(Here is the LONG version of a talk I gave to Church leaders back in September)
This is a time of significant shifts for the churches of
Christchurch. The old status quo had been ripped apart and there is a sense
that we do not just want to rebuild what was. I want to talk about four shifts
(well three and a half really) that I see happening.
(These involve some big words – don’t worry about them when
you see them - I will explain them in the section following. Also the points
move from the most abstract theology to historical descriptions of the New Testament
church to tracing a biblical theme throughout Scripture so hopefully it becomes
simpler, more concrete and down to earth. If point one is too heavy go to point
three)
I.
From Cooperation to
Consubstantiality: Unity with Particularity
In the weeks between the February and June shakes I spoke at
about 16 different congregations around Christchurch. At about week 10 I had
one of those “aha” moments when walking into a church I saw that this was the
same spiritual reality I had walked into every other week but that it took
on a particular form there in that church – there was community, leadership,
gifts but in a particular form there. I struggled for language to express that
until I stumbled on the language of the Trinity. This experience must parallel what the early
church experienced with Jesus. They must have said we know God and in this
person Jesus we sense that are encountering the reality of God again but in a
different particular form. Ultimately that led to the language of Trinity: One
God in Three Persons. This was expressed in Greek as one “ousia”
(being/essence) in three “hypostases” (independent realities/concrete
particularity). The church father
Tertulllian expressed the Greek idea of Homoousis (one being) in Latin as Consubstantiality
– shared substance. The Greek possibly has a more dynamic idea – being verbal –
I am encountering the same underlying way of being in three particular expressions
rather than some generic ‘substance’.
I want to suggest that this is a helpful way to think about
the churches in the city. We have such a clear sense of a citywide task. We
also have a clear sense that no one church can do it alone – we need each
other. How do we understand that one church in the city? The first step is to
really see that this “other” church is a particular expression of the same
shared substance that I love in my church! Shared underlying reality – both the
spirit filled people of God. How do we express this? The older way is to seek
organisational unity, often around a lowest common denominator approach, where
we sacrifice our distinctives so as not to offend anyone. I want to suggest
that an understanding of the Trinity provides another way of thinking about our
unity in the city – more in terms of mutuality in our particularity, relating
in genuine love of the other, and the fact of particular expressions relating
in loving mutuality is what constitutes the whole and bears witness to God. Let
me explain.
In brief there have been two traditions of thought about the
Trinity. In the West the emphasis was on the One, represented by Augustine.
Analogies for the Trinity were then psychological i.e. different elements of
one’s person psyche (memory/intellect/will) and the focus was on the underlying
essential being. In the Eastern Orthodox Church the emphasis was on the Three, represented
by the Cappadocians fathers. The main analogies
were Social or relational i.e. persons in communion. The focus was on personhood
(hypostasis) and persons in relation. This is represented in Rublev’s Icon of
the Holy Trinity.
This has massive implications for how we think about life,
being, relationships and I would say church.
It has been applied in terms of thinking about
relationships. When we relate we tend to either go to Fusion/Enmeshment where
the two are combined and there is a loss of individual identity or we have Isolation/Detachment
where individual identity is preserved but at the loss of community and
relationship. Relationality is the capacity
to be distinct or separate in my particularity but connected/ in communion/
intimate/ empathetic with the other in their particularity. Indeed I am only
fully a person as I am in relationship. If the trinity is really the ultimate
foundation of reality then ultimate being is not some abstract substance but as
Persons in communion.
Colin Gunton in the Promise of Trinitarian Theology says:
"An account of relationality that gives
due weight to both one and many, to both particular and universal, to both
otherness and relation, is to be derived from the one place where they can
satisfactorily be based, a conception of God who is both one and three, whose
being consists in a relationality that derives from the otherness-in-relation
of the Father, Son and Spirit."
In terms of application to churches relating together Gunton
goes on to say:
The being of the church should echo the dynamic of the
relations between the three persons who together constitute the deity”(80)
The churches of Christchurch relating together in their
particularity is what constitutes the presence of Gods people in the city and
our effective witness in and to the city.
Miroslav Volf has explored this in his book After Our
Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Gunton says we are called
to echo this relationality, Volf that we are called to image it.
This raises the whole challenge of how we think of church -
do we think of it as some abstract ideal or as particular local actual
realisations or manifestations.
Biblical scholars who analyse the use of the term church in Paul
show that he saw it as actual particular, concrete local expressions.
Peter O’Brien in his article on “Church” in the Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters says:
— The term is
employed in the same way as in Greek and Jewish circles, that is, like other
assemblies (ekklēsiai) in the city, it is described as “a gathering of
the Thessalonians”…
— Other instances
of ekklēsia (singular) and ekklēsiai (plural) in Paul’s letters
also denote a local assembly or gathering of Christians in a particular
place: it is thus not a metaphor, but a term descriptive of an identifiable
object. In the two Thessalonian letters reference is made to “the churches of
God” (2 Thess 1:4) and “the churches of God in Judea” (2:14). Other letters
such as Galatians (Gal 1:2), the two letters to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:17;
11:16; 14:33, 34; 2 Cor 8:19, 23, 24; 11:8, 28; 12:13) and Romans (Rom 16:4,
16) also employ the plural when more than one church is in view (the only
exceptions are the distributive expression “every church,” 1 Cor 4:17, and the
phrase “the church of God,” 1 Cor 10:32, in a generic or possibly localized
sense). So reference is made to “the churches in Galatia” (Gal 1:2; 1
Cor 16:1), “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor 16:19), “the churches in
Macedonia” (2 Cor 8:1) and “the churches of Judea” (Gal 1:22). This
suggests that the term was applied only to an actual gathering of people,
or to a group that gathers when viewed as a regularly constituted meeting
(Banks). Although we often speak of a group of congregations collectively as
“the church” (i.e., of a denomination), it is doubtful whether Paul (or the
rest of the NT) uses ekklēsia in this collective way. Also, the notion
of a unified provincial or national church appears to have been foreign to
Paul’s thinking. An ekklēsia was a meeting or an assembly.
In the New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology the article on church (in Greek: “ekklesia” ἐκκλησία) says:
— Hence the ekklēsia
can be thought of in purely concrete terms, and any spiritualizing in the
dogmatic sense of an invisible church (ecclesia invisibilis) is still
unthinkable for Paul.
At this point the editor is a little uncomfortable and
inserts the following to allay fears of those who think this is a bit radical:
— ([Ed.] The idea
of the invisible church is found in Augustine, City of God; Wycliffe, De
ecclesia; Luther, Preface to Revelation; Calvin, Institutes
IV 1 7; and many other writers (see edition of Calvin’s Institutes, ed.
J. T. NcNeill, 1960, II 1022). The thought that is uppermost is not to minimize
the importance of church membership, but to recognize the possibility of
hypocrisy and deceit.
However the
main article goes on to say :
— The ekklēsia
has its location, existence and being within definable geographical limits.
— The fact that
the ekklēsia in the full sense exists in several places at once arises
out of the concreteness of Paul’s concept.
— It is for this
reason that ekklēsia occurs so frequently in the plural. (20 out of 50
instances), whether it refers to the different congregations in an area like
Judea (Gal. 1:22), Galatia (Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 16:1), Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1) or
Asia (1 Cor. 16:19), or to a number of churches, or to all of them (e.g. Rom.
16:1; 1 Cor. 7:17; 14:33f.; 2 Thess. 1:4). The fact that small groups in
individual houses are called ekklēsia (Phm. 2; 1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:5;
cf. also Col. 4:15) indicates that neither the significance of the place nor
the numerical size of the assembly determines the use of the term. What counts
is the presence of Christ among them (cf. Gal. 3:1) and faith nourished by him.
— The ekklēsia
is always described and ordered in terms of its particular, local form.
— Although in
Col. 4:15f. it is still the local or house church that is called the ekklēsia,
the emphasis in Eph. falls on the mystical unity of the body in its cosmic
aspect (especially Eph. 4:3ff.).
So Church exists in the particularity of each local church
or parish but then they relate together as expressions of the same shared underlying
reality – consubstantiality.
Colin Gunton says in a very wordy but profound sentence
(That I will explain):
“An overweighting of
the Christological as against the pneumatological determinants of ecclesiology
together with an overemphasis on the divine over against the human Christ has
led to a ‘docetic’ doctrine of the church” (The Promise of Trinitarian
Theology, p.70)
He means by overemphasising objective facts about Christ
rather than the reality of the Spirit, combined with an evangelical
overemphasis on divinity of Christ as opposed to his humanity we fall into the
church equivalent of one of the heresies about Christ, docetism, which was that
Christ only seemed human the reality was spiritual, he kind of floated six
inches above the ground and never quite earthed. i.e. our understanding of church
never quite earths in this particular concrete reality of THIS church.
Actually I think this is a hangover of Platonic and
Neoplatonic thought – which thinks of ultimate reality as existing in abstract ideals
and only falteringly expressed in actual examples.
Let me put this all very simply: Bottom-line many of us
love and are committed to the ideal of church but are frustrated with the
particular church we work in and long for the chance to try another!
This whole emphasis on the particularity of church leads me
to reread some passages about the church. E.g. 1 Corinthians 3 where Paul talks
about his ministry of building churches. I need to read this as Paul was not
building this universal abstract thing called church but considers himself a
master builder of local churches:
10
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and
someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is
Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold,
silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown
for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed
with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14
If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it
is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one
escaping through the flames.
16
Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives
in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him;
for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
So church is particular but then in any context there are a
number of churches and the Trinity provides the model of unity as particulars
relating in love in mutuality rather than unity as a twentieth century
institutional merger – which I am suggesting is the western idea of unity as
one essence rather than unity as separate distinct entities in communion, maintaining
their particularity
So how are the persons connected? Again there is a Greek
term: Perichoresis which refers to the Co-indwelling/ Inter –penetration of the
persons while preserving the distinctions of the persons. Many see the related
image of a dance – a dynamic picture of movement and connection and life and
joy.
Alister McGrath says
it "allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while
insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often
used to express this idea is that of a 'community of being,' in which each
person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and
is penetrated by them.”
For
churches we need to ask how can we be positively impacted by the richness of
distinctives of the others. . The question is how do we open ourselves to
receive the positive influence of other churches while maintaining the
distinctiveness of our own? I think of
the letters to the seven churches in Revelation – Jesus speaks to each one but
they each hear the message to the others and are challenged and enriched not
only by their own story with God but with each other’s different stories. I
need to hear what about the journey God taking different churches on, I will be
enriched by knowing something of the story of what God is doing in Parklands
Baptist, Grace Vineyard, St Christopher’s Anglican, Hornby Presbyterian.
Miroslav Volf says “If one starts with the complementary
nature of person and relation, then not only do ecclesial persons, but also
ecclesial communities appear as independent and yet mutually related entities
affirming one another in mutual giving and receiving”
He goes on to say: “...the perichoresis of the divine
persons also possesses interecclesial [which means “inter-church”] relevance.
...Like individual persons, so also do entire communities have their specific
identifying characteristics, acquired either by way of the cultural context in
which they abide or through exceptional personalities active among them; they
now transmit these characteristics to other churches. By opening up to one
another... local churches should enrich one another, thereby increasingly
becoming catholic churches”
In Ministry in the Image of God, Stephen Seamands
outlines four characteristics that define these kinds of relationships:
— Full equality
— Glad submission
— Joyful intimacy
— Mutual deference
Our
diversity in unity mirrors the diversity in unity of the Trinity. Equality,
intimacy, submission and deference ought to characterize relationships in the
Christian community as well.
I want to suggest that unity with particularity is a
radically different model to think of the unity of the church in the city. We
will explore later why I think this names why some things have worked well and
why some things have not – why some forms of unity bring life and some bring
death – if we sacrifice our
particularity for unity.
II.
From Colleagues to
Consanguine (Family)
This is kind of a half point, a sub-point of the first one.
Consanguine means we share the same blood – we are family.
(Now I could preach a great pietist sermon here about how we
all stand under the blood of Jesus!)
This is really only a sub point of the first. This
consubstantiality means fellow leaders are more than colleagues, we are
brothers and sisters. That kind of language can sound corny but seems to have
been very important in the early church. Ultimately it comes from Jesus that
fellow disciples are family. The early church radically referred to each other
as family. Four times Paul insists that the church greet each other with a holy
kiss. He is saying do not assemble as strangers, gather as equals as family as
people in relationship. I wonder what symbolic actions symbolise for us we
associate as family?
This represents a model of the church in the city as nuclear
families within an extended family .
At our stage of life each of my and my wife’s siblings have
their own nuclear family. In terms of the social trinity each nuclear family
has its own relational dynamic and then the extended family is a connection of
each of those relational networks. That is a good way to think about the church
in the city.
A practical step for me is that when I relate to another
church, I try to not just connect with the pastor but to identify the key
leadership team and establish at least a minimal connection with each part of
their key relational system .
III.
From Cooperation to
Connection/Confluence: (Networks, synergy & combined momentum)
I don’t have a good “con-“ word to express this. The idea is
of not just insular connection (warm fuzzies) but connecting in a way that adds
momentum to the individual churches. Confluence is the term for the place where
two rivers meet and combine – the only problem with the image is that they lose
their individual identity. We need an image of the energy generated when two
things meet but in a way that energises and enriches the particularity of each
– and sends them back into their particularity with increased energy.
Here let me turn from systematic theology to New Testament
studies. I would argue that we can see this sense of connection and momentum and
synergy in the early church. It is particularly found in the little bits of
Paul’s letters that we often ignore, the beginnings and ends and a few asides
in the middle. The key point is this: the early Church was a highly
networked movement.
For instance Romans 16. Paul is writing to a church he has
never visited. He greets 28 individuals, 26 by name (and a mother and a sister
of someone named) e.g.
6
Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.
7
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They
are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
8
Greet Ampliatus, whom I love in the Lord.
9
Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys.
10
Greet Apelles, tested and approved in Christ.
Greet
those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.
1
1 Greet Herodion, my relative.
Greet
those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.
12
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.
Now I know churches in my denomination but I would say there
is no church that I could greet 28 individuals there – and here Romans is a
church Paul had never been to and in the days before cheap air travel was a two
to three months travel away!.
1.
Paul and his Co-Writers.
Look at the start of Paul's letters.
We often talk about Paul and his letters. We see Paul as a
great apostle and know he wrote thirteen letters. However consider the
following.
— 1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul,
called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother
Sosthenes,
— 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul,
an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother
— Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of
Christ Jesus
— Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus
by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
— 1 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul,
Silas and Timothy
— 2 Thessalonians 1:1 Paul,
Silas and Timothy
— Philemon 1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus,
and Timothy our brother
Seven of the thirteen letters ascribed to Paul are actually
from multiple authors. I want to suggest
Paul is modelling something here –from
his Trinitarian theology he is modelling relationality, community.
Then when we look at the six where he is the sole author I
think we can see reasons why he departed from his normal practice
- Pastorals: 1 & 2
Timothy, Titus: letters from him as an individual spiritual father to an
individual spiritual son.
- Romans: introducing
specifically his ministry to the church he is going to visit.
- Galatians: a specific defence
of his apostleship.
- Ephesians: a generic
letter of instruction.
In our context imagine initiatives or statements that come
not just from one church but that come from a number of key recognised church
leaders e.g. “Murray Robertson, Bishop Victoria, Murray Talbot, Paul Bennetts write to you, suggesting….”.
The impact is multiplied, the weight is multiplied and something significant is
modeled.
2.
Paul and his Co-workers
Estimates
vary but scholars identify between 81 and 95 co-workers of Paul in the New
Testament depending on how “co-worker” is defined. If we just stick to
individuals who Paul names in his letters there are 36 (see the Dictionary
of Paul and His Letters).
A quick scan through these letters reveals a networks of
churches constantly sending people back and forth between churches, and a network of workers and leaders fostering
a network of churches not just one church.
Ephesians
- 6:21 Tychicus, the dear brother and
faithful servant in the Lord, will tell you everything, so that you also
may know how I am and what I am doing. 22 I am sending him to
you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are, and that he may
encourage you.
This is the first of five references to Paul intentionally
and strategically sending one person from one church to visit another church.
Philippians
— 2:19 I hope in
the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by
news of you.
— 2:25 I have
thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker
and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has
been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was
ill. 27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not
only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 I am the
more eager to send him, therefore, that you may rejoice at seeing him again,
and that I may be less anxious. 29 So
receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died
for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your
service to me.
Colossians
- 4:7 Tychicus will tell you all the
news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow
servant in the Lord. 8 I am sending him to you for the express
purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may
encourage your hearts. 9 He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful
and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is
happening here.
- 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you and
a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in
prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and
fully assured. 13 I vouch for him that he is working hard for
you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis.
1 Thessalonians
·
3:2 We sent Timothy, who is our brother and
God’s fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and
encourage you in your faith,
2 Timothy
·
4:19-21 Greet Priscilla and Aquila and the
household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left
Trophimus sick in Miletus. 21 Do your best to get here before
winter. Eubulus greets you, and so do Pudens, Linus, Claudia and all the
brothers.
Titus
·
3:12-13 As soon as I send Artemas or
Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, because I have
decided to winter there. 13 Do everything you can to help Zenas the
lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need.
3.
The Early church as highly
networked
In 1998 Richard Bauckham edited a book called The Gospel
for All Christians. Its main thesis deals with an academic issue of New
Testament studies but in the process of addressing this he and the other
writers make it clear that the early church was a highly networked community.
In the introduction Richard Bauckham states: “Of great
importance is the extensive evidence that the early Christian movement was not
... a scattering of relatively isolated, introverted communities, but a network
of communities in constant, close communication with each other” (2).
Imagine if we could say this of the churches of
Christchurch: Of great importance is the extensive evidence that the Christchurch
Christian movement was not ... a scattering of relatively isolated, introverted
communities, but a network of communities in constant, close communication with
each other”
That last part is challenging: in constant, close
communication (while maintaining their particularity and working to build each
individual church). That is the paradox! A third way between isolation and
fusion.
Bauckham then goes on to say “ all the evidence we have for
early Christian leaders... shows them to have been typically people who
travelled widely and worked in more than one community at different times” (3).
Leaders served a network of churches, not just developed their own ministry in
one church. Summarising the communities and the leaders he says “both had a
strong, lively and informed sense of participation in a worldwide movement” (3)
“But in addition to Christian
participation in the ordinary mobility of society, much communication was
deliberately fostered between the churches” (32)
Michael
Thompson has a chapter in the book called “The Holy Internet: Communication
between Churches in the First Christian Generation.” He uses the picture of the
internet to describe how the early church functioned.
He first
considers the paths of communication: “In the ancient world the closest thing
to an information superhighway was the grid of Roman roads and clear shipping
lanes that made travel far safer and easier than it had ever been before“(50).
He points out that though there was no public postal service the Empire
depended on a regular secure system of communication that included staging
posts and rest stops when towns were separated by more than one day’s journey.
Secondly
he then considers the “archives of information”: “The network ‘servers’ of the
holy internet were the churches” (53) and he notes the importance of “hubs”:
Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome. These functioned as hubs for the
surrounding areas. Paul seems to have focused on establishing new hubs of the
network which then networked into the surrounding areas. Now there is a thought
of strategic importance! How do we foster hubs of ministry and mission within
Christchurch? Geographical hubs, denominational hubs, hubs of relational networks,
specialist ministries?
Thirdly
he considers the access to the internet. Staying with the internet metaphor, he
says communication depended on the “protocol software of hospitality” (55).
Finally
Thompson has some interesting analysis of the speed of this “internet”.
Remember travel was generally by walking or ship: Jerusalem to Antioch took 8-10
days; on to Ephesus another 14-30 days by sea or 35 days over land. Ephesus to
Corinth 6-10 days; Corinth to Rome 10-25 days. From Rome directly back to
Jerusalem by sea 16-28 days. In our days of email, cell phones and cheap
flights it is mindboggling and an enormous challenge to us that they managed to
be so highly networked with these kinds of obstacles and challenges. How can we
be less highly networked than they were? They obviously put a high value on
being part of a network of churches. They understood it was about a dynamic
network of churches.
Thompson also considers the kind of information travelling
on the “internet”:
- News
about churches
- Mutual
encouragement
- Participation
in needs
- Sharing
of resources
- Offering/delivery
of assistance
- Practices/positions
taken/responses to issues
- (I
would add intercessory prayer; requests and information for prayer)
I see some strong examples of this coming together to
generate momentum but without sacrificing particularity. One example is the
Society of Salt and Light, an Anglican initiative. A very good events person,
Spanky Moore was charged with facilitating seven small groups for young adults,
Rather than the seemingly obvious approach of combining them (the western
approach to unity) he organises a monthly event. The groups attend and there is
something high energy and cool about this combined event. But then he produces
a resource kit that they take back to their groups and use for the following
three weeks. He has used his abilities to bring a confluence, connection but in
a way that does not merge but rather resources and energises each group. Easter
Camp has the same dynamic. Experts construct a high quality event but youth
groups stay in village type camps so the end product is strengthened and
energised youth groups not merged youth groups.
I can see at least four main models of combined momentum:
- Smaller churches get in
the slipstream of larger churches but without losing their identity and
particularity
- Smaller churches hold
combined events to generate a sense of being part of something bigger –
whether geographical or denominational groupings.
- Specialist, expert
ministries or people (such as Canterbury Youth Services or Society of Salt
and Light) create excellent events for other churches but in a way that
propels the individual churches forward rather than amalgamating them in a
new reality.
- Various levels of
combined operation: e.g. new shared facilities
Too many of our attempts at unity are not about momentum.
Which leads to the final point, the focus and goal of our mutuality and
momentum..
IV.
From Collecting
(Christians) To Conversion (Preoccupation with the Lost)
The above are trends I see happening in the church
post-quake and I think God is in them. But I wonder if there is something more
explicit God would want to say to us. In the Book of Revelation God addresses
the angels of the seven churches. It is an interesting exercise in discernment
to ask I wonder what God is saying to the churches in Christchurch. I believe that if we asked God what we wanted
to say to the churches in Christchurch he would say:
“I love your heart for the lost”
1.
Preoccupation with the lost
Now some may react to the language of the lost. But it is a
term that comes from Jesus and it is important to see how he used it. Bottomline
it refers to the Father’s perspective that some people are lost to relationship
with him. It is found in Luke 15, a chapter of three related parables: The lost
sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son(s):
Luke 15: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred
sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the
open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it...
8 “Or suppose a woman has ten
silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house
and search carefully until she finds it?
24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive
again; he was lost and is found.’
32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because
this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is
found.’”
Let me repeat, to be lost is from the Father’s perspective,
that they are lost to conscious, explicit relationship with him. The
consequences of being lost are secondary – the kind of effects the prodigal
suffers when he is away from the father.
John Nolland (2002)in the Word Biblical Commentary
introduces the section on Luke 15 with the following:
“The
section 15:1–32 defends and commends preoccupation with the lost, and
overflowing joy at their restoration. We all respond this way with what is our
own, and this attitude corresponds to the concerns of a father’s heart for his
own children, each one of whom is singularly precious in his sight.”
That is a staggering statement: defends and commends
preoccupation. I imagine something like the following conversation between a
pastor and a parishioner: “Pastor aren’t you listening?!” “Sorry what were you
saying?” “I was telling you that people are not happy with the music at
church!” “I’m sorry I was just preoccupied with the 300,000 people in
Christchurch who don’t know Jesus”. Or “Pastor did you hear what I said?””
Sorry what were you saying?””I was saying people are talking” “I’m sorry I was preoccupied
with the 30,000 high schoolers in Christchurch who don’t know Jesus”
In the chapter Jesus is accused of celebrating with sinners.
The three parables are a response to the charge. Each of the parables centres
on the theme of the joy of restored relationship. However there is a building
sense of the true source of the joy. After the first parable Jesus says:
Vs 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more
rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous
persons who do not need to repent.
This is the essence of the idea of preoccupation – a focus
on the one lost rather than the 99 safe.
So there is rejoicing
in heaven but who is rejoicing?
After the second parable Jesus says:
Vs 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the
presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Now here is one of the great misreadings of Scripture. How
many of us have heard that the angels rejoice when someone is saved? Read it
again – there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels. Who is in the
presence of the angels? The third parable answers this – it is the Father who
is rejoicing!
And that is why Jesus rejoices! God loves our heart for the lost
because that is His heart!
The ultimate foundation of mission is the character of God.
If you get that wrong you misread God’s action and agenda in our world.
This raises the whole idea of sin, judgement and wrath, So
many people post earthquake seem preoccupied with the idea of the quakes as
God’s judgement. So let me go on a bit of a diversion about his to discuss
wrath and judgement.
2.
Judgement and wrath
N.T. Wright in Evil and the Justice of God argues
that post twentieth century with all its atrocities we should have recovered a
sense that we actually hope for the judgement of God – when God will step in
and stop evil.
In another of his books Surprised by Hope he says:
— But judgment is necessary – unless we were to conclude,
absurdly, that nothing much is wrong, or blasphemously, that God doesn’t mind
very much.
— God is utterly committed to set the world right in the end. This
doctrine, like that of resurrection itself, is held firmly in place by the
belief in God as creator on the one side and the belief in his goodness on the
other. And that setting-right must necessarily involve the elimination of all
that distorts God’s good and lovely creation, and in particular of all that
defaces his image-bearing human creatures…
A number of years ago I preached through the book of Revelation.
I thought at the time it was going to be challenging because it meant I was
going to have to get my head around the concept of the wrath of God. What was interesting
was the extent to which difficult experiences of parents with children provided
a hermeneutical grid to help make sense of this.
I saw that like any parent God’s basic strategy is kindness
and love:
Acts 14:17
Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving
you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of
food and fills your hearts with joy.”
Romans 2:4
Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and
patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to
repentance?
One advantage of the psychological and therapeutic emphasis these
days is we understand the concept of boundaries and anger as the legitimate
response of defence when a boundary is crossed or violated. It is interesting
to look at God’s wrath in scripture. Parents experiencing problems with
children eventually realise that kindness as a strategy is not working but just
creating a co-dependent relationship that perpetuates the problem and the only
hope is to allow the children to feel the consequences of their choices,
Violated boundaries lead to allowing the natural consequences to follow rather
than rescuing the children. This is God’s first approach to wrath.
a)
Wrath in Romans 1
In Romans 1 God’s wrath is seen first is a pulling back to
let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Paul three times using the
phrase “handed over” or “gave over”:
18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,...
24
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to
sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another....
26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts....
28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge
of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what
ought not to be done.
What is also interesting here is that the kinds of things
people normally argue would be the causes of God’s wrath are actually the
result of it. Sexual issues violence etc are the result of God taking his hand
of providence off for the fundamental sin of idolatry.
Now with parenting this strategy of escalating consequences
may work. But for some children the behaviour becomes so destructive that at
some point you actually have to actively intervene to stop behaviours that are
hurting others. This is the picture of wrath in the book of Revelation. At this
point God steps in, in increasing force to say this needs to stop. And unfortunately
each step merely strengthens the resolve to fight back.
b)
Wrath in Revelation 16 and
following
1
Then I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, “Go, pour
out the seven bowls of God’s wrath on the earth.” 2 The
first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly, festering sores
broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.
3
The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like
that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.
4
The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and
they became blood
The account is at pains to show this is not wild random
wrath but just and true stopping of wrong:
5
Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:
“You
are just in these judgments, O Holy One,
you who are and who were;
6 for they have shed the blood of your holy people and your
prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.”
7
And I heard the altar respond:
“Yes,
Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments.”
The cycle of seven builds. What is striking is that at each
step people just fight back and their resistance intensifies.
8
The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to
scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and
they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they
refused to repent and glorify him.
10
The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom
was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony 11
and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but
they refused to repent of what they had done.
12
The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water
was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then
I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth
of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false
prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go
out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great
day of God Almighty.
15
“Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains
clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.”
16
Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called
Armageddon.
17
The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came
a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!” 18 Then there
came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake.
No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so
tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts,
and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and
gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
20
Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From
the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds, fell on people. And
they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so
terrible.
This is a great tragedy that the resistance just escalates.
The horrifying thing reading the account is the determination of people to
rebel.
It is important to understand that judgement is a means to
an end of effecting peace and shalom – it is penultimate not ultimate. If you
turn to the end of the book it leads to judgement to clear the way for peace.
Again there is explicit reminder that this has all been
just:
Revelation 20
1
After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven
shouting: “Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God, 2 for true
and just are his judgments.
And of course the Bible then finishes with a wonderful
picture of the redemption of creation and the restoration of God’s original purposes.
Revelation 21
1
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first
earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the
Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a
bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud
voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the
people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself
will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from
their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the
old order of things has passed away.”
It is really important to get the big picture of salvation history
and live in the moment we find ourselves in. So what about wrath now:
c)
Luke 4
Jesus announced his commission and anointing in Luke 4
quoting Isaiah 61. Compare the two passages:
Isaiah 61
|
Luke 4
|
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
|
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of
the Lord’s favor.”
|
If you compare the version Jesus stopped half way through a
verse and explicitly left out the declaration of the vengeance of God. Between
the cross and final judgment, God is in the business of gospel mission. The Spirit
anoints us to preach good news, open eyes of blind, release to oppressed, and
in summary announce God’s favour!
d)
Ephesians 2
This turning point of the cross is reinforced in many places
but one striking example is Ephesians 2:1-10. The first three verses paint a
grave and disturbing picture of human life climaxing in the phrase that we are
by nature children of wrath
Ephesians 2:1-10:
1
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once
walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power
of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among
whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires
of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest
of mankind.
Verse 4 is a great
turn around verse: We deserve wrath but we get love.
4But
God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even
when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by
grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us
with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the
coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness
toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through
faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not
a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Verse 4 would make a great three point sermon:
Ephesians 2:4
...But
God,
being
rich in mercy,
because
of the great love with which he loved us ...
I would love to be a black American preacher : “You might be
a sinner .... BUT God...; you might have stolen and hurt people.... BUT
God....; you might have let down your momma BUT God...”
e)
Jonah, Exodus 34 and the
Character of God
In the Old Testament this understanding of the character of
God is found in a number of places but one good example is Jonah.
Jonah is commissioned to announce judgement on Nineveh but
he runs away. We don’t really know why. Of course he is swallowed by a great
fish and eventually goes to Nineveh. The city repents and his angry and at least
we discover why he ran away”
Jonah 4:
1 But
Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. 2 He prayed to the
LORD, “O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I
was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and
compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from
sending calamity.
Jonah because he was a prophet knew the heart of God so he
knew that God did not actually want to bring judgement. He is quoting from a
key passage in Exo 34 where Moses asks to see God’s glory:
Exodus 34:6-7
6The LORD passed before him and proclaimed,
"The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and
abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast
love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will
by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the
children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth
generation."
I don’t have the time to do a detailed study of this – we
will note below the imbalance e.g. love to 100s versus punishment to 3 or 4.
We will look at this in a minute but first let’s finish the
Jonah story: the common theme is anger
versus compassion. Jonah had compassion fondness for his vine so was angry when
it got destroyed. God says he feels the same way about the city. The book finishes
with a great question: should I not be concerned for (have compassion/ be fond
of) great city?.
9
But God said to Jonah, “Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?”
“I
do,” he said. “I am angry enough to die.”
10
But the LORD said, “You have been concerned about this vine, though you did not
tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11
But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell
their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be
concerned about that great city?”
Back to Exo 34 and the Old Testament understanding of the
wrath of God. The Old Testament scholar John Goldingay, (2006). Old
Testament Theology, Volume 2: Israel‘s Faith. Has an interesting section
entitled Wrathful, But Not from
the Heart
He says:
“Christians have sometimes spoken
of God as combining love and justice in such a way that these have equal place
in God’s nature. God thus “has” to punish our sin, but punishes it by punishing
his Son instead of punishing us. The First Testament does not thus see love and
justice as equally balanced in God (nor, I think, does the New Testament).
After line upon line of lament at Yhwh’s (deserved) wrath and affliction,
Lamentations 3 extraordinarily declares,
This I call to mind;
therefore
I have hope
In Yhwh’s commitments, because
they have not ended,
because his compassion has not
finished.
They are new each morning;
great
is your truthfulness.…
Yhwh is good to people who wait
for him,
to the person who has recourse to
him.…
Because the Lord
does
not reject forever
But causes suffering and has
compassion,
according to the abundance of his
commitments.
Because it is not from the
heart that he afflicts
or
makes human beings suffer. (Lam 3:21–33)
“The [English version] render
that last line “he does not willingly afflict,” which is itself a very striking
statement. When God afflicts people, this is an unwilling action on God’s part.
So whose will is being put into effect? Who is causing God to act unwillingly?
This compulsion can only be coming from within God’s own person. The Hebrew
expression coheres with that, though it nuances the point in indicating that
affliction comes from God, but not come from God’s heart, not from God’s inner
being.
The model this suggests is that,
as is the case with a human being, there are dominant or central or governing
aspects to God’s character, and also secondary, more marginal aspects. With
regard to human beings, this can be referred to as their shadow side, though
when applied to God, that can seem to suggest negative aspects. But a human
being’s shadow side is simply their less prominent side. Some professors, for
instance, have a dominant side that is happiest when they are sitting alone at
their desks researching, but their shadow side is capable of being relational
and of projecting themselves to people, and they call on this shadow side when
they are in the classroom.
He then has a section called : Yhwh’s Asymmetry
“So toughness and softness or justice
and mercy do not have an equal place in Yhwh’s moral character. Yhwh can summon
up the capacity to act tough from time to time, but this does not issue from
Yhwh’s heart. Yhwh’s dominant side is to be loving and merciful; Lamentations’
point is that afflicting people involves the realizing of God’s secondary side.
... It is the case that wrath has a secondary status within God, compared with
love and faithfulness
3.
Unity for mission
Back to the start of this section: God’s heart is for the
lost
And we can go full circle and return to where we started
with the Trinity:
David Bosch in his book Transforming Mission talks about Missio
Dei (the mission of God):
Mission was understood as being
derived from the very nature of God. It was thus put in the context of the
doctrine of the Trinity, not of ecclesiology or soteriology. The classical
doctrine on the missio Dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the
Father and the Son sending the Spirit was expanded to include yet another
“movement”: The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit sending the church into the
world. As far as missionary thinking was concerned, this linking with the
doctrine of the Trinity constituted an important innovation
If we go back to the picture of relational communion – this
community wants to reach out and draw others into relationship – that is why God
freely created. And when his creatures rebel his heart is to reach out and to restore.
Unity has a missional dynamic for as long as there are those outside
relationship:
John 17:20-23
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also
for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all
of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they
also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are
one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete
unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you
have loved me.
A commentator Borchert, G. L. (2003). Says about this
passage:
John
17:20-23
In
the twentieth century these verses became the basis for biblical support to the
modern ecumenical movement. Many scholars, including J. Cadier, D. M.
Lloyd-Jones, P. Minear, T. E. Pollard, J. F. Randall, W. Thüsing, and others,
have attempted to expound these verses in terms of the need for unity among
Christian churches. I personally have been involved in many discussions with
other church bodies when serving as the chair of both Study and Research and
the Commission on Doctrine and Interchurch Relations for the Baptist World
Alliance, but it has always been with the understanding that my efforts have
been focused where the text is focused, which is on the mission of Jesus and
not on discussions of unity or cooperation for their own sakes. Mission must
be central to all discussions of oneness.
V.
Conclusion
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury in May 2011,
addressed the first ever international consultation for Anglican Communion
Theological College Principals and Deans. He said the basic question of theological
education is “Where are you”? Where are we in terms of where we fit in the big
picture of what God is doing, where are we in terms of understanding the issues
of our context, and where are we in terms of our own formation and growth in
this.
I want to suggest that where we are as churches in
Christchurch is facing God’s call to the Church in this moment to move to...
— Consubstantiality:
Unity
with particularity
— Consanguine:
Family
— Connection/Confluence:
Networking
for synergy & momentum
— Conversion:
Focus on
the lost
This has been a long article covering systematic theology, New
Testament history and a biblical theme. It can be summed up in one sentence:
Let’s find unity in our particularity in ways that build momentum
for the cause of the gospel and the sake of the lost.
