Returning to the Real World

I am now back in the real world (at least, my real world) after two weeks elsewhere. As indicated in the previous blog, I was in New Orleans where I attended three annual gatherings: the Evangelical Theological Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society for Biblical Literature.

At ETS, I heard several lectures, although the one I enjoyed most was the annual Society lecture given this year by Bruce Ware who spoke about the role of the Holy Spirit in connection to the humanity of Jesus, with a special focus on how the Spirit helped the Saviour in resisting temptation to sin. What made his lecture appealing to me was not only its focus on Christology; in addition the speaker used terminology that was understandable and his words also contained a warm devotional aspect. I have never understood why I sit through many addresses I cannot follow and then applaud the speaker at the end. But this was a lecture I understood and appreciated, and I am still thinking about what I heard.

At IBR, I listened to a lecture by Tremper Longman III on the role of commentaries on books of the Bible. His lecture was lucid and gave helpful advice on writing such works, and given that he is the editor of two series as well as the author of several commentaries his assessment on that level is very useful. Nevertheless, he did not really deal with an important detail, which is, Why should readers trust the authors of commentaries? Indeed a comment was made (I can't now recall by who) that scholars should be allowed to study the Bible without having to take confessional statements into the reckoning. But it is commitment to confessional statements by biblical scholars that maintains confidence in them by readers. When authors of commentaries contradict doctrinal statements, especially doctrinal statements they have promised to uphold, readers lose confidence in their writings.

During SBL, I heard a lecture by Tom Wright that was sponsored by IVP in connection to his new book on the doctrine of justification that he wrote in response to John Piper's criticism of his view of justification. As on previous occasions when I have heard him, Wright was charming (why do I think of sitting beside a warm fire with a cup of Horlicks each time I listen to him?), scholarly (quoting passages of the Greek New Testament with ease, naming scholars from here and there as they come to mind) and elusive (after hearing him several times, I still don't know what he believes about justification). Of course, I realise I could be confusing elusiveness with my stupidity, which is why I went the next day and bought his book, hoping that it would at last let me know what he believes about this crucial doctrine. I'll let you know if it does.

Yet a week later, I have returned to what I think is the real world. The return was helped by my flight home, but the means of entry back into the real world was not because the plane descended from the sky down to Heathrow airport. Instead, during the flight I read Douglas Sweeney's short assessment of the life and ministry of Jonathan Edwards called Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word. Here was a book written about a scholar whose abilities far transcend any that I have heard in my lifetime, who devoted himself to serving God by ministering to his people and building them up in their faith as well as endeavouring to win those yet outside the kingdom. I will give my thoughts on this book in a subsequent blog. For the present, I am thankful that it brought me down to earth.

More About Calvin Would I Know

Last week I went to the Banner of Truth conference in Leicester. I was glad to meet up with old friends, including some Free Church ministers, and meet several new ones. The lectures were interesting and helpful (one motivation for going was the quality of the speakers -- Lindsay Brown, Sinclair Ferguson, Mark Johnston, Derek Thomas, Garry Williams). It was also an opportunity to purchase some books. Further it was good to sit and talk and learn from one another.

As with many conferences this year the main focus was on the life and ministry of John Calvin. I think all the delegates knew he was a great man of God, and no doubt he has contributed to their Christian understanding through his varied writings.

Most people who read theological literature will know about Calvin’s emphasis on the majesty of the sovereign God. Five other details from Calvin’s ministry challenged me as I listened to the various lectures.

First, there was his commitment to preaching the word of God in a regular, consecutive, expository way. Second, there was his determination to help the church of Christ throughout Europe and elsewhere (I found the lecture on his interest in mission fascinating). Third, there was his awareness to defend the truth of the gospel by courageous involvement in disputes and by careful analysis of the writings of his opponents (I found this lecture very moving). Fourth, there was his conviction that theology had to be accompanied by piety. Fifth, there was his pastoral heart, concerned for the spiritual state of his listeners/readers.

If all I remember eventually from the conference is these five details, I will be satisfied. But in the unlikely event of any of the speakers reading this blog, please be assured that at present I can recall a lot more of what was said.

Of course, attending a conference has its obligatory good intentions. Mine at the moment is to try and read Calvin’s commentaries over the next few months (I have consulted some of them already when preaching through Bible books). They have been looking down at me from my bookshelves for several years now. They are also on my computers. I have a plan on how to proceed (twenty or so pages a day), but as usual time will tell.

Affinity Conference, 'The End of the Law.'

For three days last week, I attended the Affinity theological conference which considered the function of the law. It was good to meet with individuals whom I had not seen since the previous conference, and also to have the opportunity of listening to theologians from Britain and America.

As far as I could work out, there were two different groups attending the first day (those who accepted the traditional threefold division of biblical laws into moral, ceremonial and civil, and those who prefer to regard all of them as law); on day three, there were several more groups in attendance (such as (a) some confused as to what the role of the law is, (b) some curious to find out which theologians are on particular sides of the debate, (c) some concerned about how their congregations are going to react).

I don't want to say very much about the conference papers, each of which was good in its own way, because they will probably be published at some stage. Also some of those attending the conference have already blogged about the various sessions, and can be found by a Google search. Here are two other personal reactions.

First, there is an increasing distaste for the Sabbath among evangelicals, especially younger ones. It was evident that many attendees had no interest in obeying the fourth commandment in a Christian way, and had no intention of accepting the arguments of any who wished to defend the permanence of the Sabbath. Of course, some may just agree to differ. Yet the problem is that both views cannot be right. Either the Sabbath is an important Christian requirement, given at creation for the worship of God and the benefit of the human race, or it is not. If Sunday is not the Sabbath, then there is no necessity for Christians to keep the day as belonging to God or for them to meet together on that day. In fact, if it is not the Sabbath, then churches which arrange such services are imposing a human tradition on God's people and should be shunned by all concerned to uphold New Testament practices.

Second, there is a reluctance to accept the value of historical evangelical interpretations if they happen to go against a person's own idea of the meaning of a Bible verse. The oft-mentioned question 'What does the Bible say?' actually was used in a manner which stated, 'Do you want to know what I think the Bible says?', with the emphasis that such an individual's view was correct and everyone else wrong. No doubt, some will respond by saying that sometimes an individual has been right and all others wrong, which of course means that they regard that individual to be on a par with heroes of the faith who did stand alone.

I suspect that those who support the new emphases (called 'new covenant theology', which is just another example of a biblical description, which belongs to all Christians, being hijacked by a group) will merely repeat the many examples of spiritual movements in the past who imagined they were going by the Bible alone and somehow always deduced that the Sabbath was not for them. Most of these groups disturbed the church for a while before disappearing.

Another factor is the similarity between the new emphases and dispensationalism. This was mentioned at the Conference, and disputed. But the similarity is there in that both deny the relevance of God's law to God's people in the New Testament period. I don't want to say anything about this point except to say that I personally heard the same arguments of the 'new covenant' followers being used in Brethren groups in the 1970s. I was not convinced of them then, and I am not convinced of them now.