a bishop's response to Joe Hockey speech

Rob Forsyth reflects on Hockey's God speech

timely reminder about the clarity of Scripture

ten ideas about the clarity of Scripture

more with Joe Hockey on God

The Age

What is clear from Joe Hockey's presentation of God is that it sounds awfully similar to the pop-God of Aussie culture and very different to the God of the Bible. Hmmm who's right?

Mr Hockey raises some questions about reading the Bible

Joe Hockey interpreting the Bible

Some questions -
what does Mr Hockey mean by 'overly literal interpretation'? Sounds like the kind of political spin I hear in ecclesiastical circles.

it sounds like Hockey equates evangelicals with fundamentalists which is wrong of course. Fundies and fundies, evangelicals are nice....and they have a different hermeneutic. It seems that fundamentalists have a flat reading approach to Scripture (not properly taking into account things such as history, genre) whereas evangelicals pertain a historico-grammatico approach to reading and interpreting the Bible.

"AN OVERLY literal interpretation of the Bible by church leaders, especially evangelicals, was causing a decline in the Christian faith, obscuring the true messages of the Scriptures, and providing ammunition to those who attack religion," - Christian faith has always been attacked, what's new. Is that any reason to change the faith? Silly argument. I agree that a fundy misapplication of Scripture has caused a decline in Christian faith, but for the simple reason it misses the point of Christianity, yet evangelicalism is not on the decline, certainly overseas and in parts of Australia it's growing. Come on, my own Church is growing and our theology is rightly described as evangelical. Is there any authentic Christianity that is not evangelical?

I agree with this statement - ''To judge Islam based on the actions of extremists and terrorists would be no different than judging Christianity on the actions of those who have over the centuries committed atrocities in the name of God and Christ.''

I'm bored with this post so I'm stopping for the moment. The article is pretty self-evident and so are its errors so have a read for yourselves if u like


SMH

Come all ye faithful: Hockey reaches out to the other true believers

PHILLIP COOREY

November 9, 2009

AN OVERLY literal interpretation of the Bible by church leaders, especially evangelicals, was causing a decline in the Christian faith, obscuring the true messages of the Scriptures, and providing ammunition to those who attack religion, Joe Hockey believes.
In a speech entitled In Defence of God to be delivered today, the shadow treasurer will urge tolerance of all religions and, in doing so, rail against those who oppose Muslim women who willingly wear the hijab.
''It always perplexes me that so many people worry about Muslim women wearing the hijab when for centuries and even in some places today, Catholic nuns dress in similar attire,'' his speech notes say.
One aim of the speech is to broaden Mr Hockey's image beyond his portfolio duties. He has no designs on the leadership before the election but is prepared to step up should Malcolm Turnbull falter.
Mr Hockey, who was raised a Catholic, will say a literal reading of the testament by church leaders has tangled the Christian faith in a confusion of contradictions.
''By encouraging a literalist analysis of the Bible, many churches have inadvertently invited people to question the validity of a faith that seems to be based on questionable facts or outdated prescriptions,'' he said.
He cites creationism as an example and singles out Australia's fast-growing evangelical churches. ''While most leaders of the older churches … have moved away from such a position, I would argue that there is still an alienating literalism that pervades many faiths and Christianity is not alone in this regard.''
Consequently, the true messages of religion - compassion, justice, equality, dignity, forgiveness, charity and respect for others - are being lost.
Mr Hockey believes celebrated atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are further empowered to portray religion as ''a malevolent force'' because of the fundamentalists of various religions who wrongly use faith to justify and explain suffering war, cruelty and calamity.
''The God of my faith is not full of revenge as the Old Testament would suggest with a literal interpretation. [He] does not cause earthquakes or tsunamis as acts of retribution,'' he said. While urging tolerance, Mr Hockey chastises Christians who attack Muslims because of the acts of Islamic terrorists.
''To judge Islam based on the actions of extremists and terrorists would be no different than judging Christianity on the actions of those who have over the centuries committed atrocities in the name of God and Christ.''

Crashing Down?

If Melbourne evangelicals fragment any further we'll look like that building on Sydney Rd, Brunswick that collapsed on Tuesday

 

 

review of Lorenzen's theology of resurrection

Preliminary Remarks

   

Thorwald Lorenzen[1] is a Baptist theologian in Australia and while he may not be a household name he has influenced a generation of Baptist Pastors in parts of Australia. For that reason alone it is worthwhile reading his work.

In his two books, ‘Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences and ‘, and Resurrection, Discipleship, Justice – Affirming the Resurrection of Jesus Today, Lorenzen asserts that the prime reality from which all theology is derived is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection is the foundation stone for understanding God’s purpose in the world, which is to establish universal justice[2]. The following essay is aimed at surveying Lorenzen’s understanding of Christ’s resurrection and then comment briefly on the veracity of his assertions.

1. Dr Lorenzen, what is your view on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection?

The resurrection of Jesus Christ ‘is a new act of God which cannot be explained within religious, historical, and psychological categories of expectation.’[3] Here, Lorenzen seeks to avoid two extreme and apparently untenable positions, evangelicalism and liberalism[4].

 Of evangelicals he asserts, ‘I am dissatisfied with the theological importance that “evangelical” theologians assign to the literal, bodily, physical resurrection; and with their insistence that unprejudiced reason can prove the tomb was empty and that therefore Jesus must have risen from the dead.[5]’ The reason for his criticism is twofold: Firstly, He believes that the evangelical emphasis cannot be sustained. ‘Historically we can say that the disciples claim to have experienced […] a personal reality which they recognized as Jesus’, but this cannot be accepted as historical proof because these witnesses were not objective witnesses, but affected participants[6]. Secondly, such an emphasis leads to a fundamental distortion of the Christian faith. It relativizes the resurrection and the ground of faith is reduced to the historical Jesus and his cross, ignoring the dynamic reality which is Christ’s resurrection[7].

Lorenzen also rejects an existentialist view of the resurrection - there was no physical resurrection, the disciples witnessed either a spiritual resurrection or experienced a psychological illusion.

For Lorenzen the ‘resurrection of the crucified Christ is the foundational event for Christian faith’[8] - it is necessarily grounded in history but it is difficult to know which of the NT evidences are historical and which are stories invented by the early church for apologetic purposes (i.e. possibly the empty tomb narratives).

2. Dr Lorenzen what is the significance of Christ’s resurrection?

i. What is wrong with the world?

The basic problem in the universe is death - ‘Death is life-denying’, not only physically, but in every facet of existence[9]. Sin is the activity of life-denying. Lorenzen never speaks of sin in terms of transgression against God’s law or of willful rebellion against God’s rule. Rather, sin is ‘a power which determines human beings at the core of their existence and estranges them from their true selves, from their fellow human beings, from nature, from history, and from God.[10]’ Exegeting Gal 4:3, 8; Eph 6:12[11], Lorenzen asserts that sin is objectified ‘in structures of evil and injustice’; these including the economic, political, and cultural structures in our world. In other words, sin is the act of dehumanizing by the powerful in this world.

ii. What is God doing in the world?

Lorenzen argues that the resurrection affirms both the ontology of God and the success of the Divine plan for the cosmos. His basic premise is that God is Love (and we see that at work within the Trinity), and therefore God works to establish justice for all humanity and the whole created order.

He defines justice in sociological terms – giving dignity, freedom, and life to all. However, particular emphasis is given to God’s prime desire to ascribe these qualities to the poor and powerless in society. Taking OT examples including Israel in Egypt and Job, Lorenzen argues that God’s intention was always to identify himself with those suffering and to liberate them for their bondage[12]. Indeed, he goes as far as to say that God is present among the marginalized through all history. Arrestingly he asks, ‘was God absent in the persecution and execution of 5,000 Anabaptists? Was God absent in Auschwitz and Buchenwald and Dachau?’[13]

However God’s concern for justice is seen par excellence in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Citing passages such as Lk 6:20-22  and Matt 25:31-46, Lorenzen argues that Jesus’ ministry was essentially toward the underprivileged and oppressed in Jewish society. His chief aim was to show that God was on their side, and that he would liberate them. Into this scenario the death of Jesus is seen as God participating in the suffering of those who are oppressed. Jesus was killed by the religious and governing powers of the day because he undermined their authority, practices and traditions[14].

Thus the Divine battle is one of liberating the marginalized from the estranging powers of sin. The triumph of God is demonstrated by the resurrection of Jesus. ‘God has unmasked and defeated the powers of death and thereby established a new reality’[15]. Thus the resurrection has drawn a line in history.  ‘The violence of the world was transfigured into a new ontology: an ontology of justice’[16]. Fundamental to this understanding of reconciliation and justice is that the resurrection ‘compels us to avoid a one-sided and reduced view of salvation’. ‘Salvation is concrete and it begins here and now.’[17]  By this Lorenzen means the activity of manifesting God’s Kingdom in all realms of life – in society, government, and ecology. This he argues, using texts including Rom 8:18-25 and 2 Cor 5:18-20. God has acted in history through his Son, and by His resurrection the reconciling work of God is in progress. The result is justice in all areas of life and ecology.

3 Dr Lorenzen, how are Christians to respond to Christ’s Resurrection?

Christians are called to participate in and proclaim this promise of liberation and to venture its realization throughout the world. Hence, the proper response to Christ’s resurrection is faith and mission. Faith is not simply the static acceptance of the new creation, but ‘it is the dynamic participation in God’s liberating process in his creation.’ It is being ‘a pilgrim of the soft revolution which God has begun with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.[18]’

What does a dynamic faith look like? It is the mission for justice and liberation. These are to be pursued by ‘appropriating sociological, political, and economic research, and then relating the resources of faith to the struggle of faith for a more humane society and a more just world order’[19].

This mission of liberation includes:

1. A redistribution of wealth and resources. As Christ is seen in the face of the poor and oppressed, so Christians are to fight against the status quo and liberate these hidden masses.

2. Affirming the equality of all human beings. All cultural, gender, and religious barriers are torn down for Christ’s resurrection affirms the dignity of all people. This entails, for example, equal rights for indigenous peoples, and equality for women in the Church[20].

3. Affirming a plurality of religious traditions. Lorenzen is not content with either the exclusivist position or the pluralist - It is not true to say that all roads lead to God; religious experiences can be demonic (even within the Christian religion)[21]. Yet, ‘if God is God, then Christians must entertain the possibility that everyone who reaches beyond their human limitations and find wholeness and meaning in this existential search is in touch, in however broken manner, with the same divine reality that Christians call “God”’[22].

4. Affirming the created order. The ecological challenge is ‘perhaps the greatest challenge that demands an urgent response from the global community’[23]. Christ’s resurrection affirms not only the value of humanity but also nature and the cosmos. We have related Jesus to our human salvation but have ‘failed to include the healing of the environment that sustains us.’ After all, the body of Christ includes the cosmos (Col 1:15-20).

4          A Response to Lorenzen and an affirmation of Gospel Truth

Lorenzen is right to argue that the resurrection of Christ is foundational to God’s purposes in the world (Rom 6:9, 8:11; Eph 1:18-23; Col 3:1-4). Christian hope and the hope of creation are grounded in the truth that Christ was raised. But on the whole, Lorenzen’s account of Christ’s resurrection fails to do justice to the Bible’s teaching. I will restrict comment to three areas which relate to the resurrection: Sin, Christology, and Soteriology.

1. Sin. For someone who argues fervently for a holistic approach to life and theology, Lorenzen has a rather bad habit of redefining and ignoring large portions of Scripture. Certainly, his doctrine of sin is reductionist in the extreme. Sin is portrayed almost exclusively as a social activity, where the Bible not only affirms the horizontal dimensions of sin but also the vertical. It is our rebellion against God which is the principle problem with the world (Rom 1:18-32). Also, as opposed to the view that sin is foremost seen in the activities of the rich and powerful, the Bible teaches that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom 3:23). All humanity is under God’s wrath (a theme Lorenzen never mentions). God’s justice is not primarily about alleviating the poor, but judging sin and sinners.

2. Christology. Not only is Lorenzen’s doctrine of sin too anthropocentric, but so also is his understanding of what God is accomplishing in the world. Though humanity shares in God’s telos, it is essential to realize that the first and pre-eminent goal of soteriology is that Jesus might be Lord[24]. As the Apostle Paul writes, ‘For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living’ (Rom 14:9)[25]. The supremacy of Christ does not diminish the significance of salvation, but rather brings it to its proper ordering. For Lorenzen, whilst he would probably deny the charge of having a social agenda shaping his theology, he is fundamentally arguing that Christ is simply the means of expressing God’s love, which is to bring justice to the oppressed. The Biblical perspective, however, is that soteriology ought to be seen as a subset of Christology.

3. Salvation. Given that Lorenzen fails to give Christology its proper focus, his doctrine of salvation is also flawed.

The source of salvation is the death and resurrection of Christ. Lorenzen sidelines Christ’s death to a friendly signal that God understands those who are suffering. His understanding of the atonement fails in almost every respect, and he views Jesus’ death from a human perspective and so ignores the reality that it is the central tenet of God’s plan of salvation (Acts 2:23). Also, while he affirms Jesus’ resurrection, he is constrained by the historical-critical method. Therefore, in the end, the hope of the world is dependent upon an event which probably happened, but we can’t really be certain.

The purpose of salvation. I have already mentioned the Lordship of Christ. The sphere of his rule is over all things (Col 1:20). By his death and resurrection heaven and earth have been ‘brought back into their divinely created and determined order […] the universe is again under its head[26]’. But this does not mean that all will be saved. With the rule of Christ, whilst God is liberating a people for himself (Col 1:15-20; 1 Pet 2:9-10), others are destined for judgement (2 Pet 3:7).

The presence of salvation. Lorenzen recognizes that the world is not as it was meant to be nor will be, but he is plagued by an over-realized eschatology. The Bible teaches that salvation is now and not yet. There is forgiveness now and new life now. But full salvation is not to be experienced in history, but we await the Parousia (Rom 8:22-23)[27]. The resurrection of Jesus signals the arrival of the Last Days, and the ascension of Christ signals that the end has not yet arrived. The creation will not experience its eschatological fulfillment until the redemption of our bodies in the resurrection.

Conclusion

While Lorenzen expresses a desire to help people in need he does not ground it the Gospel. In the end Lorenzen’s theology is far too anthropocentric. Social agendas dictate the nature of his theology and Christ appears too frequently as a pawn  for a social agenda.

           

Lorenzen rightly sees salvation as holistic, but he fails to understand that salvation is principally an event of the last day. It is important that Christians do good to all, for this is part of what it means to be human. However the Gospel imperative is proclamation; it is to call people to repentance and faith in the Gospel. This is what love is, ‘while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rom 5:9). True love will share this good news to all people.

                                  

---

[1] Lorenzen was formerly a Professor of Biblical Studies at the Baptist Theological Seminary in Ruschlikon, Switzerland, and until recent was the Senior Minister at Canberra Baptist. He is read widely amongst Baptist academics in Australia and currently does occasional lecturing  at Whitley College Melbourne and elsewhere.

[2] ‘It is, of course, important to remember that the resurrection must be seen in the context of Jesus’ life and his death on the cross. Nevertheless, it is equally significant to insist that the resurrection is more central to the New Testament witnesses than other theological assertions.’ Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological Consequences (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis: 1995), 115.

[3] Lorenzen (1995), 125-26.

[4] Paradoxically, he refers to himself as an evangelical, though does so by redefining the term – ‘in the sense of tuning into the dynamic life and history changing reality of the gospel, rather than forcing the gospel into the straitjacket of our understanding or denominational ideologies or theological networks’. Lorenzen, Resurrection, Discipleship, Justice – Affirming the Resurrection of Jesus Today (Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), 9.

[5] Ibid, 37.

[6] Lorenzen (1995), 145.

[7] Ibid, 108.

[8] Lorenzen (2003), 60.

[9] Ibid, 83-84.

[10] Lorenzen (1995), 275.

[11] ‘In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. (Gal 4:3 )

‘Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.’ (Gal 4:8 )

‘For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.’ (Eph 6:12)

[12] ‘The reality of the resurrection of the crucified Christ opens up a future in which “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God”.  (1995), 248-65.

[13] Ibid, 262.

[14] Lorenzen assigns the different Biblical language for Christ’s death as metaphorical. ‘Any metaphor or theory that seeks to capture the soteriological thrust of the Christ-event must meet the following requirements:

• It must take seriously the estrangement and separation between God and humanity/creation;
• It needs to preserve carefully God’s identity as life and love;
• It should clearly elaborate that humanity is incapable of undoing the separation by itself;
• It must spell out that at-one-ment happens when God identifies God’s being with Jesus, especially in raising him from the dead;
• It must take seriously the life of Jesus and its interrelationship with his death

·         It must elaborate that at-one-ment is not only a past event but a continuing reality into which people are drawn by the Holy Spirit and their response in faith and baptism.”’

(2003, 65-87)

[15] Ibid, 88.

[16] Ibid, 79-80.

[17] Lorenzen (1995), 274.

[18] Ibid, 204.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Lorenzen (2003), 96-109.             

[21] ibid, 127.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid, 6.

[24] Adrio König, The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology: Toward a Christ-Centred Approach (Blackwood, South Aust: New Creation, 2003), 1-31.

[25] Also, Eph 1:3-10; Phil 2:9-11; Col 1:17-18.

[26] Lohse, quoted by Peter O’ Brien in Colossians, Philemon (Word Biblical Commentary; Waco: Word, 1982), 56.

[27] ‘We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.’

achilles heel or great strength?

Baptist ecclesiology is both the great strength and the achilles heel of Baptist Churches.

Can we crack the Bible Study problem?

getting mums & dads both to bible study

This is a growing question for us at Mentone. Thanks Archie for the tips

membership in the church

Sunday week ago I preached a sermon on 'membership in the church', thinking through issues about what does it mean to belong to a local church?

I didn't realize at the time, but the BUV (baptist union of Vic) have recently raised the question themselves, so I'm now assuming it's quite a question out there.

here it is

Mark Dever on the Power of God's Word

God Exposed: Session 1 - The Power of God's Word from Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo.