Author Archives: Phillip Powers

About Phillip Powers

For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. ~Philippians 1:21

08/20/2018

On Denominational Identity

denominations

In my last post, I considered the benefit and value of denominations within the body of Christ, and I concluded that denominations, in their noblest expressions and forms, are a beautiful mosaic of the diversity that exists within the one holy and apostolic church of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, the glaring reality is that in their most ignominious of forms, they can be downright disgraceful, divisive, and even destructive to the cause of Christ and the mission of the church. This is especially true in the “Bible Belt” where denominational boundaries seem like firmly drawn lines in the sand which dare not ever be crossed and where denominational distinctives are seen more as fronts in the battle that must be defended at all costs than as opportunities to learn from each other in humility.

This more vitriolic and antagonistic form of Christian denominations is the direct result of placing our denominational identity before our identity in Christ. In other words, denominational affiliation is understood to be more primary and more determinative for our faith and practice than who we are in Christ. So, when we are asked the question “Who am I?” or “Who are we?”, more often than not, the first answer that comes to mind is whatever our particularly denominational affiliation might happen to be. We might answer, “Well, I am a Southern Baptist” or “Oh, I am Assemblies of God” or maybe “I am Roman Catholic” or insert your preferred denominational label here.

We actually sound a lot like those first-century Christians in the church at Corinth. It could be argued that the Corinthian churches caused the Apostle Paul more grief and heartache than all of his other churches combined, or it could be that we simply know more about their problems than we do any other church in the first century. Nevertheless, in the letter we know as First Corinthians, which was probably the second letter that Paul had written to them, he had this to say in chapter 1, verses 11-12:

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters, by members of Chloe’s people, that there is rivalry among you. What I am saying is this: One of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

Obviously, this is unacceptable to the great Apostle; he said back in verse 10:

Now I urge you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction.

Of course, Paul’s instruction here does not completely preclude the existence of denominations all together, but it does temper the extent to which we should emphasize the differences among us. In other words, denominational diversity in the body of Christ need not necessarily be the same as denominational division. As Paul explains later in that same letter, “For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ.” (12:12)

That is really the key, namely expressing our unity even in the context of our diversity. Christianity is united by its central and essential truths; these are the bounds of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is grounded in the truths of the Gospel, and its contours are outlined by the historic councils, creeds, and confessions of the church throughout its history. These are the things that a person must believe to be called a Christian. Our unified identity as Christians must take controlling precedence over any and all of our denominational distinctives. As Paul went on to say, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all given one Spirit to drink.” (12:13)

Our identity as Christians, as those that are hidden in Christ, must come first, and our denominational affiliation must come second or even third in order of importance. It is this unity expressed in diversity that gives the church its prophetic witness in the world, because in this they are see firsthand what life in the Kingdom of God under the rule King Jesus looks like. We are Christians first, and we are members of the body of Christ, which is the church. And our mission is to build that body through evangelism and discipleship, not to prove ourselves right in every obscure point of Christian theology.

Leave a comment | tags: Church, Community, Denominations, Diversity, Phillip Powers, Unity | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry

06/16/2018

On the Benefit and Value of Denominations

By Phillip Powers

-murbrd02-21-2012dnj1a00320120220imgsouthernbaptistnam31ci11a.jpg

Last week (June 12-13, 2018), we all watched with bated breath as denominational leaders and messengers from local churches across the nation met in Dallas, TX for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. To be quite honest, the weeks and months leading up to this year’s annual meeting were trying to say the least. We watched in horror and sadness as several of our top leaders resigned or were removed from their positions due to moral failings. We endured divisiveness and contention in social media outlets as various groups argued over their particular theological and ministerial soap boxes. And we questioned how, or maybe even if, it would possible for our beloved denomination to move forward in its primary purpose, i.e. the proclamation of the Gospel.

Now, looking back, we must say that there is great cause for hope for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention. Many good things were both said and done by our delegates in Dallas, and it seems, in hindsight, that Godly wisdom prevailed. Oh sure, there were some vocal minorities who continued to clamor for their particular pet agenda, but for the most part the Gospel was prioritized, Christian love and unity was maximized, and our churches were energized. However, this raises another question, namely, what is the benefit, the value, of denominational entities? Are they still useful and beneficial for the cause of Christ, or are they more like distractions that divide the body of Christ?

It is no secret that most of the mainline denominations in our country are on the decline, and, over the past 20 years or so, we have seen the exponential proliferation of “non-denominational” churches across the Christian landscape. Some groups even refer to themselves as “pre-denominational” as if they have thrown off the baggage of denominationalism and gone back to the nobler and more biblical way of being and doing church. Still others point to the numerous theological, ministerial, and organizational differences that separate and divide Christians from one another. “Can’t we all just get along?” seems to be the sentiment of the day. After all, didn’t Jesus and the New Testament authors teach us that our unity and love for one another is a primary means by which we display and proclaim the truth of the Gospel?

Living and ministering in the Bible Belt, I am uniquely sensitive to these critiques. Growing up, denominational divisions were like hard lines drawn in the sand which could never be crossed. There seemed to be constant argument over various denominational distinctives. So, it would be very easy for me to succumb to the temptation of believing that denominations are ultimately ploys of the enemy meant to divide us. However, I do believe that denominations are still good and useful in the body of Christ, so in what follows, I want to provide just a few reasons why I believe that denominations are still beneficial and valuable.

First, denominations allow us to embrace our cultural, theological, and ministerial distinctives. There is great diversity within the body of Christ when it comes to how we express and practice our faith in Christ. This diversity is a good thing, because it helps us to realize that the Gospel transcends the particularities of time and place. The simple fact of the matter is that no one person, group, or tradition can claim to have an exhaustive and complete knowledge of God’s word, God’s will, or God’s ways. Differences in belief and practice among Christian denominations are vivid indications that people and churches are grappling with the inspired Word and how God has revealed Himself to us through that Word by His Spirit. So, distinctives should be embraced, cherished, and held dear by those who have done the hard work of studying to show themselves approved.

Secondly, and this follows on the first, denominations force us to listen to, learn from, and love those with whom we differ on the non-essential facets of belief and practice. An oft quoted but wrongly attributed quotation expresses this thought succinctly, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” There are certainly beliefs and practices that are essential to the Christian faith. These essentials define Christian orthodoxy, and any person, group, or church calling themselves Christian must adhere to these essentials. These are most clearly defined in the classic creeds of the church. However, beyond these first order essentials, there is room for discussion, or even passionate debate, all the while grounded in humility and Christian love for one another. There is a great many things Christian denominations can learn from each other, or as Proverbs 27.17 says, “Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another.” Or we might say, “one denomination sharpens another.”

Finally, denominations allow people and churches of like minded belief and practice to pool their resources for the church’s primary mission, namely, the advancement of the kingdom. This is one hallmark of the Southern Baptist Convention that stands out in particular distinction among the many denominational bodies that speckle the Christian landscape. Southern Baptist churches across the country designate a portion of their undesignated receipts to the Cooperative Program, and through this Cooperative Program, the Southern Baptist Convention funds its six seminaries, the International and North American Mission Boards, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Lifeway, and Guidestone. Through this Cooperative Program, smaller churches with limited financial resources are able to join with churches across the nation in a participation that advances the global cause of Christ.

Ultimately, as good and beneficial as denominational bodies are, we must remember that

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

We are all part of the body of Christ, and as a part of that body, we all have our part to play in the advancement of the Kingdom of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So, let us embrace our unique theological and ecclesiological distinctives, even as we join together for to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ.

1 Comment | tags: Church, Cooperative Program, Denominations, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Phillip Powers, Southern Baptist Convention | posted in Ecclesiology, Ministry

06/06/2018

On Sacred Marriage: A Book Review

By Phillip Powers

art-sacredmarriagecover-v1

Thomas, Gary. Sacred Marriage: What if God Designed Marriage to Make Us Holy More Than to Make Us Happy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

If you were to visit your local bookstore – who am I kidding? No one visit bookstores anymore, right?! So let me rephrase – If you were to google for books on marriage, you would probably find yourself overwhelmed by the sheer plethora of titles from both Christian and non-Christian perspectives offering this many steps or that new and unique approach to having a better a marriage. To be honest, it can almost lead to a feeling of despair and hopelessness for your marriage, especially if you find yourself in a particularly difficult season. That is why I found Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas to be a refreshing and unique voice in this boisterous cacophony.

And the subtitle of the book really says it all: What if God designed marriage to makes us holy more than to make us happy? Because the general sentiment of popular culture is that marriage is primarily for emotional fulfillment. In other words, the main and most often the only reason a couple might get married is so that they can find and experience romantic love and personal happiness in their partner. Of course, on a horizontal level, that is alright, as far as it goes, but might it be possible that God has a bigger plan for marriage than simply our personal fulfillment, our happiness? Might it be that God designed marriage to serve His purposes rather than our own? And might it be that if we set our minds and hearts to pursue God’s purpose for our marriages, that we might find that our relationship with our spouse improves as well?

Obviously, I think so, and this is where Sacred Marriage comes into the discussion. In this book, Thomas explores the various aspects of the marriage relationship, not by offering any practical “how to’s”, but by exploring how God might be using that particular area of our marriage to teach us about who He is and to draw us into a deeper relationship with Himself. We may, then, regard marriage as a spiritual discipline, a Christian practice that by engaging in which we grow more and more in our own Christ-likeness, a posture of submission and humility in which we allow the Spirit who indwells to do His perfect work.Or we might say that God has so designed marriage that it, more than any other human relationship, forces us to deal directly with our own sinfulness.

The chapter that was most impactful for me was chapter 9, “Sacred Struggle: Embracing Difficulty in Order to Build Character.” The following quote summarizes the overall gist of the chapter:

If your marriage is tough, get down on your knees and thank God that he has given you an opportunity for unparalleled spiritual growth. You have the prime potential to excel in Christian character and obedience. (125)

Now, I want to be careful here, especially in light of what has recently transpired in the Southern Baptist Convention. In speaking of a tough or difficult marriage, we are not including here any kind of abuse, whether that be physical, sexual, emotional or verbal. All forms of spousal abuse are an evil and heinous sin in the eyes of God, and where there is violation of civil or criminal law, there should most certainly be consequences. And there is a great and pressing need for Christian churches to train people and implement processes to assist victims in these cases.

However, outside of those kinds of situations, difficult trying seasons in marriage are not cause for dissolution, which is precisely why we need a grander understanding of the purpose of marriage than mere emotional fulfillment. If marriage is only for the satisfaction of my need to be loved, accepted, and cherished, then when I no longer feel those needs are being met, I will find it justifiable to leave and seek out a new marriage that will meet those needs. But if marriage is for our sanctification, then difficulties in the marriage relationship can be embraced as opportunities to grow in Christ-likeness. In my opinion, this is a point of view that is sorely needed in today’s easy-divorce culture.

There were many other insightful and challenging aspects of this book, which is why I believe it’s voice is even more needed and applicable today than when it was first published nearly 20 years ago. For example chapter 10, “Falling Forward: Marriage Teaches Us to Forgive” was particularly helpful for me and my wife. As a pastor, I would certainly recommend this book to any all persons in my congregation regardless of what seasons they are in as it relates to marriage. For unmarried singles to dating/engaged couples to newly weds to those who find themselves in marriages of various lengths, whether you marriage is good or not so good, this book can definitely help shape your understanding of what God is doing in and through your marriage.

See Also:
Thomas, Gary. Devotions for a Sacred Marriage: A Year of Weekly Devotionals for Couples. Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan, 2017.

Leave a comment | tags: Book Review, Family, Marriage, Phillip Powers, Sacred Marriage, Sanctification, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation | posted in Book Review, Ministry, Spiritual Formation

04/24/2018

On the Interpretation of the Prophetic Genre

By Phillip Powers

solar-eclipse-apocalypse-853728

There is an inherent fascination in the human psyche with knowing the future. We all would like to have the ability to know and/or predict the future, because, let’s be honest, the unknown can be downright frightening. In the Christian context, this fascination works itself out in an obsession with the prophetic portions of Holy Scripture. Passages like Daniel’s 70 weeks, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, or John’s Revelation along with numerous others become the seed bed for a diversity of end-times scenarios and perspectives. Modern day geo-political entities and events are identified with biblical images to suggest that we are living in the end times, or even to predict specific dates for the end of the world and Jesus’ second coming. So-called prophecy teachers write books espousing their views on end-times events, and they host prophecy conferences to advance their particular eschatological agendas.

The problem with all of this is that it is based on a fundamental hermeneutical error as it relates to the interpretation of the prophetic genres of Holy Scripture, namely that these prophecies speak with specificity to the events and political personalities of our own day. Certainly, the teaching of Holy Scripture, especially its prophetic portions, applies to the day in which we live, but these passages do not identify the specific movements of geo-political entities or personalities as we know them. The actions of nations like Russia, Iran, Syria, or Israel in our world have no relationship whatsoever to the prophecies of Holy Scripture. So, instead of trying to use current newspaper headlines like a cipher to “decode” the prophecies of the Bible, we should attempt to understand these texts within the boundaries of a reasonable and sound hermeneutical method. In the space that remains, I will attempt to lay out some of interpretive principles that may guide us in our understanding of the prophetic genres of Holy Scripture.

First, we must give interpretive priority to the original author’s intended message for his specific audience. In other words, a text cannot mean something today that it did not mean when it was originally written/spoken. But, someone might say, “well, isn’t the Holy Spirit the original author of all of scripture,” and then, they might go on to argue for a sensus plenior, a fuller sense than the human author was able to realize. However, we must affirm that in inspiration God did not violate or override the identity of the human authors. Rather, in His graceful condescension, he used the personality and circumstances of the human authors to convey timeless truths, even while speaking to a specific people at a specific time in a specific way. So, any “fuller sense” we may supposedly identify must be consistent with the human author’s intended message, and if an interpretation or any applications we come up with would not make sense to the original audience, then we have violated this fundamental principle.

Second, and somewhat related to the first, we must give interpretive respect to the original context in which a particular a text occurs. In other words, a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. The original authors of Holy Scripture were writing to specific people living at a particular time in a particular place, so, in order to understand their intended message, we must give consideration to the particulars of their historical and literary contexts. This is especially true when it comes to texts like the prophets, because, more often than not, they are using evocative cultural imagery, symbolism, and metaphors that would resonate with their intended audience. So, any supposed correspondence or identification of their imagery with persons, places, or things our modern context must be considered suspect if it could not have made sense in the original context within which it was spoken/written.

Third, we must reconsider our understanding of the prophetic task. The prophets of the Old Testament, and those prophetic texts in the New Testament, are not interested in laying out a step by step playbook for the events culminating in the end of the world. That kind question is more a reflection of our own interests than it is of theirs. The prophets were more interested in forth-telling God’s truth for their audiences than they were in foretelling future events, and all of their foretelling serves their overall purpose of forth-telling. Their primary interests and motives were moral, to bring about change in behavior and conduct; they were not interested in prediction simply for the sake of prediction. In other words, the prophets purpose is to indict Israel for her failure to keep God’s covenant and call her to repentance, to warn of impending judgment and punishment for disobedience, and to instill a hope for the future restoration in spite of that punishment. We must remember that almost all of their predictions find their fulfillment in Israel’s immediate future, and the ones that do refer beyond that immediate time frame find their fulfillment in the eschaton at Jesus’ coming. So, any supposed fulfillment in our own day should be rejected outright as outside the boundaries of the prophetic task.

Finally, we must not let our theological/eschatological presuppositions (read hobby horses) control our understanding of Holy Scripture. Rather, Holy Scripture should govern our theological/eschatological conclusions. Most of the obsession with the prophetic scriptures presupposes the framework of classic dispensational premillenialism; however, this kind of presupposition puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Now, I am not interested here in evaluating the particular tenets of that eschatological perspective, but it is important that we do not impose our preferred theological or eschatological viewpoint on the text. We certainly can and should draw theological conclusions from Holy Scripture as a part of the interpretive process, but we must remember that those theological conclusions should be held in submission to not in presumption of the teaching of Holy Scripture.

Ultimately, we must remember that the purpose of eschatology in the Bible is always sanctification. In nearly every instance, the foretelling of future events is meant to elicit life changing transformation. So, when we teach or preach from the prophetic portions of Holy Scripture, we would do well to follow their lead and invite our audiences to respond likewise. Even when our world seems dark and dim, our eschatological hope in Jesus’ second coming should lead to renewed and strengthened faith for living. If our interpretation of the prophets does not accomplish this task in us and in our hearers, then we have completely misunderstood the prophetic genres of the Bible.

Leave a comment | tags: Bible Study Methods, Hermeneutics, Holy Spirit, Inspiration, Phillip Powers, Preaching, Prophecy, Spiritual Formation | posted in Biblical Theology, Christian Education, Hermeneutics, Ministry

04/09/2018

On Penal Substitution Theory in the Early Church

By Phillip Powers

church fathers

Recently, I have been reflecting on the penal substitution theory of the atonement as it relates to the significance of Jesus death, both in the thinking of Jesus himself and in the understanding of his first followers. And the conclusion that I came to in both of those posts is that a penal substitution understanding is essential and necessary for a proper understanding of the atonement. The witness of Holy Scripture requires us to conclude that Jesus died for our sin. He took the place we deserved when he was nailed to the cross, and, in his death, he satisfied the just and due penalty for our sin required by a Holy and Righteous God.

This my seem like an injustice to us, that the innocent Son of God was unjustly punished by His Father for the sins of human beings, but simply because our modern sensibilities may view this as distasteful and hard to swallow, we cannot simply dismiss this understanding of the cross as so-called “cosmic child abuse”. Any attempt to bypass the offense of the cross to make it more palatable must ultimately be rejected. It is the very injustice of the cross that makes the Gospel beautiful and powerful, because that injustice was suffered by God himself that we might be reconciled to Him. He himself paid the penalty that He himself required so that we might be saved.

However, if we truly believe that this understanding of the cross is true and necessary, then it would make sense that we would see it throughout the history of the church. In their attempts to disprove this view, some critics of penal substitution suggest that the theory did not exist in the early church. They argue that it first appeared in the late eleventh century in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury, specifically in his work Cur Deus Homo. It was then further developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his work Summa Theologiae, and then crystalized into the doctrine we know today in the 16th century by John Calvin in The Institutes of Christian Religion.

While the contributions of these works to our understanding of the atonement certainly hold great value, these critics question that if a penal substitution theory of the atonement is so central and essential, then why is not represented in the theological tradition before the 11th century. It is further argued that the early church fathers unanimously held to a Christus Victor or ransom theory of the atonement, and that if that’s how the earliest theologians viewed the atonement, then so should we. The problem with this argument, though, is that this it is often more assumed than it is demonstrated.

So, in what follows, rather then examining the views of any specific church father, I would simply like to list some resources that challenge this prevailing understanding of the development of the theology of the atonement.

Books
Jeffery, Steve, et al. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.
McDonald, H.D. The Atonement of the Death of Christ: In Faith, Revelation, and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985.

Articles
Chatfield, Graeme. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Early Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Trinitarian Theology.” The Pacific Journal of Baptist Research 10/1 (May 2015). 3-10.
Vlach, Michael J. “Penal Substitution in Church History.” The Masters Seminary Journal 20/2 (Fall 2009). 199-214.
Williams, Garry J. ” Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Church Fathers.” Evangelical Quarterly 83/3 (Fall 2011). 195-216.

Weblinks
“Historical Reflections on Substitutionary Atonement” posted at FullerStudio.Fuller.edu
“Penal Substitution a Sixteenth-Century Innovation?” posted at ReformationTheology.com, 05.11.12
“No Christus Victor Here – Atonement According to the Apostolic Fathers” posted at HolySpiritActivism.com, 04.07.14
“A Common (But Bad) Reason for Rejecting Penal Substitution” posted at Christianity.com, 07.15.14
“Did Early Christians Believe in Substitutionary Atonement?” posted at TheGospelCoalition.org, 04.03.15
“Penal Substitution as a Theory of Atonement in the Early Church Fathers” posted at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com, 06.03.15
“Penal Substitution in the Church Fathers: Part II” posted at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com, 11.26.15
“10 Things You should Know about Penal Substitution” posted at SamStorms.com, 05.02.16
“Penal Substitution In The Writings Of The Church Fathers” posted at PirateChristian.com, 05.04.16

Now, we certainly do not want read later theological concepts back in to the early church fathers anachronistically, but we may conclude that “an author can be held to teach the penal doctrine if he plainly states that the punishment deserved by sin from God was borne and dealt with by Jesus Christ in his death on the cross.” This means that the early church fathers can be shown to affirm the essential features of a penal substitution view, even if their understanding of that essential truth was not as developed as it would be by later authors. The church fathers were not univocal or unanimous in their support of the Christus Victor view as critics of the penal substitution view claim. They seemingly held a multifaceted understanding of the atonement with no one view overshadowing any others.

And this final observation is quite instructive for Christians today. No one view, no matter how essential, central, and necessary it is, can exhaust the mystery of Jesus’ death on the cross. So, even while affirming the centrality of the penal substitution view, we must not overlook or ignore other possible significances. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is to the Christian faith like a beautiful diamond whose many facets all shine forth the glory of God in our salvation.

Leave a comment | tags: Anselm of Canterbury, Atonement, Church Fathers, Church History, John Calvin, Penal Substitution, Phillip Powers, Thomas Aquinas | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Systematic Theology

04/03/2018

On the Season of Easter

By Phillip Powers

This past Sunday, the church universal celebrated Resurrection Sunday, which marks the annual commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. And, unfortunately, for most churches, especially those stemming from low church or free church traditions, this celebration will be quickly forgotten as they slide back into their usual routine of doing church every week. Sadly, most of the people who attended church yesterday, because it was Easter Sunday, will simply resume their normal routines, and they will continue to live as if the resurrection is simply an interesting story that happened long ago but has no real impact on their daily lives.

This is where I believe the historic Church Calendar can aid us in our spiritual formation. According to that traditional reckoning of the church’s annual worship rhythms, the celebration of the resurrection is not simply something that is relegated to one Sunday per year. No, the season of the Resurrection lasts for almost two months and culminates in the church’s celebration of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Just as Jesus spent 40 days after His resurrection with His disciples teaching them about the kingdom before He ascended, observing the Resurrection as a season in the church’s worship can help us to more fully understand, appreciate, embrace, and be formed by that most essential of historical foundations that Christ is risen!

So, during my sermon this past Sunday, I challenged those who were in attendance simply because it was Easter, that if they really wanted to be Easter only Christians, then I would expect to see them in Church for the next seven consecutive Sundays. I doubt that many of them will heed that challenge, nevertheless, the Season of the Resurrection, sometimes called Eastertide, is an invitation for Christians, both corporately and individually, to intentionally position ourselves in a place where the Spirit may take us deeper into the wonder and mystery of Christ crucified and resurrected.

So, in the limited space that follows, let me offer some practical suggestions on how Christians, both as individuals and as congregations, might navigate the next seven weeks leading up to Pentecost so as to grow in and be formed by the wonderful mystery of the Gospel.

First, read through, or reread through, one of the four Gospels in the light of Jesus resurrection. The lectionary for the Season of the Resurrection is going to be taking us through the Gospel of John, but you may choose another one of the four. Whichever you choose, try to read it as one of the first followers of Jesus. The Gospels tells us that it was only after Jesus resurrection that they truly began to understand more fully all that He had said and done during His ministry. And one of Jesus’ last instructions to His followers was that they were to go into all nations teaching them to observe all that He had commanded them. (Matthew 28.20)

Second, whether you are a preacher or simply a listener, ask yourself how the resurrection makes what you are saying and/or hearing in the sermon possible. It has been said many times perhaps, but it bears repeating: if what you are preaching doesn’t require Jesus, then you’ve missed the point. Paul said that the resurrection is the linchpin, if you will, of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15), so how does the truth of Christ’s resurrection impact or influence the message of whatever particular text you are preaching. Here again, I would suggest considering the lectionary as a basis for determining a preaching schedule (see my post here), but wherever your preaching schedule is going, it is all meaningless without the resurrection of our Lord.

Third, be actively and intentionally involved in the life of the local church. During the Season of the Resurrection, the Lectionary replaces the Old Testament reading with a passage from the Acts of the Apostles. This is because the 50 day Season of the Resurrection culminates in the celebration of the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost, which might be called the birthday of the church. Jesus’ resurrection makes it possible for His followers to live in new life free from the power of sin, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes it possible for those followers to live in a new kind of Christian community, one characterized by love and service. So, during this Season of the Resurrection, seek out intentional ways to love and serve people in the local church.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Christian faith is meaningless without the resurrection of Jesus. Without it, Jesus is just another nameless victim executed by the Roman Empire; His death is pointless. The Apostle Paul said as much in his first letter to the church at Corinth, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15.17). So, if we truly believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus is the necessary and essential heart of the Christian Gospel, then it deserves to be celebrated more than just one Sunday per year. This Resurrection Season, let us remember that we worship a Risen Lord!

2 Comments | tags: Church Calendar, Eastertide, Jesus Christ, Lectionary, Phillip Powers, Resurrection, Spiritual Formation, The Season of Easter | posted in Christian Education, Church History, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

03/28/2018

On Jesus’ Understanding of His Death

By Phillip Powers

JesusFinalHours-56a149da5f9b58b7d0bdda13

In a previous post, I began considering how we should understand the death of Jesus, and I argued that the overwhelming testimony of both the Old and New Testament point to a penal substitution view as essential for understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Specifically, I gave a handful of quotations from the various New Testament authors that show that the very first followers of Jesus understood His death in this way. Now, it is only reasonable to suppose that they must have received this understanding from somewhere; they didn’t just come up with it on their own. And it is my thesis that they received this understanding of Jesus’ atonement from Jesus himself.

However, this proposition is not without its critics. One such voice is that which belongs to Brian Zahnd, founder and lead pastor of Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri and author of a book entitled, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God: The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News, where he argues:

“Among the many problems with [a penal substitution] theory of the cross is that it turns God into a petty tyrant and a moral monster. Punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic, atrocious theology, and a gross distortion of the idea of justice. … A theory of the cross that says it was God who desired the torture and murder of Jesus on Good Friday turns the Father of Jesus into a cruel and sadistic monster. It’s salvation by divine sadism.” (101-102)

He has also stated that

“Even if penal substitutionary atonement theory is one of the correct models for interpreting the cross (personally I’m convinced its a pagan idea and an outrageous libel against God) its still not the gospel. The gospel is the story of Jesus – not abstract atonement theories.” (via @BrianZahnd, tweeted 3.20.18, 7:27PM)

And in his blog “How Did Jesus Understand His Death?”, he argues that Jesus understood his death in the vein of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement on the basis of John 12:31-32.

So, in order to understand the meaning of Jesus’ death, we must consider carefully how Jesus understood it and conveyed its significance to His first disciples. It is relatively obvious that Jesus anticipated his death by crucifixion at the hands of the Jewish and Roman authorities. In the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), He predicts his death at least three specific occasions. Those predictions, along with many other allusions, coupled with the obvious animosity between the Jewish religious establishment and Jesus clearly indicate that Jesus was well aware of the fate that awaited Him on that third and final trip to Jerusalem. However, not only did he expect his upcoming execution, he also very clearly saw it as the necessary culmination of His ministry and mission.

In this light then, it is reasonable to expect that He must have reflected on the meaning of His death. And there are three sayings of Jesus that give us some insight into how he understood that meaning. The first saying of Jesus that gives us some insight into how he understood His death is found in Mark 10:45 (also Matthew 20.28), which is known as the ransom saying, because Jesus says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second saying of Jesus that shows how he understood his death is found in the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20). There Jesus reinterprets the elements of the Passover meal in the light of His upcoming death. And the third saying that is also somewhat conceptually related is found in the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he prayed “Take this cup away from me.” (Mark 14:36. Matt. 26:39,42, Luke 22:42)

These statements indicate that Jesus understood his death as a vicarious substitution for many, and it seems reasonably clear that the theological background of these sayings is to be found in that paradigmatic passage from the Old Testament which describes the vicarious substitution of the “suffering servant”. In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the prophet vividly predicts the vicarious and expiatory suffering of the servant of the Lord for the many. The linguistic and conceptual parallels between the suffering servant song and these sayings of Jesus are quite telling. For example, the idea of a ransom in Mark 10:45, used as a metaphor, parallels the idea of a guilt offering in Isaiah 53:10, and the idea for many echoes the repetitive many in Isaiah 53:11-12. This indicates that Jesus clearly understood himself to be fulfilling the role of the suffering servant in His death on the cross.

Further, in the garden, when Jesus asks His Father to remove “the cup”, He is likely referring to “the cup of God’s wrath” or “judgment” so often described in the Old Testament prophets. And that is why He is able to say in John 12:31, “Now is the judgment of this world.” So, here again it seems fairly evident that Jesus understood His death as the satisfaction of God’s judgment on sin. In light of all this, it is safe to conclude that Jesus viewed His death as a substitutionary and expiatory act that satisfies the just judgment and due penalty for sin before a Holy God. It would seem, then, that the first followers of Jesus drew their penal substitution view of the atonement directly from the words of Jesus himself.

3 Comments | tags: Atonement, Brian Zahnd, Jesus Christ, Penal Substitution, Phillip Powers, The Gospel | posted in Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Systematic Theology

03/15/2018

On so called ‘Cosmic Child Abuse’ and the Atonement

By Phillip Powers

In recent years, it has become rather faddish for critics of traditional atonement theory to dismiss the idea of penal substitution as a form of cosmic child abuse. In other words, these critics assert that it is a morally evil injustice for God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of all other human beings. They further assert that this kind of “redemptive violence” is simply incompatible with a God who is love. Stephen Chalk and Alan Mann, in their book The Lost Message of Jesus, state it this way:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.

Later, they give their understanding of the atonement when they state:

The truth is, the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his Son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

This moral influence theory of the atonement is not new or original with Chalk and Mann. It was first advanced by a medieval scholastic theologian named Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who

“emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment to the Father to satisfy his offended dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 803)

In other words, on the cross, God showed to what extent He was willing to go to demonstrate the depth of His love for humanity, and His great love so demonstrated should cause human beings to respond in love to God. Certainly, God is love (1 John 4:7-21) and the cross is a demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:8), but the above definition simply does not go far enough to explain why the cross is effective as a means of salvation for human beings. In what follows, I will give some reasons why this critique, that penal substitutionary atonement is “cosmic child abuse”, is completely unfounded and why a penal substitution view of the atonement is essential to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

First, it goes against the overwhelming testimony of Holy Scripture. It is no overstatement to conclude that the nearly unanimous witness of the Biblical authors from beginning to end is that Christ died as a substitute for the sins of humanity. There is not enough space here to quote all the verses that would serve to prove this point, so a few will simply have to suffice. As it relates to the Old Testament, one could argue that the entire sacrificial system was pointing to the death of Jesus, because that system is based upon the foundational assumption that the death of animals can substitute and atone for the sins of human beings. But, the premier text on this topic is the “Suffering Servant Song” of Isaiah 53, which says in part:

But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished him for the iniquity of us all. (verses 5-6)

And, in the New Testament, there are numerous verses that could be quoted to show that the first followers of Jesus understood his death as a substitutionary atonement for sin. Due to space limitations, a few will have to suffice. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul says, “For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Also, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In Romans 4:25, he says “He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” And not only Paul, but we see that the other writers of the New Testament understood the atonement in this way as well. In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter wrote, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.” And in 1 Peter 3:18, he wrote, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God.” In 1 John 4:10, John writes, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins.” And the author of Hebrews, says in Hebrews 2:9, “But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone.”

In light of all this, we are safe to conclude that the Old and New Testament authors unanimously understand the death of Jesus as a substitute making atonement to God for the sins of humanity.

Second, this view also misunderstands the essential character and nature of God in two ways. First, as it relates to His character, proponents of this kind of moral influence theory exalt God’s love over and against His other attributes, namely His holiness and justice. God’s character attributes cannot be so divided as to pit them against one another. He is a God of love, but he is also and equally a God of holiness and justice. Moreover, His attributes are interrelated, such that his love is just and holy, and his holiness and justice are loving. To pit God’s justice against His love is to recapitulate that ancient heresy attributed to Marcion of Sinope (c. 85-c. 160), who believed the wrathful Hebrew God of the Old Testament was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. That heresy was rightly condemned by the fathers of early church.

Also, as it relates to the nature of God, this view fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of the trinity. These critics of the traditional penal substitutionary view seem to assume that the Son was an innocent third party separate and distinct from God the Father. Therefore, they argue that it is unjust for God to punish the Son for the sins of all humanity. However, the Son is not some innocent disconnected third party in this discussion; no, the Son is God himself. The second person of the trinity was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, so it was the second person of the Trinity that died on the cross. We must not disconnect God’s threeness (in persons) from his oneness (in essence). After all, Christians are fundamentally monotheists; Holy Scripture clearly teaches that there is one God. So, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons. So, if the second person of the trinity died on the cross for the sins of humanity, then we must say that God himself died on the cross for the sins of humanity. Thus, the Son was a willing participant in the crucifixion, as God took the sins of humanity onto himself.

The atonement, a penal substitutionary atonement, is at the very center of the Christian Gospel, that Jesus Christ bore the sins of humanity on the cross and died in their place to satisfy their deserved punishment before a just and holy God. Let us not shrink from this fact in fear or shame, but embrace it as the glorious demonstration of God’s love that it is.

2 Comments | tags: Atonement, Cosmic Child Abuse, Jesus Christ, Moral Influence Theory, Penal Substitution, Phillip Powers, Systematic Theology, The Gospel, Trinity | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Systematic Theology, Worship & Liturgy

03/06/2018

On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper

By Phillip Powers

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself; in this way let him eat the bread and drink from the cup. For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. This is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30, CSB)

Certainly, no one wants to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy way, especially if the consequences are sickness and/or death! But because of our western cultural predispositions, especially toward individualism and toward feelings of guilt rather than shame, we usually read Paul’s warnings here as if they concern our individual relationship with God. In other words, when Paul speaks of partaking of the elements in an “unworthy way,” we typically think of that which makes us feel unworthy before God, namely unconfessed sins. Moreover, when we read that “a man should examine himself”, we primarily think of some kind of moralistic introspection. Practically speaking, this usually entails a time of “prayerful self-examination and confession” prior to the distribution of the elements.

The problem with this is that rather than drawing the believer to celebrate anew the glory of God’s forgiveness in the Gospel through the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we end up heaping more feelings of guilt on the believer who truly desires to confess ALL their sins before partaking of the elements. Besides, who could ever be certain that they had confessed 100% of their sins, and thus could partake “worthily”? And what about the forgiveness that we have already received when we placed our faith in the Gospel at conversion; was it not once-for-all? So, in order to understand Paul’s warning here, I think we must reevaluate Paul’s instructions light of the social issues which they were meant to address.

The text of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is relatively clear; obviously, there were some problems in how the Corinthians were practicing the Lord’s Supper, so much so that Paul’s comments on this issue are very sharp. He minces no words so to speak, and the reason for Paul’s outrage is simply this: The behavior of the Corinthian Christians at the Lord’s Table denies all that the Gospel stands for. In verse 20, Paul says that when they come together, they aren’t eating the Lord’s Supper. They may be sharing a meal together, but it looks nothing like the Lord’s meal. In other words, their behavior at the Lord’s Table is based in the values of the surrounding culture and not in the values of the Gospel. But in order to understand how this is so, we must consider the significance of meals in Paul’s world.

For them, the purpose of meals was much broader than simply eating food and consuming the necessary nourishment for the day’s tasks. No, in the first century, sharing a meal with someone was the primary gesture of companionship and community. Table fellowship was the principal means for establishing, enriching, and reaffirming relational bonds between groups of people, whether those groups were familial, religious, or secular in nature. Sharing meals together was the primary means for developing relationships. On the other hand, though, the table could also be the place where divisions according to honor, status, and affluence were publicly displayed and reinforced. In other words, mealtimes in the first century reinforced social divisions between the social elites and the lower classes, between the wealthy and poor, between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

It is this latter function of meals that explains the practice of the Corinthian Christians. They are eating in a way that reinforces and perpetuates the divisions that exist among them. In chapter 11, verses 18-19, Paul says, “For to begin with, I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. There must, indeed, be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” And this is why their coming together is not for the better but for the worse. Apparently, the more well-to-do and affluent members of the congregation were arriving at the meeting early, gorging themselves on the best foods and the best wine, and they were getting downright drunk. Then, when the poorer day laborers arrived later in the evening, there was nothing left for them to eat, so they went hungry.

For Paul, this is an explicit denial of the unity that they should be sharing in Christ. Listen again to the words of Paul in chapter 11, verse 22, “Don’t you have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I do not praise you for this!” Obviously, Paul is outraged, and as a corrective, he reminds them of the Lord’s Supper tradition. In other words, he reminds them that in the Gospel, cultural values like honor, status, and wealth are no longer relevant. All people stand or fall on their response to the Gospel no matter who they are. And the gospel not only transforms our relationship with God; it also transforms our relationship with others. We no longer see people as the world sees them; instead, we see them as Christ sees them. We relate to people according to the values of the Gospel, because the ground is level at the foot of the cross. We all stand equally in need of Jesus.

So, in order to understand Paul’s warning in chapter 11, verses 27-30, we must remember that the central issue at stake for Paul is not moral or ethical; rather, it is primarily communal or social. The question is not about one’s individual worth before God. Rather, it is the quality of our relationships with each other. In other words, it is primarily social in nature. The self-examination that Paul envisions is an attempt to evaluate one’s attitudes toward others in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, we might ask ourselves these questions:

Am I showing Christian love to the members of this community equally?
Am I reinforcing or breaking down worldly social distinctions by my actions?
Am I jockeying, competing, or striving for social advancement at the expense of others?Am I selflessly giving of myself, my time, my money in order to benefit others?
Am I evaluating people according the values of the culture or the values of the Gospel?Am I engendering unity or disunity within this community by my actions and behaviors?

If we will examine ourselves in this way, by honestly answering these questions, then we will be rightly discerning the body, and we will partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily. The Lord’s Table is where anyone who believes in Jesus Christ can come to receive the promise of pardon and forgiveness and bask in the grace and love of God the Father poured out through God the Son by the Holy Spirit. Let us celebrate this table together as one body of united believers in Jesus.

Leave a comment | tags: Community, Jesus Christ, Life Together, Liturgy, Ministry, Phillip Powers, Spiritual Formation, The Lord's Supper, Worship | posted in Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

03/02/2018

On the Practice of the Lord’s Supper

By Phillip Powers

lord__s_supper_by_bclary-d37hhzp

More often than not, the way that the Lord’s Supper is practiced in low church traditions makes it seem as if the Lord’s Supper is a perfunctory addendum to the worship of the local church. Our usual practices of observance treat it as something that we are obligated to do because the Bible says so, but also as something that we don’t really believe to be all that important or crucial in worship. High Church traditions with formal liturgies, by contrast, tend to observe the Lord’s Supper every week, and they do so at the very climax of their services. In these churches, coming to the Lord’s table to partake of the body and blood of Christ, symbolized by the bread and cup, marks the very zenith of the worship experience. Congregants are presented with the Gospel through scripture reading and preaching and then invited to the Table to receive the Gospel by the Spirit as they partake of the elements.

Now, I grew up in a local Southern Baptist church in a small town in Arkansas, the buckle of the Bible Belt, and our practice of the Lord’ Supper usually went something like this. It always happened after a Sunday night service. First, we would have our 20-30 minute singing time, and then the pastor would preach a 25-30 minute message. Remember, the services weren’t supposed to go more than an hour. So, after the invitation we would move into a time of observing the Lord’s Supper. And it was always done the same way. The pastor tended to say the same words, read the same texts, and the elements were passed out the same way. Of course, time was always given for personal reflection and confession so that none of us would “partake unworthily.” Still, I was left with the impression that the Lord’s Supper was something to be observed out of duty and not out of joy.

Paul said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1 Corinthians 11:26) Certainly, there is great freedom in the diversity of worship expression throughout churches across the world, and Paul, nor the rest of the New Testament authors, give any kind of regulation regarding the expected frequency of table observance. But it does seem, at least, that they viewed the Table as a central and primary element in the church’s worship, precisely because it is at the table that we come face to face with the very heart of the Gospel. In addition, the earliest Christians set the precedent, because “they devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching, to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42) Of course, the celebration of the communal meal in the early church would have been more, but it certainly wouldn’t have been less than the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

So, it would seem that there is great spiritual and communal value in giving the Lord’s Table a much more central place in our weekly worship services. Perhaps, instead of observing once per quarter on a Sunday night at the end of the service, we should observe weekly during Sunday morning worship as the primary expression of our response to the Gospel invitation. This way of ordering our worship is what has been called the fourfold pattern for worship, i.e. gathering, Word, table (response), sending. This seems to be the historic ordering of the church’s worship throughout the ages. More simply, it follows the biblical pattern for worship which is proclamation followed by response. We gather together as the body of Christ through song and prayers. The Word is proclaimed through public reading and preaching. We respond in confession and repentance at the table. And, then, we are sent back into the world as God’s ambassadors and emissaries.

The importance of the Lord’s Table really boils down to how importantly we value the Gospel, because it is at the table that the Gospel is vividly and materially displayed through partaking of the bread and cup. So, by observing the Lord’s Supper each and every week, we move the Gospel to the center of our worship experience. When we partake of the elements, we are communing with the Spirit as he communicates the good news of the Gospel anew to us each and every week. The Spirit meets us at the Table, and He conveys the grace of God as we partake of the symbols of bread and cup. Jesus explains this very fact in John 6:53-58 where he says in part, “The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (v.56)

Now, certainly, observing the Lord’s Supper each and every week requires great creativity on the part of pastors and worship leaders. Some have argued that partaking of the Supper every week would diminish its unique peculiarity and significance, but this is not necessarily the case. The onus lies with the pastors and worship leaders to incorporate the Table into the flow of the service in ways that are creative, meaningful, and refreshing. The invitation to the Table each week should flow directly out of the Scriptures that are being read and preached on that particular Sunday. The proclamation of the Gospel through the reading and preaching of Holy Scripture should drive our worship right back to the Table where our forgiveness and pardon are confirmed by the broken body and shed blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I believe that there is a great need in the church today to recover the centrality of the Gospel, and I can think of no better way than coming to the Table each and every week to receive the symbols of our Lord’s broken body and shed blood. We are essentially and fundamentally a Gospel people. We never out grow or mature beyond the wonder and mystery of the Gospel. Whether we have been saved for many years or we have recently come to know Jesus as Savior and Lord, the Gospel is for us. Lord, help us to recover the priority, the mystery, and the wonder of your Gospel as it is displayed at your Table.

1 Comment | tags: Liturgy, Ministry, Phillip Powers, Spiritual Formation, The Lord's Supper, Worship | posted in Christian Education, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

Faith seeking Understanding

Author Archives: Phillip Powers

About Phillip Powers

On Denominational Identity

On the Benefit and Value of Denominations

On Sacred Marriage: A Book Review

On the Interpretation of the Prophetic Genre

On Penal Substitution Theory in the Early Church

On the Season of Easter

On Jesus’ Understanding of His Death

On so called ‘Cosmic Child Abuse’ and the Atonement

On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper

On the Practice of the Lord’s Supper

Categories

Twitter

Goodreads

Blogs I Follow

Faith seeking Understanding

Author Archives: Phillip Powers

About Phillip Powers

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Categories

Twitter

Goodreads

Blogs I Follow