Incarnation, Atonement and Holiness

The term "holiness" has certainly made a resurgence within Army circles of late. It may just be me, but I've noticed that there has been a conscious move on the part of Army leaders, writers and commentators to use this term more frequently in the last few years. Certainly when I was growing up in The Salvation Army the only time I heard the term was in relation to the "Holiness Meeting" at 11am on Sunday morning. Of course, that could have been that I wasn't listening as well!!!

It's my belief that, whilst there are some that use it with the best of intentions, I'm not convinced that collectively we understand what we mean by this term. Sometimes I get the impression that it's used politically; that is, in order for someone to be seen to use today's "buzz" term and so give the impression that they're in with the "holy crowd". Other times, those who use this term give the impression that it's just about moralism or legalism - living a good life, because that's what God wants of us. Of course, that's good, but is that what holiness really is?

For me, as I read more and more about this very important term, and wrestle with coming to terms with what it means to be holy in the real world, I'm convinced that at times the term is used in such a way that it is disconnected from God himself. This is a huge problem since God himself is holy, and thus the source of all holiness. A disconnected holiness, however, is not holiness at all. Here's why.

You see early in the Scriptural narrative we read of God's holiness which results in him unapproachable by a sinful people (e.g. Exodus 19). At the same time, though this unapproachable God is forming a people for himself, so that he may dwell in their midst. This is represented by the Tent of Meeting, the Tabernacle, and later the Temple in the Hebrew Scriptures. God is both the "Holy One of Israel" and the "Holy One of Israel" (e.g. Isaiah 1:4). That is, he is holy (unapproachable) yet in relationship with a people (dwelling amongst them). By virtue of that relationship, though, the people themselves become a "royal priesthood and a holy nation". Their holiness stems only from their relationship with the holy God. They are not holy because of their following the regulations set down in the law. Rather they are God's holy people and thus follow the regulations in response to his holy character and call.

When we come to the New Testament, however, we see that the dwelling place of God is no longer represented by the Temple, but by a person - Jesus Christ. God himself, who "tabernacles" amongst us (John 1:14). The God-man - perfectly divine and perfectly human uniting the two natures, once separated by sin, now have become inseparably holy. This is the miracle of the "incarnation" and it is this that makes the work that Christ achieved, his "atonement", effective. That which we believe by faith about who Christ is as the God-man enables us to believe by faith what Christ has done as the God-man - his conception, birth, life, suffering and death, resurrection, ascension and glorification. The entire "Christ event", Incarnation and Atonement together, are vital for Christian life and faith.

The same is true for Christian holiness.

We need a solid and broad understanding of what has actually happened as a result of God himself taking on human nature in Jesus Christ. By this very action of God toward humanity he sanctified it enabling humanity to respond. At one and the same time, however, the vicarious action of man toward God through the representative human, Jesus, is that perfect and sinless response to God. On behalf of humanity, Jesus Christ accepts the guilty verdict, confesses sin, repents, suffers and dies and thus sanctifies humanity by this action.

So what do we have to do?

Well our response is to adopt Christ's response. That is, Jesus responded on our behalf, and his perfect response was effective, once and for all. We are invited, by grace through faith, to respond to that perfect response. We are enabled to do this through the Holy Spirit and by virtue of the belief that human nature has been sanctified by God's presence within it through Christ when he took that human nature on.

This is where it gets exciting, though (well... at least for me it does). Christ's response on our behalf, which we subsequently respond to, is much more than just an intellectual assent to a message about God. It's more than just saying "Yes, I believe" and then praying some preformulated "sinner's prayer". Christ's response enables union with God. This is what Jesus himself promised (John 15). This is what Paul talks about with his language of being "in Christ" (e.g. Romans 8:1). So too, the author of 2 Peter uses a unique phrase, but one which conveys the same idea: "participants in the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Think on this... the Father makes a move toward us in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. This move sanctifies humanity. Then, by that same Spirit, Christ, the God-man, responds effectively on our behalf to the Father. This response, then, is a holy and human response. As we then respond to Christ's response we a drawn into the Godhead itself. Here's how it's expressed in Colossians 3:3 "For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God"

So to get back to my original point (there was one wasn't there???), to talk of holiness apart from a relationship with God is anathema. It doesn't make sense and is actually not holiness at all. At best it's humanistic moralism.

God is holy and when he says "be holy as I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16) it is both a gift and a command. It is God (the holy one) giving his holiness to his people (in relationship) and calling them to live within that holiness.

Therefore the Scriptural call to holiness in the 21st Century is a call to participate in God's holiness, made available through the Incarnate God-man and atoning sacrifice Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. And, so...

"Be holy, as I am holy"

Humility and holiness

Just the other day I picked up a copy of "Humility: The Journey Toward Holiness" by Andrew Murray (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001). It's a good little read and has a lot to contribute to a discussion on holiness.

Humility is something I have struggled with my whole life. Not so much because I'm full of myself and want everyone to know about it. Quite the opposite. Rather, it's because I much prefer to not be in the spotlight, but I find that God has gifted me with particular talents and abilities that see me often in the public eye. So I have constantly battled with the issue of remaining humble, living a life that points to Christ and glorifies God through the power of the Spirit, but at the same time being confident in who I am in Christ.

To be perfectly honest, I get that balance wrong at times. Sometimes I do promote myself rather than Christ and so humility gets left behind. Other times I "bury my talents" in the name of humility (which is not humility at all really) and so don't do what God has called me to do.

This is a journey that I have been on all my life and haven't arrived there (wherever "there" is???) yet. However, here's what I have learned so far.

1. Humility stems from seeing myself in the light of who God is.
2. I am to "humble myself" before God.
   
3. He is the one who will "lift me up" (James 4:10)
4. Humility is the example of Christ and so part of what it means to be "Christlike" (Philippians 2:1-11).

I'm no expert on this topic, but I believe that a significant step on the pathway to "being holy, as God is holy" involves humility. Humbling ourselves before the God of all creation, just as Christ did, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, and he will lift us up into the very presence of the Triune God (Colossians 3:3).

"Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift" (2 Corinthians 9:15)

N.T. Wright "Bloggers Beware"

I read this by N.T. Wright the other day and I thought it was worthy of posting. I'm certainly in agreeance with it, and think I need to consider my own "blogging ethics" as a result...

"It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging. Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage. And as for the practice of saying mean and untrue things while hiding behind a pseudonym - well, if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin. But the cyberspace equivalents of road-rage don't happen by accident. People who type vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack. Yes I do have a pastoral concern for such people... But sometimes worldviews have to be shaken. They may become idolatrous and self-serving. And I fear that that has happened, and continues to happen, even in well-regulated, shiny Christian contexts - including, of course, my own."

Tom Wright, Justification - God's Plan and Paul's Vision. (London: SPCK, 2009), 10-11.

I personally have been challenged by this quote and I think it's worthy of consideration in a lot of areas of our lives.

Salvation Army Doctrines - Time for change

I would like to open these comments by restating, for reference, the doctrines of The Salvation Army as they presently exist

1. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice.
   
   
2. We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.
   
   
3. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead-the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.
   
   
4. We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.
   
   
5. We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.
   
   
6. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by His suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
   
   
7. We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.
   
   
8. We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.
   
   
9. We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ.
   
   
10. We believe that it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit and soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    
    
11. We believe in the immortality of the soul; in the resurrection of the body; in the general judgment at the end of the world; in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked.

I think it is necessary to make the point up front that these doctrines are not the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). These doctrines are instead pointers to the Truth (capital T). At times I get the impression that the doctrines are immovable, unchangable and anyone who suggests otherwise is considered a heretic. The major problem with this attitude, whether it's explicitly stated or not, is that it actually forces its adherents to contradict themselves. What do I mean by this? Well, the first doctrine states that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments "only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice". To suggest, then, that the doctrines are beyond the need of regular editing actually contradicts this doctrine. Consider, as well, that most Christians now use a different translation of the Scriptures (the most popular being the NIV) than what was in vogue 100 years ago (the KJV the clear favourite then). What does this suggest about the content of doctrine one??? Yet some would suggest that updating the language of the doctrine itself is beyond suggestion. Seems strange to me...

I have suggested above that the doctrines are not the truth, but rather pointers to the Truth (Jesus Christ). I would like to suggest that the doctrines, in their present format, are deficient in the way they do in fact point to the Truth. Let me suggest a few examples of why this is so:

1. The use of exclusive language (e.g. "men") excludes half of the population unnecessarily. One of my lecturers wisely said to me early in my study career; "If you can use a word that doesn't exclude people just as easily as one that will then which one should you choose?" In this example replacing words such as "men" with gender neutral words such as "human" or "humanity" is long overdue. Particularly true for a denomination that has always professed equality for women and men within the organisation (at least in its rhetoric).
   
   
2. The change from "Holy Ghost" (D3) to "Holy Spirit" (D7) is confusing and even misleading. "Ghost" is a word with two many science fiction, fantasy world connotations and relies significantly upon the KJV translation which most congregations no longer use in corporate worship. Consistency in this regard would be a simple editing process to use the same language across both doctrines.
   
   
3. A major issue is the lack of reference to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection of the body does make an appearance in the final doctrine, but this is not a reference to Jesus' resurrection but rather the hope of our resurrection. Again, these doctrines are pointers to the Truth (Jesus) and if there is no reference to the resurrection of the Truth, then that is a glaringly obvious omition for me.
   
   
4. The separation of Doctrines 2 and 3 is misleading. Whilst I can see that this is an attempt to show that we worship one God who has been revealed in the three persons of Father, Son and Spirit, the importance of stating this mystery together rather than apart is far more necessary in my mind. The Trinity is a central tenant of the Christian faith and the Doctrine of God needs to be, at one and the same time, the Doctrine of the Trinity - together, not apart.
   
   
5. Order is also important. Whilst it's like saying "where do you start on a circle?" or the old "Chicken and the Egg" problem, at the same time it's necessary to carefully consider this starting point. Is what we believe about the Scriptures foundational to what we believe about God, or is it the other way around? On this particular point my mind is not made up, but I think it's a discussion point worthy of consideration.
   
   
6. The semi-Pelagian nature of Doctrine 9 is a significant problem. There is no mention of grace within this doctrine and so it gives the impression that "continuance" is entirely dependent upon "obedient faith". Whilst I would automatically qualify this by stating that this "faith" is itself a gift of God's grace anyway (Ephesians 2:8), still greater clarification of this is needed, lest Salvationists profess to a doctrine that suggests that God has nothing to do with keeping them secure in his love.
   
   
7. Doctrine 10 relies heavily upon 1 Thessalonians 5:23, more specifically the KJV of this verse. No modern translation of the Bible uses the word "unto" but rather "at" in reference to the "coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". This is a significant alteration and, if we are to continue to rely upon this verse for our doctrine of holiness then some strong exegetical work needs to be done regarding this.

These examples above are a few of the obvious examples of the need for the doctrines of The Salvation Army to be updated. They have served us well for over 120 years, however they are at risk of not serving the purpose for which they are there for - namely, point to the Truth. If we are forced to exegete them in order to then be pointed to the Truth, then that is evidence enough for me that work need to be done in order to update them.

I would hope that this would happen sooner rather than later.

Eating with "sinners"

I love a good quote.

Last week (or was it the week before?) I read Craig L. Blomberg's "Contagious Holiness" (NSBT, Ed D.A. Carson, Illinois: IVP, 2005). It's a great survey of the meals that Jesus participates in and it looks at the way Jesus ignored the "purity" regulations of his day. Instead he focussed upon the people that he was dealing with, recognising that his purity was more "contagious" than their "impurity". Here's a great paragraph that summarises Blomberg's book really well...

The unifying theme that emerges from the passages surveyed... may be called "contagious holiness". Jesus regularly associates with the various sorts of sinners on whom the most pious in his culture frowned, but his association is never an end in itself. Implicitly or explicitly, he is calling people to change their ways and follow him as their master. But unlike so many in his world... he does not assume that he will be defiled by associating with corrupt people. Rather, his purity can rub off on them and change them for the better. Cleanliness, he believes, is even more "catching" than uncleanness; morality more influential than immorality. (pg 128).

This is a great thought regarding Christian holiness. We, when we are united with Christ, become "contagious". We, like Christ, influence those around us for the good much more than they influence us for the bad. This is what it means, I believe, to be "in the world", but not "of the world" (see John 17). Through being "in Christ" (as Paul would say), or "participating in the Divine nature" (as Peter would say), we receive the holiness of Christ and so become like him - having an impact on society, just by living in it.

As we do so, may we rely on him to continue to make us holy as he is holy...

Non-Negotiables?

I was recently asked (again!) what I thought the "non-negotiables" of The Salvation Army were. I thought my reply might interest others and so I have included it below...

I always find the discussion regarding "non-negotiables" somewhat amusing. It seems to be a perpetual one that has become more prevalent in the last ten years or so. I can remember the then Commissioner Shaw Clifton (now General) speaking at the Coutts Memorial Lecture when I was in college (2003) on this very topic. His talk from that occasion is now the first chapter of his book New Love. He shared his 8 "non-negotiables" on that occasion...

1. Realism
2. Idealism
3. Acceptance (or Inclusiveness)
4. Compassion
5. Simplicity
6. Internationalism
7. Visibility
8. Audibility

I've also been a part of a similar discussion at a conference in Melbourne in 2006. There it was about Salvation Army "DNA". All that's just to say that this discussion keeps revolving and never seems to come to a definitive conclusion.

This is all just symptomatic of The Salvation Army's "identity crisis" of the last 10 years. The ultimate question here is "Who are we?".

For me, using the General's list as a starting point, I struggle with the obvious lack of biblical language within that list of distinctives. You may be aware that the YMCA was a "Christian" organisation but certainly now has drifted away from that as it's core roots. It would certainly be possible for The Salvation Army to also drift away from it's Christian heritage and become just a social organisation if we held to this list of "non-negotiables" provided by the General. That's really dangerous for me. If those 8 things are the things we must hold on to (which I'm assuming is the way he's using "non-negotiable") then there's nothing there about the primacy of Scripture, our evangelical focus, our pneumatological priority (i.e. holiness of life), etc.

I personally think that we are a movement that epitomises "strength in weakness" (2 Cor 9). This should be evident in our message, our motivation, and our methodology. What I mean by this is that we preach a message about the Christ who, in the incarnation, became weak so that we may be strong. Our God is a God who loves us enough to subject himself to the humiliation of the cross and the suffering of a Roman execution. Our motivation becomes the belief that there is no "weakness" in this world that cannot be overcome with Christ's "strength". No addiction, no illness, no sinful life, no persecution, no government, no temptations, nothing can defeat the strength of Christ and all that he achieved in the incarnation, and all that that entails. And so our methodology reflects the message and motivation that we have. A willingness to adopt whatever means is appropriate to achieve the goal of the Salvation of the World. A willingness to humiliate ourselves regardless of the consequences if that communicates the message in some way (e.g. willing to place our reputation on the line or willing to give up government funding if necessary, dare I say it). Dropping the old if it no longer works, and adopting the new if it does, or alternatively re-adopting the old if it works again.

This is what I mean by "strength in weakness" - an absolute dependence upon Christ who strengthens us; and not relying upon our reputation, our past methods, our government funding, our heritage, or anything else that we like, that really aren't "non-negotiable". I would love to see and be a part of an Army that looks like that.

For me, when we talk about non-negotiables, or what we want to look like in 10 years etc, if we start making the list too long, and begin drifting away from "who we are (and are meant to be) in Christ" then we risk making "peripherals" central. The non-negotiables are the message, the motivation (which stems from the message), and the methodology (which ironically is completely adaptable).

Self-denial - what's it about?

I really like The Salvation Army's Self-Denial appeal. I think it's an incredible valuable missional tool and spiritual discipline, but at times I wonder what we think it's about. I'd like to suggest that there's at least two components to the Self-Denial appeal. The first is the most popular amongst the average Salvationist, the most likely topic of a sermon, and certainly (in my Territory) the most common amongst the advertising material. I call this first part the "external injustices" that Self-Denial funds seek to address.

The first part is addressing the social injustices that exist in the world. This has been clearly pushed in the past through the Self-Denial advertising. It is seeking to address the needs of the people who The Salvation Army ministers to throughout the world. The poor, the prostitute, the trafficked child, the unfair trade for impoverished farmers, the one stuck on the street who resorts to crime in order to survive. These are all valid and necessary reasons for giving to the Self-Denial appeal because those injustices do exist and The Salvation Army was raised in order to address them, and bring full salvation to the whole world - including salvation from suffering in this world.

The problem is, though, that these images and needs are also being shown by other organisations in their Television commercials all the time - e.g. World Vision, UNICEF etc. The basic theme of these advertisements on TV is...

1. Show a hungry child (or similar "need")
2. Raise a sense of guilt in the viewers mind
3. Give the viewer and opportunity to relieve the guilt asking for money.

Perhaps that is an unfair and brutal summary, but I think it's pretty close.

The danger with this form of advertising alone is that the viewer becomes desensitised to the guilt and needs more and more images in order to become moved enough to give again. In the end it just stops working. In my opinion, Self-denial advertising has followed a similar pattern to that described above. As I see it, though, there is another part to the Self-denial puzzle that is not shown. The Self-Denial appeal is not the same as other appeals because it is motivated by love, not guilt. It is a spiritual exercise for the giver, the receiver and the ones responsible for distributing the funds. It's not just about the needs of the recipient, but those of the giver and the distributor (in our setting those Salvationists in Self-Denial assisted territories) as well.

This leads to the second component of Self-Denial. This, I think, will be less "popular" because it requires some serious self-reflection. It requires us to look at ourselves and ask the hard questions. This component is about addressing the "internal injustices" that the Self-Denial seeks to address.

The second part is addressing the social injustices that exist within the Army itself. From my point of view a recognition of this problem has been lacking in advertising material in the past. Perhaps because we don't see it as being a good motivation for giving, maybe because we don't want to recognise that this is, in fact, a problem. Maybe it's just me, I don't know. For me the issue here is this...

1. There are Salvationists in the world who are desperate to minister to people in need. This is my brother and sister in Christ.


2. These Salvationists are limited by lack of necessary funds - that's an injustice.


3. I have an excess of funds just because of where I was born and where I live - that's an inequality.


4. I therefore have the opportunity to give out of love for my fellow Salvationists through the Self-Denial appeal.

The injustice that exists within The Salvation Army is the fact that there are some territories with an excess of funds and some operating in extreme poverty. This is the second injustice that the Self-Denial Appeal exists to address. Giving to the Self-Denial appeal is a non-violent protest against the inequality that exists within The Salvation Army. Saying to God and to others "I will go without what I 'want' so that others can minister to those in 'need'." This, to me, is the real "faith" aspect of Self-Denial and in giving with this attitude I am believing and trusting God that this inequality will be addressed.

There is also a direct Biblical example of this and this passage has been the one that I have used to encourage people in my corps to give in the past. 2 Corinthians 8 talks about the giving of the Macedonian church. A very poor church who still gave and gave and gave. (I think it also needs to be highlighted that every territory gives to Self-Denial, even those who receive the funding. I'm not sure everyone knows that - just an aside). Paul writes to the Corinthian church to encourage them to give also. Verse 13-15 are the crucial verses that relate directly to Self-Denial...

"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality , as it is written: "The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little."

If you read the whole passage there's not one reference to the needs of the people who will be ministered to with this money. It's all about this giving being a spiritual discipline because of the grace that has been shown in Jesus Christ (vs9). I would love to see the Self-Denial advertising take a different approach in the future that really encourages people to give out of a response to the grace of God that he has shown us. You may disagree with me, or not. I have taken this approach in both my own corps leadership and in other places where I've had the opportunity to speak in regards to Self-Denial. On every occasion I have seen a positive response to this "spiritual" motivation.

As I said at the outset, I love the Self-Denial appeal. I welcome it. I think we should do more of it. Why? Because those who would follow Christ must deny themselves, take up their cross daily and follow him. May the biblical goal of 'equality' be achieved in Jesus name.