Being away from home is a good time for self-reflection. So: what would I like to see in a Sydney Evangelical Anglican theology? What themes (and how) have emerged (for me at least) as important and perhaps distinctive - what are the great benefits of theology the way I have learnt it from Moore and Sydney? What themes might appear as correctives to our tradition? Here is a short list:
0 - something about the Trinity. David H. will help me here!
1 - A high view of scripture's authority but coupled with a robust and flexible doctrine of scripture. What this means is not an abstractly drawn doctrine of scripture, but rather a commitment to prioritise the content of scripture. A plain reading of scripture, but not a literalistic or wooden one... Biblical Theology has taught us that the big picture, the grand narrative sweep of the bible is where the action is. (This is why inerrancy is not at all emphasised even by those who would hold it.).
2 - 'the gospel of Christ' as a prominent theme and not just 'Christ' abstracted from the message about him.
3 - the huge importance of eschatology: not pre-mill or post-mill or any of that guff, but as a biblical/theological theme conditioning all the others, and helping us not to fall into speculations or abstractions. (we are not much interested in 'decrees', or causes, or any of that palaver...).
4. A very positive and full doctrine of creation (and new creation) - which leads to a commitment to the world. The resurrection as a sign of this.
5. Sin and evil are radical both individually and globally and so:
6. GRACE (via the cross) is an absolute... it is the start and end of the Christian life - the great reformation cry of justification by faith alone!
7. Yes, penal substitutionary atonement, but as conditioned by the Trinity, and as seen in the context of the other descriptions of the atonement in the scriptures and certainly with an emphasis on the willing obedience of the Son turning aside God's wrath.
8. the priority of the local church as 'the church' as opposed to the denominations. But at the same time a commitment to 'the church/es' in the whole world... no particular church polity has precedence: in fact overemphasis on particular church polities is usually silly.
9. Sacraments are effectual signs! And we ought to dig them! but they are enacted words, so ordered to the Word of God.
10. Oh yeah, God is sovereign, but LOVE is his supreme 'attribute' conditioning all the others. This is actually point 0 I think!
It's a draft. It's a beginning. We could say more....
Please feel free as a non Syd Ev. Anglican to comment!
50 comments:
Like it a lot Michael - especially #9.
Hi Michael.
Not a Syd Ang... But isn't inerrancy a good thing? And can you please expand on what you mean by "prioritising scripture"?
Hey thanks for that Borg. No inerrancy is weird frankly because it (IMHO) tries to protect scripture from itself. Whereas, I think the best theology I have heard and experienced has been when the bible is read and expounded so that the voice of God can be heard. That is: don't make doctrines about it; READ IT! I think that the so-called doctrines of scripture make it into a static entity, or an object of veneration...
so, it seems absurd to me to have 'bible churches', because the bible itself isn't really anything...if you see what I mean.
Is sin radical? Or banal?
well it can be both. What I mean by radical is that it is affects everyone and affects them everyhow.
You know the strength of Moore College has always been Bible. Now, I have thought that this was a weakness in that it lead to a dearth of systematic theological thinking. However, having seen how some 'Reformed' people prioritise the system OVER the text come what may, i now think that this emphasis is a real benefit...it actually gives a healthy provisionality to your systematic thinking. You always have to revisit it. And Biblical Theology - again, not without its weaknesses - is at least as a mindset, the best thing since sliced bread...
hold the phone Michael... did you just say something positive about Moore College and hence ... (do I dare to say) and you may even actually being positive about Syd Ang... Heavens above
Anon, I think #4 means he has to grit his teeth and be positive about both... :-)
Michael,
About inerrancy - how is it that this is trying to protect Scripture from itself? Isn't it just taking seriously and applying Scripture's provenance and self-testimony? And to live out the theology that is learned from the reading and exposition of Scripture surely requires a commitment to viewing the Scriptures as free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit (i.e. inerrancy), doesn't it?
You also seem to use the fact that the doctrines of Scripture make it an object of veneration as a criticism of these doctrines. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but isn't venerating the Scriptures a positive thing and not a cause for critism of doctrine of Scripture at all? The Psalmist writes:
"I will lift up my hands towards your commandments, which I love." - Ps. 119.48
Could you tell us more about #2?
Michael, I like it. And I think your comment above about the healthiness of prioritising the Bible over systematics is really insightful.
But, if I hear you right, you are also implicitly rejecting a kind of 'foundationalist' view of biblical studies. That is to say, our reading of the Bible is always informed by a theological orientation (even as it is informing that theological orientation). And so we cannot think in a linear "Bible first, systematics second" way, even if we want to affirm the normative priority of the Bible for our systematics. In short, we need a view of the authority of Scripture that has come to terms with the hermeneutical conditions of theological reflection. Am I right that this is the point you were making regarding the value of 'Biblical theology'?
Hi Michael,
I would like you to expand more on the Trinity - point 0 and also your point 7 about the atonement and how the trinity is at work in it.
In what way does SD limit the invovlement of the Trinity in its understanding?
Also with point 4 how does SD view the creation of the world and how would you like to see it changed?
Blessings craig b
I like it so far. More thoughts later - it always takes me a while to figure out what I'm thinking.
The stuff about reading the Bible rather than having a doctrine of it sounds similar to comments about the Holy Spirit that I've heard recently: don't spend hours figuring out which bit is you and which is the HS or how it operates - get on with doing the will of God.
Personally, I'd like to see a little more Systematic Theology in the diocese.
But I fully concede your point about the "system" becoming the centre for some people. There must be a happy via media...
I have no trouble in believing in inerrancy. It's not something I worry about all the time but I do hold to the belief that the bible is true in everything it depicts, within its grammatical framework.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is actually a very good document in this regards. It may be a "knee jerk" reaction to modernist biblical criticism but it does sort of crystalise some interesting stuff. I'd love to hear MJ's opinion on it.
Yes, I am not much of a fan of Chicago I have to say. It is a thoughtful piece, and doesn't say what a lot of people think it says, which is good. I just think it says too much. It tends to a Muslim doc of scripture more than a Christian one, IMHO. When it comes to talk about original autographs I feel we are in fairy story land.
Now, don't get me wrong: I don't believe in 'errancy'...! But part of the problem comes from putting the doc of Scripture in an epistemological/ foundationalist position in theological thinking: in fact, it should come under soteriology and pneumatology. It is the way God uses to save people.
There is far more to say against inerrancy of course...
Daniel, the Psalmist is talking about the law... making a transfer to the Bible as we have it now from that verse is not done without sleight of hand! What I mean is: we do not venerate the bible as an object. We READ it.
To all those who go to 'bible' churches out there: can you get your pastor to rethink the name?! I think 'Christ's Church' is about the best name any church could have! Or Holy Trinity perhaps?
Daniel writes: "Isn't it just taking seriously and applying Scripture's provenance and self-testimony? And to live out the theology that is learned from the reading and exposition of Scripture surely requires a commitment to viewing the Scriptures as free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit (i.e. inerrancy), doesn't it?"
well, if inerrancy is an 'after the fact of reading the bible we can this' doctrine, then I guess so. But it depends what is meant by this. We are really better off talking about the character of the God of the Bible than about the Bible itself... The commitment we need is not to viewing the Bible as anything primarily but to listening to them and to God as he speaks to us in/through/by them.
In answer to Simone on *2: I guess I am following through the theme of my dad's book on revelation. That is, for some 'Christ' is the centre of revelation of God: I would want to say, yes, but we need to attach the words about Christ and of Christ to this.
From Craig:
"In what way does SD limit the invovlement of the Trinity in its understanding?
Also with point 4 how does SD view the creation of the world and how would you like to see it changed?"
this is not a list of things to change. This a list of some of the many things I have learnt and value in Syd Diocese/ MTC. So in pt2, SD doesn't limit the Trinity as far as I am concerned.
with pt 4, Syd anglicans on the whole have no truck with so-called creation 'science' or with an emphasis on the how questions of Creation. By 4, I mean specifically the doctrine of Creation, rather than 'creationism'.
Anonymous said: "hold the phone Michael... did you just say something positive about Moore College and hence ... (do I dare to say) and you may even actually being positive about Syd Ang... Heavens above"
Well bragging about your own heritage is a little tedious don't you think?
penal substitutionary atonement, but as conditioned by the Trinity
What does "conditioned by the Trinity" mean?
well, conditioned might be the wrong word. What I mean is, that Jesus is not an innocent third party blatted by God for our sins, but rather the willing and obedient Son, or even, as Barth puts it, 'The judge judged'.
The magnificent essays in 'when wrath and mercy meet' by the Oak Hill crowd explain this all very well.
Jesus is not an innocent third party blatted by God for our sins, but rather the willing and obedient Son
Yeah, that's a great point, and it's lost in some of the horrible evangelical analogies for the atonement that are bandied around. (You heard the one about the mechanical bridge and the train? Bleah!)
It also refutes the hideous charge (that I see every now and again) that God is guilty of "Cosmic child abuse"...
Does any Evangelical actually believe that Jesus was an innocent third party blatted by God for our sins?
I know penal substitution has been caricaturized in those terms by certain individuals who deny the doctrine, and then try and justify their position by knocking down a straw man. But those individuals aren't Evangelicals.
Does any Evangelical actually believe that Jesus was an innocent third party blatted by God for our sins?
I have certainly seen illustrations to that effect in devotions like the Daily Bread.
Well Daniel, I am afraid I have heard a number of sermons using just exactly the straw man version... I found it extremely helpful for my preaching to clarify PSA in terms of the Trinity... (Maybe I am just agreeing with you and you are surprised!)
If your list is a list of themes that might appear as correctives to the Sydney Evangelical Anglican (not Anglican Evangelical?) tradition, it's a bit of a shocker that your zeroth point is "something about the Trinity". Is something so fundamental to who God is so neglected?
'm in complete agreement with you on the PSA thing. I would have thought that explaining it in terms of the Trinity was just obvious.
If people really think that PSA is about God 'blatting' Jesus, the innocent third party - woe!
Daniel, consider this famous illustration (allegedly from Moody) - Click here
no, it isn't a corrective. These points aren't by any means intended as just correctives...
wondering what you think is the typical or upheld sydang view on sacraments? What are their place, apart from "digging them". Cause it sounds to me like this is a follow on from your points on the sydang view of the bible. Just read and follow it, hence follow the sacraments cause we are told they are good.
What do they "effect" when you say "effectual"?
What do they "effect" when you say "effectual"?
Here Michael, take this can of worms, and this can opener...
ps: love the previous title of your blog (when 2+2=5) it is very fitting and an awesome song.
Song? I thought he was referring to 1984...
true, both are plausable i think the song is a reference to 1984 too, so i guess i was just basing it on the fact i saw radiohead on his interests list, and was listening to the album at the time.
Michael
Like the list
I am curious with 10.
why do you say love is the supreme attribute?
"God is love". I John 4.
The Trinitarian relations are evidence of this. It is you might say an internal 'attribute' - the others are external (or have external objects primarily)... I learnt this AND MOST OF THE OTHER STUFF from Robert C Doyle I would have to say! So blame him!
"God is light". Could not this also be a defining attribute. Love and light; probably not that unrelated, and both are certainly relational hence the link to 0. Without both, it's also hard to make much sense of the cross: both his love and righteousness are there supremely displayed (Rom 5:8, 3:25-6).
Why'd you change the blog name...? Took me ages to work out 2+2...
I guess its also worth saying that "God is love" on its own makes it hard to justify why God needs to punish sin. God's being light shows us that moral integrity is a central and unmissable part of his character.
Perhaps 'holiness' is a category than encompasses both?
nice article...
loved it..
cheers!
http://virtuously.blogspot.com/
Michael, you write:
Oh yeah, God is sovereign, but LOVE is his supreme 'attribute' conditioning all the others. This is actually point 0 I think!
You'd have to keep the Trinity as point 0, though, wouldn't you? The statement "God is love" can only make sense because God is Trinity.
Someone listens to your Ledbury talks, Sam!
Amen. (or perhaps: Amen. Amen. Amen.)
Though perhaps rather than being a point #0 (or 1, or 1-2-3), of the ten, it would be more fruitful to make each of the ten points trinitarian.
1. A trinitarian doctrine of scripture as the way of avoiding both liberalism and fundamentalist biblicism
2. Gospel of God about Christ in the Spirit
3. Trinitarian eschatology: indeed, the eschatology of the trinity, not simply by the trinity (though certainly not less than that!).
4. Trinitarian creation.
etc.
Though perhaps this is moving away from a discussion of Sydney distinctives...
Well, distinctives might be the wrong word...
but David has certainly done a fine job for us!
#5 -- I have sometimes wondered whether Sydney has a reflective enough theology of sin. I've often teased my Moore College-trained friends about the fact that they can never mention God's grace without first ranting about sin, death and judgment! Perhaps this has partly arisen from the popularity of the "two ways to live" format for presenting the gospel in Sydney (a format that has some pragmatic value, but not much theological or biblical depth).
In any case, I think a more reflective theology of sin will have to reverse the relationship between law and gospel: it is not sin that defines grace, but grace that defines sin; it is through the announcement of God's forgiveness that we discover our fallenness; it is through God's unconditional Yes that we also hear the No of his judgment. Or, in other words, it is in Jesus Christ himself that we encounter the meaning of both grace and sin.
well that's the Barthian version, Ben... ;-)
Though I think certainly that the problem with starting with sin is that you miss its full meaning and impact, and of course the judgement itself starts to look petty...
...instead of being part of the Christian hope. Judgement is good news, for it is God distinguishing between his good creation and the evil that has infected it. It is only bad news personally insofar as each of us has bought into that and become a perpetrator of evil - which, unfortunately, is all of us to different extents. However, this doesn't change the basic nature of judgement as good news and a key part of Christian hope. The reason it is unchanged is the judge judged in our place (if MPJ will permit me to go all Bathian for a moment...).
well if you go Bathian you may end up cleaner, Byron...
My question to that position (with which I am in broad agreement) is:
is it biblical? That is, salvation-history seems to explain judgment not in this way, or at least not obviously...
well if you go Bathian you may end up cleaner, Byron...
Cleaner?
Is it biblical? Doesn't Isaiah announce God's judgement as good news for the poor? And certainly creation seems to be pretty excited about the idea of God's judgement, since the trees start clapping their hands and so on.
Post a Comment