Archive for November, 2007

God is a Gospel-Alone God.  He is known only in the Gospel.  His very being is a Gospel Being.  There’s no use even conceiving of a God other than the Father revealed in the Son by the Spirit.  If you’re not convinced, read these posts which were digressions to bolster the point:

       The Trinitarian OT

       Oneness and Threeness

Now if this is true then the Gospel-Alone God is honoured in the world by a Gospel-Alone mission.  This is what I was trying to say with the first two parts of “Mission, evangelism and social action.” (part one, part two).

Here are some more thoughts on the topic…


7)  Much talk in this debate is founded on false dichotomies.

Take as an example Dwight Moody’s comment:

“I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel.  God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, ‘Moody, save all you can.”

Many of the ‘evangelism-only’ advocates in this debate sound closer to Plato than Scripture as they forward an essentially dualistic world-view.  Here “this world” is pitted against a salvation that is clearly ‘out of this world.’  Salvation is from this ‘wrecked vessel’.  Such thinking is very common.  People play off against each other then and now, soul and body, heaven and earth, individual and corporate, internal and external, rational and physical.  In each case it is the former that is given precedence. 

Yet surely God’s purposes for ‘this wrecked vessel’ are to renew it not abandon it!  The new creation – the realm of salvation – is this creation renewed.  The spiritual realm is not anti-physical, the Word became flesh!  Any arguments for Gospel-alone mission must avoid such dualisms.  But…


8) We must also maintain some Biblical distinctions.

‘Spiritual vs physical’ is more recognisable as a Greek dualism  But the Bible puts forward some right distinctions.

  • Adam vs Christ
    • Adam refined is still Adam.  “Flesh gives birth to flesh.” (John 3:6)
  • Works vs Faith
    • Even faultless legalistic righteousness is dung in God’s sight. (Phil 3:1-9)
    • “Faith comes by hearing.” (Rom 10:14)
  • Christ’s work vs Our witness
    • All authority is given to the risen Christ – the Church goes in a word and sacrament ministry. (Matt 28:18-20)
    • We do not redeem the world – Christ has done it.  As ambassadors, we bring word of this finished work (2 Cor 5: 18-21)
    • We are not the doers.  It is finished.  We bear witness to His once-and-for-all Doing.


9)  ‘Service to the world’ does not co-ordinate our mission.  Mission co-ordinates our service to the world.

Often people conceive of ‘service’ as the umbrella activity under which evangelism sits (side by side with social action).  Yet, what does 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 say?  Apostolic ministry is setting forth the truth plainly – in this context we serve. 

It’s always perilous to claim ‘this is how Jesus did it’ but that’s what I’m claiming.  Ministries of mercy always accompanied Christ’s preaching of the word.  Praise God!  I mean, really, can you imagine a Christ who ignored the physical needs of those who came to Him??!  Not for a second! Yet His service was in the context of His Gospel (word) mission:

Think of Mark 1:

“Everyone is looking for you!” 38 Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else–to the nearby villages–so that I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” (Mark 1:37-38)

His word ministry co-ordinated His mercy ministry. 

Think of Mark 2: the paralytic’s physical need was met but first Jesus pronounces forgiveness and then heals him as a witness to the reality of that forgiveness. 

Think of Mark 3:  Jesus appoints the 12 and sends them out to preach and to drive out demons.  Now whatever you think about this second task it surely functions similarly to the way it functions for Jesus (it is His authority He gives them to do it).  In Jesus’ ministry it functioned as authentication that the Strong(est) Man has come.  It can’t be interpreted today as sanction for elevating social action to the level of proclamation.  Jesus could easily have said ‘Go and campaign for social justice.’  Instead He said v14 and 15,

Think of Mark 4.  The Kingdom grows in the power of the word.  In fact the power to grow a world-dominating kingdom organically resides in this word alone.

Think of Mark 5. The woman with the flow of blood simply wanted a physical fix.  Jesus wants a personal encounter and to pronounce a word of forgiveness.

Think of Mark 6. Jesus identifies the people’s need – teaching (v34)!  Those who would sit under Jesus’ teaching were shown tremendous kindness – the feeding of the 5000!  Yet even this deed is a sign proclaiming Christ and Jesus uses words to explain it as such.  To those who come under the word, their every need is catered for.  Yet even these needs are met in Gospel-proclaiming ways.  No-one could doubt that here is a Gospel, Word-ministry.  But one in which the full, vibrant, physical life of the Kingdom is manifest.

We could continue in Mark, but let’s stop there.  Doesn’t Jesus’ example challenge our mission strategies?  We often put on a meal to attract non-Christians then tack on a Gospel talk.  Jesus puts on a teaching event and then, in costly love and in demonstration of the miraculous resources of the kingdom, He meets the physical needs of those who come.  What should be our response?

Should we put on a soup kitchen for the homeless and have a five minute ‘God slot’ in the middle?  Or shouldn’t we rather move into the deprived areas of our world on a Gospel-proclamation footing, and in that context offer food, clothing, shelter, brotherly-sisterly love to any and all who will come under the sound of that Gospel. 

All this is part of what it means to have evangelism co-ordinate our ‘service’ rather than the other way around.


In my next post I’ll talk about the costly, life-sharing, counter-cultural, need-meeting love we ought to be manifesting in our churches.  None of that is a betrayal of our mission of Gospel-proclamation.  In fact, Jesus thought it was the back-bone of it!  (John 13:34-35)

Read Full Post »

Ok – just one more digression before we get back to missions.  This flows on from our discussions about the trinity…

 I’m a bit slow in my travels around the blogosphere so I apologise that this is about a week out of date.  But, Ben Witherington (recently-ish) managed to get 83 comments on a post called “Is God a narcisist?”.  He was reacting against a Piper-ist, Schreiner-ist theology that says “The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.” 

Being a good biblical (NT) theologian he made excellent points on the meaning of kabod (Hebrew) and doxa (Greek) and the difference between this and God’s Name (which is about vindicating His reputation).  I’ve skim-read the comments as much as I’m going to but nowhere (as far as I can see) do people discuss the trinity.  This is kind of surprising!

Growing out of our discussion about One-ness and Three-ness, one of the chief conclusions to be drawn is the fact that God ought never to be thought of in anything approaching unitarian terms.  The One-ness of God does not connote a single centre of action or personal consciousness in God.  Yet when a theologian asserts that “God’s chief end is self-glorification” then almost certainly a doctrine of the one God, divorced from trinitarian reciprocity, is in view.  

We ought to ask all such theologians “Which Person of God are you speaking of?”  They surely cannot be referring to the trinitarian life of Father, Son and Spirit – that communion is the essence of self-giving.  God is love.  And they surely cannot be referring to the Father for He has committed all things into His Son’s hands (John 3:35).  They mustn’t be speaking of the Son, He only ever glorifies the Father. (John 4:34).  And they can’t be speaking of the Spirit, He simply takes from what is the Father’s and the Son’s and makes it known (John 16:15).  So what god are they speaking of when they say “His chief end is to glorify Himself”?  Clearly the “God” referred to here is one abstracted from considerations of the trinitarian life.  Yet as my last post was trying to argue – the living God cannot for a second be abstracted from considerations of trinitarian self-giving.  The only God there is is the Trinity!  The One God is precisely the community of sacrificial love between Father, Son and Spirit. (see also The Cruciform God

When the LORD says in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.” it is only because He has been glorifying His Servant for the last seven verses – “Here is My Servant, whom I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations…” (Isaiah 42:1ff)  The Father glorifies His Son and anoints Him with His Spirit.  Therefore He will not give that glory to another.  This is the very opposite of self-love.  Instead His other-centred glory requires that He be exclusively committed to His Son in holy love. 

God is not a narcisist.  A proper doctrine of the trinity guarantees it.  And wherever God is portrayed as a narcisist you can guarantee that a defective trinity is lurking in the background.

Next time you hear such a theology, ask yourself what doctrine of the trinity is being espoused here?  Has this theologian conceived of God apart from the communion of the Three?  Almost certainly they have – and a selfish God is the outcome.

Two verses from John to finish:

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.” (John 8:54)

“All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.” (John 16:15)

Read Full Post »

I remember a friend asking me what I thought God was doing before the creation of the world.  I answered “They were enjoying one another.”  He looked very quizzical and then said, “….Oh! You mean the Trinity!” I remember thinking “Well yes, what god were you thinking of?”

Yet many will think of God in ways that are divorced from the lively interaction of Father, Son and Spirit.  What about you?  How do you think of God’s pre-creation life?  His OT activity?  His work in providence?  His divine attributes?  Do you naturally and enthusiastically conceive of these as the out-flow of the mutual relations of Persons?  Is your account of these shaped by triniarian inter-play?  Or do you try to conceive of these as, to all intents and purposes, unitarian activities to which we add trinitarian nuances (when we discuss salvation).   

Another way of asking this is – how do you think about the relation of Oneness and Threeness in God. 

Is it like this?  (Forgive the very amateur graphics/formatting)

Oneness and Threeness 1 

Here, Oneness is defined as the substrata – the substance of God underlying the Persons.  The fundamental truths about God are cast in unitarian terms.  To this is added multi-Personal considerations.  Is this how you consider the interplay of Oneness and Threeness?

Or what about this view:

Oneness and Threeness 2

Here Oneness and Threeness are laid side by side.  We consider ‘De Deo Uno’ and De Deo Trino’ but separately.  We can even subscribe to phrases like “the equal ultimacy of the One and the Three.”  Yet what we mean by this is a commitment to hold two fundamentally incommensurate doctrines of God together.  It can even foster a refusal to let the Threeness of God define the Oneness.  Here the One God is not constituted by the relations of the Three – Oneness is something else (divine simplicity, aseity etc etc).  And the Three do not find their particular identities in the Oneness communion.  No.  Instead Oneness and Threeness remain unco-ordinated.  It’s a tri-unity by forcing One and Three together not because the ‘tri’ and the ‘unity’ mutually inform one another. 

But what about if we saw things like this…

Oneness Threeness 3b 

Here the Oneness is precisely the mutual relations of the particular Persons.  And these particular Persons find their identity in the communion that is God’s Oneness.  “God’s being is in His communion” (John Zizioulas).  The Three are three in their Oneness (not considered apart from it).  The One is one in the Threeness (not considered apart from it).

This is truly a trinity.  Here the ‘tri’ and the ‘unity’ are maintained from precisely the same perspective.  Here is a real ‘equal ultimacy of the One and the Three.’

 The benefits of such a perspective?  Many – I hope to blog on many more in the fulness of time.  But for now (since we’re in the middle of a series on mission) – we see that our doctrine of God, whether considering ‘De Deo Uno’ or ‘De Deo Trino’ is always a doctrine of the interplay of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  It is always an investigation of the economy of salvation in which the Three are disclosed.  It is always ‘Gospel’ theology.  The God of missions is a Gospel-alone God who is served in the world by a Gospel-alone mission.

Read Full Post »

This, together with my next post on One-ness and Three-ness, is a detour from my series on mission, evangelism and social action. 

The point I’m seeking to secure in this detour is that God is known only in the Gospel.  He is a Gospel-Alone God and thus His church has a Gospel-Alone mission.  There is not a God to be known apart from Jesus – not “God the Creator”, not “The one God”,  not “The Unmoved Mover”, not “The First Cause” – if we do not know the Father in the Son and by the Spirit we do not know God full-stop.  (This being the case it makes no sense to honour “God” apart from the Gospel – that is to take upon ourselves a mission that is not itself the gospel).

Now very quickly the question will come: Isn’t the Old Testament just such a revelation?  That is, don’t the Law, Prophets and Writings reveal the living God yet not in this trinitarian (gospel) way?  My answer is no.  The Hebrew Scriptures do reveal the very deepest things of God because they are themselves a trinitarian revelation of the trinitarian God.

In asserting this people may accuse me of being driven simply by systematic (christocentric) concerns.  These are strongly present I cannot deny it.  But my purpose in this post is to show that the Hebrew Scriptures on their own terms and in their own context must be understood from a trinitarian framework.

My point is not that the OT betrays hints, shapes and shadows of triune structure

My point is not that NT eyes can see trinitarian themes in the OT

My point is not that we go back as Christians and now retrospectively read the trinity into the OT

My point is not that the OT gives us partial suggestions of trinitarian life that are then developed by NT fulfillment

My point is that these texts read on their own terms and in their own context (as the Jewish, Hebrew Scriptures that they are) demand to be understood as the revelation of a multi-Personal God.  The only proper way to understand these texts is as trinitarian revelation.  These texts are either to be understood triunely or they are mis-understood – on their own terms or any others!  What I am setting out to do is to simply open up the OT and show what is actually there.  I have already acknowledged that I have a dogmatic commitment to christocentric revelation, but I hope to show that the OT texts themselves bear this out.

Just before we dive into the texts I would simply ask the reader to question their own dogmatic commitments.  I may be expecting to see a multi-Personal God in the OT, but I assure you – you are expecting to see a certain kind of God also.  What is it?  Are you expecting to see a revelation of the one God?  A uni-Personal God?  Are you accustomed to thinking of the OT God as equivalent to the God of the modern Jew?  Unitarian?  Perhaps not, perhaps you recoil at the idea (I hope so).  But it’s worth all of us asking ourselves ‘What are our pre-suppositions?’ as we read ‘In the Beginning.’  The “God” of Genesis 1:1 is a certain kind of God.  What do we assume about His being?  What will we allow Him to be, do and say as we read chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3…?  Do we think it’s “obvious” that the God of Genesis 1 is the uncreated Creator?  Do we assume that the God being revealed by Moses is basically the God of the modern Jew?  The philosophical theist?  Something like the Muslim ‘God’?  Perhaps we think (as so many Christians do) that “the One God” is a foundational doctrine to which trinitarian concepts are added? Perhaps then we see the OT as portraying this basic ‘God’ before trinitarian nuances are added? 

I have often had the experience of being criticised for bringing trinitarian assumptions to the OT text when, at the same time, my Christian friend was bringing equally strong and equally controlling assumptions to bear themselves – assumptions that God (or His revelation) must progress from primitive unitarianism to developed trinitarianism.  Pre-suppositions are inevitable.  The issue is not ‘Who has purged themselves of all dogmatic bias and is a pure biblical scholar!’  The issue is ‘Which pre-suppositions can actually handle what’s on the page and which do damage to the text?’  My contention is that the trinitarian pre-supposition is the only one that makes sense of the OT data.

Ok.  Here we go – 24 Scriptures to consider:

  • Genesis 1.   Verse 1: “In the beginning Elohiym… ” Here is the God to Whom we’re introduced.  A plural noun!  One that takes a singular verb.  The grammatical oddity is meant to make us sit up and take notice. Our plural God acts as one.    And His plural counsel (v26) “Let us…”  gives rise to a united creation of a plural humanity – male and female to image His own life.
  • Genesis 3.  The Voice of the LORD God (v8) who comes to walk with Adam and Eve is also the LORD God (v9)
  • Genesis 16.  The Angel of the LORD (v9) is also LORD and God (v13)
  • Genesis 18&19.  The LORD who appears to Abraham (18:1) is Judge of all the earth (18:25), yet He excercises His divine prerogative in union with “the LORD out of the heavens.” (19:24)
  • Genesis 32.  Jacob wrestles with the Man (v24) who is the Angel (Hosea 12:4) who is God (Gen 32:28,30)
  • Genesis 48.  The God who is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is Shepherd and the source of blessing (v15) is the Angel of God (v16).
  • Exodus 3.  The God of the burning bush is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (v6) and the great I AM (v14).  He is also the Angel of the LORD (v2) and will bring the people to worship God on the mountain (v12).
  • Exodus 19.  The LORD on the mountain (v10) warns Moses that in three days the LORD will come to the mountain (v11) and things will be very different then.  Sure enough, three days later, the LORD descends on the mountain (v18) and then the LORD descends on the mountain (v20)!
  • Exodus 33.  Moses meets face to face with the LORD in the tent of meeting (v11) but the LORD on the top of the mountain he must never see (v20-22).
  • Joshua 5&6.  The Commander of the LORD’s army (5:14) who fights for Israel to deliver her is also the LORD who is worthy of worship (5:15; 6:2)
  • Judges 2.   The Angel of the LORD brought them out of Egypt and established His covenant with them. (v1-4)
  • Judges 6. The Angel of the LORD (v11-12) brings the LORD’s blessing (one who is Sovereign LORD, v22).  Yet the Angel, as another Person is Himself the LORD (v14) with the same divine majesty (v22-24).
  • Judges 13.  God sends the Angel of the LORD (e.g. v9) who is Himself God (e.g. v22). And the Spirit fills Samson (v25)
  • Psalm 2.  The Son Whom we are to kiss and find refuge in (v12) is the Anointed Son of the Father through Whom is exercised all divine rule and authority.
  • Psalm 45.  The most excellent of men who rules the nations as Champion and King is called ‘Lord’ by His bride and ‘God‘ by His God. (v6,7)
  • Psalm 110.  David knows two Lords who converse in their rule of the nations.  There is the LORD and there is the Kingly Priest who is David’s Lord.
  • Proverbs.  The Wisdom of God who creates (8:30) and gives new life (8:35) through granting the Spirit (1:23) is also possessed by the LORD (8:22)
  • Isaiah 9.  The government of God’s righteous kingdom will be on the shoulders of the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (v6).  Yet He is One who is born and through Whom the zeal of the LORD will accomplish His work (v7)
  • Isaiah 48. The great I AM, the first and the last who created the heavens and the earth and who called Israel (v12,13) is One who is sent from the Lord GOD along with His Spirit (v16)
  • Isaiah 63.  The Saviour sends the Angel to save, yet they grieve His Holy Spirit (v9-10)
  • Ezekiel 34.  The Shepherd of Ezekiel’s prophesy will be the LORD Himself (v12-22), yet this loving, kingly rule is exercised through the Prince, His Servant David (v23-24) who does all that the LORD is said to do as Shepherd and who rules for the LORD. 
  • Daniel 7.  The Possessor and rightful Ruler of the Kingdom that shall never pass away is the Son of Man (v13,14) who inherits the kingdom from the Ancient of Days (v9-12).
  • Micah 2.  The Shepherd who will gather the remnant of Israel is the LORD (v12) who will set at their head a King who is also called ‘LORD’ (v13)
  • Zechariah 2.  The One Sent from the LORD Almighty (v7,9,11) is the LORD Himself to live among the Israelites as the gentle, righteous, saving King of 9:9 (compare with 2:10)!

In all this my argument is not that these are hints of trinity but that they are texts that can only ever be understood from the perspective of a multi-Personal God.  When two Persons called LORD are interacting in the text (when we see plainly “true God from true God”) then an understanding of God as uni-Personal is just dead wrong.  It must always have been dead wrong for it could never account for the Hebrew Scriptures as written.

The only God there is is trinitarian and His revelation has always been such.

Read Full Post »

Ok, I’m going to continue with my Mission, Evangelism and Social Action posts in a little bit.  But first I need to respond to some excellent questioning by Bobby and KC.

I propose three posts on the issues of “The Mystery”, “The Trinitarian OT” and “One-ness and Three-ness”.  All of these are seeking to uphold the fact that God was, is and ever shall be trinitarian and christo-centric in His being and therefore in His revelation and salvation.  The God of the gospel is the only God there is and can be known only in the gospel.  This is true about ‘God in Himself’ and true for ‘God towards us’, both in OT times and today.  This being the case, our mission is a gospel-alone mission since our God is a gospel-alone God.  But we’ll get to that.


I’ve written a longer thing elsewhere on “mystery” citing every NT occurence.  I won’t bore you with that unless you ask.


Now we all know that “mystery” is not a whodunnit in the Bible.  Mysteries are meant to be proclaimed (e.g. Col 4:3; Eph 6:19).  And even though they’re proclaimed and even when people understand them, they’re still ‘mysteries.’ (e.g. 1 Tim 3:9).   And we know that mysteries have insiders and outsiders and that they’re very differently experienced depending on where you’re standing (e.g. Matt 13:11).  And we also know that the vast majority of ‘mysteries’ in the NT have nothing to do with OT/NT disjunction!  That’s all worth saying I think.

 But there’s three that I think are associated with disjunctions.  Ephesians 3; Col 1; Rom 16.

 Ephesians 3:2-6

“2 Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”

Here Paul spells it out.  This is the mystery, this is what was unknown and is now being revealed – *not* trinity, christology, justification etc etc!  This is the mystery: How to administrate the togetherness of Jew and Gentile in the one body!  In OT times you could be a Gentile in Israel but you had to be circumcised etc.  The mystery concerns the “together”ness of Jew and Gentile – the word ‘together’ appears 3 times for emphasis.  How do you now have Gentiles qua Gentiles as members together?  That will take some thinking through.  The OT points forwards to this time.  But it doesn’t tell the Apostles how they’re going to administrate it.   Should Peter separate out from the Gentiles when he eats or what?  Should he go to Cornelius’ house?  Should Timothy be circumcised?  What about Titus?  What do we do about dietary laws? Special days?  What should multi-national church look like?  What do we do now that the Seed has come and Sinai’s “use-by” date has passed??  The Spirit of God is going to have to make known the details of this administration.

Let me quote the important verse again: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”  What does Jew-Gentile “togetherness” look like – that’s what Paul needs special revelation about.

Colossians 1:27

“the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” 

The “you” that Christ is in, is the Gentile Colossians.  (Paul often switches between “we” and “you” in order to speak of Jews and Gentiles, cf Eph 2 for a good example).  Making known among the *Gentiles* this hope, the Spirit in Gentiles – this is new when we understand that the Gentiles remain Gentiles.  And of course that is the big controversy in the NT – Don’t Gentiles have to become Jews to inherit the blessings?  No says Paul.  And that’s the new thing.

Romans 16:25f

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him–

Note that this mystery is made known through the prophetic writings which I think is most naturally taken to mean the OT.  Thus it is the OT which reveals this mystery. Note also that the hidden/revealed distinction is parallel to a long-ages-past/all-nations distinction.  Therefore the Jew/Gentile distinction is at the heart of this mystery (which makes great sense of its context as a summary to Romans).  Paul seems to be saying that the mystery (associated very strongly with ‘my gospel’) was hidden (can we say ‘wrapped up’?) in long ages past in the nation of Israel and is now made known (through the OT!) to all nations.  In other words Paul is basically just repeating his ‘first to the Jew, then to the Gentile’ maxim.  This is a very fitting end to a letter in which that theme is so prominent.  Paul’s not going to say that the content of the Gospel was hidden from OT believers or else he’s contradicting himself massively (1:3-4; 3:21; 4; ch9-11; etc etc).  Rather he’s saying that the Gospel as a message to the nations was hidden within the people of Israel and is now proclaimed in all the world.


There’s much I disagree with in the new perspective, but one thing I think they’ve rightly highlighted is the importance of the Jew-Gentile problem for the NT church.  The big “new thing” that everyone’s struggling to grapple with, what is it??  Trinity??  Well there just aren’t any passages where Paul goes “Right, about the Trinity, I know it’s difficult but just bear with me…”  But there are many passages where the Apostles grapple with the administration of the ingrafting of Gentiles.  How much of Acts?  How much of Romans? Corinthians? Galatians?  Ephesians?  It’s pretty huge when you think about it.   This is what is genuinely novel about the New Testament.

Read Full Post »

I tried to argue in the last post that neither soteriology nor ecclesiology nor eschatology should define our priorities in mission.  Rather, it’s our doctrine of God that must be our first point of call.  It is the God whose being is in the Father’s sending (missio) of the Son who is the proper foundation for missiology.  If that’s true then it follows…


4)    A deficient doctrine of God will lead to a deficient missiology

5)    The divorce of ‘God the Creator’ from ‘God the Redeemer’ is one of the chief errors in doctrine of God and, consequently, missiology. 

John Stott has been a vocal proponent of “evangelism + social action = mission.”  The links with his doctrine of God are exposed in quotes like this: 

“[There are two freedoms and two unities for which Jesus Christ is concerned] On the one hand there is socio-political liberation and the unity of all mankind, for these things are the good will of God the Creator, while on the other there is the redemptive work of Christ who sets his people free from sin and guilt, and unites them in his new community.  To muddle these two things (creation and redemption, common grace and saving grace, liberation and salvation, justice and justification) is to plunge oneself into all kinds of confusion.” (From a sermon quoted in Timothy Dudley Smith, John Stott: A Global Ministry, IVP, 2001, p204). 

Here we see God the Creator and God the Redeemer laid side by side.  The concerns of creation and redemption are, in this way of thinking, separately addressed by the Living God. 

Now of course the Father is very interested in the whole spectrum of these activities above.  Yet He accomplishes them through the one Gospel. 

As Athanasius was so keen to stress:

“The first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word who made it in the beginning.” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation #1)

The Word became flesh – there are no purposes of God that are not bound up in the exaltation of His Son, in Him creation and redemption are inseparably bound.

 6)    God’s mission is a Gospel mission 


The purposes of the Father from all ages have been exclusively focussed on His Son (Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:13,14; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:15f).



In the power of the Spirit, His word has been the agent for all divine activity in creation and redemption.( 2 Peter 3:5-7; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; John 1:1-3; 5:24; 6:63,68) 


In the Incarnation of the Word, the Father gives to Jesus His word (John 8:55; 14:24), which accomplished all that Jesus does (John 14:10; Mark 4:41; Luke 4:43; John 5:24; 12:48; 17:17).


It is this word that Jesus entrusts to his followers (John 15:20; 17:6,14,20). 


The Church has inherited a Gospel mission for the world, i.e. the Father’s mission to the exalt His Son in His Spirit-empowered word.


God is exclusively concerned for the exaltation of His Son.  All other interests (in justice, liberation, common grace etc) find their place under this one agenda.  And the Father has committed all His omnipotent power to Christ (Matt 28:18) who in turn grants it to the Church (Matt 28:19-20; Eph 1:22-23).  The Living God has unreservedly committed Himself to the Gospel mission of the Church.


Barth saw these things so clearly.  In 1934 the pressure for the Confessing Church to have another agenda was immense.  Yet even (and especially) here Barth is adamant that the mission of the Church is the proclamation of Christ: 

‘The Church’s commission, which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ’s stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of God.’ (Barmen Declaration, article 6)

 Or as he says in IV/3: 

“The first if not the only thing in its witness is the ministry of the viva vox Evangelii to be discharged voce humana in human words.  It is its declaration, explanation and evangelical address with the lips.”  (IV/3, p864.) 

Now if Barth can say that in the face of the Nazis, can we really countenance a socio-political side-show in our own day?   In my next post I’ll tease out some of the implications for the Church’s ministry today.

Read Full Post »

Here are some thoughts on the inter-relation of mission, evangelism and social action. I have written a longer essay on this on my website here.  Here are some abridged thoughts… In part one I will flag up the doctrine of God issues which ought to be the very foundation of our missiology.  But first, a word of warning… 

1)    I lavish exhorbitant amounts of money and time on my own ‘non-spiritual’ blessings 


Before we say anything else, let’s admit this.  I will argue strongly that the mission of the church is to proclaim the Gospel and that to add social action as a separate component is confused and confusing.  BUT… before we get into all that let’s come clean: I love myself by spending many resources on my own health, comfort, recreation, food, clothing, shelter etc etc.   If I am to love my neighbour as myself, will I really with-hold such blessings from others – those blessings which I indulge myself with on a daily basis??  If someone refuses to feed and clothe the poor let them never claim justification in an ‘evangelism-only’ missiology.  It is greed pure and simple. 



2)    Mission is God’s work first, then ours 

“It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world, it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father which includes the church.” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution of Messianic Ecclesiology, London: SCM Pr., 1977, p64).


3)    Mission is founded in our doctrine of God 


“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” John 20:21 


“Must not even the most faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have reason to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity—namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to the world? Can we indeed claim that we do it any other way?” (Karl Barth, quoted in Norman E. Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity, Orbis, 1995, p105–6.) 

In evangelical circles we are accustomed to thinking through this question from the perspective of certain priorities.  That is, we begin with “We’re on the Titanic!  Get people to the life rafts, don’t re-arrange the deck-chairs!”  The urgency driving such thinking, the priority of the gospel task that this engenders, is completely admirable.  If you’re proclaiming Christ from the roof-tops out of this understanding of mission, I stand with you, shoulder-to-shoulder!  Evangelism is my passion, my gifting and my job!  But is this really where we should begin??  Such a perspective often leads to the following assessments: 



We highlight the priority of then over now, of soul over body, of heaven over earth, of individual over corporate, of internal mental acts, over external physical acts.   



If we start here, we’re defeated before we’ve begun.  First of all, so much of this dichotomous thinking is closer to Plato than Scripture.  But more importantly, our first thoughts should be about our God, not our plight.  We must begin with doctrine of God.  We should be asking: “What do we learn from the Father’s sending of the Son? (a mission constitutive of the divine being).  “What is His mission in creation and redemption?” 




As we do so, we will see that there is a tremendous urgency to proclaim the Son, yet it springs from a different well.  More in part two…

The rest of the series:

Part two

Part three

Part four

Part five



Read Full Post »

This should be very obvious, but we easily forget it.  Even in the verses that most directly uphold the full and complete revelation of the Father in the Son, the differentiation of Father and Son are also prominently in view:

“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Heb 1:3)

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Col 1:15)

“…see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God… For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.” (2 Cor 4:4-6)

The Father is perfectly revealed, not by His Twin, not by a Clone, but by Someone who is His Complement.  The Father is revealed in His Son, the Firstborn, His Image, His right-hand Man-Priest.  Self-differentiation is at the heart of God’s revelation.  Jesus is not the same as His Father and yet fully reveals Him. More than this – this difference is of the essence of the divine self-disclosure.  Self-differentiation in communion is the being of God – all of this is perfectly revealed in, by and through Jesus of Nazareth.

Now to say that Jesus is other to His Father is not an Arian position.  On the contrary this is a determination to see Jesus’ revelation as a full disclosure of the life of God.  It was Arius who would leave us short of full revelation in Jesus.  Here we are embracing the otherness of Father and Son as the very deepest revelation of the divine nature. It is because of His equality with the Father that Christ’s otherness must be taken as part and parcel of the divine revelation. Because Jesus fully reveals the divine life by speaking of Another, thus He is not obstructing our view of this Other.   Rather the interplay of He and the Other are constitutive of the divine life which He reveals.  Arius is refuted at the deepest level, and all by heeding this simple truth: God is not revealed in His Twin but in His Son.

This should be so obvious and plain and yet so many take their opposition of Arius in precisely the opposite direction.  Their first and fatal move is to maintain that homo-ousios commits us to three-fold repetition.  They assume Father and Son are identical from the outset – all in the name of Nicene orthodoxy (of course ignoring ‘God from God…’).  Now when they approach the eating, sleeping, dying, rising Jesus they must account for these differences while upholding that the Father and Son possess identical CVs.  What to do with the discrepancies?  Simple.  Ignore the fact that Nicea pronounced the homo-ousios on Jesus of Nazareth and instead attribute all discrepancies to a human nature that is distinct from His divine nature.  The cost of such a move?  Immediately, the otherness of Jesus is not revelatory of the divine nature, in fact it impedes our view of God.  To see Jesus is suddenly not to see divine life, but merely human.  We have in fact lost the one Image, Word, Representative and Mediator of God.  Jesus of Nazareth has become, to all intents and purposes, homoi-ousios with the Father.  Question marks hover over everything we see in Jesus as to whether or not we should attribute this to the divine life.  We have returned to Arius’s problem via another route – we are left short of full revelation in Jesus.

Now if we took seriously the fact that God is not revealed in His Twin but in His Son we would be saved from all of this.  Christ’s humanity neither commits us to an eating, sleeping, dying, rising Father, but nor does it distance us from a true revelation of God.  Instead Christ’s eating reveals a Father who provides in our frailties, His sleeping reveals a Father who protects in our weakness, His death reveals a living, judging Father, His resurrection reveals a justifying, reconciling Father.  We see into the very heart-beat of the eternal trinity when we see Jesus of Nazareth in all His glorious humanity. 

And all because we have remembered the simple adage: God is not revealed in His Twin, but in His Son!

Read Full Post »

On the Cruciform God thing – here’s a brilliant sermon by Darrell Johnson on these same issues.  His text is Phil 2:5-11 and his title: “So that’s what it means to be God!”

The real realization is not “Oh, Jesus is the god I’d always believed in!” – how’s that for fitting the Saviour onto a Procrustean bed! No, the real realization is “Oh, God is nothing like I’d thought – He’s who I see in Jesus!”

Read Full Post »

The Cruciform God

[I’ve edited this post from it’s original form which was a little specialized and ‘try-hard’!] 

For a long time I’ve held a certain verse from John at arm’s length:

“The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life.” (John 10:17)

I’ve always held it at arm’s length because… well what would it mean to take it with full seriousness??  The Father-Son love in the bond of the Spirit is the divine life.   This love is who God is.  And the Son says it’s founded on the cross!

As 1 John 4 says, “this is love” – the love that God is – “the sending of the Son as an atoning sacrifice”.  (1 John 4:7-10)   Isn’t the logic here inescapable?  Cruciformity (cross-shaped-ness) is the essence of the divine life.  God’s very life is laid bare (upheld??) at the cross.  It is God glorified in shame and lifted up in ignominy.  

Now we can try to be poetic about this, but are we forced to speak simply in terms of contradiction?  Is there any way of relating the cry of dereliction (Ps 22:1; Mark 15:34) to the love song of Father-Son communion?  Is it right to say “the cry of dereliction is of the essence of the Father-Son communion”?  Is it possible to say “the cry of dereliction is of the essence of the Father-Son communion” without simply re-stating it in equally paradoxical terms?  Would such a re-statement be, at bottom, a betrayal of the cross?

Probably not your average first post, but there you are.  I’ll jump right in.  Who’ll join me? 

Read Full Post »