year update as to where I am in my thinking about some of the questions I set out to explore. So here’s some of the answers to the questions so far:

According to the New Testament what do you have to have, as absolute minimum, for a church to exist?

I’m thinking you need people who have been regenerated by the gospel, living under the consistent proclamation and teaching of the word of God, worshipping in a community by serving, caring, speaking, teaching and loving both each other and those outside. I found a recent study I did on Luther’s view of church quite helpful in part and I’m still blown away by Timmis & Chester’s ‘Total Church’.

What is the relationship between the church and the Kingdom of God?

This one is difficult. I’m still not sure if I have it nailed down (or if I’ll ever nail it down). In light of this a did a study and wrote a paper on the concept of the kingdom of God as found in Luke’s gospel. You can read it here.

What is the relationship between the church and social concern (as opposed to the relationship between Christians and social concern)?

Still not clear on this one either. I know all the various arguments out there and I’ve read quite a bit but I’m not sure I’ve read anything that directly answers this question in a way that looks at individual Christian responsibility and the corporate church’s responsibility.

What is the relationship between the church (local) and culture?

Daniel 1. I have a brilliant talk by Vaughan Roberts on Daniel 1 that answers this question beautifully. Unfortunately I don’t have the rights to post it. I haven’t checked if its available elsewhere so have a look around and I’ll tell you if I find it on-line. Basically his thesis is: Don’t run away from culture but don’t compromise either – and be humble and generous as you figure out this tension.

Is the Knox-Robinson view of church too narrow?

I’m struggling to figure out if its the actual theology that’s too narrow here or the way people practice it in church life. Do I believe that the earthly gathering of believers is the embodiment of an already existing heavenly gathering? Yes. I just think there’s more to ‘church’ than ‘the gathering’.

What does over-realised eschatology look like in the church?

A church that neglects gospel proclamation because its too busy trying to make the new creation happen now.

What does under-realised eschatology look like in the church?

A church that only ever does evangelism and forgets that God’s agenda is the renewal of all things.

How do the above two questions relate to the plausibility of the homogeneous unit principle?

This is tricky. Most people who write on this issue, that I’ve read, write from predominantly mono-cultural society whereas things in South Africa are a lot messier. I’m still working on this one.

What do those same two questions have to say about the depth of gospel community a church should be attempting?

It should be deeeeeeeeeeep. The one thing I’m becoming more and more convinced about in my studies is the need for authentic community that extends beyond the structures.

Are multi-site churches theologically viable?

I don’t see why not. But I also think they can be a breeding ground for a number of different sins: like pride for example. There is also the chance that they can turn the church into not much more than a market commodity – not good. But then again the whole arena of multi-site is quite diverse.

My Kingdom Summary…in Luke

Here’s how I concluded my marathon paper entitled, ‘What is the Kingdom of God in Luke’s Gospel?‘:

On one level it is easy to see why this particular subject has generated so much debate and caused scholars to often have little in the way of consensus over some of the issues relating to the kingdom of God. In many ways it is difficult to give a definitive answer to the question posed at the beginning, even when limiting oneself to the kingdom as it appears in Luke’s gospel. However upon a careful reading of the text one can begin to put parameters in place and through these parameters begin to draw the outline of this dynamic kingdom of God. In closing then it would be helpful for us to briefly re-sketch our outline of the kingdom.

Luke paints for us the picture of a kingdom that is built, in part, upon the Old Testament and, to an even more limited degree, Jewish expectation of a liberating messiah who would establish a new age. He places Jesus at the center of his narrative as that liberator, but his act of liberation and restoration far surpasses any previous expectation. For Luke Jesus comes proclaiming a kingdom the purpose of which is to bring restoration to poor and beggarly Israel. Luke’s kingdom however is not limited to Israel but extends beyond to allow for people from the north, south, east and west to enter in. It is a restoration that doesn’t merely overturn the exile but goes to work on the many damaging effects of the fall. It is a kingdom that was present in the ministry of Jesus and that since the cross has been in effect, to some degree, and will continue until Christ returns and consummates the kingdom by complete restoration.

As Christians today we live in the middle of that timing process and as we do we would do well to heed the words of New Testament scholar, Craig L. Blomberg,

‘Understanding this combination of future and present elements of the kingdom gives us both hope and a certain realism about the Christian life and task. On the one hand, we dare not underestimate how much we can accomplish for God when yielded to his Spirit. He wants to create an outpost or colony of heaven – of the world to come – in our lives individually and corporately now in this age. Thus we become the salt of the earth and light of the world. On the other hand, we dare not underestimate the strength of the opposition. We will not Christianize the earth or establish God’s righteousness in any wholesale way in this life; that remains for Jesus himself to do after his return.’ (Jesus and the Gospels: 1997: 286)

Thoughts? Comments?

Right Investment

Here’s a profound little comment that one of my pastors made on Sunday night:

“Invest now in the world to come“

Simple yet amazingly profound in light of some of the current debates don’t you think?

Blomberg on Eschatology

Craig Blmoberg wrote this in his conclusion to a 1998 article in Themelios, entitled “Eschatology and the Church: Some New Testament Perspectives“

“It is precisely because we understand God’s plans to supernaturally transform our universe that we can function as little outposts of heaven to model his designs for the universe. We pray ‘your will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ (Mt. 6:10). A healthy understanding of the inaugurated eschatology of the NT will save us from the twin errors of a despair or defeatism that attempts to do nothing for this world but save souls from it and the currently more prominent mistake of replacing a hope for a supernaturally recreated universe with utopian socio-political programs for this world. Only God knows how much good we as Christians can bring about socially, politically, ethically, and ideologically in our world. We have seen in our time relatively peaceful revolutions in Europe and the former Soviet Union due in part at least to Christian intercession and non-violent action. It is not a little perverse when certain North American dispensationalists continue to see European unity as a sign of the fulfillment of prophecies in the book of Revelation of satanic activity.81 But euphoria over the collapse of the Iron Curtain quickly gave way to grief over mass genocide in Rwanda, a country boasting eighty percent of its population as professingly Christian! So, quickly on the heels of events seemingly influenced by the divine came the demonic again, and the tribalism that generated that African holocaust in less extreme ways tends to fragment our world on every continent at the end of this second Christian millennium, notwithstanding all attempts to create structures reflecting socio-political or even ecclesiastical unity.”

That thing called ‘Church’

During 2007 I had interactions with numerous church pastors and planters, both in the flesh and on the web. Through these I’ve become convinced that I need to get my ecclesiology clear in my head over the course of 2008. So I’m going to concentrate my studies in this area. Here’s a list of some of the questions I want to have a look at (feel free to point me towards literature that deals with any of the questions below):

According to the New Testament what do you have to have, as absolute minimum, for a church to exist?

What is the relationship between the church and the Kingdom of God?

What is the relationship between the church and social concern (as opposed to the relationship between Christians and social concern)?

What is the relationship between the church (local) and culture?

Is the Knox-Robinson view of church too narrow?

What does over-realised eschatology look like in the church?

What does under-realised eschatology look like in the church?

How do the above two questions relate to the plausibility of the homogeneous unit principle?

What do those same two questions have to say about the depth of gospel community a church should be attempting?

Are multi-site churches theologically viable?

I think these questions are crucial to not only ponder but begin to give solid biblical answers to if a new group of young leaders aim to plant and grow fresh expressions of church that reflect the pattern of the New Testament.

Tim Chester on Eschatology

In light of our last Open Forum I thought this paper, by Total Church co-author Tim Chester, would make for interesting reading.

Restorative Eschatology – An Open Forum

Due to the success of the last Open Forum I’ve decided to make them a regular occurrence here at ‘…daylight‘. This time I want to build upon something I noted in the last forum and one of the comments that was posted in response. I noted that our gospel definitions did not include the subjects of heaven or hell and that this was peculiar because often evangelicals are accused of reducing the gospel to a ‘get out of hell free’ ticket. Chris Gensheer who blogs at Intersection made the following astute comment in response:

One of the reasons why I think “heaven and hell” were not mentioned is because I think there is something of a turn within evangelicalism from a “turn or burn” eschatology, to a restorative eschatology.

So here’s the topic of the new forum. What does a restorative eschatology look like? Does it mean we all become post-mills? Does it mean that the New Creation is realized in this age as more and more people live out what it means to follow Jesus? Or does it mean that even though this world will pass away, because of the New Creation we must live with a restorative hope that works itself out in the present age?

So once again I’ll get the ball rolling: I’m not a post-mill, I’m more a-mill. I would argue however that because I believe that God will make a New Creation one day, and because I am positionally a member of the New Creation already in Christ, I must live restoratively now in this life.

Alright peeps, your turn (and remember be nice and no essay-length comments please). BTW – If you don’t understand some of the terminology in this post then follow the links for definitions.

Seeing the End and Being Missional

Last night in our small group we studied Mark 13 and the mini apocalypse section that it contains. Its a tricky bit of text in Mark’s Gospel but I think whatever decisions you reach about the details (within reason) the overall picture seems to be clear: Jesus is coming back to judge and save so heed the signs and be on your guard.

In looking to apply this section we asked a set of questions of ourselves and attempted to answer each question from two points of view: Firstly as a CHRISTIAN who is UNCONCERNED about the end and then secondly as a CHRISTIAN who IS CONCERNED about the end, as the passage suggests we should be. These where the questions:

What do I think about evangelism?
How do I pray?
How do I choose where to work?
How do I conduct my relationships with other Christians?
How do I spend my money?
How do I spend my free time?
How do I view church attendance and meeting with other believers?
How do I view personal Bible reading?
How do I respond to false christs and gospels?

What was great to see was that as we attempted to answer these questions from both points of view we could see a distinct move from a sort of consumer-Christian mindset to a missional-Christian mindset in the way that the group thought out the implications. What was the basis for this move from consumer to missional? The end – when Jesus comes to judge and save. Ironic then that if you don’t see Jesus coming to judge and save then you end up with a consumer mindset rather than a missional mindset – and yet many ‘missional’ proponents suggest that talking about judgment is not longer en vogue – curious?

God’s Mission and the End

There is a trend in the contemporary church to swing back the general emphasis of mission to what happens here in this present life. In some cases this trend is refreshing and a welcome relief to the kind of preaching that says ‘Get your “GET OUT OF HELL FREE” ticket and then just hold on, isolated from the world until Jesus comes back to burn everyone else.’ So the participants in this type of view isolate themselves completely from the culture and although they do evangelism their view of redemption is very narrow.

Yet this trend which swings emphasis back onto the present can also be dangerous in excluding the vital role that the end plays in our living here now. The aims are admirable, they seek to show Christians that they should engage culture, work in such a way as to improve culture and display Christ’s lordship over all in this present earth. Yet some in this swing, in light of this, tend to minimize the place of ‘the end’ in their thinking, evangelism and motivation for living now.

Today in Scripture I was reminded that this underemphasis cannot be right. The end must be kept clearly in focus to live now. I was reflecting on John 6:38-40 and noticed that in this concise little summary of what God’s will is for humanity Jesus twice includes the phrase ‘at the last day.’ (v.39 & 40) So whatever Jesus thinks about the mission of God in the world you can be sure of this: Being ‘raised up at the last day’ is of vital importance – lose it and you lose the mission now.

So lift high the end – our glorious redemption. Don’t play it down, but live in light of it so that the now is impacted because the end is certain.