Turning Pages: Books I'm Currently Reading or Have Recently Purchased

Below is a list of books I am currently reading or books I have on my near future reading list. As you can see, my interest is currently the issue of justification.



I also have on my reading list an article a very good friend of mine recently published in a popular philosophy of religion journal. The article is titled Weighing evils: the C.S. Lewis approach. So, as you can see, I am playing catch up on some new reading and have fallen behind due to work related studies.

Excellent Quote

Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is, than falling in love in a quite absolute, final way. What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination, will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out of bed in the morning, what you will do with your evenings, how you will spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude.

-- Pedro Arrupe

Gradations of Sin (Part One)

As of late discussions of degrees or gradations of sin have come up several times in various discussions I have had. Having been raised Southern Baptist, at least in my local church where I was raised, sin was viewed on an even playing field, so to speak. What I mean by this is that the Baptist view I was raised in regarding sin was that a sin was a sin was a sin, murder was just as wrong as stealing because all sin is wrong. I've come a long way since the denomination of my youth, and emphatically disagree with this type of thinking.

However, it must be stated here that I also disagree with the "results" Roman Catholic view on this issue as well (a little more about this will be discussed in subsequent posts). When I say the "results" of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) I mean the end result of their thinking on these issues; the ultimate outcome in certain circumstances. I agree with the RCC that there are gradations of sin. Murder is in fact a greater sin than stealing, and lust is not as great a sin as the actual act of adultry or fornication. Where I part ways with the RCC is with the results of committing certain sins, the "punishment" of certain sins.

Keeping this issue at a basic level, to say that all sin is equal in its weight or effect, etc. seems to me anyway, to be quite wrong headed. But to declare that when more serious sins (i.e. cardinal sins) are committed this leads to eteranl destruction without the possibility of redemption or forgiveness in certain circumstances (once again I'll detail this issue later) seems wrong headed as well. What I hope to accomplish in this brief series is the idea of gradation of sin and to examine the RCC view of cardinal sins versus venial sins and their effects. To that end I write, and I hope anyone out there who has any input will feel free to add their two-cents. I am certainly not an expert on this issue, so feel free to slap me down if you disagree, but do so cordially please. ;-)

Why I Love Jonathan Edwards

Below is a guest post I was asked to write for Ben Myers at Faith and Theology. I never actually posted this at my own blog, and he recently re-ran the thread again so I thought I would go ahead and post the article here. Hope you enjoy!


Jonathan Edwards has been called the greatest American thinker. Having read and re-read much of what Edwards has written, I would agree with this sentiment. In fact, Edwards was one of the first theologians I encountered in my own theological studies. After studying both theology and philosophy, I have often thought that the best theologians are those who have immersed themselves in philosophy. And Edwards was no exception.

Edwards had, I think, a nice balance between theology and philosophy, and he knew how they worked together. His work on human nature and human will (especially in The Freedom of the Will) still offers perhaps one of the best explanations ever produced on the fallen human condition. In addition to his theological work, Edwards was a Congregational pastor, and his sermons were published and are still being read today. Among these is, of course, the famous (but often misunderstood or misrepresented) sermon titled Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

But aside from all this, Edwards was also a poet, a musician, a lover of nature and the outdoors, the last of the great puritans, and a friend and counselor to many in his day, even when he himself was suffering from great bouts of depression. While I do not necessarily agree with everything Edwards wrote, I still think he is a force to be reckoned with. In my opinion he is one of the most underappreciated theologians in Christian history—but time will tell how much he really contributed to the theological landscape. Perhaps eventually we will catch up to the thinking of Jonathan Edwards.

Theology Directs Us to the Triune God

I love theology. However, I do not love theology simply for the sake of theology. Rather, I love theology because it directs me to the triune God, to the gospel, to the resurrection of Jesus, to the things of God. Theology is a means, if you will, to the proclamation of the gospel, to the understanding of the triune God; it stems from the Scriptures and should always turn back to the Scriptures: like a perfect circle. The gospel has always been discourse or proclamation. It was initially proclaimed, long before it was written down. Therefore, theology is also discourse since its source is the gospel. That is why theology can never be done in a vacuum, it must be discussed, it must be prayed, and it must be proclaimed, and it must be performed (put into action).

Below are some quotes about theology and the task of theology by some of the greatest theologians to ever take up pen and write theology. These quotes come from men who had very different backgrounds, upbringings, quite different educational backgrounds, and different points of view on various issues. However, in and through all these diversities you can see a common thread at work in their thought. With that in mind, here is what some of the great thinkers had to say about theology:

“Now the seed and imitation (mimēma) of something which is given on the basis of a person’s capacity to receive it is quite different from that thing itself, of which the communication and imitation are received according to the grace of God.”
– Justin Martyr

---------------------------------

“The task which is laid upon theology, and which it should and can fulfill, is its service in the Church, to the Lord of the Church. It has its definite function in the Church’s liturgy, that is, in various phases of the Church’s expression; in every reverend proclamation of the gospel, or in every proclaiming reverence, in which the church listens and attends to God.”

- Karl Barth

--------------------------------

“Theology is taught by God, teaches God, and leads to him.”

-Thomas Aquinas

--------------------------------

“True theology is divided into: (1) infinite and uncreated, which is God’s essential knowledge of himself in which he alone is at the same time the object known (epistēton), the knowledge (epistēmōn), and the knower (epistēmē), and that which he decreed to reveal to us concerning himself which is commonly called archetypal; and (2) finite created, which is the image and ectype of the infinite and archetypal (viz., the ideas which creatures possess concerning God and divine things, taking form from that supreme knowledge and communicated to intelligent creatures, either by hypostatical union with the soul of Christ [ whence arises “the theology of union”]; or by beatific vision to the angels and saints who walk by sight, not by faith, which is called “theology of vision”; or by revelation, which is made to travelers [viz., those who have not yet reached the goal and is called “the theology of revelation”] or the stadium.
- Francis Turretin

---------------------------------------------

“Systematic theology uses the method of correlation. It has always done so, sometimes more, sometimes less, consciously, and must do so consciously and outspokenly, especially if the apologetic point of view is to prevail. The method of correlation explains the contents of the Christian faith through existential questions and theological answers in mutual interdependence.”

- Paul Tillich

----------------------------------------------------

“True theology has, therefore, for its essence, truth divine as revealed by the will of God; for its content, light, and power is not only fully worthy of complete trust, but rather can be stated to be totally and completely self-authenticating. No one can speak or feel worthily about God, or about divine matters, unless he is aided by God, and neither does anyone know God except by His own self-revelation through God the Son.”
- John Owen

-------------------------------------------------------

“Theology is to take for its rule the specific character by which the gospel is the gospel and not some other sort of discourse; theology must be thinking that guards the proclamation

in this authenticity.”

- Robert W. Jenson

------------------------------------------------------

“The truths of divinity are superlative excellency, and are worthy that all should make a business of endeavoring to grow in the knowledge of them. They are as much above those things which are treated of in other sciences, as heaven is above the earth. God himself, the eternal Three in one, is the chief object of this science; and next Jesus Christ, as God-man and Mediator, and the glorious work of redemption, the most glorious work that ever was wrought: then the great things of the heavenly world, the glorious and eternal inheritance purchased by Christ, and promised in the gospel; the work of the Holy Spirit of God on the hearts of men: are duty to God, and the way in which we ourselves may become like angels, and like God himself in our measure. All these are objects of this science.

- Jonathan Edwards

When Christian's Attack

Over at Chris Tilling's blog, he posted an ad hominem attack against his views on inerrancy (or as the case is here against him). Wow, what a rude and hateful response! The responder (who's name is Steve), in his profile claims that he is an RTS (Reformed Theological Seminary) T.A.. Refroemd Theological Seminary is a PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) seminary, and one that I considered attending about twelve or more years ago.

Having read the response several times, I wonder what they are now teaching their students at RTS. When I was considering the school (the campus in Orlando), R.C. Sproul was on faculty there. The school itself, then and now, is a fundamentalist seminary. Not the King James only everyone is damned to hell for reading any other translation type of fundamentalism, but a very conservative, inerrancy only, faith alone, imputation alone, is the actual gospel type of fundamentalism (with a strong hint of anti-Roman Catholic-ness). I say all this to say I'm not suprised that Steve responded the way he did to Chris's post because of this type of education at RTS being instilled in their students.

However, I am quite saddened by the fact that this sort of thing goes on between Christians. What amazes me is that instead of Steve simply trying to carry on meaningful dialogue with Chris to discover why Chris holds to a particular view of inerrancy, rather, Steve attacks Chris's character and his person, while there is precious little attack against Chris's position. Why? What does that ever accomplish?

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. James 3:17-18.

Goings On

Here are a few things going on right now in the "blogsphere." Over at Chrisendom, Chris Tilling has two very intersting posts on the Innerrancy of Scripture, in one he creates a new statement on biblical innerancy which is worth a read. Those can be seen here and here.

Over at Faith and Theology Ben Myers has several posts of interest. The first is a list of Dogmatic texts which contains some great "must-reads." Also, Kim Fabricius, who is a regular guest writer at Faith and Theology has a nice post titled Ten Propositions on Heresy. This is the 25th "proposition" post he has written for Ben's blog, and this one has stirred up some great exchange, go check it out.

Other blogs ssuch as Just Musing and Adversaria have various posts ranging from topics like the morality of knowing, the doctrine of the atonement in the early Greek Fathers, etc. All worth taking a look at. These are the best features out there that I have run across, if you know of any others please feel free to let us all know in the comments of this post. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

A Protestant View of Tradition (Retold)

Having been raised a Protestant, in a Southern Baptist Church, I can safely say that the issue of Tradition, in my life anyway, has been either greatly misrepresented, or greatly misunderstood by many Protestants. Moreover, tradition has, for the most part, simply been ignored altogether. In fact, the issue of tradition, in the Southern Baptist Church of my youth, was not even an issue. It was never mentioned nor ever talked about as far as I can recall.

I was never introduced to this thing called tradition as it relates to the Church until I became a Presbyterian. In fact, it was actually through fundamentalist Presbyterian scholars and theologians that I was introduced to tradition. The first time I ever met R.C. Sproul (in 1995) he wrote a list of theologians from the past whom he recommended I read. Three of these men on R.C.’s list were St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. Thomas Aquinas. It was through this list and these famous theologians/philosophers that I was introduced to the Church doctrine of tradition.

But at that time, having read a few of the works on R.C.’s recommended list, I was still confused about tradition. Was it necessary? What was its purpose? What did it mean? Could it possibly be infallible contrary to so many well known conservative pastors and theologians in certain Protestant “evangelical” circles who declared that the Catholic Church placed tradition on par with the Scriptures? This is a big ‘no, no’ in certain Protestant circles. But what does it mean? These were the questions I was asking myself as I was growing in my knowledge of Christianity and Christian Church history.

Therefore, having been influenced by certain Protestant thinkers, I concluded, quite dishonestly I must add since I really never did the research and merely took what certain men said at face value, that tradition, in my meager understanding of it, was simply something that Protestants rejected altogether. At the time I thought rejecting tradition was the correct thing to do, since we as Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura, and anything beyond the written authority of the Bible is simply the ‘words of man’ and suspect. So tradition certainly was suspect.

But then I would read certain passages from the Bible which seem to declare, contrary to my position of tradition at the time, that perhaps there is something here of larger weight and importance than I had first concluded. The apostle Paul, for instance, certainly places a very high degree of importance on the tradition of the apostles. In Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians he declares, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15; RSV) In this passage Paul declares several important things.

First, we as Christians are to “stand firm and hold to.” But what are we to stand firm and hold to? The answer is, ‘the traditions that you were taught by us [the apostles].” Second, how were these traditions taught by the apostles? Well, the text says these traditions were taught in two ways. First, “by us [the apostles] via word of mouth,” and second, “by our [the apostles] letter.” Of course, “by our letter” would be the written word.

This one passage certainly raised several questions in my mind. For instance, what is the tradition of the apostles? What does Paul mean when he uses the word tradition?
The Greek word Paul uses here is paradoseis. In this context the word is plural and in the accusative case which means that paradoseis is a transmission of a doctrine or doctrines (since the use is plural), or depending on the context, it can mean the doctrine itself. However, we see in Mark’s gospel, chapter 7 verses 8-9 Jesus holds a certain contention with the notion of the Pharisees' idea of tradition.

In these verses, Jesus states, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to human tradition. Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!” (Mark 7:8-9 RSV) Prima Facie this verse seems to declare that Jesus is rejecting the notion of tradition altogether. But this certainly cannot be the case for it were then Paul would be contradicting Jesus. However, Jesus is certainly using the same word as Paul, only in Mark’s gospel, the word is now singular instead of plural, but it is certainly the same word. But we must take into consideration the most basic rule of hermeneutics—context, context, context!

In Mark, Jesus is certainly rejecting the “tradition” of the Pharisees. But according to the context of Mark, the tradition that the Pharisees held to is quite different from the tradition of the apostles (as Paul describes). The tradition of the Pharisees was a tradition that was established by man, this is indicated in verse 9 when Jesus plainly declares the tradition of the Pharisees was one that is of man. How do we know this? Well, two ways; first Jesus contrasts the Commandment of God and the tradition of men (this is seen in both verses). Second, Jesus states that the commandment of God is rejected for the tradition of men. This certainly means that the Pharisees have elevated their doctrine or tradition over and against God’s commands. This is clearly sinful and would indicate that what God established is rejected for what man established.

Moreover, this demonstrates there is a difference between the two, and one is certainly established by God, while the other can only be established by man, otherwise, it need not be scorned in this passage. Jesus would certainly not scorn or warn against anything that was established by God. So the Pharisees’ “tradition” was outside of the scope or realm of the divine. By this I mean that is was not established by God. This being the case, we know it runs contrary to God’s word or commands. However, in Paul’s passage he tells his reader to hold fast to the traditions of the apostles. The big question here is what are these traditions?

If the tradition Paul is speaking of in 2 Thessalonians was a tradition established by man then Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics would certainly be warranted in rejecting it. However, as Protestant’s AND Catholic's believe, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Paul tells his reader to hold to the traditions of the apostles. Therefore, for us to hold to this ‘tradition’ it must have been one that was established by God in the new covenant of Christ and transmitted to the apostles and thus passed on to us, the Church. Otherwise, Paul would not tell us to ‘hold to' it.

I have heard this passage from Mark used by Protestants to declare that Church tradition should be rejected because it is a tradition of man, and not a commandment of God. I purport that this conclusion drawn from these verses in Mark is simply poorly performed hermeneutics, and to hold to such a view seems to ultimately lead to big trouble when dealing with other passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or I Corinthians 11:2.

So what are we as Protestants to think about Church tradition? What are we to think about holding fast to the traditions of the apostles? What, in fact, does this mean? And can Roman Catholics and Protestants ever see eye to eye on this issue? These are but a few questions I hope to answer in a few upcoming posts. How should we, as Protestants, view tradition? These are but a few questions that sometimes keep me up at night, and I have often times posted my answers to these questions in various articles on this blog (see the left hand margin of this blog for several posts on the issue of Church Tradition).

Trinity Sunday

In the liturgical calendar, today is Trinity Sunday. Today is the first Sunday after Pentecost and is called Trinity Sunday in the Western Christian liturgical tradition. This day is a designated day to celebrate the theological doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the term "Trinity" is not found in the Scriptures per se, the theology of the Trinity certainly is.

The doctrine was fully developed by the 4th century and put forth in the third ecumenical creed agreed upon by the Church. This creed is called the Athansian Creed. This creed takes its name from the influential Egyptian bishop and theologian of the 4th century, Athanasius, who was once thought to be its author. Because of its length, it is not recited in most churches on a regular basis. However, this creed is a pivotal creed in the Church in that it delineates the Holy Trinity in such a succint fashion that the theology surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity has traditionally stemmed from this creed. Here is the Creed, may it constantly remind us of who we worship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

ATHANASIAN CREED

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic faith [catholic being universal]. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal.

As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet they are not three lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself to be both God and Lord, so we cannot by the catholic faith say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he is God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and will give an account of their own works. And they that have done good will go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Quote of the Week

“Strange as it may seem, it is still true, that those who fail to understand other churches than their own are not the people who care intensely about theology, but the theological dilettantes, eclectics, and historians of all sorts; while those very men who have found themselves forced to confront a clear, thoroughgoing, logical sic et non find themselves allied to each other inspite of all contradictions, by an underlying fellowship and understanding, even in the cause which they handle so differently and approach from such painfully different angles. But the cause, it may be, is nothing less than Jesus Christ and the unity of the Church.”

—Karl Barth

"Alone" or not?

I had the day off due to a holiday today, so I did something I have not done in a very long time, I browsed the internet blog world. I played catch up on some blogs I usually read more regularly but have not been able to do so lately, and I went to a few blogs that I have not visited in many months (almost years).

One such blog that I had not visited in almost a year (maybe more) had a post that really set me off. Now, I should preface all this by declaring that this particular blog is a very staunch fundamentalist blog, and one that thinks the Roman Catholic Church is false from start to finish. That being said, this particular post was, of course, about the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding salvation/justification.

While I will not detail the entire post, you can go to the link provided and read the post if you like, I did want to comment on the first few sentences of the post; these sentences read as follows,

“Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word alone. By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture.”

Hmmm. What I can't help but notice is how this author makes a declaration about Scripture that simply does not exist. While I agree that the Roman Catholic Church does not put forth a doctrine of justification that matches the Reformers (well, certain Reformers anyway), what I find quite strange is the idea that the word alone, as used by this author, is elevated to a definitive "keyword" from Scripture that seems to hinge any and every doctrine of salvation/justification as being the "proof" of whether that doctrine is correct.

This is simply not the case. In fact, the term alone is never used in the same context with salvation or justification anywhere in Scripture except one place, and that is James 2:24; "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is the only time the term alone is used in the context of "justification." It comes across in the text so strongly that Martin Luther wanted the Epistle of James removed from the canon of Scripture. And yet, time and again, I read later Reformers (new Reformers is what I tend to call them), from the 17th century to the present, who make comments that salvation or justification pivots on one term, alone, or else the doctrine is false.

While I am not Roman Catholic, and for other reasons besides the solas of the Reformation, I can't help but chuckle whenever I read something like this post. And what I find more intersting is the fact that the author of this post actually agrees that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, "that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ." What other kind of justification is there? This is where the Scriptures are the most replete with regard to justification or salvation. That being the case, to add the term alone would seem to run more contrary to Scripture than simply declaring "we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ" would it not?

The Joy of God

“People who have come to know the joy of God do not deny the darkness, but they choose not to live in it. They claim that the light that shines in the darkness can be trusted more than the darkness itself and that a little bit of light can dispel a lot of darkness. They point each other to flashes of light here and there, and remind each other that they reveal the hidden but real presence of God. They discover that there are people who heal each other’s wounds, forgive each other’s offenses, share their possessions, foster the spirit of community, celebrate the gifts they have received, and live in constant anticipation of the full manifestation of God’s glory.

Every moment of each day I have the chance to choose between cynicism and joy. Every thought I have can be cynical or joyful. Every word I speak can be cynical or joyful. Every action can be cynical or joyful.

Joy never denies the sadness, but transforms it to a fertile soil for more joy.”

- Henri Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son

The Power of the Emptied and Weak is the Story of the Church

“Christians today often think that the Church needs to be powerful and well-ordered to attract notice. This is nothing less than unbelief. Think of Ruth the Moabitess, who attaches herself to Naomi when Noami has nothing (Ruth 1:15-18). Naomi went out of Israel full—with husband, two sons, everything she needed. While in Moab, she loses everything.

The Lord has made her life bitter. But precisely at that moment, when Naomi has nothing and can produce nothing, when she’s reminding Ruth that she can’t possibly produce another husband—just at that moment of utter emptiness, Ruth commits herself to Naomi, and to Israel. Naomi says, God has dealt harshly with me. He’s emptied me of everything. And Ruth says, I want your God to be my God. Somehow, mysteriously, uncannily, miraculously, Ruth finds something in a woman who has nothing. Somehow she knows the God of empty Naomi is the God of salvation.

By attaching herself to the empty widow, Ruth finds a place in the family tree of David and of David’s greater Son. Clinging to the widow with nothing, she becomes an agent for the restoration of everything.

Paul was thinking not only of Jesus and the early Church when he said, ‘God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong” (1 Cor. 1:27). That is the story of Israel, and the story of the Church.”

- Peter J. Leithart

Jürgen Moltmann: Today's Task of Theology

"Christian theology must show how far the Christian confession of faith in Jesus is true as seen from outside, and must demonstrate that it is relevant to present-day understanding of reality and the present-day dispute about the truth of God and the righteousness of man and the world. For the title 'Christ' has never been used by faith only to say who Jesus was in his own person, but to express his dominion, future and significance with regard to God, men and the world."

- Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Harper and Row, 1974), 84.

Best Contemporary Theology

Throughout the blogsphere there has been a meme that has circulated requesting people/bloggers to name their three or so favorite (or "best") theological works that have been written in the last 25 years. Patrik has listed everyone's votes in a final vote list. Go check the list out when you have time, there are some great works on this list. Of course the list is missing what I think is the best theological work (or perhaps closer to best New Testament work) in the last 25 years and that is N.T. Wright's work titled The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology; the only exception to Wright's book is perhaps Robert Jenson's 2 volume Sytematic Theology, which did actually make the list.

When you have a chance go check the list out, you can also vote. To vote, when you get to the page simply scroll down and you will see the space Patrik provides called "Vote Form."

Dare We Hope: "That All Men Be Saved"?

"[I]f someone thus sees mankind as a massa damnata from the outset, how can he still adhere to the effective truth of Christ's statement that, on the Cross, he will draw all men to himself?"

- Hans Urs Von Balthasar, "Dare We Hope, "That All Men Be Saved"? p. 26.

Worship: Have We Lost Our Theological Identity?

In the last few years of church searching, too often I experienced worship services that seem to communicate a two-fold idea. First, several services we attended demonstrated that worship benefits us by giving us something. Perhaps the thinking in this type of service believed that worship puts God into motion to act on our behalf. Or maybe in this framework of worship was performed to make us feel closer to God, help us be encouraged for the upcoming week. Whatever the case may be, whenever we experienced this type of worship service it bothered me to the core. This is in fact is not worship at all, unless one is attempting to worship an idea or perhaps self – a type of unintentional narcissism. Whatever the case may be, too often we experienced this type of service.

The second idea of this two fold idea in church worship services is what I like to call the self-help worship. This is where the service is geared toward making those in the church and especially those unchurched more comfortable about themselves. In these worship services sermons were geared to communicate to the listener that we are not bad people. Sin is absent in their homilies. Rather we are to learn how we can live through adversity, or how we can improve our financial status, etc. The attention is on self and not God. In fact, there is actually no semblance of worshipping God in these services at all. These are the services that were so bad I would get up and leave in the middle of them.

Now, in writing these above things, I am not intentionally trying to be a pessimist, I simply believe these churches have lost touch with true worship and have turn, perhaps, to the world to set the tone for their church services. I say this because most, if not all, of these churches have campaigns to bring the unchurched into their services. In my humble opinion, this was never the intent of the church or the intent of worship. Therefore, when these things are performed, there is a loss of meaningful ecclesiological theology, the shape of liturgy is distorted, and the focus of the worship is not God. How can we possibly call this worship? Moreover, if the above things are becoming the norm, how do we redirect the landscape of the church back to a more sound theological worshipping community?

I think this at least begins with an ecclesiology that is grounded in good theology and a better understanding of what it means to be a worshipping community. This is, as Church History shows us, the underlying ordo of worship. Simon Chan confirms this in his work when he declares, “. . . a coherent theology of the church that pays particular attention to the liturgical practices that have constituted Christian worship throughout the centuries” is what is needed in churches today. Therefore, this will be the focus of the last few posts I present here on the issue of worship.