The Purpose of Man – part I

“The chief end of man,” says an old catechism, “is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.” Yet atheists and agnostics abound and every man seeks his own pleasure. So, as those who are called to “make disciples of all nations and to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded,” we have a bit of a problem. Now what is really fascinating about the modern world (and the problem it presents us with) is that it used to be the Christians who were considered to be atheists. They had no representations of their God in their places of worship or in their homes. Now it is those we might have formerly called pagans and idolaters who are the real atheists.

That, being the case, perhaps we should define what we mean by the two terms above. An atheist, for our purposes, is someone who denies that there is any supernatural being who created the world, who has spoken to man in the Bible and to whom mankind is supposed to owe allegiance. If you checked the dictionary definition you will see that all I did was make the word God more specific. There’s a reason for that which we’ll come to below. There are at least two types of atheist, the practical atheist who is really an agnostic but lives as if he is an atheist and the theoretical atheist. One who has arrived at his conclusions by his reason and is prepared to defend his beliefs by logical debate is a theoretical atheist. The practical atheist is often likely to retreat to an agnostic position if pushed.

An Agnostic is one who either is not prepared to be committed to any belief in, is sure we can ever know for certain whether or believes it is impossible to know if the God of the Bible exists. That’s using the phrase “God of the Bible” as shorthand for the same definition we used for him above. By the definition we can see there are about three types of agnostic. The first is indifferent to the whole debate often because he can see no use in belief or disbelief in God. The second believes that since God is supposed to be a spirit and we have no proven way of measuring or interacting with spirits we can never know for certain whether God exists, it remains a matter of conjecture. The last believes it is impossible to create any test the will prove the existence of any type of being we might call God it is a waste of time and effort to find out if God exists.

There do exist a number of ways to “prove” (read “demonstrate”) the existence of God. So, when you read of scientists who have discovered wonderful things about the way the universe operates and attempt to persuade an atheist or agnostic their view is flawed, you are using one of these “classical proofs for God’s existence,” usually the cosmological argument. See the proofs outlined here and here. In all these proofs the best that can be expected is proof that a “God” exists. It is then necessary to show that such a God is, in reality, the God of the Bible. Even then it may not persuade the hearer.

One is reminded of the ancient philosophical paradoxes of Zeno where an aspect of reality is used to describe a situation and other aspects (which are also important) are ignored. The atheist or agnostic usually argues rationally from a set of premises which are incomplete. If you prefer a non-philosophical view it’s a little like learning physics. I remember learning about the motion of an bullet in flight and being told to ignore gravity and air friction in my calculations. The problem is (as anyone knows) we can never ignore gravity while we are on the earth and the air does resist the passage of anything through it. So why ignore them? Surely all aspects of reality are important and we can only ignore them at our peril. We were told “because they are constant” – which is mostly true and was insignificant in the problems we were given. When it comes to the existence of God ignoring some aspects of reality can have eternal consequences.

So, how can we hope to make a reasonable (please note the word “reasonable”) “defence of the faith” when dealing with atheists and agnostics? The Bible gives us some important details we need to remember about mankind. Romans chapter 1 tells us that the hidden things of God are clearly seen in creation, being understood by those that are made – even his eternal power and Godhood. God’s purpose in this is so that they are without excuse because, recognizing God in creation they ought to worship and glorify him – but they don’t. That means there will be flaws in the atheist and agnostic points of view which we can use to show they are inconsistent and must, therefore, be trying to hide from the reality of God which they know.

It’s like catching a liar. It’s much easier if you know the truth and test their statements by that truth. You can imagine this will require knowing your Bible really well and knowing your society and science well also. This is part of the reason why reformation and literacy go hand-in-hand. We become students of the Word (the Bible) and the word (language and how it relates to reality) when we become Christians just because we take the Great Commission seriously.

What has this to do with our opening statement? The chief end (or purpose) of man is to glorify God so it is our responsibility to call on all men everywhere to do so. If as Paul says they really know that is true then we have an ally in the conscience which is constantly excusing or accusing them. It is possible to use reasoning to help even the theoretical atheist see their flaws in logic but we should not expect to convince them of their errors. As sinners they will attempt to continue in denial unless God (our second ally) intervenes. And he does. He tells us he has chosen to use the foolishness of preaching (speaking up on God’s behalf) to save those that believe. Paul presented a strong case for worshiping the true God before the crowd on Mars Hill in Athens. And the general response was he was a babbler, unimportant and possibly ignorant. Yet, even in Athens and as a result of that presentation there were some that believed.

We are responsible to glorify God in our speaking and leave the rest to him. The wonderful thing is that, if we do, we will see his working and this leads to joy as sinners come to know him and joy which will last until forever.

"Post-…" Jargon.

Ordinarily I am not in favor of compound adjectives although there are times when such adjectives are almost inescapable without using either a concise but obscure adjective or many words which mean the same as a shorter compound adjective. My writing is already too convoluted to make me feels easy using the latter option (though it is a preference – being simpler). Of the compound adjectives the ones which I feel are the most annoying are those formed by adding the prefix post- to another adjective.

There are many terms which have some use and so are acceptable on utilitarian grounds. Post-natal and post meridian are so much a part of the language we hardly notice them and, besides, medical terms are also well accepted. It is the rash of jargon “post-…” adjectives which seem to have sprouted like Topsy of which I speak. We do live in a post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment era. The “post” means after and the rest of the adjective defines what has passed. We could also use post-Apostolic and post-Nicene (though to be honest post-Chalcedon might be more useful. The last two terms mean we interpret doctrine with the understanding and insights which were defined in the creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon.

That being said we should no longer expect to find lack of clarity over the Trinity or the person of Christ (his divinity and humanity). Being post-Reformation should mean we interpret soteriology, ecclesiology and several other theological disciplines with the insights gained from the 16th Century debates (whether continental or British – Catholic or Protestant). And post-Enlightenment allows us to acknowledge some insights gained by recent archeological excavations and of some literary criticism – such as the role of suzereignity treaties of the ancient Hittites in understanding aspects of Biblical interpretation.

There are, however, two terms I am less happy about. The first “post-modern” implies we are no longer living in the modern era. It is too general to make any real sense and should be replaced by some other “post-…” term like post-ArtDeco or post-BigBand, if you will, where it is clear the fashion concerned has actually past. Modern means present day so post-modern implies the present day has past – obviously incorrect. If you are wanting to say future-oriented don’t use a “post-…” term.

The other term I am opposed for the same sort of reason. It is the term “post-Christian.” In the first place it implies that there was a time which we could call the Christian era – where the whole world was Christian. Such has never been the case so to imply that such an era has past is ludicrous.
In the second place our calendars have not changed if we are to say that we are past the “Christian Era” (assuming that it is possible to think of a way the term is appropriate). We are (so I am assured) still in the year AD2010. AD means Anno Domini (“the year of our Lord”) and is a reference to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. So, unless our calendar has changed we are obviously still in the era in which Christ is Lord.
Thirdly, as a Christian, I object to Christians using this term because the Bible teaches that Jesus has ascended on high where he lives and reigns forever … theologically speaking, then, it is impossible for us ever to get to a post-Christian era unless it is possible to throw him off his throne. Since we are talking about the one “… through whom all things were made and by whom was everything made which was made,” such an event is so unlikely as to be impossible.
And finally, can you imagine trying to convince a post-modern, post-Christian inhabitant of one of our larger post-colonial cities that his post-educational interpretation of the universe was (being post-Edenic and post-diluvian sinful) that he needed to be saved so that he could, post-regeneration, become more Christlike? If he didn’t get swamped by the adjectives he would certainly wonder why we were stuck in a former era.

A City set on a Hill

Jesus says these words to his Disciples when sitting with them on a mountain. It’s recorded in Matthew 5:1-15 This passage has several things it is important for us to know about evangelism.

1. Since it is addressed to the disciples and just before the picture painted of the words of our title (verse 14a) it is clear that Jesus intends us to understand that it is the Church (those who are characterized as having the attributes we have come to know as the Beatitudes) who are to be known as the “light of the world.” This is important whenever we consider that it is often the unbelieving who give the impression of being the “movers and shakers” in society. In reality it is the people of God who have the clearest view of what is important in life. That’s because the beatitudes show the difference between man as God intended him to be and man as the world imagines he ought to be.

2. The City set on a hill is easy to find – in fact Jesus reminds us it cannot be hidden. In the darkness of evening or night (the situation pictured in this section) such a city is seen long before we can see its lights by the glow in the sky. Then, as we draw nearer, we can see the lights on the horizon making it clear that there are a large collection of dwellings there. And as we finally arrive at the final approaches to the city we begin to discern the individual dwellings and the illuminations within which give a glimpse of the lives of the people who make their homes within her gates.So it is with the Church, her influence is seen afar off. Then as we draw nearer we gain a view of the way she stands for truth. And, finally as we enter in the gates we see her love for her Lord and his for her in the lives of individual Christians.

3. The city cannot be hidden – it is perceived because of its nature. It doesn’t have to have a program in order to be noticed. It doesn’t have to have announcements on placards or boards in order to be noticed. Those things may have a function in letting people what particular city they have come across or in order to let people know what amenities are available in the city. But, in order to be noticed, all the citizens have to do is act as citizens should – in accordance with the King’s laws.

4. The city was set (notice the passive voice). It did not set itself there on the hilltop – it had to have been founded, and since Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of heaven it seems reasonable to assume this city was set there by the Lord of the kingdom. This speaks of God’s purpose in setting the city on the hilltop. It was so it would draw all men to it and through it, him.

Biblical Evangelism

If we look at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, we discover several things.
The Lord gives the commission on the basis of the fact that he now has all power in heaven and on earth (v 18). This implies that the point of making disciples is intended to be bringing the world to acknowledge his Lordship over all. As Paul says, “he must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet – and the last enemy is death.” Twice, in this small passage of the Bible we are encouraged by this fact. First Jesus tells us that we are given this task because he has all authority granted to him and second as we are about the task he reminds us that he will be with us in all his power to accomplish that which is his purpose in sending us out. It is the Risen Lord who would have us fulfill this commission.

Then, the Greek of verse 19 actually says “Going, make disciples of all nations” – the only command in the section is “make disciples” and the present participle “going” implies an attendant circumstance to the main verb. It would be as accurate to translate “as you go …” or “wherever you go …” The point is that this command applies as much for home missions as it does for overseas missions. As we read the book of Acts we can see this at work. Stephen responding to the Sanhedrin, Peter and Silas singing in the jail in Philippi, Philip overhearing an Ethiopian reading on the way back to his country or Paul finding himself in Athens waiting for the rest of his companions to rejoin him; wherever they found themselves, they took the opportunity offered to speak for their Lord in order to make disciples.

According to the text (verse 19b and 20a), making disciples implies two things, baptizing and teaching the nations. So, not only are we told this is something the Lord Jesus requires of us (rather than an idea of the Church authorities), and not only where we are to do this but we are even told what it entails. In the light of my understanding of Covenant Theology, baptizing would be adding them to the covenant community and then instructing them of the obligations, blessings and curses such membership implies for them. If we think of the inauguration of the Old Covenant under Moses we notice there are similarities to what happened just before the Israelites crossed the Jordan to enter the Promised Land. They were to circumcise all the people and read them the Law of God. And again the book of Acts shows this in action, not just in Jerusalem but all the way to Rome.

But, if we focus, for a moment on the last section of verse 20 we will see how this approach differs from what is often called evangelism. In most cases today people are taught there are certain steps that have to be taken if we are to be successful in evangelism. Almost everyone, it seems, has a program for us to follow. I remember one which went each person speaks to one other until they make them a disciple. then the two speak to two others and so on. The program was promoted as a sure way to evangelize the world in our generation. Yet, verse 20 – right where you would expect the Lord to spell out in detail how to do these things – only contains the assurance that the Lord will be with us always, even to the end of the age.

I remember wondering why. Is there enough detail in the earlier verses to tell me how I am to make disciples (leaving aside the issue of whether I can actually perform a baptism for the moment)? I don’t think so. Then I got to thinking about how we actually become Christian – it is the work of the Holy Spirit. That’s what I had seen as wrong with the wonderful geometric progression of discipleship – it didn’t allow for the possibility that the Holy Spirit might use our evangelism to convict of sin, but not savingly. As I remembered this it became plain that the reason Jesus reminds us he will be with us is because we only have to be faithful as witnesses or heralds, the result, the success or otherwise, is in his hands and we can trust him to use it his way.

That’s why we find no evangelism program outlined in Paul’s writings. It’s why we find Paul just going from place to place and preaching. We see the results because the Lord is blessing his faithfulness. Do we find Paul including an altar call in his preaching? Do we see him passing out tracts as he travels? And, why does he seem to spend so long (compared with modern evangelists) in the various cities? Do we find him setting up a music group or even a Bible reading program? No, if we summarize what he was doing it was: arrive in a city; debate with the Jews; after being thrown out of the synagogue, reason with the Gentiles; baptize those who believed (and their households) and instruct them until the new Church was formed. We are not given any more details, all that is clear is that Paul’s approach was very much more flexible than we might expect if he was using some of the modern systems.

The key element of Biblical evangelism is that we are working together with the Lord. Our role is to be as faithful to our responsibilities as we can. He will provide us with both the opportunities and the words to say and he will do the rest. The trouble with modern systems is that they require us to do more. They want us to produce believers by some kind of decision. There is seldom space left for the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the person with whom we’ve been brought into contact.

We should expect that, if he has worked and the person has been convicted, he or she will take the initiative. It is the Holy Spirit’s work to make our hearers think through the issues and make their response – Paul allowed that of the Jews. He discussed and debated … then, only after they responded unfavorably, did he stop dealing with them and turn to the Gentiles. That response, however, was always brought about by the work of the Holy Spirit using the preaching to convict the hearers of sin.

On the Day of Pentecost, after Peter finished his speaking, the admonition to “repent and be baptized” was a response to the crowd’s question “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” He didn’t prompt it – he finished by letting them know in no uncertain terms that they had crucified the Messiah foretold by the prophets! It was the Lord Jesus, through the work of the Holy Spirit that brought the new disciples into being.

What a wonderful task, working with the Lord to bring about his kingdom! And we have not only the privilege of doing it but he requires it of us in order that we might see his glory extended everywhere. Now that’s Biblical evangelism.

Evangelism, Apologetics and Missions

Why connect these three and how are they differentiated? The question was asked by a dear friend I told about this blog site. So, it seemed to be a sensible thing to deal with in a posting.

First – how differentiated
By evangelism I mean the two alternatives of “witnessing” (‘being ready with an answer for the hope that is in you’ of  I Peter 3:15b) about and “heralding” (or “proclaiming” as in Mark 1:45a) the Gospel. The difference between the two activities (it seems to me) is that one is responsive and the other initiative.
A witness answers questions about what they know or have experienced (as did the blind man whom Jesus healed before the Scribes and Pharisees) and a herald proclaims what has been given him to speak by the king (so is more akin to preaching). Both activities are considered to be a part of evangelism even though the methods used are different.
By missions I mean the same initial activity but the purpose of missionary work is the establishment of new congregations and is usually undertaken at the behest of a local congregation (or group of them). This will require more than just evangelism, it requires teaching and training the new members to be able to undertake the task of ministering to the needs of those about them, it requires encouraging the development of the structure of a Church (including the calling of and choice of elders and deacons), it requires the institution of the sacraments and beginning discussions with a Church body which will likely link the new congregation with other like-minded Christians in the nation or around the world. This work is designated in the New Testament as that of the Apostle (or “sent one” in Greek – the Latin verb for the same concept is “missio” – hence missions).
By apologetics I mean the disciplined discussion of the tenets of the Christian faith whereby a reasoned, logical, defence of the faith is provided to show that our beliefs are based on solid reality and that we do not follow cunningly devised fables. Generally the only difference between evangelism and apologetics is that the latter often takes place in a more formal setting. Missions may also include the necessity to be involved now and again in apologetics. Paul’s discourse on Mars Hill in Athens (recorded in Acts:17:16-34) certainly gives an example of this kind of activity.

Second – how connected
Having explained how each is different from the other it should also be apparent why I have connected them here. I don’t plan on limiting myself to content of each or just “how to”  postings. For, as you think about Missions, for example, it is apparent that many more subjects need to be included under this umbrella. The general focus, however, will be speaking about spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Historical Pastoral Theology

By the above term I am not referring to a discipline of theology which looks at pastoral theology in the light of history. I want to draw our attention to the fact that, so often, we become used to the distinctions made in systematic theology because of the debates of the past. Then we tend to use these distinctions when it comes to dealing with people in the real world. This has an unfortunate side effect. The Bible authors do not actually always follow the same distinctions we use. If we want to pattern our pastoral theology on the example (say) of the Lord or even the Apostles we need to decide how, if at all, we are going to use historically conditioned distinctions.
It has become common to think, in Reformed circles, of describing the members in the Church as either members of the visible or members of the invisible Church. The distinction is useful for understanding why some who appear to have never been “born again” should be accepted as a part of the congregation. It is based on the division Paul makes in Romans, for example, between those who are physically of Israel but not Israel according to the Promise. He gives a number of examples – Esau and Ishmael among them. In Paul’s day there were also Ananaius and Sophyra and certainly others.
But, useful though the distinction may be, when it comes to dealing with individual members of the congregation, is it necessary for us always to be checking to see if other members (or even we ourselves) are actually members of the invisible Church? Does it not, at the least, make us less concerned to have those we consider lost do what they ought to be doing about living holy lives?
In a significant passage in I Corinthians 1:2 Paul calls the members of the Church he is writing to “saints.” And, in chapter 6:9-11 of the same letter Paul shows that, though they had been sinners of many sorts, they had all been washed, sanctified and justified. They had, in short, become members of the body of Christ. And, if we accept that the “washing” refers to their baptism, that happened when they were baptized. They had, according to Paul, been baptized, sanctified (set aside for God’s use) and justified (declared free from sin’s dominion) and should now live out that reality.
This is significant when we consider what was going on in Corinth at the time. If we had to deal with members of the congregation who despised one another because of “spiritual gifts;” who claimed that one preacher was better than another and he should be followed so the Church was divided; who claimed they were holier than others because they lived a more “Biblical” life; or who were so incensed with another member they took that person to court, we might be tempted to class the whole lot as members of the visible Church but certainly not of the invisible one. Yet Paul makes no such distinction – he treats them all as truly members of the body of Christ, though sinful members.
Evangelism might seem to be the best solution to such problems. Call upon the sinful ones to repent and believe so that they might be saved and not suffer the condemnation due to them because they (obviously) were not believers. But Paul treats them as already believers and exhorts them to change lest they lose the blessings they already have in Christ. This would tend to make us look at evangelism and the Church differently. It should also have an effect on how we see the task of missions. More on these subjects later.
What has this to do with history and pastoral theology? I would contend that, occasionally, we need to re-examine our theological tools and decide if they are actually able to be used as the Bible indicates we should. That there are some who are members of the visible Church and will not make it to heaven is a reality. The reality on which the visible/invisible distinction is made. Yet, when it comes to reacting to sin in the congregation pastorally we need to treat all as equally responsible members of the congregation – we do not (after all) know for certain who is, or is not, a member of the invisible Church. The trouble is that attempting to discern who is actually born again leads to a form of legalism that was common in the Church and has its roots firmly embedded in the Judaism of Paul’s day.
I recently read a book called The Baptized Body which makes a slightly different distinction. That between the historical and eschatological body of Christ. The historical body of Christ is the Church as she appears in history and the eschatological body is that form she will have at the end of time. The writer, Peter J Leithart, makes the point that the Apostles dealt with Church members as truly a part of the body of Christ because they were made a part of him by their baptism. While not agreeing with everything in the book the point is well made. We need to treat all members of the Church as truly members of Christ by their incorporation (in baptism).
To use a different metaphor there are no second class citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven. You are either a member or you are not. You can be a faithful member or a sinful one. Either way, you are answerable to the King of the realm for the way you behave. It seems that, in this case, perhaps we should be setting aside some historical distinctions in order to be more effective in our pastoral work. After all, it is possible to see that the Reformers did the same with medieval scholarship in some areas so that a clearer grasp of the Gospel could be recovered.