We are going to start a new Christianity Matters course in a couple of weeks on contemporary issues in theology.  (Check back in a few days for more information.) One class will be on “The New Perspective.” There is alot of talk about it, but distilling it to a few finer points isn’t too easy. If you want a helpful start then here is a good essay by Simon Gathercole. If you want the essay in an interview format then go here. The book to read is Justification and the New Perspective on Paul by Guy P. Waters.

(Bruce, I haven’t forgot about your question on Severe Mercy.)

It would not be right to let this sentence languish in the middle of Keith’s post without being plucked out and put on display. It’s one of those questions that cuts to one’s heart and deserves to be meditated on at length:

“Are you more concerned about how committed people are to you, than about how committed you are to them?”

There’s a sermon for you to preach to yourself. I recognize that being and feeling loved are important needs for any human being. That’s how we’re made. But it’s worth noticing that the Bible’s command is to “love one another,” not “to be loved by one another.” The language is active, not passive.

That ought to set our priorities, and our expectations. It seems to me that the default position of too many Christians, when it comes to love, is passive rather than active. The switch is set on “intake” rather than “output,” meaning that people spend alot more time analyzing whether they feel cared for, than they do strategizing about how they can care for others. You can see the problem with that: If every switch in the church is set on “intake,” most everyone starts to feel like they’re “not being cared for.” But flip all those switches to “output”—change the priority from “being cared for” to “caring”—and see what happens: Love abounds.

I hope and pray that kind of active love is, or perhaps increasingly becomes, one of Third Avenue’s distinctives.

Greg gave a very clear and accurate exposition of the mustard seed parable. The kingdom may look small now, but it will be awesome and finally victorious. One need not be anxious about the kingdom or the microcosm of the kingdom–the church–appearing small or insignificant. Some seem to be afraid of the smallness of the church and try to change aspects of the church’s culture in order to grow it so it looks successful by worldly standards.
I think a principle we should gather from the parable of the mustard seed is that kingdom growth is not always easily measurable. The kingdom of God expands as God desires and the grand appearance of its largeness, greatness, awesomeness will not arrive until Christ establishes his kingdom on earth. One’s church need not look great and mighty today to be an active agent in the kingdom. We do not need to change the culture of the church to make it great, we simply need to proclaim the Word so that members live like citizens of the kingdom. What if God is not growing you numerically now, he is simply building up the body so that it can be mature enough to care for new converts when he decides to bless you with them. How does one measure kingdom growth? I think Greg’s first sermon on the Kingdom Life gives a pretty good starting point. Is your church humble, loving, merciful, peaceful, etc? These changes take great pain and time.Third Avenue, we should not pat ourselves on the backs for being small because that is not the point. We should consider how well our life together reflects the kingdom. Are you committed to the growth of our little body by being committed to Christ and his kingdom? Are you more concerned with how committed people are to you rather than how you are committed to them? (more on this–I know you can’t wait!)

All this rambling to say that the church must get away from measuring her success by the same principles the world does. Yes, I am Captain Obvious and Obstinate. I am currently seeking to employ a new side-kick. Please send you resumes to our church website.

No, I’m not affirming the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but the Vatican did so this week. And in so doing it also stated that other churches of Protestant affiliation are defective or not true churches. (Here’s the FoxNews report and you can find the official document published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from the Vatican here.)

What was affirmed in the document? In short, through a series of five Q&As the document, which was ratified by the pope, reaffirmed what the Vatican II Council had previously stated regarding the doctrine of the church - The true “Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” (”Subsists” is the key word.) Here’s the Congregation quoting the Vatican II Council:

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”

Regarding other churches and ecclesiastical communities, the Congregation didn’t say they were of no value. They actually are “instruments of salvation.”

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church” (my emphasis added).

There’s much that could be said about this reaffirmation. But as an evangelical Christian I have to say that I appreciate it. I think this is a positive move, not because I believe in the primacy of the RCC or papal authority. Nor do I agree with Rome that Protestant churches aren’t “churches in the proper sense” because they “don’t enjoy apostolic succession in the sacramental Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.” This is another one of the Reformational distinctions: a true church is constituted by a body of believers where there is the right preaching of the word of God and the right administration of the sacraments. Thus, there’s not much I agree with in this document.

My appreciation, however, derives from the fact that this reaffirmation highlights Protestant and Catholic distinctions that I think have been lost in the fog of ecumenical movements. Only this time they are being made from a Catholic vantage point, a view we’re not used to seeing. (You can find these essential distinctions from a Protestant standpoint over at Reformation21 in Carl Trueman’s latest article.)

One object of love that most sharply divides or wonderfully unites is the “simple gospel.” (I’m quoting Greg from an email exchange.) In the small cyper-world I frequent, I’ve noticed that as of recently one topic in particular is causing alot of division and conversation - the nature of the atonement. Now I realize this debate isn’t new. It is one that will never cease until the Lord, Jesus, himself returns. And, thus, Luther’s prophetic words continue to ring true when he said, “In every generation the gospel will have to be reaffirmed because if you preach the gospel…boldly and accurately it will produce conflict” (R. C. Sproul quoting Luther, T4G ‘06).

Let me just point our readers to a few places where this debate is evident. First, “Britain’s three most prominent Christians groups ended their 14-year conference partnership” because of an unsettled debate over an invited speaker, Steve Chalke. Chalke is most well-known for his infamous statement of comparing the penal substitutionary atonement to divine child abuse. You can read the report here. Second, J. I. Paker recently responded to criticisms of penal substitutionary atonement. Third, the guys over at 9Marks, including our own Mr. Gilbert, have been working hard at equipping pastors to articulate and defend the gospel. You’ll find his work here and here.

Now I could simply point readers to these articles and other resources, but instead I’d like to have the conversation among us. So Greg I’m going to call on you first because I’ve already referenced you twice. What do you mean by the “simple gospel?” Second, would someone please define penal substitutionary atonement? Third, how does the penal substitutionary atonement relate to other soteric blessings, i.e. justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.? Fourth, what is lost if the penal substitutionary atonement is abandoned?

Brad pointed us to news in his post below about two groups of Baptists that are coming together. They are not groups of Baptists with whom we would have a great deal in common. Nevertheless it makes sense in my opinion for them to cooperate because they are probably quite like minded on many issues.

In the past we have bantered about when to cooperate with others and when we should refrain. Brad pointed out that solid theology would be the crucial concern for us. And yet for some, we may not be solid enough. It’s old news now, but my alma mater Cedarville University lost its endorsement from the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches for establishing links with the SBC. The GARBC has concerns that the SBC is a work in progress and that it does not have the uniformity in doctrinal matters that warrant cooperation. In short, the SBC is not solid enough for the GARBC. Last summer the GARBC stopped including Cedarville as a partner institution for GARBC churches. You can read a statement about it detailing the doctrinal failings of the SBC.

So what do these Baptist unitings and divisions have to say to us? I could say that it shows us there are two kinds of folks in the world: lumpers and splitters. Those who look for ways to cooperate and those who look for ways to divide. I think what it tells us in truth is what Augustine said — that we are united (or disunited) by our common objects of love.

In response to Greg’s post about how to interpret the Song of Songs (Solomon, etc.), I have to say that I am in complete agreement with Greg’s inclination to add an interpretive level to the book for God’s love for His people. I picked the text (Song of Songs 2:4) and intended that to be one of the applications. I also agree that the primary point of the text is about the love of a man and woman for one another. However, scripture routinely uses that relationship as a metaphor for God’s love for His people. I think that one would be remiss in preaching from a text like this to ignore the aspects of God and His people. We cannot think rightly about love or relationships anywhere from scripture without first thinking about God’s love. All of our loves are derivative from God. Where’s Keith on this question? Surely this is a good opportunity to trot out one of the church fathers . . .