Towards an eclectic Christocentric Biblical theology
Warning - this post is extremely self-indulgent. I am writing as if my opinion matters when it is perfectly clear that neither mine nor yours is of any consequence at all. If this post starts to annoy you just skip it.
Last night I couldn't sleep very well. One or two little things bothering me just now - so I turned my mind to reflecting on the exciting times I've lived in.
For example I became a Christian in 1978. At that time the rediscovery of the local church was in full swing. It was great! In the 50s and the 60s when you became a Christian it was just you, God and Billy. And Billy quickly left town. So the important thing was your quiet time. It was you and God. Guidance was individual. You went to church, sure, but the people there often thought you were a real freak because you believed the things you read in the Bible. Amazing! Then in the 1970s the local church moved right to the heart of our thinking. Churches seceded from their denominations. New churches were begun. Mission became about church planting. Eldership was reestablished and a plurality was essential. (There were a lot of mistakes along the way, of course.) Now the important thing was to be in a good church, a fellowship where you would be fed and nurtured. I think that's probably more Biblical, don't you?
Another exciting development has been to see a new awareness of God's work in the world, the universal church! In the 1950s China closed to missions, and the state took control of the church. Ha! When the bamboo curtain lifted it was simply astonishing to see how Jesus had kept his promise and continued building his church in China. Don't be dazzled, though. In China's humungous cities (7 million people in one city! That's two Walesfuls all squashed into Swansea!) the church is still utterly invisible, but she's there and she's growing. Same thing for so many countries all over the world. How can anyone maintain a pessimistic attitude to the future of the world? Beats me! It takes real faith to be a pessimist.
Of course, another exciting development has been the growth of the biblical theology movements. When you pick up the Bible you only have to read the first few chapters of Genesis and the last few chapters of Revelation to realise that this is no collection of religious jottings spread over thousands of years - it is one book with one theme unified by the work of God's Spirit in all those who wrote.
But how to define that theme? How to draw the big picture? I see two biblical theology movements doing the rounds at present. They are not unrelated, but they do come from different backgrounds and they represent two slightly different views.
The first comes from Moore College, Proclamation Trust, etc. and tends to express the theme of the Bible in terms of God's people, in God's place, under God's King. This is a shockingly brief expression of the theme, but it comes basically from "The King, the Snake and the Promise", which is a really laudable attempt to explain the big picture of the Bible to children. Coming from the United Kingdom and Australia, this approach tends to emphasise the importance of the rule of God's King. Interesting, eh? I have a slight reservation sometimes in that I don't just relate to Jesus as my King, and rule is not the only thing a Biblical King had to do. He had to care for his people, guard, and protect, and provide for them, and those words don't immediately spring to mind when you say "rule". Though obedience is really important, it is not the same thing as faith - faith includes more than just doing what someone says. (A bit like my reservations over the slogan "Saved to serve". It's not that it's not true. It's just not enough.)
The second comes mostly nowadays from the US, and has its roots in historic presbyterianism, therefore in Switzerland, France and Scotland - Covenant Theology. Covenant theology finds its unifying theme in the big promises God makes to his people, expressed either in one or two great overarching covenants - the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. (Some people deny the existence of the covenant of works.) Christ is seen as the mediator of the covenant, and my joy as a Christian is rooted in the certainty of God's promise. I have a slight reservation in that the important thing is not really the covenant, but the God who made the promise. After all, lots of people make promises, but there's only certain people whose promises I rely on! It's a bit like when we sing about "Amazing grace" or "Great providence of heaven" - it's not out of order to do it, but really our faith isn't in grace or in providence but in Jesus Christ, the God of grace and providence. (And "Amazing grace" can be loved and enjoyed as a pop song with no thought of Jesus at all... both interesting and tragic. Nobody has yet done the same thing for "Great providence of heaven". Where's those bagpipes?)
I think we are looking at "work in progress", and I love it. Sometime someone will do some work to draw together these two strands of Biblical Theology and develop a strong, warm, Christocentric Biblical theology. After all, he is the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45).
Last night I couldn't sleep very well. One or two little things bothering me just now - so I turned my mind to reflecting on the exciting times I've lived in.
For example I became a Christian in 1978. At that time the rediscovery of the local church was in full swing. It was great! In the 50s and the 60s when you became a Christian it was just you, God and Billy. And Billy quickly left town. So the important thing was your quiet time. It was you and God. Guidance was individual. You went to church, sure, but the people there often thought you were a real freak because you believed the things you read in the Bible. Amazing! Then in the 1970s the local church moved right to the heart of our thinking. Churches seceded from their denominations. New churches were begun. Mission became about church planting. Eldership was reestablished and a plurality was essential. (There were a lot of mistakes along the way, of course.) Now the important thing was to be in a good church, a fellowship where you would be fed and nurtured. I think that's probably more Biblical, don't you?
Another exciting development has been to see a new awareness of God's work in the world, the universal church! In the 1950s China closed to missions, and the state took control of the church. Ha! When the bamboo curtain lifted it was simply astonishing to see how Jesus had kept his promise and continued building his church in China. Don't be dazzled, though. In China's humungous cities (7 million people in one city! That's two Walesfuls all squashed into Swansea!) the church is still utterly invisible, but she's there and she's growing. Same thing for so many countries all over the world. How can anyone maintain a pessimistic attitude to the future of the world? Beats me! It takes real faith to be a pessimist.
Of course, another exciting development has been the growth of the biblical theology movements. When you pick up the Bible you only have to read the first few chapters of Genesis and the last few chapters of Revelation to realise that this is no collection of religious jottings spread over thousands of years - it is one book with one theme unified by the work of God's Spirit in all those who wrote.
But how to define that theme? How to draw the big picture? I see two biblical theology movements doing the rounds at present. They are not unrelated, but they do come from different backgrounds and they represent two slightly different views.
The first comes from Moore College, Proclamation Trust, etc. and tends to express the theme of the Bible in terms of God's people, in God's place, under God's King. This is a shockingly brief expression of the theme, but it comes basically from "The King, the Snake and the Promise", which is a really laudable attempt to explain the big picture of the Bible to children. Coming from the United Kingdom and Australia, this approach tends to emphasise the importance of the rule of God's King. Interesting, eh? I have a slight reservation sometimes in that I don't just relate to Jesus as my King, and rule is not the only thing a Biblical King had to do. He had to care for his people, guard, and protect, and provide for them, and those words don't immediately spring to mind when you say "rule". Though obedience is really important, it is not the same thing as faith - faith includes more than just doing what someone says. (A bit like my reservations over the slogan "Saved to serve". It's not that it's not true. It's just not enough.)
The second comes mostly nowadays from the US, and has its roots in historic presbyterianism, therefore in Switzerland, France and Scotland - Covenant Theology. Covenant theology finds its unifying theme in the big promises God makes to his people, expressed either in one or two great overarching covenants - the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. (Some people deny the existence of the covenant of works.) Christ is seen as the mediator of the covenant, and my joy as a Christian is rooted in the certainty of God's promise. I have a slight reservation in that the important thing is not really the covenant, but the God who made the promise. After all, lots of people make promises, but there's only certain people whose promises I rely on! It's a bit like when we sing about "Amazing grace" or "Great providence of heaven" - it's not out of order to do it, but really our faith isn't in grace or in providence but in Jesus Christ, the God of grace and providence. (And "Amazing grace" can be loved and enjoyed as a pop song with no thought of Jesus at all... both interesting and tragic. Nobody has yet done the same thing for "Great providence of heaven". Where's those bagpipes?)
I think we are looking at "work in progress", and I love it. Sometime someone will do some work to draw together these two strands of Biblical Theology and develop a strong, warm, Christocentric Biblical theology. After all, he is the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45).
Comments