Jul 2019 Vol 43 No 3

Home , Christoph Ernst Luthardt, Paul Althaus, Werner Elert

The World Evangelical Alliance’s Journal The World Evangelical Alliance’s Journal of Theology and Contemporary Application of Theology and Contemporary Application EVANGELICAL REVIEW OF THEOLOGY Volume OF THEOLOGY EVANGELICAL REVIEW No.3, 43, July 2019 EVANGELICAL Table of Contents Editor’s Introduction The Rejection of God’s Natural Moral Law: Losing REVIEW OF page 195 the Soul of Western Civilization Thomas K. Johnson Image-Bearers for God: page 243 Does Biblical Language for Man Matter? Stephen Noll Can Evangelicals Support Christian THEOLOGY page 196 Zionism? Gerald R. McDermott Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual page 253 Identities? Gregory Coles Frangelism: Evangelizing by Storytelling page 205 Johannes Reimer page 263 Designed for Flourishing Joshua Steely The Doxological Dimension of Ethics page 217 Thomas Schirrmacher page 268 The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding of Human Book Reviews Sexuality and the Family page 281 Kristina Pickett page 230

Volume 43 No. 3 July 2019 ABSTRACTS/INDEXING This journal is abstracted in Religious and Theological Abstracts, 121 South College Street (P.O. Box 215), Myerstown, PA 17067, USA, and in the Christian Periodical Index, P.O. Box 4, Cedarville, OH 45314, USA. It is also indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the American Theological Library Association, 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60606 USA, E-mail: [email protected], Web: www.atla.com/ MICROFORM This journal is available on Microform from UMI, 300 North Zeeb Road, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346, USA. Phone: (313)761-4700 Subscriptions 2019 *Sterling rates do not apply to USA and Canada subscriptions. Please see below for further information. Institutions and Libraries Individuals Period UK Elsewhere UK Elsewhere Overseas* Overseas*

One Year: hard copy £86.00 £93.00 £49.00 £53.00 electronic version £86.00 £93.00 £49.00 £53.00 joint subscription £102.00 £110.00 £57.00 £61.00 Two/Three Years, per year hard copy £78.00 £83.00 £44.00 £47.00 electronic version £78.00 £83.00 £44.00 £47.00 joint subscription £93.00 £99.00 £53.00 £57.00

All USA and Canada subscriptions to: EBSCO Subscription Services, P.O. Box 1493, Birmingham, AL 35201-1943, USA All UK and International subscriptions to: Paternoster Periodicals, c/o AlphaGraphics, 3.2 Clarendon Park, Nottingham, NG5 1AH, UK Tel: UK 0800 597 5980; Fax: 0115 704 3327 Tel Overseas: +44 (0)115 704 3315; Fax: +44 (0)115 704 3327 Email [email protected] Subscriptions can be ordered online at: www.paternosterperiodicals.co.uk (Non USA and Canada subscriptions only) Special Offer All orders placed via our websites will receive a 5% discount off the total price.

RatesImportant displayed onNote the websitesto all Postal will reflect Subscribers this discount

always quote your Subscription Reference Number. When contacting our Subscription Office in Nottingham for any reason Photocopying Licensing No part of the material in this journal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, record- ing or otherwise without the prior permission of Paternoster Periodicals, except where a licence is held to make photocopies. Applications for such licences should be made to the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE. It is illegal to take multiple copies of copyright material. Evangelical Review of Theology A Global Forum

Volume 43 • Number 3 • July 2019 See back cover for Table of Contents

General Editor Dr Thomas Schirrmacher, Germany

Executive Editor Dr Bruce Barron, USA

Assistant Editor Dr Thomas K. Johnson, Czech Republic

Book Review Editor Dr Peirong Lin, Singapore

Committee Executive Committee of the WEA Theological Commission Dr Rosalee V. Ewell, Brazil, Executive Director Dr Thomas Schirrmacher, Germany, Executive Chair Dr James O. Nkansah, Kenya, Vice-Chair

Editorial Policy The articles in the Evangelical Review of Theology (ERT) of the authors and reviewers and do not necessarily represent those of the reflect the opinions Editors or the Publisher.

The Editors welcome both unsolicited submissions and recommendations of original or previously published articles or book reviews for inclusion in ERT. Manuscripts, reviews, queries and other communications may be addressed to the Executive Editor at [email protected].

Printed and bound in Great Britain for Paternoster Periodicals by AlphaGraphics, 8-9 Vanguard Court, Preston Farm, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 3TR ERT (2019) 43:1, 195 Editor’s Introduction: On Sex

Oh, did I get your attention? Well, the topic of sex, particularly issues of First, Gerald McDermott traces the sexual identity and expression, has historyare all of significant Christian andZionism, challenging. point- gotten a lot of Christians’ attention ing out that it dates back to the early recently. This themed issue on theo- church and is derived from plain in- logical anthropology includes three terpretations of Scripture. Thomas strong papers on that topic. K. Johnson pleads for a recovery of natural-law ethics as a way to build an engaging essay by internationally bridges to our neighbours who are not prominentBut first, Anglicanwe are pleased scholar to Stephen present yet Christian believers and to restore Noll. In his typically witty but trench- the lost soul of Western civilization. ant manner, he argues that switch- Johannes Reimer succinctly presents ing to gender-inclusive language for a rationale and framework for every people—not just for God—comes at a church and every individual Chris- high theological price. tian to engage in effective friendship Next, Gregory Coles, author of Sin- evangelism. Thomas Schirrmacher’s gle, Gay, Christian, explains why af- survey of perspectives on Christian - ethics demonstrates the inextricable bate believers is the right thing to do link between ethics and pursuing the bothfirming biblically the sexual and identity pastorally. of gay, Baptist celi honour and glory of God. pastor Joshua Steely contributes an enlightening and well-argued defence ninth article, as Schirrmacher, along of classical understandings of sexuali- withThe expressing first book appreciation review is actually for the a ty, grounded primarily in Genesis 1–2 but undergirded by broader biblical from the seventeenth-century Synod theology. Laywoman Kristina Pickett, offirst Dordt, volume gives of apublished fascinating, documents detailed who pursued a master’s degree in summary of the history of the Synod, theological studies after raising her which had enormous implications for children and did so well that her pro- the future of Calvinism. fessors urged her to start publishing, Themes for the next two issues are provides an impassioned examina- ‘Engagement in the Public Space’ and tion of where the evangelical church ‘Theological Education’. See the call - for papers on page 262. delity and what to do about it, against I would love to hear your feedback theis failing background in its teachings of progressive on sexual infi- or suggestions. Write to me at bruce. roads like the Emerging Church. [email protected]. The other four essays in this issue, Happy reading! though not directly tied to the theme, —Bruce Barron, Editor ERT (2019) 43:3, 196-204 Image-Bearers for God: Does Biblical Language for Man Matter?

Stephen Noll

On Ash Wednesday this year I at- matur of the International Council on tended my parish church and was English Liturgies. marked by the priest with the sign ‘But the Millennials simply don’t of the cross, along with the words: get it!’ Well, if, as they say, praying Remember that you are dust and to shapes believing (lex orandi, lex cre- dust you will return. As powerful as dendi), it is equally true that believ- the symbolism of the act is, the words ing shapes praying. And how shall they hear without a preacher? If ‘O Or is it just me recalling the old man’ is so obviously scandalous in fellwording: flat. Remember, O man, that thou our day, would it really be too much art dust and to dust thou shalt return? for the priest to give an explanation The priest pausing mid-sentence—‘O when inviting the people to the altar man’—and addressing each worship- rail? Perhaps, he might instruct them per as ‘thou’, rather than gliding past that bearing the name of Adam is of a with an indeterminate ‘you’. Each of piece with bearing the cross on one’s these ‘thou’s’ shares a common hu- brow. manity: all are man, heirs in sin of the My goal in this essay is to make a one earthly father and heirs in Christ case from Scripture for traditional of the one Heavenly Father. But it had language for man and for understand- to go, because the sin and shame of ing how men and women, each in a ‘man’, so we are told, is actually the particular way, are ‘image-bearers’ of sin and shame of ‘mansplaining’. God. In this whirlwind tour of the Bi- ble, I shall focus on the foundational ‘O man’. O person? O human? O dif- texts in Genesis, the gospels, and the ferentlySurely gendered one can ?find Failing a substitute that, just for letters of St. Paul. move on to O-mit. Hence the Anodyne Standard Version, which must be authoritative because it bears the impri-

Stephen Noll (PhD, University of Manchester) is Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania (USA) and retired Vice Chancellor of Uganda Christian University. He served on the Statement Group of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in 2008, 2013 and 2018 and is Special Advisor on the Global Anglican Future for the Anglican Church in North America. Many of his prominent essays on Anglican issues have been collected in The Global Anglican Communion: Contending for Anglicanism 1993–2018. He blogs at www.contendinganglican.org We appreciate permission from Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity to co-publish this article. Image-Bearers for God 197

I. Creation and Fall: From Man sexes, ‘male and female’, by which to Adam specifiesmeans they that are mankind commanded comes into two‘in- We begin at the beginning with lan- crease and multiply’ sexually. guage for God and man: ‘So God cre- Each of the creation narratives has ated man in his own image, in the im- a climactic moment. In Genesis 1, it is God creating mankind in his own female he created them’ (Gen 1:27). image. In Genesis 2, it is the male rec- Rightage of atGod the he outset, created let’s him; note: male gram- and ognizing his female counterpart. Yet matical gender and number do not al- Genesis 2 retains the use of the noun ways correspond to the referent. This is true in all gendered languages. So the Lord God formed the man (ha- in this verse, the one God of Israel ’adam‘man’ for) of the dust first from human the ground being: (‘Then’adu- (’elohim) is grammatically plural. In mah) and breathed into his nostrils Hebrew, ‘spirit’ (ruach) can be gram- the breath of life, and the man became matically feminine or masculine, and a living creature’ (Gen 2:7). in Greek it is grammatically neuter In this case, ‘the adam’ is both an (pneuma). It is also true that gen- individual male (Adam) and a generic dered nouns, pronouns, and verbs type (Man). His nature is twofold, often do indicate how the referent is with an earthy body (note the Hebrew conceived. word-play between ‘adam’ and ‘earth’, ‘God created man in his own im- similar to ‘human’ and ‘humus’) and a age.’ God is uniformly indicated in spiritual soul. As the narrative pro- both Testaments with masculine pronouns, as is the Spirit on occa- counterpart in the animal world, so sion (Jn 4:24). Grammatical gender gresses,God ‘builds’ this from solitary his body Man ‘the finds wom no- aside, the masculinity of God as re- an’: ‘Then the man (ha-’adam) said, vealed in Scripture is beyond dispute: “She (‘this one’) at last is bone of my the Son makes the Father known (Jn 1:18), and he is addressed by Jesus be called woman (ha-’ishah), because and the Holy Spirit as ‘Abba, Father’ bonesshe was and taken flesh out of myof man flesh; (ha-’ish she shall)” ’ The tri- (Gen 2:23). une God, while not male (Num 23:19), ‘Mankind’ is now seen in terms is(Lk masculine 14:36; Rom, and 8:15; any Gal attempt 4:6). to im- of two interrelated sexes referred to with the Hebrew word pair ’ish and idolatrous. ’ishah, ‘man and woman’, ‘husband agineSecond, a gender-fluid the Hebrew deity word isfor simply ‘man’ and wife’. The next verse completes (’adam) occurs grammatically in the the story of Adam in search of a wife singular only. There are no Adams with this moral: ‘Therefore a man nor Adamses in the Bible. Since the shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they the different ‘kinds’ of God’s creatures,first chapter it is proper, of Genesis I think, is to describing translate Man’s nature is now perfected in the the word as ‘man-kind’. Just as other shall become one flesh’ (Gen 2:24). verses in this chapter describe differ- that will lead to the propagation of ent creatures propagating ‘accord- one-fleshhumankind. union Despite of husband this anddifferen wife- ing to their kind’, so Genesis 1:27–28 tiation of the sexes, the Man contin- 198 Stephen Noll ues to head the new family: ‘And the II. Jesus, Son of Adam, Son of man (ha-’adam) and his wife (ha- God ’ishah) were both naked and were not The pattern of Genesis continues into This pattern of representation the gospels. According to Matthew’s continuesashamed’ (Genafter 2:25). the Fall. The Lord genealogy, Jesus is the promised mes- God calls the Man to account, saying, sianic Seed from Eve through a line- age of fathers, from Abraham and ‘Where art thou?’ God proceeds to judge each malefactor in the Fall in- David to Joseph of Nazareth. Matthew dividually, but the Man receives the highlights the promissory character of the Seed by adding the names of mankind—both sexes, present and the irregular mothers Tamar, Rahab future.final sentence of death on behalf of and Ruth, culminating in the Virgin With the Fall, we see the mor- Mary, Joseph’s betrothed, ‘of whom phing of the generic name ‘Man’ into Jesus was born, who is called the the personal name Adam, which is Christ’ (Mt 1:16). complete by the end of chapter 4 (cf. According to Luke’s genealogy, Je- sus is ‘son of Adam, son of God’ (Lk clearly the personal patriarch of the 3:38). He is son of Adam through Eve, human4:1 and race: 4:25). By chapter 5, Adam is and Son of God through Mary. Jesus is very man and very God. Mary is his This is the book of the generations human mother, daughter of Eve. She of Adam. In the day that God cre- is the virgin mother of Immanuel, ated man, in the likeness of God who is conceived by the Holy Spirit. - The Word is made man, not from the will of a human father but from God andmade called he him; their Male name and Adam, female in cre the (cf. Jn 1:13). dayated when he them; they were and blessedcreated. them,(Gen- The New Testament has two Greek words for man. The word anēr is From now on, history will be patri- archal,esis 5:1–2with the KJV) passing on of the fa- the word anthrōpos generally refers ther’s name to the next generation. togenerally mankind used or a for typical a particular man (e.g. man; Lk The establishment of patriarchy does not mean that the woman has ‘man’ in both the Old and New Tes- no part to play in the ongoing human taments,15:4). ‘Son with of man’a special is a sense synonym of the of history. Just as God had formed the transitory lifespan of ‘mortal man’ - came an animate body, now Eve will title ‘the Son of Man’ in speaking of his first man out of the dust so that he be own(Job 25:6).humiliation Jesus frequentlyand exaltation uses (Mkthe (Gen 3:20). Every ‘son of man,’ male andbecome female, the ‘motherwill be ‘bornof all livingof woman’ flesh’ Beneath Jesus’ usage of ‘Son of Man’10:45; lie 13:46). two key biblical texts: Psalm By subordinating her desire to her 8 and Daniel 7. The Psalmist ponders husband,(Job 14:1; she Mt will11:11; bear 1 Corearthly 11:1–12). ‘seed’ the mystery of God’s favour in over- who will ultimately trample on the reaching the angelic hierarchy and choosing mortal man as his royal covenant partner: Enemy (Gen 3:15–16). Image-Bearers for God 199

When I look at your heavens, the church. (Imagine a world without the word children.) and the stars, which you have set Whereas the Old Testament uses workin place, of yourwhat fingers,is man thethat moon you ‘brothers’ to indicate the entire peo- are mindful of him, and the son of ple of Israel in a patrilineal sense— man that you care for him? Yet you ‘your servants were twelve brothers, have made him a little lower than the sons of one man’ (Gen 42:13)—Je- the heavenly beings and crowned sus overturns this understanding in a him with glory and honour. You striking metaphor of family identity: have given him dominion over the While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and all things under his feet. (Ps 8:3–6) his brothers stood outside, asking In worksDaniel’s of vision, your hands; he sees you ‘one have like put a to speak to him. But he replied to son of man’ enthroned by the Ancient the man who told him, ‘Who is my of Days and given an everlasting do- mother, and who are my broth- minion (Dan 7:9–14). As in Psalm 8, ers?’ And stretching out his hand a mortal man is exalted to the throne toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here of God. The author of the letter to the are my mother and my brothers! Hebrews resolves the mystery of hu- For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and of Jesus’ royal priesthood, ‘crowned miliationwith glory and and exaltation honour because in the figureof the cf. 19:29) suffering of death, so that by the grace Forsister rhetorical and mother.’emphasis, (Mt Jesus 12:46–50; speaks of God he might taste death for every- particularly of ‘mother, brother, and one’ (Heb 2:9). sister’, but elsewhere he speaks col- The language of Christ’s mediatori- lectively: ‘And the King shall answer al Manhood appears also in Paul’s tes- and say unto them, Verily I say unto timony given to Timothy: ‘For there is you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one God, and there is one mediator one of the least of these my brethren, between God and men (anthrōpoi), ye have done it the man (anthrōpos) Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all’ KJV). Actually, ‘brethren’ in this verse is not merely a collectiveunto me’ (Mtplural 25:40 but modern revisers of the Nicene Creed rather corporate plural, as Jesus is (1broke Tim the 2:5–6). link in Not the surprisingly, traditional lan the- the invisible head of the needy body guage that ‘for us men and our sal- of brethren. To neglect or succour one vation … [Christ] was made man’ by brother is to do likewise to him. Jesus’ omitting ‘men’. usage was adopted by the apostles, who routinely addressed their fellow members of the body of Christ as III. Jesus and the Brethren ‘brethren’. It is unfortunate that brethren has fallen out of common usage and even out of modern Bible translations, be- IV. St. Paul on Adam and cause it captures a collective sense of Christ the word brother that is inherent in St. Paul’s recapitulation of biblical the usage of Jesus and the apostolic history in ‘the light of the gospel of 200 Stephen Noll the glory of Christ, who is the image last Adam became a life-giving of God’ (2 Cor 4:4) takes him back spirit. But it is not the spiritual

(anthrōpos): to Therefore, the beginning, just as to sin the came first into man the that is first but the natural, and world through one man, and death thenthe second the spiritual. man is from The heaven. first man (1 through sin, and so death spread was from the earth, a man of dust; to all men because all sinned—for The transformation of Jesus from the sin indeed was in the world before mortalCor 15:45–47)to the immortal begins with the law was given, but sin is not his being born of a woman, a son of counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Mo- Holy Spirit, he alone is empowered to ses, even over those whose sinning Adam;become however,a life-giving conceived spirit. Temporal by thewas not like the transgression of ly, that transformation is completed Adam, who was a type of the one with his death and resurrection: ‘For who was to come. But the free gift as by a man came death, by a man is not like the trespass. For if many has come also the resurrection of the died through one man’s trespass, dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in much more have the grace of God Christ shall all be made alive’ (1 Cor and the free gift by the grace of that - one man Jesus Christ abounded 15:21–22). For us, however, the trans formationthose who belong awaits to fulfilment: Christ’ (v. 23). ‘Christ for many. (Rom 5:12–15; cf. Eph the first-fruits, then at his coming 2:15–16) ‘Adam’ in two ways. There is the his- V. Paul and the Image of God Paul interprets the role of the first Clearly the ‘image of God’ is a central tenet in Paul’s teaching. The Son of thentorical there Adam, is the the prototypical first patriarch man of God is, according to Paul, ‘the image Genesisthe line 1–2. to Moses Although and Paul beyond; likely andun- derstood the spread of sin as having - a genetic basis, his primary reference ofvine the prototype invisible who, God, while the firstborn in the form of to Adam is in the second role ‘in that allof God, creation’ put on (Col the 1:15). form Heof a is servant the di [or in whom] all men sinned’, which and in the ‘likeness of Man’ humbled clearly includes Adam and Eve, males and females, down through history. Similarly, he sees Jesus as the Second himselfshare his to risen death glory on a incross hope: (Phil ‘Just 2:5– as Adam, the ‘one Man’ through whom 8).we Believers,have borne while the image still in of the the flesh,man the grace of God abounded for many. of dust, we shall also bear the image In his great chapter on the Resur- rection, Paul makes clear that Jesus In the above passages, Paul speaks ofgenerically the man ofof heaven’ man (1(anthrōpos Cor 15:49).) in in being a sinless man of dust, but in God’s image, irrespective of sexual havingdiffers froma unique the first heavenly Adam originnot simply and difference. In one passage, however, destination: he does elaborate on how male and female sexes—the man and the woman—participate in the image. In ar- Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the Image-Bearers for God 201 guing that women in Corinth should Paul’s argument here may raise the wear a head covering in worship (1 question, for modern readers at least: Cor 11:2–16), Paul states, ‘I want you ‘You mean women are not made in the to understand that the head of every image of God?’ I think Paul would re- man is Christ, the head of the woman ply, ‘I don’t care for the way you have is the man (anēr ESV translates phrased the question. Women and ‘her husband’) and the head of Christ men both bear God’s image from the is God’ (11:3). ; the beginning, but each in a particular The operative word that distin- way.’ Women share in God’s image ‘in guishes the divine persons and the Adam’, in mankind, and through bap- human sexes is ‘head’ (Grk. kephalē). tism in Christ, the Second Adam, who The head, as I interpret it, is the rep- is the true image of God (Gal 3:28). resentative member or ‘icon’ of corporate identity. Christ is the Head or to their husband and bear that image ‘icon’ of the new humanity, the Second throughWomen reflecttheir children.the glory ofThis that is image what he does in effect say in verses 11 and ‘icon’ of the human family. The Father 12: Adam;is not anthe icon man but (male) the primalis the head Source or (another sense of kephalē), the ‘font In Christ, Woman is not complete of divinity’, from whom all things take without Man, nor is Man complete their being (1 Cor 8:6). without Woman. For just as Wom- - makes the point that in the beginning mal image, so she bears his image thereConflating was only Genesis one ‘adam 1 and’ in 2, God’s Paul physicallyan reflects through back to childbirth. Man his priSo image: Man and Woman are both image- bearers For a man (anēr) ought not to cover (my paraphrase) his head, since he is the image and ; and all things are of God. glory of God, but woman is the glo- The delicate issue in Corinth has to do ry of man. For man was not made with how men and women, who bear from woman, but woman from God’s image equally but differently, man. Neither was man created [to interact when they step outside the family and into the assembled body

reflectfor man. Christ’s (1 Cor 11:7–9 glory] with for woman, my ad- Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11 butditions woman and emphases)[to reflect man’s glory] isof notChrist some (cf. trivial1 Cor 14:34–35).defence of Hencehead- In this particular context, ‘image’ gear but an application of his gospel, (Grk. eikon) represents and ‘glory’ reflects. The man is the image and glory human nature in the image of God in of God because he heads the human Christhis first (see principles, verses 2 and his 16). tradition—of

Christ publicly, before God and man family(cf. Lk 12:8). and reflectsThe man God’s represents glory the in VI. Image-Bearers in Marriage human race, whereas the woman, The way in which male and female ‘bear’ God’s image is not mutual in the sense of identical and interchangea- formed subsequently, reflectsshe now back is ble but complementary in the sense of and fulfils the man’s own ‘glory’ in the distinctive and interconnected. (The one-flesh union with him (‘ flesh of my flesh’). 202 Stephen Noll demeaning of the word ‘complemen- ing with water through the word’ tary’ today is itself a sign of the po- liticizing of language which this essay addresses.) With this terminology in (Ephperfect 4:25–26). love of the The divine husband’s Bridegroom: love is mind, we now turn to Paul’s teaching not worldly desire of the flesh but the on the relations of husband and wife. ‘YouThis areis thealtogether costly beautiful,love (agapē my) love;that 11, there is a ‘hierarchy’ of headship. thereChrist isdemonstrated no flaw in you’ when (Song he 4:7).gave In Ephesians 5, as in 1 Corinthians himself up for the Church. The mutual with thanks ‘to God the Father in the subjection of husband and wife out of Thename first of ourhalf Lordof the Jesus chapter Christ’, concludes which reverence for Christ is, St. Paul claims, leads to the exhortation to ‘be subject to one another out of reverence for roles of husband and wife are distinct, - afashioned profound on mystery the created (Eph distinction 5:32). The mission in Christ takes a particular of male and female yet conjoined in Christ’form in (Eph the relations 5:20–21). of Mutual wives suband ‘imaging’ Jesus Christ and his church. husbands: In this passage, Paul makes no ref- Wives, submit to your own hus- erence to the bearing and rearing of bands, as to the Lord. For the hus- children, but it is implicit in the in- band (anēr) is the head of the wife struction of children and the house- even as Christ is the head of the hold that follows in chapter 6 (cf. Tit church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. Now as the church sub- to be a provider and defender of his mits to Christ, so also wives should 2:3–5).wife and The children, husband but shouldI am not aspire sure submit in everything to their hus- that this captures his distinctive role as representative head of the family. The Greek word translated ‘submit’ At the climax of the traditional Angli- (hupotassesthebands. (Eph )5:22–24) means taking one’s can wedding service, the priest says, place in the divine plan of creation ‘I now pronounce that they be Man and salvation. The married couple and Wife together in the name of the images Christ’s saving relationship Father and of the Son and of the Holy to the church. The wife receives the Spirit’ (recent revisions have substi- man’s love and returns the glory of his tuted ‘husband and wife’). As ‘man’ image. The model of wifely submis- the husband is to serve as Christ’s sion is not childish or slavish obedi- delegate on behalf of his family in the ence (cf. Eph 6:1–4) but the gracious world. humility of the Virgin Mary: ‘Be it Not so many years ago, a wife unto me according to your word.’ Her would identify herself as ‘Mrs. Adam role is that of the church submitting Jones’, even after her husband had to Christ her Head, who is preparing died. She did not consider this a case her as a spotless Bride (v. 27). of being ‘owned’ by her husband or Paul goes on at greater length to submerging her personality into his but being joined with him in one in- place in this order: ‘Husbands, love dissoluble unit—‘Man and Wife to- exhortyour wives, husbands as Christ likewise loved to the find church their gether’. She bore his name with hon- and gave himself up for her to make our, as did the children she bore to her holy, cleansing her by the wash- him, just as he and she together with Image-Bearers for God 203 their children bore their baptismal family and in the church and world, names in the name of the triune God. and in so doing honour your wife Names matter, to God and to us. and children!’ I would also say this One could, I suppose, caricature to young women and wives: ‘Play the the image of husband and wife in man, ladies! Don’t disown your man- terms of a knight in shining armour hood! You were created in Adam, just and a damsel in distress. That is not as you are reborn in Christ. Submit Paul’s view. For Paul, all Christians to Christ as your Head! Submit to the are to put on the whole armour of God headship of your husband, even when (Eph 6:11–20), which includes a kind that requires the patient courage of of female militancy (‘archery’ in Nar- the martyrs.’ (Such courage means nia). Instances abound: the prostitute that in situations of death or abuse, a who gives false testimony to save her widow or a wife may have to play the role of head of household.) who encourages her seven sons to sondie nobly (1 Kings for God’s 3:16–27); Law (2 the Maccabees mother VII. Remember, O Man, the Anna ‘worshipping with fasting and Language of Scripture 7:20–23); the prayer warriors like This essay began as an examination of Helena and Monica, praying for their liturgical language for man and pro- prayersons’ conversion. night and Theday’ church(Lk 2:37); has andhad ceeded to examine key texts from the its female monastics and martyrs, Bible. I have argued that the corpo- who have been honoured for their rate or representative sense of mas- single-minded devotion to the Bride- culine nouns and pronouns is not an groom. indifferent matter. Indeed, the church herself is repre- In a little treatise on The Language sented as a woman whose Son crushes of Canaan and the Grammar of Femi- the Dragon’s head (Rev 12:1–6). Men nism (Eerdmans, 1982), Vernard Eller and women together are called to be comments on language for the ‘repre- contending churchmen, sisters of the sentative individual’: elect lady (2 Jn 1, 13). For this reason, ‘My readers’ is an idea totally dif- according to the Book of Common ferent from ‘my reader’. ‘My read- Prayer, babies (both male and female) are marked with the sign of the cross, person. The Bible, of course, could with the pledge that they ‘shall not be ers’not areeven a statistic;get its message ‘my reader’ off isthe a ashamed to confess the faith of Christ ground without using this rep- manfully resentative individual device— his banner against sin, the world and largely, I suppose, because of its crucified,the devil’ (emphasisand added). to fight under profound commitment to the ‘man’ The Anglican martyr Hugh Latimer anthropology. (page 16) is said to have encouraged his fellow martyr Nicholas Ridley with the He continues by pointing out a second words, ‘Play the man, Master Ridley!’ I necessary quality of the representa- know this advice goes utterly contra- tive language, its communal dimen- ry to the spirit of our age, but I would sion: say to young men and husbands to- Undoubtedly the Bible also uses day: ‘Play the man, gentlemen, in your [this device] to underline its own 204 Stephen Noll

understanding of the nature and evangelicals, who made the pragmatic importance of community. Often language for God. I was in that camp. as much challenges to an ideal as Indecision retrospect, to limit I think the fight that towas inclusive a mis- theythese are representational descriptions of figureswhat actu are- take. By surrendering to the designer ally obtains. usage of ‘he or she’, then ‘she or he’, Finally, he notes that the Bible’s use - of generic masculine pronouns allows nally ‘zhe’, we opened ourselves to the it to avoid the distraction of dual gen- nextthen questions:‘s/he’, then ‘How ‘they’ can (sing.), I relate and to fi a ders in order to highlight the corpo- Father God and a male Saviour?’ and rate, and in this case feminine, char- ‘If grammatical gender is an indiffer- acter of the church: ent matter, what about gender more Thus the church is to be feminine in relation to what? To the mascu- Is it possible to revert to the usage linity of God (or Christ), of course. ofgenerally?’ yore (yore All fifty-seven varieties. And the relationship is just as es- years back)? Let me put it this way: sential the other way around: the does biblical language itself being for man about in fiftythe masculinity of God has no meaning image of God matter? If it is a matter at all unless there is a femininity toward which it can act ‘mascu- can we not uphold the faith of our fa- linely’ (page 17). thersof fidelity and their to God’s language Word, of worship? then how If the language of Scripture and As a striking example of the corporate worship is a mirror of the soul, then feminine, consider this famous hymn: it is as image-bearers of God in Christ The church’s one foundation is Je- back to my opening illustration, if the She is his new creation, by water markthat weof ashes find ouron the true forehead selves. is Going also sus Christ her Lord; a mark of the promised seal of salva- From heav’n he came and sought tion (Rev 7:3), how can we not wel- and the Word; come the companion words as well? If With his own blood he bought her, with the church we men of dust await andher tofor be her his life holy he bride;died. the consummation of her vision glori- Try substituting ‘it’ for ‘she’. It dies. ous—if the right Man on our side, the So far as I can see, Eller’s arguments were never engaged, even by can sing to that! second Adam to the fight, is Jesus—I ERT (2019) 43:3, 205-216 Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual Identities?

Gregory Coles

In the house where I grew up, on a needed to name and acknowledge bookshelf in the middle of the up- their sexuality in order to guard wise- stairs hall, my parents kept three or ly against its temptations and learn to four books for Christian young men steward it well. These boys were the learning to respond to sexual tempta- ones whose shame could be supplant- tion with integrity. When the chimes ed by a vocation of obedience. of my biological clock began an- For me—a young man attracted to nouncing puberty, I made my dutiful other men, and not to women in the pilgrimage to that bookshelf. slightest—the shame had no such re- From those books, I learned that prieve. Christian young men needed to reck- When I began, more than a decade on honestly with the reality of our later, to publicly call myself a ‘celi- sexuality. We needed to be cautious bate gay Christian’, I was motivated in of where we let our eyes linger and part by a desire to see the wisest in- avoid situations that exacerbated sights of those old books extended to temptation. We needed to be open boys like me. I hoped that those of us with one another and hold one an- whose experience of sexuality looked other accountable. Instead of feeling different from most of our peers’ ex- shame and self-hatred when we experienced arousal or attraction, we hope, encouragement toward holi- needed to submit our involuntary im- periencesness and freedom might stillfrom find shame guidance, within pulses to the lordship of Jesus, choos- the family of God. ing not to fantasize about or pursue Adopting the word gay was not, for - me, an attempt to declare a totalizing enant of marriage. new identity which superseded my sexualAll this gratification might have outside been decent the cov ad- identity as a follower of Christ. It was vice for a boy my age, if it had been simply an attempt to communicate as written for me. But it wasn’t written honestly as I could to as many people for me. It was written for the kind as possible. Along with many other of boys whom today’s parlance calls same-sex-oriented Christians, I have ‘straight’—boys whose involuntary found that words like gay, lesbian and arousal and attraction were triggered bisexual—words collectively known by women (and only by women). as sexual identity labels—can facili- These boys were the ones called to tate important conversations about openness and honesty, the ones who vocation and obedience to Jesus for

Gregory Coles (PhD, Penn State University) is an instructor in rhetoric and author of Single, Gay, Chris- tian: A Personal Journey of Faith and Sexual Identity (InterVarsity). 206 Gregory Coles those of us with non-normative expe- experience some degree of attraction riences of sexuality. to the same sex must describe them- In many evangelical spaces, how- selves with such language. Rather, ever, to refer to oneself as gay while I simply wish to demonstrate that continuing to uphold the historic - Christian sexual ethic is to court con- ty labels helpful can indeed use them troversy. Critics of sexual identity lan- thosewithout of alteringus who doour find cardinal sexual identity identi guage worry that, by adopting such as followers of Jesus. By recognizing language, people like me accord too the linguistic latitude that exists for - Christians in the realm of sexual iden- uality. For these critics, naming sexual tity, evangelicals can avoid placing un- highidentity and and too fixedasserting a status the tolikely our persex- necessary burdens and strictures on manence of sexual orientation in this same-sex-oriented people seeking to lifetime signal the adoption of unbib- follow Jesus. lical anthropological categories which blunt the keenness of our devotion to Christ. Far better, the critics argue, for I. Understanding Opposition us to name our sexuality only in terms to Sexual Identity and categories drawn directly from Criticisms of the term gay (and com- the Bible. parable terms like lesbian, bisexual This essay considers how biblical and queer) as applied to Christians anthropology should inform and de- with a historic Christian sexual ethic limit the evangelical Christian debate can be (and have been) levelled at over sexual identity. First, I lay out a variety of registers. However, the some of the most prominent objections to sexual identity categories and here concerned centres on the notion language, examining the underlying specific criticism with which we are claims about biblical anthropology the case succinctly: ‘You cannot have which motivate these objections. Sec- ofunion identity. with ChristRosaria if youButterfield have made states an ond, I turn to the question of gram- identity out of anything else, includ- matical ontology, proposing that the categories of identity and being do that the demands of Christian identity not function as monolithic in the bib- ingare yourso total sexuality.’ that they Butterfield require disiden argues- lical texts. Third, I suggest how sexual identity labels equip us to grapple identity. The verbal acknowledge- pragmatically with the current post- tificationment of any from sexual any other identity competing recog- lapsarian state of all humanity, as well nized by modern categories of sexual as how such labels might catalyse orientation is, she argues, an extra- anthropological investigation which biblical nomenclature that thereby limns the goodness of God’s original contradicts biblical conceptions of design. Finally, I caution against over- sexuality. She concludes, ‘Sexual iden- extensions of biblical anthropology tity is incompatible with union with which seek to extract from the Bible Christ.’1 answers to questions the Bible does not intend to answer. In defending sexual identity lan- 1 guage, I am not insisting that all who Christianity” Is Not Reformed and Biblical Rosaria Butterfield, ‘Why “Celibate Gay Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual Identities? 207

- longer. They were drunkards, but ment have been echoed by a number are not any longer. They were ho- of Variousprominent forms evangelical of Butterfield’s leaders— argu mosexuals (whether the mala- especially those who hail from Re- koi or the arsenokoitai, the passive formed traditions—including Albert or active homosexual partner, re- Mohler, Owen Strachan, Christopher spectively, according to the Greek) Yuan and Denny Burk. Both Mohler but are not any longer.3 and Strachan root their objections in Though Strachan makes a distinc- 1 Corinthians 6:9–11: tion between sexual identity and Or do you not know that wrongdo- sexual practice, he argues that both ers will not inherit the kingdom of gay identity and same-sex sexual God? Do not be deceived: Neither behaviour are equally forbidden by the sexually immoral nor idolaters Paul’s words. For Strachan, the shift nor adulterers nor men who have Paul commends to his readers is as sex with men nor thieves nor the much a shift in self-conception as it is greedy nor drunkards nor slander- a shift in behaviours or lusts. ‘If ever ers nor swindlers will inherit the there was an opportunity for Paul kingdom of God. And that is what to allow a group of sinners to hold some of you were. But you were onto their fallen identity, it was the Corinthian church. But Paul did not encourage the Corinthians—former Lordwashed, Jesus you Christ were and sanctified, by the Spirit you swindlers, idol-worshippers, homo- ofwere our justifiedGod. in the name of the sexuals, and fornicators—to do this. - He taught them gospel-driven Chris- ing oneself as gay is, Mohler asserts, tianity. He taught them new-nature ‘theThe idea fundamental that any flawbeliever with can identify claim Christianity.’4 identity with a pattern of sexual at- This new-nature Christianity, Stra- traction that is itself sinful. The Apos- chan argues, leaves no room for a self- - understanding of persistent same-sex tively’ (in 1 Corinthians 6).2 Strachan orientation. It does, he concedes, tleextends Paul answersthe same this argument question further: defini leave room for people to continue ex- Paul views the Corinthians as periencing certain patterns of temp- having broken decisively with tation, but he maintains that such pat- their old identity and practice. They were thieves, but are not any of sexual identity. In fact, he goes so farterns as mustto suggest not be that reified identity in the is form the linchpin of Paul’s vision of holiness: Christianity: Understanding the Vocabulary and Theology Behind the New “Gay Chris- tian” Movement’, 31 July 2018, https://www. 3 youtube.com/watch?v=xVjj_dDAxLA. “Gay Christianity”, and the Apostle Paul’s 2 - Showstopper Strachan, ‘OnWords the to Revoice the Corinthians’, Conference, tures? Revoice, LGBT Identity, and Bibli- 1 June 2018, https://www.patheos.com/ cal Albert Christianity’, Mohler, 2 ‘Torn August Between 2018, Twohttps:// Cul blogs/thoughtlife/2018/06/on-revoice-gay- albertmohler.com/2018/08/02/torn-two- christianity-and-the-apostle-pauls-show- cultures-revoice-lgbt-identity-biblical-chris- stopper-words-to-the-corinthians/. tianity/. 4

Strachan, ‘On the Revoice Conference’. 208 Gregory Coles

The key plank in the New Testa- Yuan is quick to clarify that the sin of same-sex attraction is not ‘actual sin’ is identity. … There are Christians but ‘original sin’. A person is therefore ment doctrine of sanctification not morally culpable, he argues, for attractions and temptations—this, simply experiencing the capacity for whoin fact, are is fighting all of us. all But sorts there of sinfulis no same-sex sexual temptation. Yet this such thing as gay Christianity. capacity is nonetheless sinful because There can be no connection beof its etiology in the Fall, and Chris- tians must therefore seek to distance and the Spirit, the church and the themselves from it and refuse to iden- tweenworld. If Christ we teach and that Satan, there the is, flesh we tify with it. dishonor, disobey, and even silence All these arguments share a resis- the words of the apostle Paul to the tance to nomenclatures developed Corinthians. from anthropological sources other That Strachan’s5 argument depicts than the Bible. Secular anthropologi- the whole experience of being gay as cal divisions are regarded as irrepa- always and only sinful should not be rably infected by the secular world- missed. Indeed, when critics of sexual identity language lay out their alternative proposal for the categorization viewskitchen of washrags, those who carry developed and distrib them;- of same-sex sexuality, using the cat- asute Butterfieldhistory (and writes, bacteria) ‘Words, with each like egories available within their bibli- use, and the category-invention of sexual orientation brings much bac- cal anthropology, they almost unani- 7 mously place it within the category of teria with it.’ Thus, Denny Burk ar- ‘sin’. On these grounds, Christopher gues, ‘If there is to be a recovery and Yuan argues that all talk of ‘sexual ori- renewal of Christian conscience on entation’ among Christians ought to sexuality issues, secular identity the- be exchanged for talk of sin and sanc- ories must give way to God’s design as revealed in nature and scripture.’8 For these critics, a biblical response to When there’s a choice between a tification: non-normative experiences of sexual- biblical framework and a secular ity can be achieved only by rejecting one, should not Christians favor all talk of sexual orientation, sexual the biblical over the secular? And identity, or any other anthropological might God’s word provide us a nomenclature extrabiblically derived. better framework for understand- I share some of the theological and ing the capacity to experience un- pastoral commitments that motivate chosen and persistent sexual and the concerns of these critics. To the romantic desires toward the same degree that any self-understanding sex? Yes, it does. That framework is called sin.6 7 Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Rosaria Identity Butterfield, and Union with Christ (Pitts- 5 6 8 Single, Gay, Christian, 2018, Strachan, https://www.desiringgod.org/arti ‘On the Revoice Conference’. - 11burgh, October PA: Crown 2017, & Covenant,http://www.dennyburk. 2015), 96. cles/is-anyone-born-gay. Yuan, ‘Is Anyone Born Gay?’ 8 September com/book-review-of-single-gay-christian/. Burk, book review of Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual Identities? 209 or identity exists in competition with contracted form of the Greek copula our identity in Christ, I agree that (from which our English word ontol- - ogy is derived) in each identity pair- gree that any linguistic frame invokes ing it negates. To carry this argument aChristians logic irredeemably must flee from contradictory it. To the de to to its logical conclusion, however, biblical truth, I agree that this linguis- would suggest that Paul also wishes tic frame must be abandoned. - Yet the claim that sexual identity tion with their male or female sex,10 language inevitably leads into such er- anto prohibitimplication Christians’ which those self-identifica who wish rors—or that the avoidance of sexual to avoid discussion of Christian racial identity language inoculates a person difference are rarely keen to consider. against such errors—is neither bibli- To read Galatians 3 as a prohibition cally nor linguistically sound. of all linguistic identity categories other than Christian identity is, more- over, to read Paul in contradiction to II. The Grammatical Ontology his own corpus. Had Paul intended of Identity In Galatians 3:26–28, Paul offers a of Christians within racial catego- compelling account of the all-con- ries,to forbid then thehis linguisticconfrontation identification of Peter suming identity found in Christ: ‘So recounted in the previous chapter of in Christ Jesus you are all children Galatians would have been hypocriti- of God through faith, for all of you cal for its grammatically ontological who were baptized into Christ have naming of racial identity: ‘You are a 11 clothed yourselves with Christ. There Jew’ (Gal 2:14). Had Paul intended is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and of slaves and free people with their female, for you are all one in Christ socialto forbid status the and linguistic of men identification and women work of Christ, as received through ‘nor is there male kai female’ may indicate baptismJesus.’ The into supremacy his body, of sothe outstrips finished that the identity at issue here is not sex per every other differentiating identity se but marital status, since the same Greek that it renders those identities com- phrase arsen kai thēlu also appears in Jesus’ paratively meaningless. quotation of the Genesis creation account Some readers of Paul’s words in Galatians 3 have taken them as a pro- use(Mt of19:4; the Mk phrase 10:6) arsen in a conversation kai thēlu, however, about the nature of marriage. The first Septuagint racial difference in the body of Christ. appears as an elaboration of the manner in which God created humankind in his image Afterhibition all, of in any its self-identificationmost literal grammati with- (Gen 1:27) and does seem concerned pri- cal sense, Paul does indeed declare marily with sex difference rather than mari- an ontological negation of racial dif- tal union. Regardless of whether Paul has ference, as well as social difference sex difference or marital status primarily in and sex difference.9 Verse 28 uses a mind, the broader point about Paul’s treatment of identity remains unchanged. 10 9 oude separating the per the above footnote. nouns in the constructions ‘neither Jew oude 11 Or, perhaps, with their marital status, as Gentile’ Paul’s and shift ‘neither from slave oude free’ to kai in ‘are’ (Greek ei) here. Observe the appearance of the copula 210 Gregory Coles

contradiction. The grammatical on- - tology of identity does not contradict with their sexes, his status-specific- - andboten. sex-specific For Paul, statementsit seems, obedience in Ephe mation of identity are rooted in real siansto Jesus 5 and must 6 wouldat times likewise be negotiated be ver itsand opposites. necessary Both spiritual negation realities. and affir13 To precisely through the lens of a believ- claim, then, as critics of sexual identi- er’s various other identities, in order ty language have sometimes claimed, to reckon well with how those identi- that the adoption of any identity be- ties ought rightly to inform and be in- yond identity in Christ signals an ob- formed by the believer’s overarching vious supplanting of Christian iden- identity in Christ. tity is to take a different approach to What Paul’s statement in Galatians the language of identity from the one 3, read alongside the acknowledge- taken by the apostle Paul. ments of identity throughout his epis- The utility of identity categories tles, demonstrates so well is the real- persists even when these categories ity that the secondary identities of the include certain likely temptations to- Christian—national identities, racial wards or expressions of sinfulness. identities, gender identities, and so The category of ‘Gentile’ in Paul’s day forth—must be at times either deem- was typically marked by a neglect of phasized or reemphasized according service to the one true God, signalling to situational need.12 When too great possible proximity to a host of temp- a focus on identity difference inhibits tations. Yet Paul insisted that aban- Christian unity (especially when it donment of Gentile identity was not serves as a rationale for inequality), a prerequisite for obedience to Jesus. Paul uses the language of ontological Even today, categories of racial and negation to reinstate the supremacy national identity bring with them a of identity in Christ. When failure to acknowledge identity difference re- one need only think of how often sults in a failure to manifest Christ vulnerabilityphrases like ‘American to certain Christian’ temptations; shift within a person’s particular vocation, from a plain statement of nationality Paul uses the language of ontological to an assertion of idolatrous nationalism. Yet the potential for idolatry relevance of lived diversity within the should not thereby inhibit American affirmationbody of Christ. to show the continuing citizens, or anyone, from naming their Notably, both Paul’s deemphasis nationality. and his reemphasis of identity are For several reasons (some of which made in grammatically ontological I discuss below), I push back against ways, insofar as they involve use of the claims by critics of sexual identity the copula and make claims about language that the experiential state ‘being’. For Paul, ‘You are a Jew’ and named by words like gay and lesbi- ‘there is no Jew’ are statements that must exist in tension rather than in 13 grammatical opposites always indicate con- 12 - ceptual Regarding contradictions the objection and therefore that linguistic cannot or from We several might of add, his too,own that identities Paul’s issimultane modeled which the reader is called both not to answer inous Philippians identification 3:4–11. with and disidentification andexist to in answer the Bible, a fool. note Proverbs 26:4–5, in Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual Identities? 211 an is best recategorized as sin, even and postlapsarian in nature. I disa- nonculpable original sin. But insofar gree that this component necessarily as gay does indeed name a set of ca- represents the whole of same-sex ori- pacities to be tempted towards cer- entation, as I will discuss in the next tain forms of sinfulness (just as the section. I likewise disagree that the often unnamed ‘straight’ orientation postlapsarian component of same- carries a different set of capacities toward sinfulness), I would maintain as sin when it represents neither cho- that the acknowledgement of these sexsen orientationlust nor physical ought tosexual be classified behav- capacities is part and parcel of our ca- iour, nor even an active experience of pacity to live wisely and receive grace temptation, but only the capacity to in the midst of them. experience temptation. To name the Those who describe ourselves capacity to experience temptation with the language of sexual identity as itself categorical sin seems incon- while remaining committed to the gruous with the Bible’s clarity that historic Christian sexual ethic are Jesus himself was ‘tempted in every not seeking by this linguistic identity way, just as we are—yet he did not statement to displace the primacy of Christian identity. Indeed, as Johanna temptation of Jesus was of an alto- Finegan observes, ‘If you are living sin’gether (Heb different 4:15). Burkkind fromargues the that temp the- in obedience to biblical teaching, ab- staining from the sexual and romantic In the wilderness temptation, the relationships you most desire … there tationenticement which he to classifies sin came as sinful:from Sa- is no serious debate to be had over tan, not from Jesus. And that is why which is more central to who you are, Jesus was able to be tempted and your faith or your sexuality.’14 Rather, in making grammatically ontological when the enticement to sin emerg- statements like ‘I am gay’, Christians yetes from be without our own sin sinful (Heb. nature, 4:15). thatBut like Finegan and me are seeking to is an entirely different matter. In do the same identity work we see ex- that case, the temptation itself is sinful. That is an experience that complete honesty our experience of is unique to sinners and that Jesus theemplified world in order Scripture, to best naming encounter with himself never experienced. Christ within that experience. Burk’s omission, in his paraphrase15

emphasize the similarity of Jesus’ III. Acknowledging oftemptation Hebrews to4:15, that of of the his words followers— which Postlapsarian Reality ‘in every way, just as we are’—is per- I agree with the critics of sexual iden- haps telling. For Burk’s argument to tity language that one component of hold, Jesus must in fact be tempted same-sex orientation is clearly fallen only in some ways, not precisely as we are. Nate Collins and I have respond-

14 Conference: Johanna Finegan’, 1 Au- 15 gust Finegan, 2018, ‘Spiritualhttps://www.youtube.com/ Friendship Pre- 2018, http://www.dennyburk.com/is-temp- watch?v=FG0fev-WtQE. tation-sinful/. Burk, ‘Is Temptation Sinful?’ 11 July 212 Gregory Coles ed to Burk’s theology of temptation- Once we have acknowledged that as-sin at some length,16 so I will not living honestly in a postlapsarian rehearse those arguments here. For world requires some kind of linguistic the present conversation, however, acknowledgement of our own capaci- the claims of Burk and Yuan that the ties for sinfulness, the case against capacity to experience same-sex sex- using the word gay becomes some- ual temptation is itself already a form what murkier. If indeed same-sex- of sin need not be overturned. Even if such an argument were granted, it a word which adequately expresses would not thereby negate the poten- orientedtheir capacity people’s for sinfulness, mission is so to that find tial value of sexual identity language they can respond wisely to and take for truthfully communicating post- precautions in recognition of that ca- lapsarian reality. pacity, gay seems well suited to per- Evangelical books for young men form that work. The objection that wishing to foster sexual purity, like gay too plainly implicates a capacity the books I read as a pubescent book- for sinfulness makes little sense as a shelf-lurker, tend to be united in their rebuttal here, since the risk of poten- suggestion that men must deal openly tial temptation is precisely the thing and honestly with the temptations being named. Expunging the word they experience, confess moments from our vocabulary does not change of failure, and set realistic bounda- the fact that we live in a postlapsar- ries so as to not expose themselves ian world where some of us do indeed to unnecessary temptation. Though experience attraction to the same sex. the conversations within these books As Finegan rightly quips, ‘In general, usually assume heterosexual orienta- outside of Christian circles, the re- tion, similar principles apply equally fusal to use the word “gay” to refer for those attracted to the same sex. to those who are predominantly at- Just as straight men’s isolation tends tracted to their own sex is a refusal to to lead to unwise choices in the realm speak English.’17 If we lose the ability of sexuality, so too does gay men’s iso- to name our sexuality, we don’t lose lation. Just as straight men would be our capacity for temptation, but we wise to exercise caution in encounters may lose our ability to think clearly with scantily clad women, so gay men about how to live wisely in light of would be wise to exercise caution in that reality. encounters with scantily clad men. Openness and thoughtful reckoning with temptation require some form IV. Imagining Prelapsarian of whether the words we choose are Intent Even if the term and other sexual ofsexual linguistic identity identification, labels. regardless gay identity labels were to refer exclusively to the capacity to experience 16 certain forms of temptation, I would Sex Attraction (or ‘Being Gay’) a Sin?’ Center maintain that they are communica- for Nate Faith, Collins Sexuality and &Gregory Gender Coles,, n.d., ‘Ishttps:// Same- www.centerforfaith.com/resources/pastoral-papers/03-is-same-sex-attraction-or- 17 - being-gay-a-sin. ference’. Finegan, ‘Spiritual Friendship Pre-Con Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual Identities? 213 tively useful terms. In addition, how- logical thinkers face different strug- ever, I hold that acknowledging and gles than creatively unsystematic naming current experiences of sexu- thinkers. No disposition is immune to ality equips us not only to live wise- brokenness, but not every disposition ly despite our ongoing capacity for shares identical impulses towards temptation but also to discern the as- brokenness. Every broken disposition likewise the goodness of God’s original design. represents an invitation to redemp- pectsTo beof ourclear, experience I am not claimingwhich reflect that tion. And just as the bent towards bro- the capacity to experience sexual kenness differs, so too the gifting and desire for the same sex—which is disposition of the redeemed person may differ. The extrovert who is eas- what we might call ‘gay orientation’— ily tempted into performance mental- certainlyis part of a God’s significant prelapsarian component intent of ity and reliance on other people’s af- for humanity. Neither is the capacity to experience sexual desire for the when she is transformed by the gos- opposite sex outside the covenant of firmationpel. By the need same not token, become the introverta hermit marriage, even though that is like- who repents of his general lack of love for people need not become a social- we might call ‘straight orientation’. ite to evince his transformation. wiseIndeed, a significant to try through component the lens of of what cur- The naming of dispositional cat- rent human understanding and cur- egories, in these cases, becomes a rent human language to characterize strategy not only for addressing the the totality of God’s design for human sins that are most tempting within a sexuality is always an anachronistic given disposition but also for pursu- enterprise, insofar as we take words ing the likely glories that await the tainted by the impact of the Fall and obedient follower of Jesus within that seek to apply them to a world where disposition. Such dispositional identi- the Fall has not yet occurred. To say ties need not be named by the Bible that any sexual orientation existed or traditionally included within bibli- before the Fall is to superimpose the cal anthropology to offer potential il- brokenness of our current state back lumination to followers of Jesus. onto the wholeness of our original de- Take extroversion and introver- sign. sion as examples. There is no direct Yet the brokenness introduced by biblical teaching on such categories the Fall undoubtedly touches people of personality identity. The question in different ways. Some people’s pride of whether extroverts and introverts tends to manifest in legalistic rule-fol- existed before the Fall—whether dif- lowing and judgmentalism, whereas ferent levels of inclination to be ener- others tend toward rebellion and gized by human interaction represent rule-breaking. Some are predisposed categorical creational differences or towards bearing false witness in their some complex cocktail of nurture in a postlapsarian world—can only be others eagerly speak the unpleasant speculated upon, not answered de- eagernesstruth but tolack make an impulse everyone towards happy; - kindness. Extroverts face different dence about the prelapsarian world. struggles than introverts, and staid finitivelyEven so, there using can available be great biblical wisdom evi 214 Gregory Coles in learning to identify personality logize temptation and sin. Rather, the dispositions so that we can purpose- value of these distinctions lies in their fully consider how those dispositions removal of condemnation and shame might manifest themselves either in that have taken root where God may rebellion or in obedience to God. intend his children to take delight— In one sense, the utility of sexual just as I, for example, have learned to identity is not far removed from the delight in the ease with which I think utility of other dispositional identi- of my sisters in Christ ‘as sisters, with ties. The dispositions which I call - ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ are both, as we rience not even a hint of temptation have established above, manifesta- absoluteto sexually purity’ objectify (1 Tim them. 5:2) andMatthew expe tions of a broken postlapsarian ex- Lee Anderson puts the case for such istence. But they also both represent moral distinctions well: certain capacities toward particular The point of drawing the relevant avenues of holiness. For example, as distinctions is not to assure people a gay person with an exclusively ho- that their sin is ‘not as bad’ as they mosexual orientation, I experience believed, but to help them discern absolutely no capacity for temptation what their sin is—and is not. It is to lust after women. For myself and possible to distort God’s grace by many other celibate gay men I know, using it to defend a cheap leniency, this component of our sexuality has which obscures the comprehen- been at times a source of great shame, sive and incomprehensible weight not least because it has seemed to of His holiness. Yet it is also possible to distort it by discovering evangelical context where celibacy is sins where they are not, so that the reaffirmrarely prized. our calling But I haveto celibacy increasingly in an extent of His forgiveness is falsely come to regard this lack of impulse towards heterosexual sinfulness—a de- confess the sins they have done magnified.and left undone—and Christians are only called those, to identity—as a gift. Those who would and no more than those. The ‘un- finingunderstand component same-sex of my senseorientation of gay founded fears that there is sin as an exclusively sinful experience where there is none’ that marks seem unaware that the capacity for scrupulosity is still a vice, one opposite-sex lust represents a form of which the use of moral distinctions postlapsarian brokenness from which is essential to avoiding.18 exclusively same-sex oriented people like myself have been spared. A reasoned and pastoral approach V. The Limits of Biblical to sexuality must distinguish sinful or potentially temptation-inducing Anthropology components of gay orientation from I have thus far presented three de- components which are not necessarily products of fallenness and may in- 18 - tion, and the Gay Christian: What Chastity The goal of such moral distinctions is Demands’, Matthew 20 LeeJune Anderson, 2018, https://mereor ‘Sex, Tempta- deednot, as reflect critics God’s of sexual creative identity intention. have thodoxy.com/sex-temptation-gay-christian- suggested, an attempt to deny or eu- chastity-demands/. Can Followers of Christ Have Sexual Identities? 215 fences against common criticisms of she offers a severely limited vision of sexual identity language. First, I have biblical anthropology. The Bible nev- argued that sexual identity need not er purports to answer every anthro- be read as an identity whose gram- pological question or provide every matical ontology displaces the over- possible categorization. The Bible is arching truth of identity in Christ. Second, insofar as sexuality is a post- that the Bible answers every question lapsarian phenomenon, some kind of sufficientis to do violence but not to exhaustive. the text by To forcing insist descriptive language is necessary to it to speak in ways it was never meant help us grapple well with our post- to speak. lapsarian reality, and sexual identity Although no other facet of human language meets this need. Third, the experience offers a precise corollary disposition which in its postlapsarian to sexuality, we could offer innumer- state is called ‘being gay’ can also in- able examples of human categories clude other components—like the ab- which are not discussed in the Bible sence of temptation toward opposite- but may still have explanatory value sex lust—which may be part of God’s in various settings: height, body type, prelapsarian design. metabolism, coordination, IQ, neuro- One major objection to the lan- typicality or neuroatypicality, ennea- guage of sexual identity and sexual gram types, sports team allegiances. orientation remains to be addressed. To categorize people according to According to this criticism, using these divisions is not to institute a sexual identity categories is forbid- - den because such categories do not tradistinction to that offered by God. appear within the biblical texts. ‘Eve- newIt is, rather, definition to recognize of humanity the endlessly in con layered complexity of diversity which God has purposefully ordained within thatryone God loses’, does writes not.’19 Butterfield, ‘when human experience. weDepending define ourselves on what using is categoriesmeant by her fellow critics realize it or not, they indeed be right. Certainly, when hu- Indeed, whether Butterfield and themselves using categories that God man‘defining beings ourselves’, are categorized Butterfield in ways may 20 that contradict God’s revealed truth aredoes perfectlynot use. In comfortable a co-written definingessay, about us, these categorizations are themselves as Reformed Protestants, detrimental and invite gentle correc- Butterfieldinvoking a theological and Burk proudly category identify which - quite plainly postdates the Bible. The cant sources of self-understanding word Reformed appears in the es- cometion. Likewise, from anything when our other most than signifi the say ten times, or more often than the voice of God, we are poised for either word Christian appears in the same idolatry or idiolatry. essay. Would any of us insist that the the use of identity categories not di- rectlyIf Butterfield articulated means, in Scripture however, is that an 20 affront to biblical anthropology, then ‘Learning to Hate Our Sin Without Hat- ing Denny Ourselves’, Burk Public and RosariaDiscourse Butterfield,, 4 July 2018, https://www.thepublicdiscourse. 19 Openness Unhindered, 96–97. com/2018/07/22066/.

Butterfield, 216 Gregory Coles use of this extrabiblical category is should have signalled the demise of contrary to Scripture? my spiritual life. In fact, I have found To use category language that ex- the reverse to be true. Identifying tends beyond the reach of what is myself as gay has facilitated healthy plainly articulated by biblical anthro- openness and relational intimacy pology is a necessarily contingent act. with Christian brothers and sisters, That is, any category language based informed wise decision making about on experiential observation is only how to pursue the vocation of celi- as absolute as the experience which bacy with integrity, and expanded my calls it into being. But the contingent opportunities to share with those nature of categories does not erase outside the church the difference Je- their value. As my personality-test- sus makes in my life. obsessed friends often remind me, Is it possible for sexual identity the goal of contingent personality cat- language to be used in unwise and egories is not to discretely separate counterproductive ways? Of course— people from one another but to reck- just as it is possible for dispositional, on thoughtfully with the observed national or denominational identi- differences in their dispositions and ties to be so misused. But the poten- experiences. A biblical anthropology tial danger of words is not an argu- which fears to acknowledge such dif- ment for expunging them from our ferences is too frail to exist in the real language. What matters is whether world. we use words in ways that speak If the critics of sexual identity truthfully and advance the upside- language were correct about the in- down kingdom of Jesus. I, for one, am evitable spiritual detriment of such grateful to have found sexual identity language, my own coming out as gay words that can do just that. ERT (2019) 43:3, 217-229 Designed for Flourishing Joshua Steely I. Introduction is grounded not only in God’s author- Where do we root a Christian unity as creator, but in God’s design derstanding of human sexuality, and for His human creatures. A positive what shape does it take? Many have Christian understanding of sexuality the impression that Christian sexual undergirds the negative prohibitions ethics are a litany of inexplicable pro- of sexual immorality. God’s design is good and for our good. The church must seek to express this truth clearly hibitions,sexual permissiveness, justified only the by number tradition of and consistently. orsexual divine relationships, fiat. In a world practices, of increasing and Of course, nothing more is re- identities that evangelical Christian- quired to justify Christian obedience ity does not condone stands in ever to the biblical prohibitions against sharper relief. Can we still say that promiscuity, adultery, lust, homosex- the Christian sexual ethic, with all its uality, and other sexual practices than restrictions, remains not only true the conviction that God has spoken but good for humans? on the matter. But if we do not under- Theological anthropology, espe- stand why the prohibitions have been cially as communicated by the doc- given—if our sexual ethics are Chris- trine of creation, provides a clear tian but our understanding of sexu- 1 Creation offers ality is formed by secular and pagan great insight for our understanding culture—we will have an unresolved affirmativeof human sexuality, answer. as highlighted by tension in our hearts and minds. That - unresolved tension is readily exploit- tion narrative as the locus for a prop- ed by the change agents of Western theer understandingfact that Jesus identifiedof marriage the crea(Mk culture, resulting in compromised 10:2–12).2 The Christian sexual ethic moral reasoning. It is imperative, therefore, that our

1 series of prohibitions detached from doctrinal home of theological anthropology sexuala Christian ethics understanding not be a free-floating of sexu- has David been H. a Kelseydoctrine notes of creation that ‘The’, but traditional he also ality—which is a facet of Christian discusses how other loci have been proposed theological anthropology. Human more recently. Kelsey, ‘The Human Creature’, sexuality is grounded in creation and in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theol- intended to serve God’s purpose for ogy, ed. John Webster, Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 122 (italics in original). 2 The Gerald R. McDermott (Oxford: Oxford Uni- Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology, ed. See Robert A. J. Gagnon, ‘Sexuality’, in Joshua Steely (MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)versity is SeniorPress, Pastor 2010), of 449–50.Pontoon Baptist Church in Pontoon Beach, IL, USA. 218 Joshua Steely

Who made us? What is our creator God the triune creator and His desire like? human flourishing. Beginning with If these are impossible questions meaning of sexuality unfold in the to answer, then we can know our- forcreation human accounts flourishing, of Genesis we can 1–2, see andthe - we can set creation anthropology in ogy then becomes a science, subject the context of the further develop- toselves the same only provisionally;methods and limitations anthropol ments in the drama of redemption. as chemistry or physics. In fact, if we cannot answer the questions about our creator, then we may not be sure II. Creator, Creation and that we are creatures at all. We may Creatures be accidents, in which case anthro- The most basic statement in theologi- pology may actually be merely an cal anthropology is that the human extension of chemistry and physics, being is a creature.3 We are neither a description of how chemical pro- gods nor accidents. We were made cesses lead to the bizarre spectacle and did not make ourselves. As crea- of (apparently) self-aware organisms tures, we cannot understand our- moving about and interacting. We selves apart from understanding our may, as far as we know, be a rather creator. A key to our self-understand- unconscious joke produced acciden- ing lies in the doctrine of creation, tally by an unthinking and unfeeling and creatureliness must shape our universe. If that were the case, I think self-understanding at every point. pretty poor taste. reference for any creature is its crea- thatBut most God of hasus would find the joke in tor.The From first the and creator fundamental come design point and of is possible for us to know about him purpose—cosmology and teleology with certainty. We spoken; can know therefore, that we it - are creatures. We can know about him ing the initial accent in theological an- and about ourselves. Francis Schaef- alike.thropology This observationon the theological justifies rather plac fer described this fact well after re- than on the anthropology. ‘Christian anthropology … does not start with Lamentations of Jeremiah: ‘For man “the phenomenon of human being” as flecting on a couple passages from the a societal, individual, or even a theo- atoms in the slipstream of meaning- 4 logical construct. It starts with God.’ lessis not chance just ahistory. chance No. configuration Man, made in of We understand ourselves most clear- the image of God, has a purpose—to be in relationship to the God who is there. And whether it is in Jeremiah’s ly by looking first without, not within. day, or in our own recent generations, 3 Identity and Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, the effect is the same. Man forgets his As Richard Lints points out in purpose, and thus he forgets who he our relationship with God, our Creator. is and what life means.’ 42015), 24, this is also basic to understanding- Anthropology is then5 a patient and son in the Christian Story,” in The Cambridge Companion Cherith Feeto Evangelical Nordling, “TheTheology Human, ed. Tim Per- othy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier (Cambridge: 5 Death in the City

Francis A. Schaeffer, Cambridge University Press, 2007), 65. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 35. Designed for Flourishing 219 careful listening to what God has said Christian conception of God, decisive- about us, in the same way as (and re- ly revealed in the Father’s sending of lated to) theology proper’s attentive the Son and the Spirit, puts creation listening to what God has said about in the proper perspective of divine su- himself. As Richard Lints pithily puts perabundance. God, who knows what it, ‘We are the way we are because God is the way he is, and we are the - way we are because we are not God.’6 ishingperfect of flourishing his creatures. is, creates in order Divine revelation tells us that God is to bless; God truly desires the flour

Correspondingly, what God has cre- III. Genesis 1: Days, Dominion atedinfinitely is well-designed, wise, powerful purposeful and good. and and Gender - The creation narrative of Genesis 1 is a ence is meaningful and we may speak complex literary work of tremendous meaningfullyintended for of flourishing. human destiny. Our exist theological richness as it describes Yet, importantly, God’s revelation is more than just verbal and propo- sitional. The climax of divine revela- thingthe forming to notice and is the filling place of of the mankind world. tion is missional—the sending of God inWith the regardnarrative to structure. humanity, Humanity the first the Son through God the Spirit by is the capstone creature—created on God the Father, and of God the Spirit by God the Son from God the Father. week, together with the other crea- The tri-personal coming of God to us turesthe sixth that and move final along day the of theground, creation but is the most profound element in di- clearly distinguished from them, with vine revelation. Even when we con- a unique place among the beings that sider revelation that was given long before the triune missions, we do not Mankind’s distinction is marked by consider it apart from those missions. afill radical God’s breakgood earth.in the pattern of divine So Christian exegesis of Genesis 1, for creative activity. The process until this instance, recognizes the account of God (v. 1), present in the Spirit (v. 2), creating all things by the Word (v. 3). commandpoint has beenGod markedhas summoned by efficacious being God the Holy Trinity is our maker. fromdivine nothingness, speech; with order an authoritative from chaos, Creation comes not as the desperate and life from inertia. But now the nar- act of a needy god, but as the work of rative shifts. Divine speech still leads the way, but it is the speech of delib- enjoys perfect communion in the full- eration: ‘Then God said, “Let us make nessan infinitely of divine loving life. ‘It God is important who already to man in our image, according to our emphasize that God’s triune life of likeness” ’ (v. 26). It is possible that perfect communication and commun- the plural of this discourse is another ion exists before us, apart from us, indicator of God’s tri-unity.8 and without any need of us.’7 Only the

Bible and Its Interpretation (London: T&T 6 Identity and Idolatry, 21. 7 Trinity, Revelation, and 8 Created in God’s Reading: Lints, A Theological Introduction to the ImageClark, 2011), 5. Scott R. Swain, See Anthony A. Hoekema, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 12; 220 Joshua Steely

In a majestic pause, the triune Cre- ator declares His intention to crown separates creator from creatures, God creation with a creature made in the offrom that all infinitethat is not qualitative God.11 But gap there that Creator’s image. This is the last act of is also an essential gap separating creation, the completing stroke after us from the rest of creation, the utter which God rests in sovereign enjoy- uniqueness of the imago Dei. ment of His handiwork (1:31–2:3). Humans are like God, with the like- Even more than our distinctive ness of an image, made to resemble place in the creation narrative, the Him. Theological anthropology has imago Dei has captured the theo- wrestled extensively to understand logical imagination throughout his- what this means, proposing understandings of the imago Dei that may in Christian understanding of hu- be labelled ontological, functional mantory identity. and has It held is often a definitive treated as place the and relational—that is, that the image keystone in theological anthropol- of God is what we are, what we do or ogy, though some recent theologians how we relate, respectively. As we fol- have regarded it as over-emphasized low the text, we will see all three of because it receives little attention in these elements appear, in intertwined the canon. But while acknowledging the scarcity of direct references to the image of God in the Scriptures, Marc fashion.also disorder Being being. precedes doing; doing Cortez avers that ‘even when the ima- flowsThis from interplay being; of but aspects (mis)doing is impor can- go Dei is not explicitly stated, it is fre- tant to note. It reminds us that, on one quently assumed.’9 We should at least hand, humans are made in the image recognize that, if the image of God is of God and therefore never cease to be in God’s image no matter what ac- not frequently mentioned, its mention they take (or fail to take). Regard- tions are momentously positioned. less of how corrupt or comatose they Other creatures are made after may be, every human bears the image their ‘kind’, but humans are made of God and retains the dignity and dis- in God’s image and likeness.10 This tinction implied thereby (cf. Gen 9:6). On the other hand, imaging God is not stand, together with the rest of the only a matter of being but also of be- worksdoes not of nullify creation, our oncreaturehood; the same side we - ness to a greater or lesser extent by our actions and relations. Sin, which Nonna Verna Harrison, God’s Many-Splen- haviour, and we can reflect God’s like dored Image: Theological Anthropology for is opposed to God’s character and Christian Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker, will, distorts our imaging of God and 2010), 170, attests to patristic interpretation thus impairs our ability to realize our on these lines. true identity. 9 Theological Anthropology: A The image that connects humans Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, Marc Cortez, 10 11 God2010), He 15. Created Them’, in The Image of God and even human creatures, see Ray S. Ander- in an See Image-Driven Catherine McDowell, Age, ed. Beth ‘In theFelker Image Jones of son, On On theBeing radical Human: distinction Essays in between Theological God and Jeffrey W. Barbeau (Downers Grove, IL: Anthropology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, InterVarsity, 2016), 38. 2010), 77. Designed for Flourishing 221 with God comes together with a sa- how participate in his kingly quali- cred vocation and the connection ties. But the kingdom or the reign of between humanity and the rest of God is not one of brute force, but of the living creatures.12 Sandwiched be- loving fatherhood.’14 As God creates tween the divine discourse describing out of His own superabundance of life the intent to create mankind in the and bliss, so He charges the creatures imago Dei (Gen 1:26a) and the state- made in His image with the task of ment of this creative accomplishment nurturing His works. Environmental (v. 27) is another statement of divine concern is basic to human nature. We intention: ‘and let them rule over the are instruments in the divine agenda the sky and over the cattle and over And just as the imago15 Dei is con- allfish the of theearth, sea and and over over every the birds creep of- nectedfor creation’s with flourishing.human vocation, it is ing thing that creeps on the earth’ (v. likewise connected with human re- 26b). Then, after the creation of hu- lations. 'God created man in His own manity in God’s image, this statement image, in the image of God He cre- of intent is expressed as a vocation: them' (v. 27). Sexual differentiation them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and isated a keyhim; aspect male and of human female Heidentity created in ‘God blessed them; and God said to the divine image.16 Of course, sexual differentiation is not unique to hu- birdsfill the of earth, the sky and and subdue over everyit; and living rule manity, but it is not mentioned in the thingover thethat fish moves of the on sea the and earth” over ’ the(v. creation of any other creatures that 28). We are unique among the crea- possess it. For the animals, male and tures, but from our very creation our lives are entwined with theirs. it is something deeper, a profound We act out God’s image in our role factorfemale in is identity. simply biology; for humans, and function as rulers over creation. Gender is the basic binary dis- God is Lord over all, and so to be in tinction of humanity. It shows us to His image means to exercise lov- be, like our Creator, profoundly re- ing lordship over His works, as sub- lational. ‘Being human in God’s im- rulers entrusted with dominion by age is fundamentally about commu- the cosmic King.13 ‘“Dominion” consti- nion, loving God and neighbor. That tutes one aspect of the image of God is always an embodied love, a love in humankind, because if humans are that fully engages the whole human to represent God, they must some-

14 Systematic Theolo- 12 - gy tional understanding of the imago Dei in The 15 Anthony C.God’s Thiselton, Many-Splendored Image, Human Hans Being: Schwarz A Theologicalexpresses a stronglyAnthropology func 124. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 139-40. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 23. How- 16 Harrison, Created in God’s Image ever, it is questionable whether his denial of Kelly M. Kapic, ‘Anthropology’ in Christian the ontological aspect can stand in light of Dogmatics Hoekema,, ed. Michael Allen and Scott, 14; cf.R. Gen. 9:6. 13 Systematic Theology: Frame, Systematic Theology, 792, sees a con- An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillips- nectionSwain (Grand but does Rapids: not regard Baker, the2016), sexual 175–76. bina- See John M. Frame, ry as the imago’s meaning. burg, NJ: P&R, 2013), 785–86. 222 Joshua Steely being.’17 None of us lives as a generic another and in life-giving connection with the material world as the envi- man and woman, we live and relate.18 ronment for communion with God.’21 human;Some rather,theologians as gendered have humans,seen in Ecology and sexuality go together, this nature a hint of the Trinity, God’s both are rooted in identity, and all is mysterious unity and multiplicity, His to be seen in the light of God’s plan for essential relationality. So Cherith Fee Nordling: ‘Human “being” and iden- Flourishing in God’s design is not tity are grounded in the reality of themerely flourishing a human-centred of His creation. or even a the triune communion of the Father, - Son, and Spirit. Bearing the image of ishing is meant to involve and occa- God who is “being-in-relation,” we too creation-centredsion praise of our agenda;Creator. That our is, flour the are constituted as distinct beings in creation account remains a religious essential relationality with God and text. The human vocation may be de- others.’19 God made creatures in His scribed as an ecological priesthood.22 likeness who would have the capac- Richard Lints explains: ity for deep relationships and derive joy from them. Our need for human table [Gen 1:1–2:3] points to the relationships points ultimately to our Theconclusion liturgical that shape the created of the order first need for a relationship with our Crea- as portrayed in Genesis 1 is a kind tor. of temple in which the glory of God Further, the integration of our re- - lational and functional aspects should ence rests. In this respect creation not be missed.20 Humans are created is a reflected theatre for and the the worship divine of pres God, in God’s image as male and female. though he is not merely a stage They are then commanded to embrace presence, but intends to be present the divine vocation, to which their bi- throughout the created order. The nary distinction and relationality will created order is temple-like be- be essential: ‘and God said to them, of the divine King, the purpose for earth, and subdue it” ’ (v. 28). As Kelly causewhich itGod is filledbuilt withthis templethe presence in the Kapic“Be fruitful explains, and ‘Humans multiply, were and createdfill the 23 to live not as isolated, autonomous in- In the grand design, the human dividuals but in community with one purposefirst instance. is worship, and to this purpose our priestly identity in the ima- 17 go Dei is tied. We are to worship the 18 What It Means divine Creator and display the divine 24 To Kapic,Be Human ‘Anthropology’, (Macon, GA: 178. Smyth & Helwys, image by our likeness to Him. Hu- See Molly T. Marshall, 19 - phasis1995), in75. original). See also Anderson, On Be- 21 ing Nordling, Human ‘The Human Person’, imago70 (em is 22 experienced as differentiation within unity’. Kapic, ‘Anthropology’, 188.Systematic The- 20 , 105: ‘The content of the ology See, 790–91. Frame’s description of the priestly Hui (Xu Zhi-Wei), At the Beginning of Life: 23office of humanIdentity dominion and Idolatry in Dilemmas See the in connectionTheological drawnBioethics by (Downers Edwin C. 24 the Lints, image, see Thiselton, Systematic, 53. Theol- On the representational dimension of Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 145. Designed for Flourishing 223 man gender and sexuality are thus vation that the ground is unproduc- governing human identity and pur- In the creation of man, the human pose.part of a great confluence of realities connectiontive without with people the earth to work is stressed, it (2:5). 25 for ‘the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground’ (v. 7a). We are of the IV. Genesis 2: Dust, Breath earth. This fact points once again to and a Rib the fundamental environmental con- Turning to Genesis 2, we see some of cern of humanity, but also to our crea- the same themes expressed in differ- tureliness and inherent frailty. Having ent ways and with different empha- been elevated with the knowledge ses. Because there are two successive that we are made in God’s image, we creation accounts, the repetition of are brought back ‘down to earth’ with themes and variety of details together the knowledge that we are dust. provide richer theological insight into Yet we are God’s dust, his work- - cance. Perhaps there is an analogy God, having fashioned the man, herean event to the of canonicalsuch foundational presence signifiof four ‘breathedmanship, into formed his nostrils by his hand;the breath and gospels, whose cumulative testimony - unpacks the greater event of the work ing’ (v. 7b). ‘The beautiful picture of of Christ. In any case, the two creation Godof life; stooping and man in the became mud ato livingform the be accounts are constructive in their dif- human persons, sharing with these ferences—complementary, not con- special beings the very breath of life, tradictory. God’s own spirit, suggests the intimacy of God’s relationship to these 26 supplied the pivotal knowledge that unique creatures.’ We are creatures, mankindWhereas is made the first in thecreation image account of God, but clearly we are beloved creatures, the second account elaborates on the specially blessed in God’s creative functional and relational aspects of work. human identity in the image. This is The man formed of earth is given especially helpful for developing an charge over earth. God made a mar- understanding of human sexuality vellous home for his favoured crea- rooted in creation. But the setting of ture, a paradisiacal garden: ‘Then the the man-woman relationship keeps Lord God took the man and put him readers conscious of the human- in the garden of Eden to cultivate it nature relationship, as well as of the - human-divine relationship that un- ing will be connected with their voca- dergirds both. and keep it’ (v. 15). Humans’ flourish Mankind’s stewardship is front- of creation under their charge. The loaded in the account with the obser- earthtion in for bringing which mankindabout the cares flourishing will be their own sustenance and delight (v. 9), and the animal world is also under ogy The Human Being, 24. human authority (vv. 19–20). 25 This is the point where the binary strong, 140; attention Schwarz, to matters of sexuality char- This observation helps to justify the- ality’, 449. 26 What It Means, 28. acteristic of evangelicals; see Gagnon, ‘Sexu Marshall, 224 Joshua Steely of human relationality re-enters the ther changeable nor interchangeable. picture. Lions and oxen are good, but Every human is either male or female not good enough for what God has in and, correspondingly, man or woman. mind (v. 20). ‘Man’s best friend’ will - stand that this is true at the genetic appointed helper. The solitude of the Scientifically,level. But theologically, we have come the created to under bi- prove insufficient as man’s divinely- nary of humanity was made known to us long before we had knowledge of afirst thoroughly man, the goodlack of creation a complementa that God XX and XY chromosomal pairs. callsry partner not good for him,(v. 18). is 27the first thing in Such a complementary distinc- The divine solution to this soli- tion is of utmost relevance to human words of Molly Marshall, ‘The crea- - tiontude of is humanityof essential is significance.not complete In until the sexuality.ship over creation,When the God first did man not needed create there is male and female. The bibli- a fit partner for the task of steward cal writer’s point is that women and man received her and noted their uni- men form the basic unit of the human anotherty and distinction. man; he created Then the woman. Scripture The family and, as male and female hu- says, ‘For this reason a man shall leave man beings, express the wholeness of his father and mother, and be joined humanity.’28 God created a complementary - partner for man: woman. He created totinction his wife; of manand theyand shallwoman, become the rela one- her out of the rib of the man, which flesh’tional (v. binary, 24). The is the complementary grounds for their dis expresses indirectly her sharing in unitive married sexuality. the fellowship with the earth, and di- In this way, the biological comple- rectly her sharing in the man’s total mentarity of human sexuality attains humanity (vv. 21–22). Man and wom- - an are equally human, possessed of a es a return to unity in difference. As basic unity. But man and woman are aRobert spiritual Gagnon significance, explains, as it‘Marriage express is God’s instrument for reuniting the by an essential binary difference. This male and female into an integrated isalso captured definitely in distinct,the man’s characterized statement sexual whole. This purpose is symbol- upon receiving his partner (v. 23): ized by the copulative act (and partly ‘This is now bone of my bones, and effected by it) and illustrated by the story of woman’s creation from Ad- Woman, because she was taken out of am’s “side” (a better translation than 29 Man.’flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “rib”).’ The relational distinction of hu- - count is reinforced in the second. Man V. Summation: Binary andmanity woman from are the equally first creationhuman, but ac Distinction and Sexual Union they are not the same. They are nei- What does the theological anthropology of Genesis 1–2 tell us about

27 On Being Human, 113. 28 What It Means 29 Theological See Anderson, Anthropology original). Marshall, , 77; see Cortez, Gagnon, ‘Sexuality’, 453 (emphasis in , 35. Designed for Flourishing 225 human sexuality? It provides the complement, into the human be- foundation for the Christian under- ing that God intends. However, this standing of gender as binary and sex- does not mean that one must be in ual intimacy as proper to marriage (in a sexual relationship in order to be the traditional Christian sense). Both formed into God’s image, for God concepts can be described positively has other means at his disposal to shape his human creation, includ- First, gender is the good gift of - andGod. clarified He did negatively.not create generic hu- nence (note Jesus’ and Paul’s own mans but male and female, man and ingcelibacy). the difficulties Nevertheless, of sexual if a sexualabsti woman. Both are created in the image relationship is to be had, it must be of God, and they image God together. had in such a way that the image Human identity as the divine image- of God is enhanced, not effaced. bearer is partially realized in our bi- The requirements for sexual pu- nary gender distinction and connect- rity always take precedence over ed with our vocation of stewardship. longings for a sexual relationship, Manhood is glorious and womanhood 30 is glorious too. It is a privilege and de- Against adultery, promiscuity, light to bear the image of God in our polyamory,where the homosexuality, two are in conflict. pornogra- phy, bestiality and rape, the creation as man and woman in God’s world. account teaches that sexual intimacy genderedAgainst specificity,transgenderism and to and flourish re- belongs exclusively in a loving, mo- lated ideologies, the creation account nogamous heterosexual relationship. teaches that there are two and only Sex is not merely about procreation two genders. We may distinguish gen- but it is also not merely about pleas- der from biological sex, but we cannot ure or even love. It is a profoundly detach it. God created humanity as unitive act in which the human bi- male and female—man and woman nary of man and woman is reunited. respectively. Our biology is not inci- Sexual acts apart from this union are dental to our gender identity but de- a distortion of God’s design for sexual terminative of it. intimacy. Second, sexual intimacy is the good gift of God. When a man and a woman are united in the covenant of marriage, they proceed to enjoy sexual VI. Clarification: Deviations intimacy, with its manifold aspects of from the Normative pleasure, procreation, affection and Before proceeding to connect this union. The last of these is the most creational paradigm to the realities of fall and redemption, we should clarify aspect of the sexual act. Robert Gag- it in two ways: regarding sexual ex- centralnon is worth and theologicallyquoting at length significant here: pression outside this paradigm and Marriage serves a vital purpose, not merely for procreation and 30 in original). See also John Behr, Becoming and intimate companionship, but Human: Gagnon, Meditations ‘Sexuality’, on Christian 454–55 Anthropol (emphasis- childrearing,also for being sexual reshaped, gratification through ogy in Word and Image (Crestwood, NY: St reintegration with one’s sexual Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2013), 72–83. 226 Joshua Steely regarding abstention from sexual acts sexuality revealed in creation does (celibacy). These are both exceptions not allow for adultery?’ we may turn to the norm established in creation, to the clear proscriptions of adultery but the former is prohibited by Scrip- in such passages as Exodus 20:14 ture whereas the latter is permitted and even encouraged. How does the logic of God’s design in creation con- andplace Matthew to turn for15:19. an answer If the question is the cre is- nect with the more explicit teachings ‘Whyation isaccount adultery and forbidden?’ the unitive the mean first- of Scripture about human sexuality? ing of sexuality: adultery violates the Regarding other sexual activity, marriage union. one might object that the creation ac- Of course, few people need an ex- count does not decisively limit sexual planation of why adultery is forbid- expression. Even if we grant that sex den in Christian sexual ethics. But is designed to be unitive between man this practice of understanding sexual and woman, does that really necessi- ethics creationally and canonically tate a monogamous or a loving union? applies to the issues more widely And does that purpose really delegiti- disputed in contemporary society mate all other sexual unions, particu- as well. Perhaps most important, it larly homosexual relationships? shows the coherence of Christian op- I maintain that these implications position to homosexual practice. The are legitimately derived from the biblical prohibitions against homo- creation narrative. The fact that sex is sexual activity are clear and quite pro- a profoundly unitive act does indeed imply that the sexual act should be monogamous, covenantal, loving and nounced (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:24–27; 1 complementary (i.e. heterosexual). Corhave 6:9;been 1 so Tim powerfully 1:10). But at someonework in However, the argument of this article influencedWestern society by the over cultural the lastforces decade that is not so much that Christian sexual could easily be puzzled by the biblical ethics can be wholly and explicitly de- condemnation of a behaviour that so rived from Genesis 1–2, but that the many people have come to accept as creation account is foundational and natural and good. The creation narra- provides the underlying logic for the tive, with its emphasis on sexual com- sexual ethics presented elsewhere in plementarity and unity, explains why Scripture. homosexuality is contrary to God’s In other words, there is no need to prove the whole Christian sexual eth- The same applies to polyamory, ic from the creation paradigm. Rather, designa rising for candidate human flourishing. for normalization the creation paradigm is the point of in Western society—though the situ- departure for Christian sexual ethics, ation here is more complicated, because it requires tracing the canonical explicit prohibitions of various sexu- development of the Bible’s teaching andal acts it showsfound in the the significance Bible. God ofcares the on this issue. Polygamy abounds in the Old Testament and was practised by addressed this area with abundant many of the Old Testament saints. But enoughclarity. about our flourishing to have when we come to the New Testament, So if one asks, ‘How do we know the ethical standard is unequivocally that the divine design for human monogamous. This is best explained Designed for Flourishing 227 by turning to the creation account and the Kingdom comes celibacy is not a understanding that polygamy was not duty either (Mt 19:12), and marriage part of God’s design for human sexu- remains an option.’31 Both are per- ality, but that for whatever reason He missible and blessed alternatives for permitted it for a time. This does not God’s people in the present time (1 mean that it was good even in the case Cor 7), whereas sexual activity apart of Old Testament heroes who engaged from the creational design is not.32 in the practice, and in the clarity of Interestingly enough, if the New the new covenant we are called to Testament shows a preference, it is embrace God’s good design. A parallel for celibacy in service to God (1 Cor may be found in the case of divorce, 7:32, 38). As Barry Danylak says, where Jesus dismissed the permissive ‘Looked at positively as a celebration Mosaic legislation and called disciples instead to attend to God’s creational singleness can be a powerful witness intent (Mk 10:2–12). offor the the complete gospel.’33 sufficiencyThe advancement of Christ, of But if these deviations from the the Kingdom takes precedence over creation paradigm are, indeed, ille- all other concerns, and human iden- gitimate, what about celibacy? Absti- tity is ultimately found in Christ, in nence, too, is a divergence from mari- God the Son who became man for us. tal sexuality. A divergence in the form Gender identity and sexual expres- of non-participation is categorically sion have not disappeared, but they different from engaging in immoral are superseded by fellowship with - Christ and with one another in him. esis 1–2 were the whole of revelation, So the Christian who does not desire sexualwe might activity; conclude nonetheless, that celibacy if Gen too to marry, or who is otherwise unable falls short of God’s perfect plan. to have a healthy sexual relationship The broader witness of Scripture after the pattern of creation, is not shows that this is not the case. Even if the Old Testament tends to correlate actualized human identity. a fertile marriage with the blessing of doomed to an unfulfilled life or a less God, things are radically different in the New Testament. Surely there can VII. Conclusion: Design, be no more convincing argument for Disruption and Destiny the virtue of celibacy than the exam- Creation is the beginning place for a ple of Jesus, who is true man, fully hu- Christian response to the sexual cha- man and without any blemish of sin. os of contemporary Western (and, to What has changed? Christ has ush- ered in the Kingdom of God, which is partially realized even now. Under 31 this new covenant, the creation para- ‘Sex’, in The International Standard Bible En- Barry L. Bandstra and Allen D. Verhey, digm of married sexuality persists cyclopedia, rev. ed., vol. 4, gen. ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), side by side with a paradigm of singleness for the sake of the Kingdom. 32 - ‘Marriage was no longer to be regard- ry435. Danylak, Redeeming Singleness: How the ed as a duty of Torah or as a neces- Storyline See Bandstra of Scripture and Verhey, Affirms ‘Sex’, the Single 436; Bar Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 196. and divine approval. Of course, until 33 Redeeming Singleness, 140. sary condition for human fulfillment Danylak, 228 Joshua Steely some extent, global) society, but it is normal itself is an abnormality. That not the whole story. Creation shows is the inmost philosophy of the Fall.’34 the design for human sexuality, but Theologians debate whether the that design must be brought into the imago Dei was untouched, defaced or world we presently inhabit and un- demolished by the fall, but the im- derstood in light of its disruption and mediate recorded consequences35 of destiny. sin include disruption of mankind’s Christian ethics will be horribly being (death, Gen 3:19), vocation (the skewed if we fail to recognize that resistance of the land to human do- Genesis 1 and 2 were followed by minion, vv. 17–19), and relations (the Genesis 3. That sounds silly, but in striving between man and woman, practice this error is all too common. Even in secular contexts, a theology more tragically, the consummate con- of creation is frequently brought into sequencev. 16). Even of sin more was significantlyseparation from and discourse on sexuality while over- God. Adam and Eve are cast out of looking any notion of the fall. Two the garden (vv. 22–24). The creatures standard expressions of this theology made in the image of God are now es- that are applied to people who em- tranged from God, and only God can brace some sexual aberration—each bring them back to himself. one a premise in the total argument, Sexual immorality, in all its variety, though often only one or the other is is sin. But sexual sin receives particu- stated—are ‘God made you this way’, lar attention in Scripture, perhaps be- and ‘God doesn’t make mistakes’. The cause of the intimate connections be- former statement is false, though it tween sexuality and human identity, vocation and relations. Having rooted latter is true, but it implies the former sexual ethics in creation, we must not implies(false) premise. the latter (true) premise; the Since these theologies do not take make the mistake of regarding sexual the fall into account and therefore sin as merely a rather benign failure hold that human sexuality as expe- to receive God’s best intentions for rienced now is fully in accord with our lives. Scripture does not treat it so lightly. as alternative doctrines of human- God’sity. The design, appropriate they may setting be classified for such 34 Orthodoxy: The Ro- a doctrine of humanity is not Christi- mance of Faith (New York: Image Books, anity—for which Genesis 3 is acutely G. K. Chesterton, 35 and implicitly deistic worldview of advocated.1990), 158. Cortez (Theological Anthropolo- significant—butpopular Western thespirituality. vaguely theistic gy, Usually16–17) cites one aof general the latter agreement two options that the is Christian theological anthropol- image has been affected by sin. But see John ogy, however, is aware not only of our F. Kilner, ‘Humanity in God’s Image: Is the Im- created design but also of the disrup- age Really Damaged?' Journal of the Evangeli- tion caused by the fall into sin (Gen cal Theological Society 2010): 601–17. Kilner argues that the Bible 3). G. K. Chesterton said, ‘The primary does not provide grounds 53, no.for 3the (September common- paradox of Christianity is that the place theological belief that the image of God ordinary condition of man is not his was damaged, distorted or destroyed by the fall. sane or sensible condition; that the Designed for Flourishing 229

- redemption. But there was a fall, and God has acted, in mercy and majesty withGod God’s created plan thisis to worldlive properly for flour as and might, for our redemption. Flour- ishing, and flourishing in accordance ishing remains a possibility because good design defaces our human iden- of the restorative work of God. When tityhumans; and dishonours in contrast, the twisting God whose God’s image we bear. ‘The [biblical] story God provided clothing for them, ‘gar- considered as a whole suggests that mentsour first of parentsskin’ (Gen lost 3:21). their Somethinginnocence, the overriding dimension of the crea- died to cover them. In this gesture of tures’ relationship to their Creator is that of worship and honour. Con- grace, God foreshadowed the death versely, the subverting of that rela- that would cover the sins of all those tionship carries the connotation of who receive the gift of life and would perversion, corruption, consumption restore in them the tarnished imago and self-worship.’36 Dei. If our maleness and femaleness, For Jesus Christ, God the Son, ‘is the and the possibility of uniting male and female in the bond of marital yet, for our redemption, he became sexual intimacy, are connected with incarnate,image of the ‘being invisible made God’ in the (Col likeness 1:15); God’s design for humanity—as the of men’ (Phil 2:7). He covered our sins creation account demonstrates— with his blood shed on the cross (Heb then the wrongness of sexual immo- 9:14). Those who receive the salva- rality emerges in stark relief. Sexual tion God graciously gives have a glo- sin, the apostle Paul says, is to sin rious destiny, which includes being against one’s own body (1 Cor 6:18). ‘conformed to the image of his Son’ It is a direct negation of the image of (Rom 8:29). God in the human person, a denial of God’s design and even of God himself. The telos of human sexuality is its No appeal to the goodness of pleasure eclipse by the reality it was given to - symbolize. Presumably, the resurrec- ance of God and defacement of His tion body includes gender, but resur- imageor human in mankind. love can In justify pursuing this defihu- rection life does not include marriage (Mt 22:30). Instead, our longed-for we invariably become further mired union with God will be fully realized. inman our flourishing alienation from on our God. own terms, The church will be united with Christ, But the Christian message does not her groom (Rev 19:7–9). God’s people will dwell with him and the Scripture - Defyingend there; creation alienation or denying is only thethe fall state in nacle of God is among men, and he pursuitof the problem,of autonomy not leads the finalonly to word. fur- will dwell be fulfilled: among them, ‘Behold, and the they taber shall be his people, and God himself will be of denying the fall is that you also lose among them’ (Rev 21:3). The union of thether gospel. brokenness; Without the aultimate doctrine tragedy of the fall, there is no place for a doctrine of man and woman will give way to union with God. In those simple words that speak of an indescribable won- 36 Identity and Idolatry, 61–62. der, ‘they will see his face’ (Rev 22:4).

Lints, ERT (2019) 43:3, 230-242 The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding of Human Sexuality and the Family

Kristina Pickett I was at lunch with a friend, discuss- addressed issues relevant to that spe- ing our families—as we usually do, as most of my friends and I have grown contemporary LGBTQ lifestyle as in- children living away from home. Typi- cificconsistent time. with She nogodly longer living. viewed I listened the cally, we discuss our adult children’s in silence, partially because I was so career choices and relationships. But dismayed and partially because I had this particular luncheon, although just had virtually the same discussion pleasant, left me a bit unsettled in my with another friend. spirit. Why are so many families strug- You see, I’m no longer shocked gling with secular values among our when we discuss how some of our ‘churched’ children—or simply ca- unmarried children have decided to pitulating to secularism? Why aren’t move in with their love interest— they solidly grounded in basic moral- who may or may not be of the same ity with regard to sexuality? Why is sex—although I should be shocked, the church veering away from sound since they have all come from Chris- doctrinal exegesis with regard to tian families. But now I am noticing sexuality and godly living? Although an even more unsettling trend: some the attractions of their increasingly of the parents are shifting along with secular surroundings may be partly the kids. responsible, another reason is a fre- My friend explained to me how quent lack of sound doctrine and she had just learned that her son was instruction on theological anthropol- in a same-sex relationship. She then ogy and sexuality within the Chris- went on to say how happy she was tian community—by which I mean that he was happy, and that he was both the institutionalized church and still a Christian who had taken on a Christian homes. career as an LGBTQ advocate. Until Today’s secular worldview is char- now, she stated, she had failed to un- acterized by blurred lines regarding derstand that the Bible was a product human anthropology, sex and gender. of ancient Near Eastern culture and Popular opinion seems to lean to-

Kristina Pickett (MTS, Liberty Biblical Seminary) is a former small business owner, writer, and seminar teacher from Union Lake, Michigan (USA) with more than ten years of experience in women’s and children’s ministry leadership. The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding 231 wards a non-binary, non-traditional How and why is a theology that - questions traditional orthodoxy and ence over both traditional moral be- the absolute truth found in the word liefsideology and thatbiological affirms facts. personal Technology prefer of God welcomed in the evangelical can determine the gender of an un- church? Among those who hold to a born child, yet in our modern culture, secular, materialistic worldview, we the child’s self-awareness becomes would expect that the process of de- - cision making should be untethered cation. Furthermore, when the self from spiritual truth. The focus of this turnsthe determinant to subjective of human gender experience identifi article is how the church community and popular opinion rather than to any objective authority for its moral anthropology and its implications guidance, the self ends up becoming reflectsfor human and sexuality. instructs The on widespread theological autonomous, the determining factor absence of clarity on this matter pre- of all life choices. sents a moral dilemma for the theo- In this regard, it is appropriate logical understanding of gender and to consider the so-called ‘Emerging sexuality, which in turn has enormous Church’ and its teachings. As of 2019, consequences for the Christian insti- some might claim that the Emerg- tution of the family. ing Church is a passing fad and is al- The family structure is one of the ready losing its relevance, although foundations by which God’s message in view of the popularity of one of its is passed from generation to genera- forerunners—Rob Bell, who is cur- tion. Genesis 2:24 states that a man rently booking sold-out appearances should leave his parents and cleave throughout the United States and to his wife, and they shall become one United Kingdom—this claim is ques- - tionable. ness we experience with God who Bell subscribes to Richard Rohr’s flesh;dwells thisin us. cleaving Similarly, mirrors 1 Corinthians the one seven themes of an alternative ortho- 11:3 informs us that the head of every doxy, which claim that the traditional man is Christ, the head of a wife is exegesis of Scripture propagates ex- her husband and the head of Christ is clusivity. The alternative orthodoxy God. In other words, the hierarchical gives substantial authority to life ex- (though not domineering) structure periences rather than to the doctrines of the Christian family mirrors the stated in the word of God. It proclaims hierarchical divine structure of God’s own family, which includes his role as universalism, though without claim- creator of all mankind. Pipes and Lee state, ‘God intended the family to be inga non-dogmatic explicitly to theologybe universalist. that reflects The 2 Emerging Church is an evolving move- the most basic social unit of society.’ ment that spans the globe but has no tive Orthodoxy’ (podcast episode 86), 10 factor that makes it cohesive is that April 2016, http://robbell.podbean.com/e/ itformal embraces structure; postmodern perhaps critiques the only of episode-86-richard-rohr-and-the-alterna- traditional Christianity.1 tive-orthodoxy/. 2 Family to Fam- ily: Leaving a Lasting Legacy (Alpharetta, GA: 1 - North Jerry American Pipes and Mission Victor BoardLee, of the South-

Rob Bell, ‘Richard Rohr and the Alterna 232 Kristina Pickett

How then do we relate the current- There is an old saying that every ly growing view of gender and sex to good lie has a remnant of truth in it. Yes, the church must acknowledge family? According to the Emerging the culture of its era so that it can theChurch, biblical we definitionhave a responsibility and role of the to reach out to people effectively—not, connect with the present generation however, by conforming the word to in a manner that it considers palat- the people but rather by conforming able, even if that manner involves a the people to the word. Therefore, postmodern deconstruction of Scrip- in this era of postmodernism (and ture that runs counter to traditional an increasingly postmodern church), orthodoxy. we must urgently clarify our theo- In his book What Is the Bible? Bell logical understanding of gender and highlights the human origin of Scrip- sexuality. The application of such ture rather than the divine message of God making a way for redemp- the Christian family unit and its role tion and restoration through His Son clarification is critical to preserve Jesus. Bell states that people wrote intended relationship between man the stories in the Bible because they andin glorifying God. God by reflecting the found something in them that would help them restore their dignity.3 Bell argues that the inerrancy of Scripture I. Characterizing Theological is not crucial to realizing the highest form of truth.4 Truth, he contends, is Anthropology found in life experiences and inter- Characterizing theological anthropol- preted by the one who is active in the ogy requires us to examine God and experience. man as a relational union. To do so, Considering the ambiguity present we must begin with creation. Gen- in this exegesis, it is not surprising esis 1:27 informs us that God created that Bell and many others within the male and female in His own image. Emerging Church movement fail to Humans, both male and female, were created to possess a body (the mate- in Scripture. He states that the church rial self), mind (rational functions), findneeds a caseto recognize against the the LGBTQ shift lifestyle in cul- soul (the non-material ego), will tural consciousness in regard to this (functions in choosing and deciding), and spirit (operating beyond earthly - connections).6 According to Gregg lifestyledelity and and commitment. affirm same-sex unions Allison, the spirit encompasses the within the confines of monogamy,5 fi capacity to have a relation with God.7 ern Baptist Convention, 1999), 9. 3 What Is the Bible? How an An- April 2013, https://www.youtube.com/ cient Library of Poems, Letters, and Stories watch?v=XF9uo_P0nNI.. Can Rob Transform Bell, the Way You Think and Feel 6 The Zondervan Pictorial about Everything (New York: HarperOne, Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017) 291, Kindle edition. 1967), Merrill 807. C. Tenney, 4 What Is the Bible? 282. 7 The Baker Compact Dic- 5 - tionary of Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: sexuality Bell, and the Bible’ (interview), 20 Baker, Gregg 2016), R. Allison, 62. Rob Bell and Andrew Wilson, ‘Homo The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding 233

This spirit, of course, is not to be con- tion of authority and submission. In fused with the Holy Spirit, who dwells this regard, the Emerging Church has in the believer and transforms the in effect replicated the sin of Adam heart, mind and soul. and Eve by questioning the authority Hans Schwarz states that ‘to be and validity of God’s word and valu- created in God’s image means to be ing individual experience above tradi- ethically shaped in conformity with tional Christian teachings. God and to act in a manner for which Adam and Eve rebelled against God serves as the prototype.’8 To ac- God’s authority to rightfully and right- complish this shaping, one must look eously maintain rule over His crea- to Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:3 informs tion. If they had trusted in God’s just us that ‘The Son is the radiance of and good nature, there would have God’s glory and the exact representa- been no rebellion. Mankind was cre- tion of His being.’ However, in the gar- ated to submit to the good and right- den of Eden, Adam and Eve dwelt in eous authority of God. Temptation the presence of God and communed and disobedience would plague man- directly with Him. The tree of life and kind from that moment on, through- the tree of the knowledge of good and out all future generations. Tragically, evil, both of which were planted in the this act of disobedience would distort middle of the garden of Eden, constituted a vehicle that required Adam and would permanently damage the and Eve to exercise their free will. God man’srelationship ability between to reflect creator God’s image and commanded Adam that he was not to creation. The effects of this severing eat from the tree of the knowledge of include the implanting of a deceptive good and evil, for if he did, he would understanding of ethics into humanity and the distortion of all social rela- Under temptation from a force out- tionships, including sexually intimate sidecertainly the boundaries die (Gen 2:15–17). of God, disguised relationships. as the serpent, Adam and Eve fell into Today a similar type of rebellion is disobedience. Man exercised his free among us—a form of Christian sexual will to disobey God’s command, even - though God had made ‘all kinds of gy. The Emerging Church answers the liberationsecular world’s justified call by for a liberal a less theolo strin- that were pleasing to the eye and gent sexual morality by questioning goodtrees for grow food’ out (Gen of the 2:9). ground; One must trees the sinful nature of unrenewed men question where the true temptation and women and the basic moral code lurked. There is no reason to conclude that, according to traditional Christi- that the fruit from the tree of the anity, has been implanted in the hu- knowledge of good and evil was more man heart. In his 2006 book pleasing to the eye (or the mouth) The Secret Mes- , early Emerging Church than the fruit from the other trees. sage of Jesus proposes that The heart of the matter was the ques- the primary message of Jesus con- figurecerned Brianthe coming McLaren kingdom of God, 8 The Human Being: A Theo- in which all those who are disen- logical Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerd- franchised and marginalized, even mans, Hans 2013), Schwarz, 23. notorious sinners, would be forgiven 234 Kristina Pickett and accepted while the heartless and doctrine states that God created man- merciless would be rejected.9 For kind to experience sexual intimacy, as is evident in His command to ‘be fruit- ‘took the [Roman] empire’s instru- ful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28), but only McLaren,ment of torture in the and crucifixion transformed Christ it within the boundaries of male and fe- into God’s symbol of the repudiation male, husband and wife. Contrary to of violence—encoding a creed that love, not violence, is the most power- labels, gender roles are both biologi- ful force in the universe’.10 McLaren’s acally culture and biblicallythat desires established. no fixed gender radical exegesis seems essentially to discern Christ’s work as a message against injustice rather than the re- II. Gender Roles demption of souls. It has been established that right- - ful and righteous authority belongs dency in his critique of McLaren’s to God the creator of all things. He laterJeremy (2010) Bouma book Areflects New Kind on thisof Chris ten- has purposefully created all things tianity. In Bouma’s view, McLaren de- to be contingent upon each other. To scribes the human condition of ‘so- sustain life, nature is dependent on cial sin’ as the result of bad systems, climate, animal life is dependent on a dysfunctional societal machinery, nature and prey, and mankind is de- destructive framing narratives and pendent on God. Within these contin- collective human evil rather than a gencies, God sustains all things and natural inner compulsion to sin. As He has provided order. such, he does not view Jesus as a sub- In the divine order regarding the hierarchical structure of human crea- the world.11 tion, one cannot overlook the special stitutionaryThis understanding sacrifice for allows the sins for ofa position of the male throughout Scrip- ture. The male is called to provide and For example, it opens up the possibil- protect within the family and com- subjective definition of dysfunction. munity. God commissioned Adam to lifestyle choices contrary to biblical care for the garden of Eden. God had ityChristian of defining values intoleranceas one form towards of dys- provided all that Adam would need function. Hence, any objective claim to a biblical moral standard does not was to care for God’s provision. This meet the postmodern, emergent cri- towould flourish allow in Adam the garden,to act as yet provider Adam teria of relativism. In contrast, sound through his work. Furthermore, the man is called to war against nations that threaten not 9 The Secret Message of Je- just a physical invasion, but also an sus: Uncovering the Truth That Could Change invasion of corruption and wicked- Brian D. McLaren, Everything (Nashville, TN: W Publishing ness. Evidence is found in biblically Group, 2006), Kindle edition, 489. recorded wars such as the Israel- 10 The Secret Message of Jesus, 2282. 11 McLaren, Understand Emerging 17:8–16), Joshua’s war against the Church Theology: From a Former Emergent ites’city offight Jericho against (Josh the 6) Amalekites and Gideon’s (Ex Insider Jeremy (Grand Bouma, Rapids: Theoklesia, 2014), battle against the Midianites (Judg 7:1–8:21), to name just a few. This is

Kindle edition, 1562. The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding 235 the nature of man by design. insight as to the differences in gen- Generally, the male is more aggres- der roles and deeper understanding sive and competitive than his female of how the roles balance each other. counterpart. This difference can be Generally, within the family unit this traced back to the hormone testoster- combination provides a perfect part- one, which is more present in males nership in enabling parents to raise than in females. On the other hand, - the woman, as noted in the creation ness and empathy. of Eve, is to be a suitable helper to the children with a combination of firm man (Gen 2:18). The woman com- plements and enhances the man. In III. The Sexual Relationship this description, there is no implica- Human sexuality is part of the human tion that the female is inferior to the design, intended for reproduction - and intimacy. Hence, the sexual relationship is ordained by God. God is male;‘There rather,is neither she Jew is nor his correspondGreek, there not against sex when practised within ingis neither equal. Galatiansslave nor 3:28free, affirms there is this: no male and female, for you are all one sexual intercourse is the ultimate ex- in Christ Jesus.’ All people are equal pressionChristian ofboundaries; companionship. on the contrary,Through before God. Both male and female are created in God’s image, and the the mandate to be fruitful and multi- woman is designated as the suitable plythe andact of also sex, enjoy a male physical and female oneness. fulfil companion for the man. God’s word provides a moral and From a complementarian perspec- ethical framework for sexual intimacy. A proper theological understand- as ‘the position that men and women ing of the human body must precede tiveare complementaryon gender, which to Allison one another, defines sexual activity so that the sexual re- equal in nature yet distinct in relationships and roles’,12 it is clear that the male-female union offers recip- Chet Mitchell Jechura states, ‘Un- derstandinglationship can of reflectthe human a godly person union. as is designed with a higher capacity to the imago Dei grounds the primacy of human dignity in theological and rocalbe caring benefits. and nurturing. Generally, Research the female has 14 found that the female brain is larger Therefore, human in the limbic cortex, which is respon- sexuality must be analysed within its sible for regulating emotions, and ethicaldoctrinal reflection.’ design. that women tend to receive more sen- Sound doctrine is essential for sory and emotional information than Christian maturity, as it embod- men.13 This research offers biological ies what the Christian believes and strengthens the believer against the secular counter-culture. The preva- 12 Baker Compact Dictionary, 43. lent ideology of a heightened self- 13 Brain Allison, May Lead to a Satisfying Relationship’, Aurora Paula Health K. Carlton,Care: Women’s ‘Understanding Mental Health, the awareness and self-fulfilment is 3 July 2014, https://www.aurorahealthcare. 14 org/doctors/paula-k-carlton-np-ap. Erotic’, Theology & Sexuality Chet Mitchell Jechura, ‘Enfleshing the 18, no. 3 (2015): 235. 236 Kristina Pickett rooted in a self-centred dogma and God-awareness rather than solely established in a profane philosophy self-awareness. Any disobedience of claiming that humans have intrin- which the believer becomes aware is sic freedom and autonomy, includ- likely to result in repentance, which ing the right to pursue pleasure and God embraces in His mercy and grace. sensual satisfaction by following the This God-awareness impacts every lust of their own hearts. This senti- aspect of social experience, including ment is lurking beneath the Emerg- human sexuality.17 approach to theology, as displayed for ingexample Church’s by Bell’s promotion tolerance of of a flexiblethe LG- IV. Godly Boundaries for BTQ lifestyle. Human Sexuality The Christological15 understanding Sexual intimacy is established by God is antithetical to this secular philoso- who created male and female in His phy. In the Christian view of human- image, ordained the institution of ity, our heart, soul and mind are sub- marriage and designed it for sexual bonding. God makes it clear that the 10:27). Paul notes in 1 Corinthians sexual act, as well as the mandate to ject6:19 tothat God the (Mt believer’s 22:35; bodyMk 12:28; is a tem Lk- procreate, is to be exercised within ple of the Holy Spirit. He states, ‘You 18 Hebrews 13:4 states, ‘Marriage should be hon- a price. Therefore, honour God with theoured confines by all, of and monogamy. the marriage bed are not your own; you were bought at kept pure, for God will judge the adul- the sacredness, holiness and purity terer and all the sexually immoral.’ yourfor which bodies.’ the This body message was designed. confirms A pure marriage bed is achieved by Paul’s theological understanding of avoiding extramarital affairs. freedom consists of a freedom to obey Previously, I observed that mar- God, not freedom to sin or participate in immoral behaviours.16 God and a living testimony to the The difference between the two Brideriage (the is an church) institution and the that Groom glorifies (Je- worldviews is radical. The Christian sus Christ). Just as the spiritual bride functions in union with the indwell- is to serve no other God, the earthly ing Holy Spirit, who instructs, guides marriage must also be a monogamous and strengthens the heart and mind union. Therefore, the church must with godly principles. Although the understand that marriage is greater believer has the freedom to disobey, his or her heart is characterized by thethan holy the covenant secular definition that the Christian that has 15 entersbeen imposed with God on through it; marriage Jesus echoesChrist. and the Fight for Gay Marriage: A Conversa- - tion Elizabeth with Rob and Tenety, Kristen ‘Love, Bell’, Gender Berkley Roles,Cent- er at Georgetown University, 17 November As such, it entails specific implica 2014, https://berkleycenter.georgetown. 17 Baker Compact Dictionary, 193– 94. for-gay-marriage-a-conversation-with-rob- 18 Allison, An Old and-kristen-bell.edu/posts/love-gender-roles-and-the-fight- Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zonder- 16 Baker Compact Dictionary, 89. van, Bruce 2007), K. 237. Waltke and Charles Yu,

Allison, The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding 237

not a matter of law, custom or one’s union is exclusive, heterosexual and designedtions regarding to be indissoluble. sexual intimacy;19 the obedience to God’s word, as all ac- Regarding marriage, Jesus stated, tionsself-actualized should be. nature; However, it is obedience an act of ‘So they are no longer two, but one to God’s word is possible only if one believes that it carries authority. Once together, let no one separate.’ He con- one questions the authority of His tinued,flesh. Therefore, ‘Moses permitted what God youhas joinedto di- word, as the Emerging Church seems vorce your wives because your hearts to do, on what grounds is there rea- were hard. But it was not this way son for obedience? God, in no am- from the beginning’ (Mt 19:4–8). The biguous terms, has situated sexual in- Edenic narrative supports marriage timacy as a vital part of the marriage as a union grounded in the meaning relationship, thereby distinguishing and purpose created by God. it from all other social relationships. and Eve, had a monogamous rela- as a means of experiencing pleasure tionship.The first God husband gave Adamand wife, only Adam one The postmodern definition of sex female companion. In the biblical purpose, leading to sexual intimacy sense, Adam knew his wife. God’s in- outsidejustifies godlya deviation boundaries. from its original tent in each marriage is for the husband to ‘know’ his wife. The Bible is not naïve to the fact that sexually im- V. Sexual Intimacy Beyond moral thoughts may occur even in the God’s Boundaries saints. Paul addresses this temptation Sexual acts contrary to the biblical by counselling married couples to mandate are as old as history. Human control their urges through regular sexuality has been repurposed as a sexual activity: ‘Do not deprive each tool for power, personal gain, intimi- other except perhaps by mutual con- sent and for a time, so that you may well as simply for pleasure. Stephen devote yourselves to prayer. Then Ellingsondation, control suggests and thatfinancial ‘sexuality gain, asis come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your it communicates to others something aboutmore thanourselves the joining and the of kindtwo bodies;of per- intimacy within marriage not only sons we are.’ Being embodied, hu- strengthenslack of self-control’ the marital (1 Cor 7:5).bond Sexual but mans experience the world as sensual restrains the God-given sexual urge and sexual beings. Gender and sexual from veering off towards adulterous identity fall within normative social fornication. Therefore, the norm is for regimes and provide a primary crite- married couples to enjoy sexual inti- rion for determining whether an intimacy often, each man with his own mate relationship is viewed as ‘good’ wife. or ‘bad’.20 Within theological bounda- For the Christian, sexual ethics is ries, God is the one who makes this

19 Evangelical 20 Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, Green, Religion and Sexuality in Cross-Cultur- 1997). Walter Elwell, ed., ‘Sexuality’, al Perspective Stephen (London: Ellingson Routledge, and M. 2002), Christian 2. 238 Kristina Pickett determination. Although social re- ual lust.21 gimes may shift, God’s word does not. Thus, the major proponent of the What message do Christians, called to divergent sexual relationship is he- be Christ’s ambassador and a light to - the world, relay to others if their un- ment of an individual’s sexual desire derstanding of normative Christian donism, which authorizes the fulfil- - is states, ‘The most dangerous thing mative within the culture? apartyou can from do biblicalis to take confines. any one C. impulse S. Lew sexualityEllingson shifts makes to reflect the astute what isobser nor- of our own and set it up as the thing vation that the growing controversies you ought to follow at all cost.’22 in the United States over teen preg- It is at this juncture that the nancy, abortion rights, homosexuality Emerging Church and others chal- and same-sex marriage suggest that lenge standard exegesis. Regarding 'traditional, religiously based repre- homosexual relationships in particu- sentations of sexuality do not accu- lar, the common argument is that a loving same-sex relationship is not reality.' This presents a fundamental antithetical to scripture. Todd Wilson ratelychallenge map to onto the thechurch shifting community. field of counters that argument in Mere Sexu- However, the theological understand- ality, stating that ‘to trivialize sex is to ing of human sexuality is grounded - in objective truth, which does not tion becomes a god.’ He adds, ‘When shift to conform to the surrounding idolizewe disconnect pleasure the and act sexual of sex gratificafrom the culture. Sexual desires may become purpose of sex, we end up marginal- overwhelmingly powerful to the point izing children. … When we divorce sex at which they not only challenge and from its purpose, we treat our body, change social norms, but also alter or someone else’s body, as though it Christian beliefs. In fact, all physical were just a tool, something to be used desires and urges, if not grounded in by us or for us.”23 the objective biblical truth, carry this There is no exegetical support for potential to transform ethics and mo- same-sex relationships. When we rality. Avi Sion observes that the sex urge rather than a spiritual urge, we drive has two facets. Its basic function considerrecognize sexualthat this desire desire as amust fleshly be - ate one’s genetic makeup through isdescendants. reproductive; This its urge isremoves to perpetu the submittedencompassing to Christ.‘sexual Galatiansimmorality, 5:19– im- discomfort of the metaphysical fear of 21purity defines and thedebauchery, desires of idolatry the flesh and as witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, to obey an assumed divine command- nonexistencement. The other and facet satisfies is the urgethe desire to remove the discomfort of sexual tension 21 Volition and Allied Causal Con- cepts (Geneva, Switzerland: Avi Sion, 2008), by satisfying physical lust. This facet Kindle Avi edition, Sion, 248. is committed to the hedonistic aspect 22 The of sex, ignoring the reproductive as- Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New pect. Engaging in masturbation, or in York: C. Harper S. Lewis, Collins, ‘Christian 2007), Marriage’, 93. in some cases child abuse, homosexual 23 Mere Sexuality (Grand Rap- acts or bestiality, may satisfy this sex- ids: Zondervan, 2017), Kindle edition, 99. Todd Wilson, The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding 239

- cal denominations may not have for- sions, orgies and the like.’ Sexual sins mally abandoned the historic biblical fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissen position on premarital cohabitation, living soul has indulged in some as- but many of them have become ha- are not the only grievous sins; every bituated to the practice. And what the point, as Paul expressed in Romans church decides to condone regarding pect of the desire of the flesh at some sexuality has a direct impact on the sexual sins as somehow worse than family, which looks to the church to 7:14–25.all others. SoBut weour shouldonly rescue not from treat reinforce family values. temptation in this area, as in all other areas, is deliverance in Jesus Christ. Pope John Paul II recognized the VI. The Church, Sexuality and nature of our modern challenge to Modernity traditional morality, stating, ‘The The church and modernity should be service which moral theologians are at opposite ends of the ethical spec- called to provide at the present time trum. The church exists in society, in is of the utmost importance, not only for the Church’s life and mission, but the midst of current secular social and also for human society and culture.’24 ethical standards. Its members are ‘in To place this comment in context, we the world but not of it’ (John 17:16). must explore how sexual behaviours How then is the church body to ex- outside God’s command, along with the emerging theology of compro- by its values? More particularly, how mise and relativism, affect the church doesist in thethe Christianworld but who not maybe influenced be strug- and the family. gling with hypersexuality, gender Jeff Johnston notes the slow pro- gression from sound orthodox belief maintain Christian values in a society to ‘confusion in the body’ (of Christ) identification or same-sex attraction that has occurred in the last sixty-four The pleasure of erotic experience years. Johnston cites Anglican priest hasthat theglorifies power sexual to lead experience? people to justify their sexual compulsions and - DerrickChristian Sherwin morality Bailey, on homosexual in 1955, as publishingpractice. Now, the most first mainlinereal challenge denomi to- whatconfirm the theirmind or perceived soul has proclaimed sexual ori nations have departed from biblical andentation. what Therefore,modern social the body norms affirms have truth on the issue of homosexuality, accepted as permissible. permitting the ordination of actively Accordingly, Christians must recognize the seriousness of this threat include same-sex unions. Evangeli- and discourage pursuit outside mar- gay clergy and redefining marriage25 to riage of the erotic pleasure of sexual

24 - matism, and Positivism’, The Catholic Thing, gratification, pointing out that, as 20 PopeApril John2017, Paul https://www.thecatholicth- II, ‘On Relativism, Prag Focus on the Family, , https://www. ing.org. focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexual- 25 - ity/three-reasons-why-pastors-and-other-2015 tors—and Other Church Leaders—Should church-leaders-should-talk-about-homosex- Talk Jeff about Johnston, Homosexuality ‘Three Reasons in the Why Church’, Pas uality-in-the-church. 240 Kristina Pickett with the forbidden fruit in the garden, The 2017 American Values Atlas tasting it can make one yield to its de- also reported growing support for same-sex marriage and declining the forms of dysfunction and abuse religious resistance. Among young finingthat frequently power. One come can with also giving point in out to adults age 18 to 29, 77 percent were and glorifying free sexual expression. in favour of legalizing same-sex mar- These crucial concerns are trou- riage.28 The church is struggling with bling for many in God’s kingdom. The the concept of LGBTQ inclusion. Many church must act responsively, inform- Christian denominations have af- ingly and above all lovingly. Further- more, the church as a whole must ordination of LGBTQ clergy. withstand postmodern cultural and firmedIn January same-sex 2018, marriage a symposium and the involving a diverse group of Chris- tian leaders was held to discuss the social influences. challenges facing the church. The VII. The Postmodern Church participants agreed that a proper How well has the church withstood understanding of sex, gender, gender postmodern opinion on sexuality? identity and gender dysphoria would Within the general population, co- continue to be a pressing concern. habitation has become highly ac- Charles Taylor stated, ‘Christian belief ceptable. In 2016, the number of has not only been displaced from the Americans living with an unmarried default position, but is aggressively partner reached about eighteen mil- contested by numerous other op- lion.26 In the United States, only 63 tions.’ He suggested that the church percent of Christians believe that is in a position to reimagine its social, gender is determined at birth and 34 cultural and political witness to the percent personally know someone secular world.29 who is transgender. According to the The prevalent view of the church’s Pew Research Center, public opinion has been steadily shifting towards present culture is a symptom of a sick support for same-sex marriage, with church.apparent Healing lack of of influence this sickness within must the 62 percent in favour as of 2017. That - group included two-thirds of Catho- tion of the church’s responsibility and lics and 68 percent of white mainline capacitybegin from to within,speak truth, with aempowered reaffirma Protestants. Among white evangelical by the Spirit. Cathi Herrod stated at Protestants, the percentage supporting same-sex marriages jumped from Love and Marriage in America’. following year.27 28 27 percent in 2016 to 35 percent the - ert Alex P. Jones, Vandermaas-Peeler, ‘Emerging Consensus Daniel on LGBT Cox, 26 Issues:Molly Fisch-Friedman, Findings From Robthe Griffin2017 Americanand Rob ‘Eight Facts about Love and Marriage in Values Atlas’, 1 May 2018, www.prri.org/re- America’, Abigail Fact Geiger Tank: and News Gretchen in Numbers Livingston,, 13 search. February 2019, http://pewreseaarch.org/ 29 fact-tank/2019/02/13/8-facts-about-love- Church in 2018: A BreakPoint Symposium’, and-marriage/. 11 JohnJanuary Stonestreet, 2018, http://breakpoint.org/au ‘Challenges Facing the- 27 thor/stonestreet.

Geiger and Livingston, ‘Eight Facts about The Emerging Church and Traditional Christian Understanding 241 the 2018 symposium that the ‘lack of whole message, which includes sexuality, must become a vital portion of - the church’s teaching. Basil the Great, dersa unified efforts voice to modelcoupled a differentwith so many path bishop of Caesarea, stated, ‘We can- todeparting a culture from in desperate biblical need fidelity of clar hin- not become like God unless we have ity, civility, and leadership.’30 Clarity knowledge of Him, and without les- is precisely what our present culture, sons there will be no knowledge.’31 both locally and globally, needs des- Human anthropology and human perately. sexuality must be regarded as part of God’s creation and lived out in submission to God’s will. The following VIII. Conclusion guidelines are offered as a possible ‘Brothers and sisters, if someone is plan of action: caught in a sin, you who live by the 1. Prayer and fasting among Spirit should restore that person gen- church leaders of all denomi- tly’ (Gal 6:1). Those who feel isolated nations, with the purpose of in the body of Christ due to their sex- recommitting to God’s word and for strengthening and en- their temptations but rather of God’s couragement to remain true to grace,ual desires mercy, need love affirmation, and redemptive not of the faith (Acts 14:21–24). power in Christ Jesus. The church has 2. - a mandate to spread the good news tion of cultural norms into the and, in doing so, to receive all persons churchHumbly and confess pledge the to infiltrarenew with humbleness and graciousness, the covenant to follow the regardless of their gender, race or sex- Lord and keep His commands ual preferences. However, the teach- by the grace of God (2 Kings ings of the church must never be en- 23:1–3). tangled with cultural practices. God’s word never changes and His creation 3. Empower the church by teach- of the family structure is and forever ing in spirit and truth, with a will be according to His will and pur- focus on forgiveness, redemp- poses. Furthermore, the very foundation, restoration, abiding tion of human anthropology and hu- in Christ, and Christ as our man sexuality establishes theological source of life. parameters and provides imperative 4. Focus on understanding that lessons for godly living. If these les- ‘the old man’ has been cruci- sons are ignored within the church, the secular culture will advance its spiritual truth of the new life ideology without opposition. infied Christ with Jesus, Christ which and does on not the It is essential for the church to - guard the family unit and uphold it haviour but in a new heart and mind,result empowered simply in modified through the be purpose. To accomplish this, God’s as an institution that fulfils God’s 31 Learning Theology 30 with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: Church in 2018’. IVP Christopher Academic, 2002), A. Hall, 104. Stonestreet, ‘Challenges Facing the 242 Kristina Pickett

indwelling Holy Spirit to con- a new discovery of the mean- form to Jesus rather than to ing of the Person and work of the world. This emphasis is the Lord Jesus. … Paul makes especially powerful for those everything depend upon such who are struggling in their a discovery in Romans 6:6, own power to change. “Knowing this, our old man Put on the full armour of God (Eph 6:10–17) against the the body of sin might be done 5. lures and enticements of the wasaway, crucified that so withwe should Him, that no longer be in bondage to sin.” ’32 against the spiritual forces of 8. Focus on the peace of Christ secularevil in culture,the heavenly so as torealms. fight Jesus that covers people Be aware of what is accept- through their struggles and able in popular culture so that allow God to work in them ac- you can counter it with truth, cording to His timing. Do not teaching a spiritual message impose man’s timing on God’s applicable to living according work. to God’s word. 9. Do all things in the fruit of the 6. Teach all ages, in an age-ap- Spirit and allow love to moti- propriate manner, the wisdom vate and guide you. of the Lord on theological anthropology and sexuality. Today’s culture is desperate for Laying a foundation of godly truth and clarity. The church must principles in children will give maintain the light for which it was them spiritual armaments called, for believers to follow and for against the lies of the world. non-believers to ponder and receive. The greatest threat to the church and truth. the family may not be modern culture They will be sanctified by the or even the Emerging Church, but 7. In teaching and preaching, be spiritual slumber. There is a saying ever mindful that the Scrip- among our youth that seems very ap- tures should be understood propriate to this situation: ‘Wake up as they point to Jesus (Lk and stay woke!’ 24:27), the interpretive key to the Bible. Watchman Nee states, ‘Any true experience of 32 The Normal Christian value in the sight of God must Life (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1977). have been reached by way of Watchman Nee,

55–56. ERT (2019) 43:3, 243-252 The Rejection of God’s Natural Moral Law: Losing the Soul of Western Civilization

Thomas K. Johnson

The rejection of God’s natural moral phy. The people who rejected God’s law in Protestant theology in the natural moral law were all seeking a twentieth century is, in my assess- renewed Protestant theology, ethics, ment, one crucial reason why Chris- and church that would be more deep- tians lost the battle for the soul of ly rooted in God’s revelation in Christ Western civilization. We theologians and Scripture and no longer exten- disarmed God’s people on the eve of sively compromised by purely secular the battle with exclusive secularism, ideas. However, the loss occasioned so our people did not know how to by this attempted intellectual repent- address the public square about such - diverse questions as sexuality, human sive. In this essay we will consider the rights or education without giving the ancerejection and of self-purification the natural moral was law mas and impression that a person or a society its implications for public life, using the Holocaust as an example. difference between right and wrong. ‘Culture Protestantism’ was a term mustIn firstprevious follow centuries, Jesus to knowChristian the used by European (mostly German- theologians, both Catholics and Prot- speaking) neo-orthodox theologians estants, had claimed in various ways such as Karl Barth and Helmut Thiel- that God’s moral law was present icke to describe the liberal European within human nature, conscience, or Protestant theology of the previ- reason, so that all people can know the ous century. Some of the prominent difference between right and wrong, writers described by this term were even if that natural moral knowledge Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht might be limited or distorted. Howev- Ritschl, Wilhelm Herrmann and Adolf er, this claim was denied by some of von Harnack. All these theologians, though they held various convic- of the twentieth century. tions, reframed the Protestant faith theThe most rejection influential of Protestantnatural-law voices eth- as primarily pious feelings and moral ics and general revelation was part values while de-emphasizing such of a well-intended attempt to purify Christian doctrines as the Trinity, the Protestantism from its subordination incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, to beliefs arising from Enlightenment or the holiness of God. and post-Enlightenment philoso- Within the German-speaking coun-

Thomas K. Johnson is senior advisor to the WEA’s Theological Commission and the WEA’s special envoy to the Vatican. 244 Thomas K. Johnson tries, Karl Barth led the way in calling viewed as dating back at least to Fried- for a renewed theology of the Word rich Schleiermacher and which, he of God that rejected the dominance claimed, led to the religious endorsement of nationalism and militarism, in Culture Protestantism). However, such as that seen in the initially wide- of the Enlightenment (as reflected spread Christian support for Hitler the fact that Culture Protestantism and National Socialism.2 wasBarth not did only not a sufficiently rejection of appreciate key ele- Barth was not so much addressing a single theological issue as question- was also a rejection of God’s univer- ing a pattern of relating the Christian salments moral of standard law and Christian always belief;inclined it faith to Western culture, namely Cul- towards moral relativism. Neither Eu- ture Protestantism.3 As Barth saw ropean neo-orthodoxy nor American it, this pattern reduced Christianity fundamentalism recovered this part to being the religious component or of the Christian heritage in response dimension of the best principles of to liberal Protestantism. Western civilization, such that Chris- Karl Barth’s rejection of natural tian beliefs were interpreted, evalu- law and general revelation as accept- ated and accepted on the basis of able themes in Protestant theology ideas coming from Western culture. and ethics was not his theological pri- In other words, Barth thought West- ority, but he nevertheless had great ern Christianity had capitulated to the Enlightenment. Protestant thinkers who took simi- Barth’s comments on Schleier- larinfluence positions in thiswere regard. either followers Most other of macher typify this assessment. Ac- cording to Schleiermacher, ‘The most opinion that he shaped. After looking authentic work of Christianity is mak- atBarth Barth, or influencedwe will consider by the climatetwo such of ing culture the triumph of the Spirit people: Helmut Thielicke and Evan over nature, while being a Christian is Runner. the peak of a fully cultured conscious-

2 Christian Faith and I. Karl Barth (1886–1968) Public Choices: The Social Ethics of Barth, ‘Human righteousness is, as we have Brunner, See Robin and W. Bonhoeffer Lovin, (Philadelphia: seen, in itself an illusion: there is in this world no observable righteous- Cochrane, The Church’s Confession under ness. There may, however, be a right- HitlerFortress Press, 1984), 18–44; Arthur C. Robert P. Ericksen, Theologians under Hitler: eousness before God, a righteousness (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962); 1 Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanuel that comes from Him.’ With such Hirsch (New Haven and London: Yale Univer- words Barth rejected the synthesis of - Christianity with European culture cial Philosophy of Karl Barth’, in Community, and philosophy, a synthesis that he Statesity Press, and Church: 1985); Threeand Will Essays Herberg, by Karl ‘The Barth So, ed. Will Herberg (New York: Anchor Books, 1960). 1 The Epistle to the Romans, 3 - translated from the sixth edition by Edwyn tis, Contemporary Protestant Thought (New C. Karl Hoskyns Barth, (London, Oxford and New York: York: On CultureBruce Publishing Protestantism, Company, see C. J.1970), Cur 97–103.

Oxford University Press, 1933), 75. The Rejection of God’s Natural Moral Law 245 ness. The kingdom of God, according new revelation of God, which, de- to Schleiermacher, is totally and com- manding obedience and trust, took pletely identical with the progress of its place beside the revelation at- culture.’ Further, for Schleiermacher, tested in Holy Scripture, claiming it according to Barth, the ‘existence of should be acknowledged by Chris- churches is really an “element that is tian proclamation and theology as necessary for the development of the equally binding and obligatory. … human spirit.”’ 4 [This would lead to] the transfor- Barth summarizes his own posi- mation of the Christian Church into tion in contrast to Schleiermacher the temple of the German nature- when he suggests that real theologi- and-history-myth.6 ans ‘should seek the secret of Chris- Barth did not want the immediate tianity beyond all culture’. Barth de- crisis of National Socialism to blind clares that God stands over5 against Christians to the broader problem of even the best in human culture as which the church’s endorsement of both Judge and Redeemer. Hitler was, in his opinion, merely a A crucial part of this subordination particular manifestation: of Christianity to European culture, The same had already been the Barth claimed, was the doctrine of case in the developments of the general revelation as held by natural preceding centuries. There can be theology, which seeks to prove the no doubt that not merely a part but existence of God. Though Barth had the whole had been intended and been speaking out against natural claimed when it had been demand- theology for many years before the ed that side by side with its attesta- rise of National Socialism, Hitler’s tion in Jesus Christ and therefore in rise to power and the religious sup- Holy Scripture the Church should port Hitler received brought the issue also recognise and proclaim God’s to a head. revelation in reason, in conscience, The question became a burning in the emotions, in history, in na- one at the moment when the Evan- ture and in culture and its achieve- gelical Church in Germany was un- ments and developments.7 ambiguously and consistently con- Barth added, ‘If it was admissible and right and perhaps even orthodox to of natural theology, namely, by the combine the knowability of God in demandfronted by to a recognise definite and in thenew politi form- Jesus Christ with His knowability in cal events of the year 1933, and es- nature, reason and history, the proc- pecially in the form of the God-sent

6 Church Dogmatics: A Selection, Adolf Hitler, a source of specific trans. and ed. G. W. Bromiley (New York: 4 Die protestantische Theologie Karl Barth, im 19. Jahrhundert (Zurich: Evangelischer from Church Dogmatics II,1. Verlag, Karl 1946), Barth, 388. This book contains Bar- 7Harper andChurch Row, 1962),Dogmatics 55. The quotation is- th’s critique of the capitulation of Christian- cellent treatment in Bruce Demarest, General ity to the Enlightenment and post-Enlighten- Revelation: Barth, Historical Views, 55.and SeeContempo the ex- ment philosophy. rary Issues (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 5 Die protestantische Theologie, 388.

Barth, 115–34. 246 Thomas K. Johnson lamation of the Gospel with all kinds to give the title ‘law of God’ to de- of other proclamations … it is hard to mands that did not come from God see why the German Church should at all. That is why he changed the not be allowed to make its own par- traditional phrase ‘law and gospel’ to ticular use of the procedure.’8 ‘gospel and law’. ‘Anyone who really Barth saw the Barmen Confession (31 May 1934), of which he was the only then, presupposing this, say Gos- principal author, as not only a re- andpel wouldearnestly not, would no matter first say how Law good and sponse to the particular problem of his intention, be speaking of the Law the German Christian movement that of God and therefore then certainly supported Hitler but also an attempt not his Gospel.’10 to purify the entire evangelical church The order ‘law and gospel’, used of the problem of natural theology. by Protestants since the Reforma- Barmen forcefully rejects natural rev- tion, assumed a revelation of God’s elation: ‘Jesus Christ, as He is attest- law through creation that has an im- ed to us in Holy Scripture, is the one pact on human life before people ac- Word of God, whom we have to hear cept the gospel.11 But this order, Barth and whom we have to trust and obey thought, risked giving the title ‘law in life and in death. We condemn the of God’ to demands that came from false doctrine that the Church can and the German people, the Führer or must recognise as God’s revelation other false sources. To avoid this er- other events and powers, forms and ror, Barth referred to ‘gospel and law’ truth, apart from and alongside this to emphasize that we know for sure one Word of God.’9 that a law is from God only if it follows In contrast to all claims that God could be encountered through natu- about the Gospel in order to know ral theology, natural revelation, natu- theabout gospel: the Law, ‘We and must not first vice of versa.’ all know12 ral law or National Socialism, Barth Finally, Barth contended that proclaimed that God is known only natural-law thinking robbed people through his Word, meaning Christ. of courage when they had to confront Any other approach, he declared, re- evil: ‘All arguments based on natural duced the Christian faith to a mere re- law are Janus-headed. They do not ligious dimension of Western culture. lead to the light of clear decisions, but Barth’s approach may be illus- to misty twilight in which all cats be- trated by his discussion of the tradi- come grey. They lead to—Munich.’13 tional Protestant topic of the relation between law and gospel. He thought that sinful humans were very inclined 10 Community, State and Church, 71. 11 Karl Barth, ‘Gospel andThe Law’, Ethics in ofHerberg, Gospel 8 Church Dogmatics and Law: Aspects of the Barth-Luther Debate, 9 Ph.D. See dissertation, Hans O. Tiefel, Yale University, 1967. Confession Barth, as quoted by Barth,, 57. Church Dog- 12 - matics This is the first article of the Barmen sponded to Barth in ‘Law and Gospel: The Protestant confession that denies that God Hermeneutical Barth, ‘Gospel and andHomiletical Law’, 72. Key I have to Ref re- reveals, 54.himself As far through as I know, creation, this is althoughthe only ormation Theology and Ethics’, Evangelical some other confessions do not discuss God’s Review of Theology general revelation at length. 13 Community, State and Church, 43, no. 1 (2019): 53–70. Herberg, The Rejection of God’s Natural Moral Law 247

Barth’s bold resistance of the Nazis, Noting the negative ‘Thou shalt not’ as he saw it, arose from his starting structure of many commandments, point in hearing the revelation of God he claimed, ‘There is within this nega- in Jesus Christ. He thought any other tivity a protest against man as he ac- basis for ethics, including natural law, tually is.’16 This approach was in op- led to moral compromise. position, he contended, to natural-law conceptions, which ‘can be assumed only on the presupposition that the II. Helmut Thielicke fall has only a comparatively acciden- (1908–1986) 17 ‘Natural law and the Decalogue in Thielicke’s rejection of natural law facttal but belong not an to essential completely significance’. different broadly follows Barth, one of his worlds.’18 For Thielicke, the Ten Com- mandments harshly confront and condemn our natural lawlessness. natural-lawfirst theology ethics professors and the in thecapitula early- This observation relates to Thiel- tion1930s; by ThielickeWestern Christianity also rejected to both the icke’s critique of Culture Protestant- Enlightenment and post-Enlighten- ism. Whereas ‘The Decalogue is ex- ment ideologies.14 (Thielicke too was pressly set down within the context involved in the anti-Nazi movement of a dialogue’19 (meaning a dialogue among Protestant Christians in Ger- with God in personal faith), natural many during World War II.) Never- law and Culture Protestantism con- theless, he added some considera- ceive of moral decisions as being tions that merit separate discussion. made by solitary egos, seeing God as Whereas traditionally Protestants the distant author of moral laws: associated the Ten Commandments with the natural law, Thielicke associ- Culture Protestantism makes ated them with ‘natural lawlessness’. Christianity into a form of the 15 world (Weltgestalt) in the sense that the commands of God—in- 49. In the Munich Agreement of 1938, France and Britain permitted the Nazi takeover of the Czech Sudetenland. This agreement be- dissertation, Helmut Thielicke’s Ethics of Law came a watchword for the futility of appeas- and Gospel (University of Iowa, 1987). Rep- ing totalitarianism. resenting the traditional Protestant view, 14 John Calvin claimed that natural law, ‘which of Christianity to the Enlightenment and we have above described as written, even post-Enlightenment Thielicke’s critique thought of the is found capitulation in The engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense Evangelical Faith (hereafter EF), vol. 1: Prole- asserts the very same things that are to be gomena: The Relation of Theology to Modern learned from the two Tables’. Institutes of the Thought Forms, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), and in Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westmin- Modern Faith and Thought, trans. Geoffrey W. ster Press, 1960), II.vii.1. This connection of Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). God’s natural law with the Ten Command- ments is present in most of the Reformers. 15 Theological Ethics (hereafter TE), vol. 1: Foundations, trans. and 16 TE, 1:441. ed. Helmut William H. Thielicke, Lazareth (Grand Rapids: Ee- 17 TE, 1:443. Thielicke, rdmans, rpt. 1984), 444. The material about 18 TE, 1:444. Thielicke is broadly dependent on my Ph.D. 19 Thielicke, TE, 1:442. Thielicke, Thielicke, 248 Thomas K. Johnson

cluding the command to love one’s version. ‘Only the one who stands in neighbour—are detached from the personal contact with the Lord of the divine auctor legis and from the First Commandment, as one who has relationship of decision and faith been called and who follows, recog- with this author. One could also nizes that the commands of God are say that Culture Protestantism something “wholly other.”’22 tends to separate the second table Thielicke took a correspondingly - new, anti–natural law direction in in- terpreting the Sermon on the Mount: ofshall the havelaw from no otherthe first gods Command besides The harsh and apparently al- mentme’) and (‘I am then the represents Lord your God;the indi you- ien aspect of the Sermon on the vidual commandments as maxims Mount is its true point. It makes of Christian behaviour.20 its demands with no regard for Thielicke thought that as soon as constitutional factors such as the the commands of God are separated impulses or for the limitations from their source, they undergo a imposed on my personal will by change of meaning that leaves them autonomous structures. … It does not claim me merely in a sphere of - personal freedom. It thus compels lical moral prescriptions fall prey to significantly different from what they me to identify myself with my total wereideological intended perversion to be. Specifically, once they bibare I. Hence I have to see in the world, separated from God. For example, he not merely the creation of God, but thought the maxim ‘the interests of also the structural form of human the group come before the interests of the individual’ could be a legiti- sin, i.e., its suprapersonal form, the mate application of the biblical love ‘fallen’ world. … I have to confess command. But it was also used by the that I myself have fallen, and that Nazis in their terrible ideology. what I see out there is the structur- 23 Thielicke similarly saw in the early works of Karl Marx a secularized ex- Whereas Culture Protestants, pression of Christian love, but once natural-lawal objectification theorists, of myand fall. ‘German this love command was separated Christians’ generally saw societal from its source and integrated into the structures as the result of creation, system of historical materialism, its perhaps calling them ‘creation or- meaning was substantially changed.21 ders’, Thielicke saw them as result- A moral theory that allows the inde- ing from the Fall.24 Other views, he pendence of a moral command from God risks serious ideological per- 22 Kirche 23 EF, vol. 2: The Doc- 20 Kirche und Öffentl- trine Thielicke, of God and of Christ, 45,, 46.trans. and ed. Geof- lichkeit: Zur Grundlegung einer lutherischen frey Helmut W. Bromiley Thielicke, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Kulturethik Helmut (Tubingen: Thielicke, Furche Verlag, 1947), 1977), 248. 44. 24 - 21 Vernunft und Existenz tury, the term ‘German Christians’ referred bei Lessing: Das Unbedingte in der Geschichte to the In ChristiansEurope during who theactively, mid-twentieth sometimes cen ve- (Goettingen: Helmut Thielicke, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, hemently, supported Hitler’s policies. In Ger- 1981), 49. man they were called ‘die Deutsche Christen The Rejection of God’s Natural Moral Law 249 claimed, resulted from minimizing regardless of any moral principles or the total demand of God encountered ethical rules coming from an outside in the Sermon on the Mount and left source, whether that source is God, people without a complete sense of the Bible or the church. Thielicke de- responsibility for all their actions. nies the validity of these autonomous Thielicke’s discussion of the prob- norms, viewing them as an expres- lem of ‘autonomous norms’ recalls sion of our fallenness. They are struc- Barth’s concern for granting moral tural expressions of sin, not creation authority as the ‘law of God’ to a norm orders in which we encounter a God- that does not deserve such a noble given natural moral law. And if one of these immanent principles is absolu- Since Kant the fact is known and tized or idolized, secular ideologies classification:deeply rooted in our thinking that such as National Socialism or Com- the individual spheres of life are munism result.27 endowed with their autonomous Thielicke claimed that all natural- norms. He imputed this autono- law theories of ethics made two cru- mous structure principally to the cial assumptions: (1) there exists a spheres of meaning of the ethical, perceptible order of existence that the esthetical and the theoretical. More recently one has learned to human reason is largely untouched reckon with the autonomy of all bycan sin, be tracedso all backpeople to can creation; perceive (2) this moral order.28 Thielicke rejected knows of the autonomy of the both assumptions, arguing that hu- thestate, historical of economic spheres life, ofof life;law and one man reason cannot discern the good of politics. One grants each of these without revelation because it is too historical spheres an autonomous distorted by sin to engage in reliable structure because it is endowed ethical evaluation.29 with a constituting principle, from which all its proper functions can of Protestant ethics from notions of be derived. naturalThielicke law, calledsimilar for to athe purification Reforma- Because people25 think there are - ‘immanent principles which so con- ology from conceptions of salvation trol the processes involved as to make bytion’s works. purification ‘Man’s incapacity of Protestant to justify the them proceed automatically’,26 people say business is business, art is art, 27 TE, 2:72. A similar discussion politics is politics. Even responsible of the topic of autonomous norms appears people talk and act as if each sphere in Danish Thielicke, thinker N. H. Soe, Christliche Ethik of life and society has its own natural laws that carry validity and authority similarity of the discussions by two thinkers (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1957). The-

Bewegung’ or simply ‘Deutsche Christen’. theinfluenced basic lines by of Barth Barth’s suggests theology. that this as 25 Geschichte und Ex- 28sessmentTE, 1:388. of societal structures flows from istenz: Grundlegung einer evangelischen Ge- 29 Theologische Ethik, schichtstheologie Helmut Thielicke, (Gütersloh: Verlag C. Ber- His Helmut ‘Theological Thielicke, Critique of Reason’ does not 26 TE, 2:71. appearvol. 2 (Tübingen: in the English J. C. B. edition. Mohr, 1955), 371–83. telsmann, 1935), 46. Thielicke, 250 Thomas K. Johnson himself by good works is logically to De be augmented by, or integrated with, Veritate (1624). As the Thirty Years’ a similar incapacity truly to know the (1583–1648),War was devastating especially Europe, his bookHerbert will and commandment of God.’30 For advocated a ‘universal’ religion and him, all Protestant ethics should be between people. Obviously, this pro- alone, with no place for any notion of lawposal that deprived could overcome Christianity the of conflicts its dis- naturalonly an law.ethics of justification by faith tinctiveness. A year later came Hugo Grotius’s De Jure Belli et Pacis - III. H. Evan Runner ing to Runner, Grotius sharply dis- (1916–2002) tinguished the law of (1625). God from Accord the law of nature. Although Grotius be- H. Evan Runner was a North Ameri- lieved in the law of God, he thought can follower of the ‘Philosophy of the foundation of public life should the Cosmonomic Idea’, crafted by be the law of nature. These ideas the Dutch Protestant thinker Her- were developed a generation later by man Dooyeweerd (1894–1977). This Samuel Pufendorf, who also sharply - distinguished between divine rev- enced by Barth or Thielicke, but it had elation and natural law. Thus, Runner importantmovement similarities. was not directly Dooyeweerd influ argued, a whole new outlook devel- and his followers were sharply criti- oped that was contrary to the Refor- cal of the medieval synthesis of the mation faith. Man was no longer seen biblical and classical traditions, argu- as a covenantal being whose meaning ing that it furthered the seculariza- is found in relation to God, but as a tion of Europe and North America. rational-moral being who has within They also rejected any synthesis of himself a proper guide to life and the Christian beliefs with Enlightenment ability to act according to this guide. or post-Enlightenment philosophy, As Runner stated, ‘Such men did not suspecting that it had contributed to hesitate to leave Revelation and the the two world wars. Kingdom of Christ to the private lives of those who showed some concern ‘The Development of Calvinism in for these matters’, yet they ‘took up NorthIn anAmerica unpublished on the Background 1957 speech, of - Its Development in Europe’, Runner ing of the Kingdom of Man on Earth. argued that Christians should com- withCommunism unfailing is confidenceone form of the the build gen- pletely reject natural-law theory. Run- eral pattern.’ ner traced this theory to the deist phi- In this way, Runner saw the me- losophy of Lord Herbert of Cherbury dieval dualistic scheme of nature and grace seeping back into Protestant lands, with disastrous results. The 30 TE, 1:326. What Thielicke says here can medieval synthesis, he believed, was be seen as a development of related themes really an attempt to hold on to pagan in Barth. See Barth, ‘No!’ in Natural Theology: Comprising ‘Nature and Grace’ by Professor philosophy in the realm of nature Dr. Emil Brunner and the Reply ‘No!’ by Dr. while adding Christian beliefs in the Karl Barth, trans. Peter Fraenkel (London: restricted realm of grace or ‘superna- Geoffrey Bles, 1946), 97. ture’. Runner criticized the Reformers The Rejection of God’s Natural Moral Law 251 for not more completely replacing the secularization of Western civilization. medieval nature-grace framework Barth, Thielicke and Runner should with a more authentic evangelical phi- all be appreciated for advancing a pu- losophy. In his reading, the theology of Luther’s colleague at the University was deeply rooted in God’s revelation of Wittenberg, Phillip Melanchthon rificationin Christ and of Western scripture. Christianity But the weak that- ness of this line of thought becomes of capitulation to the medieval frame- apparent when one asks, ‘Could the (1497–1560),work, which made already revelation showed and signs the soldiers of Hitler’s Third Reich have Christian faith irrelevant to such are- known that it was morally wrong to as of life as law, politics and business, march trainloads of Jews and others thereby contributing to the seculari- into the concentration camps?’ The zation of Western culture. Natural- soldiers had orders from the German law theories, whether Protestant or High Command, and the Nazi-led gov- Catholic, were an important part of ernment had rewritten German laws nature-grace dualism for Runner and to make those orders legal. Therefore, should therefore be rejected.31 the soldiers were following the rule of law. Did those soldiers have a basis on which to say, ‘This is wrong!’ and to IV. Assessment refuse to obey orders? We have seen three related reasons According to the Barth-Thielicke- for rejecting general revelation and Runner line of argument, there is no natural law within Protestantism. For clear answer. If the soldiers recog- Barth, natural law is part of the natu- nized the authority of Jesus or the Bi- ral theology that reduced the Chris- ble, then they should have perceived tian faith to the religious dimension of Western culture and lost sight of they did not, based on these theories, the otherness of God, leaving Chris- thethen wrongness neither their of rationalitytheir actions; nor but their if tianity hopelessly compromised in conscience had access to a higher relation to Western civilization (espe- moral law on the basis of which they cially represented by National Social- should disobey orders. Though Barth ism) and unequipped to stand against and Thielicke risked their lives to society in prophetic criticism. Thiel- speak and write brilliantly against the icke developed this argument, claim- Nazis, their philosophy would have ing that human reason is so heavily left them unable to tell non-Christian shaped by sin that it cannot derive soldiers, ‘You know this is wrong’. any reliable moral norms from the This theological weakness cost structure of human life. Along a differ- Western civilization its soul. The ent line, Runner rejected natural law Protestant churches were left saying as part of the nature-grace dualism to their neighbors, more or less, ‘We that contributed to the destructive know it is wrong to participate in genocide, but we are not sure if you can know that it is wrong to participate in 31 - genocide.’ Rather than saying some- ry instead Other of philosophersrejecting it. See Thomas influenced K. John by- thing clear and constructive about son,Dooyeweerd Natural Lawreconfigured Ethics natural-law theo how everyone, regardless of their 116–24. faith identity, can know something (Bonn: VKW, 2005), 252 Thomas K. Johnson about right and wrong, Protestants Such a theological change could applied ethics only to Christians. revolutionize what our churches Elsewhere I have assessed how communicate about ethics to the this theological situation pushed world around us. We could ask a sol- Christians in two opposite directions: dier participating in genocide, ‘How either an ethics of holiness that applied biblical principles within the you know is right, even if it costs your Christian communities, or an ethics life?’might Christian you find communicationsthe courage to do about what of domination that attempted to reas- ethics must assume that people, re- sert the claims of Christian ethics on gardless of their faith, already know secular society, whether as a call for a ‘Christian America’ or a ‘Christian we can then discuss how they know 32 Europe’. Both of these directions thissomething and what about this right knowledge and wrong; im- largely communicated the same mes- plies about God and human nature. Of sage to our neighbours of other faiths course, one must also be prepared to or no faith: ‘We are not sure if you can apply the gospel of forgiveness. know it is wrong to practice geno- Karl Barth and Helmut Thielicke were right to reject Culture Protes- Jesus.’ By the mistaken character of tantism and the subordination of cidewhat unlessthey communicated you first start about to follow ethics, Protestant churches accidentally Christianity to secular thought. Evan promoted exclusive secularism and Runner was right to reject some En- moral nihilism, thereby cutting the lightenment views regarding natural heart out of the West. law. But rather than removing God’s The primary solution is not a new general revelation and natural moral claim about the power of human rea- law from our theology and ethics, we son to prove right and wrong (or the existence of God), though the proper represent what God is doing, not what use of rationality is a gift of God that humanityneed to reconfigure is doing. The them. Creator For is they ac- should be developed with discipline. tive in his creation, even if all of un- The primary solution is to see that believing life, thought and culture is in the Bible, God is described as con- involved in suppressing the unavoid- stantly revealing his moral law to all able knowledge of God and his moral humanity as part of his general reve- law. But even suppressed knowledge, lation (which is distinct from the spe- if it comes from God, is still effective cial revelation of the gospel). Because knowledge. Once we recognize this, of what God is constantly doing, peo- we will be better equipped to talk ple generally know that genocide is about serious matters with our unbe- wrong, even if they are committing it. lieving neighbours and introduce the We can say the same about other ter- gospel of Christ as revealed in Scrip- rible evils, even if we cannot yet fully ture. Perhaps in this way God might explain how God reveals his natural restore the soul of Western civiliza- moral law or how people learn about tion. right and wrong.33

First Step in Missions Training: How Our 32 Natural Law Ethics, 7–14. Neighbors Are Wrestling with God’s General 33 The Revelation (Bonn: WEA, 2014). Johnson, For more see Thomas K. Johnson, ERT (2019) 43:3, 253-262 Can Evangelicals Support Christian Zionism?

Gerald R. McDermott

The standard narrative about Chris- ferent tracks, which do not run at the tian Zionism describes it as a result same time, and often holds to elabo- of bad exegesis and zany theology. rate schedules of end-time events Although many scholars concede that including a rapture. This approach, the Hebrew Bible is clearly Zionist developed in the late nineteenth and (that is, that its primary focus is on early twentieth centuries, is thought a covenant with a particular people to be the origin and essence of all and land, both called Israel, with the Christian Zionism. land sometimes being called Zion), Yet Christian Zionism is actually they typically insist that the New Tes- at least eighteen centuries older than tament drops this focus on a particu- dispensationalism. Its vision is rooted lar land and people and replaces it in the Hebrew Bible, where covenant with a universal vision for all peoples is the central story, and at the heart of across the globe. Eretz Yisrael (He- the covenant is the promise of a land. brew for ‘the land of Israel’) is said to God took the initiative to call a par- be replaced by ge (Greek for ‘land’ or ticular people to himself, and then to ‘earth’), which is usually translated as promise and eventually deliver a land ‘the whole earth’. Concern for Jews as to this people. God drove this people Jews is seen as absent from the New off their land twice, but even in exile Testament, except to insist that there his prophets declared that the land was still theirs. The Jews who wrote between Jew and Greek (Gal 3:28). the New Testament kept this vision in isHence, no longer neither any the significant land nor difference the peo- the background, with the inaugura- - tion of the church in the foreground. cance after the resurrection of Jesus pleChrist. of Israel have any special signifi According to this narrative, the I. Biblical Evidence only people who have advocated Just as the Hebrew Bible envisioned for the idea that the New Testament blessings going to the whole world maintains concern for the particular through the people of this land, so land and people of Israel are premil- too the New Testament proclaimed a lennial dispensationalists. Traditional blessing for the whole world coming dispensationalist theology has often through the Jewish messiah, whose put Israel and the church on two dif- kingdom started in Israel and would Gerald R. McDermott (PhD, University of Iowa) is editor of The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Per- spectives on Israel and the Land (IVP Academic) and author of Israel Matters (Brazos). This article is adapted from earlier articles published in Providence and by the Gospel Coalition, and from parts of The New Christian Zionism. 254 Gerald R. McDermott eventually be centred once again in Israel. These New Testament writers the return will be in Jerusalem (Lk held on to the prophets’ promises that (Lk21:24–28). 13:34–35). Luke suggests that the Jews of the Diaspora would return When Jesus’ disciples asked Jesus to the land from all over the world, just before his ascension, ‘Lord, are establishing there a politeia (politi- you at this time going to restore the cal entity), which one day would be kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6), Jesus transformed into a centre of blessing did not challenge their assumption for the world. that one day the kingdom would be Anti-Zionists concede that the Old restored to physical Israel. He simply Testament prophets, usually writ- said that the Father had set the date ing from exile, predicted a return to and that they did not need to know it the land. But many of them say these yet. These sorts of indications in the gospels and Acts caused Oxford histo- when the Babylonian exiles returned rian Markus Bockmuehl to write that toprophecies rebuild Jerusalem of return towards were fulfilledthe end ‘the early Jesus movement evidently of the sixth century BC. continued to focus upon the restora- Yet there is remarkable evidence tion of Israel’s twelve tribes in a new 2 that Jesus looked to a future return messianic kingdom.' and a restored Jerusalem. In Matthew Paul, Peter and the writer of the 24, he says that when the Son of Man book of Revelation had similar expec- returns, ‘all the tribes of the land will - mourn’, quoting Zechariah’s prophecy ecy of restoration to declare that ‘all about the inhabitants of Jerusalem tations.Israel will Paul be usedsaved’ Isaiah at the 59’s end prophof history, when ‘the deliverer will come mourning when ‘the Lord will give from Zion, [and] he will banish un- salvation to the tents of Judah’ (Zech godliness from Jacob’ (Rom 11:26). 12:7, 10). In Matthew 19:28, Jesus In Acts 3, Peter looked forward to tells his disciples that ‘in the new ‘the times of restoration of all things world … you who have followed me which God spoke through the mouth will also sit on twelve thrones, judg- of his holy prophets from ancient ing the twelve tribes of Israel.’ E. P. time’ (Acts 3:21). The word Peter Sanders observed in Jesus and Juda- uses for ‘restoration’ is the same word ism that these repeated references to (apokatastasis) used in the Septuagint the twelve tribes imply the restora- (the Greek translation of the Old Tes- tion of Israel, particularly in Jerusa- tament, which the early church used 1 lem. Luke records Anna speaking of as its Bible) for God’s future return of the baby Jesus ‘to all who were wait- Jews from all over the world to Israel. ing for the redemption of Jerusalem’ In Revelation, the Lamb stands ‘on (Lk 2:38), along with Jesus’ expecta- - tion that when he returned Israel ry (14:1), and the new earth is centred would welcome him: ‘You will not see Mountin Jerusalem, Zion’ in which the final has stage twelve of histogates me again until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”’ 2 Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of 1 Jesus and Judaism (Philadel- Christian Markus Public Bockmuehl, Ethics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), xi. E. P. Sanders, phia: Fortress, 1985), 98. Can Evangelicals Support Christian Zionism? 255 named after ‘the twelve tribes of the example).3 sons of Israel’ (Rev 21:2, 12). In chap- Although Paul has been read in ter 11, the nations ‘trample’ upon ‘the this way for centuries, his letters tell holy city for forty-two months’. What a different story. In Romans 9 and city is this? It is the one ‘where their 11, he laments his fellow Jews who have not accepted Jesus as messiah, take place before or during the time saying that they cause him ‘great sor- Lordwhen was ‘the crucified’ kingdom (11:2, of the 8). world This willhas row and unceasing anguish’ (9:2). Yet become the kingdom of our Lord and he says ‘the covenants’ still ‘belong’ to them (9:4), and even though they new heavens and the new earth, that have become ‘enemies of the gospel’, hisnew Christ’ earth (v.is 15).to be So centred in the time in Jerusa of the- they still ‘are beloved’ because of their ‘election’, which is ‘irrevocable’ presence in the land of Israel. (11:28–29). lemPaul and hasfilled long with beenmarkers cast of asJewish the Galatians is the letter most com- apostle to the Gentiles, the man who monly used to prove that Paul has supposedly took the focus off Judaism dispensed with Jewish law in favour and showed that the gospel was really of a church that has left Israel behind. a universal message for all. Accord- Yet even here he says the gospel is ing to this view of Paul’s theology, all about ‘the blessing of Abraham Paul believed that the days of Jewish … com[ing] to the Gentiles’ (3:14) particularity were over and that the because ‘the promises [of blessing] days of non-Jewish universalism had were made to Abraham and to his begun. God’s covenant with the Jews offspring’ (3:16), so that becom- was over, these interpreters claim, ing saved means being in Abraham’s and he has transferred that covenant family: ‘If you belong to Christ, then to the church. No longer was God you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs concerned with the Jews, who had according to the promise’ (3:29). In forfeited their covenant because they other words, the gospel means get- had rejected the messiah, Jesus. ting connected to Israel’s history, not This is what Christian theologian getting away from it. Supersession- Kendall Soulen has termed the ‘puni- ism suggests that Israel has been left tive’ version of supersessionism, the idea that God made a new covenant - with the church that supersedes his lation,behind; which Galatians is usually says otherwise.dated near the old covenant with Israel because he We find the same pattern in Reve- was punishing Israel for not accepting ready seen, John writes that the new her messiah. Soulen’s two other kinds earthend of is the centred first century. in Jerusalem, As we have whose al of supersessionism are ‘economic’ (in twelve gates are inscribed with the God’s economy or administration of names of the twelve tribes of Israel the history of salvation, Israel’s pur- (21:12). It appears, then, that a Zion- pose was to prepare for the messiah, ist vision continued in the New Testa- and so once he came, Israel had no more purpose) and ‘structural’ (the history of salvation is structured so 3 The God of Israel and as not to need Israel in any integral Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fort- way, except to serve as a negative ress, Kendall 1996). Soulen, 256 Gerald R. McDermott ment church through at least the end (On Modesty, chapter 8) A bit later in the third century, the Egyptian bishop Nepos, who accord- of the first century. ing to Robert Wilken ‘was a respected II. Early Christian and admired Christian leader’, fore- Interpretations saw a restoration of Jerusalem and These are only a few of the many rebuilding of the temple. Millennial signs of Zionism in the New Testa- teaching was prevalent in that area of ment, which is why early Christians third-century Egypt and had been so continued to expect a future for Israel for a long time, along with, presum- as a people and land. ably, faith in a restored Israel.4 This early-church Zionism came of the best-known second-century screeching to a halt with Origen (184– ChristianJustin writers, Martyr expected (100–165), that onethe millennium would be centred in Je- between the Jewish messiah and the rusalem. Although he was one of the promise254), who of regardedthe land theas relationshipa zero-sum - game. Either one or the other could be ing that the church replaced Israel in firstsome replacement sense), his vision theologians of the church’s (think ‘If Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, future included a particular city in the thefulfilled, prophecies not both. about In Wilken’s the messianic words, particular land of Israel: But I and others, who are right- was the task of biblical interpreters to minded Christians on all points, discoverage had alreadywhat the been spiritual fulfilled, promises and it are assured that there will be a res- meant in light of this new “fact.” ’ So urrection of the dead, and a thou- Jerusalem did ‘not designate a future sand years in Jerusalem, which political centre but a spiritual vision will then be built, adorned and of heavenly bliss.’ When the psalmist enlarged, [as] the prophets Eze- said ‘the meek shall possess the land’, kiel and Isaiah and others declare. Origen thought he meant the ‘pure (Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 80 land in the pure heaven’, not some- and 81) where on planet Earth. Augustine was willing5 to call soil future for the people and land of Is- taken from Israel ‘holy land’, but he rael.Tertullian Although (160–c. he decried 225) the also Jews’ saw ig a- spiritualized the promises of land in norance in putting Jesus to death and a way similar to Origen. Once Augus- thought that God had punished them tine’s amillennial eschatology became by tearing ‘from [their] throat[s] … accepted in the medieval church, with the very land of promise,’ he believed its assertion that the millennium is that they would one day be returned simply the rule of Christ through the to their land: Christian 4 The Land Called Holy: to rejoice, and not to grieve, at the Palestine in Christian History and Thought Itrestoration will be fitting of Israel for , theif it be true, (New Robert Haven, L. Wilken, CT: Yale University Press, (as it is), that the whole of our 1992), 76–77, drawing on Eusebius, The His- hope is intimately united with the tory of the Church 7.24 and other sources. remaining expectation of Israel. 5 Land Called Holy, 70, 72, 77–78.

Wilken, Can Evangelicals Support Christian Zionism? 257 church, few medieval thinkers saw formed Christians. a future for the people or land of Is- After all, John Calvin wrote that rael. All Old Testament prophecies of because the Jews did not ‘recipro- future Israel were interpreted as pre- cate’ as willing partners in God’s cov- dictions of the Christian church that enant, ‘they deserve to be repudiated’ came into existence after the resur- (Institutes 4.2.3). There is only one rection of Christ. covenant for Calvin, and so the New Covenant did not replace the Old, but rather the church is the new recipient III. Post-Reformation Views of the Old Testament promises made But the Reformation’s return to the to Jewish Israel. There is no continu- plain sense of the biblical text re- ing corporate election of Israel, only the election of individual Israelites a future role for a particular Israel, as who accept Christ (Institutes 3.21.6). storedboth a confidencepeople and thata land, there even could while be Therefore, after Jesus’ resurrection Christian salvation was offered to the there could be no future for the peo- whole world. Pietists and Puritans in ple or land of Israel that would make the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- any theological difference. ries became convinced from Old Tes- Beginning at the end of the six- tament prophecies and Paul’s writ- teenth century, however, some of ings that Jews would return to their Calvin’s theological descendants, land and would eventually be con- mostly Puritans, followed a different verted to Christian faith. approach. They took seriously the Long before the rise of dispensa- Reformation’s emphasis on the plain tionalism in the nineteenth century, sense of the Bible and therefore dis- Protestants in a variety of churches tinguished between promises made foresaw a role for a particular Zion to Jewish Israel and those made to the in times before the end. Then, after new Gentile Israel. Thomas Draxe (d. the Holocaust and the establishment 1618), a disciple of the Puritan theo- of Israel in 1948, both Catholic and logian William Perkins, used Romans Protestant theologians recognized 11 and biblical prophecies to argue from Romans 11 that the rise of the that Jesus would not come again until church did not end God’s continuing ‘the dispersed Jewes generally con- covenant with Israel. As theologians verted to Christianitie’, but that in the brought new focus on that covenant, meantime they ‘would be temporally many came to see that the land was restored into their owne Country, integral to it. [would] rebuild Jerusalem, and have Many in the Reformed tradition would take exception to this ap- Church and Commonwealth’.6 proach. They have usually taught that a most reformed, and flourishing, the Church supersedes Israel without remainder, so that the non-Jesus-ac- 6 An Alarum to the Last Judgement (London: Nicholas Oakes and cepting people of Israel and their lit- Thomas Draxe, tle territory on the Mediterranean are analysis of seventeenth-century Zionism amongMatthew Puritans Law, 1615), is Robert 22, O. 74–77. Smith, TheMore best De- God. Nor, they conclude, should they sired Than Our Owne Salvation: The Roots of no longer theologically significant to- Christian Zionism (New York: Oxford Univer- be significant to evangelical and Re 258 Gerald R. McDermott

In his commentary on the book of Yet He at length, time to himself Revelation, published posthumously best known, Remembering Abraham, by some 1607) wrote that Jews were the ‘kings wondrous call ofin the 1611, east’ Thomas in Revelation Brightman 16:12 (1562– who May bring them back, repentant would destroy Islam. He was certain and sincere, they would be restored to the land of And at their passing cleave the Zion: ‘Shal they returne agayn to Je- rusalem? There is nothing more sure: While to their native land with joy theyAssyrian haste, flood, beat often upon it.’7 As the Red Sea and Jordan once the Prophets plainly confirme it, and he cleft, member of Parliament and strong ad- When to the Promised Land their vocateHenry of Puritan Finch (c.causes, 1558–1625), rejected the a fathers passed. ascription of all Old Testament prom- To his due time and providence I ises to the gentile Church: leave them. Where Israel, Iudah, Tsion, Ierusa- Increase Mather wrote in his The lem, &c. are named in this argu- Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (1669) ment, the Holy Ghost meaneth not that the future conversion of ‘the Jew- the spirituall Israel, or Church of ish Nation’ was ‘a truth of late [that] God collected of the Gentiles, no hath gained ground much through- nor of the Iewes and Gentiles both out the world’. This widespread ac- (for each of these have their prom- ceptance was a sign that the times ises severally and apart) but Israel of the end were near, a time when properly descended out of Iacobs ‘the Israelites shall again possesse … 8 loynes. the Land promised unto their Father - Abraham.’ 9 larly advanced the oft-repeated Pu- One of Mather’s theological inno- ritanJoseph conviction Mede that (1586–1638) the Jews would simi vations was his expectation that the be restored to the land of Israel after Jews would regain their ancient land the destruction of the Turkish empire. before they would convert. It would One of Mede’s students was John Mil- be only ‘after the Israelites shall be ton, who in Paradise Regained wrote returned to their own Land again’ in 1670 of the return of the people of that the Holy Spirit would be poured Israel to their ancient land: out on them. Mather also warned against a supersessionist spiritualiza- tion of promises made to Israel: ‘Why sity Press, 2013), 69–94. This section follows his lead. should we unnecessarily refuse literal 7 A Revelation of the interpretations?’ Like Finch, Mather Apocalyps (Amsterdam: Hondius & Laurenss, insisted that promises about earthly 1611), Thomas 440, Brightman,quoted in Smith, More Desired inheritance should not be spiritual- Than Our Owne Salvation 8 The Worlds Great Restaura- tion, or, The Calling of the, 75. Iewes (London: 9 Mystery of Israel’s Sal- Henry Finch, vation (London: John Allen, 1669), 43–44, Increase Mather, Edward Griffin and William Bladen, 1621), A2–A3, 5–6. 53–54. Can Evangelicals Support Christian Zionism? 259 ized away.10 commenced, God would remove the Anglo-American Puritans in the veil over their eyes and soften their Reformed tradition were not the only hearts with grace, and all Israel will ones to depart from Calvin’s version then be saved. ‘Nothing is more cer- of supersessionism. At the turn of tainly foretold than this national con- the eighteenth century, the Dutch version of the Jews in the eleventh Reformed theologian Wilhelmus à chapter of Romans’, he wrote.12 Edwards determined that the Jews volume systematic theology that pre- would return to their homeland. This sentedBrakel (1635–1711)a more nuanced published view of Jewisha four- was inevitable, he reasoned, because Israel. Brakel insisted that Paul’s ref- the prophecies of land being given to had in mind Jewish Israel as a people was also necessary in order for God witherence a distinct to ‘all Israel’ future. in Brakel Romans declared 11:25 tothem make had them been onlya ‘visible partly monument’ fulfilled. It emphatically that Jews would return of his grace and power at their con- to the land: version. At that moment religion and Will the Jewish nation be gathered learning would be at their respective together again from all the regions peaks, and Canaan once again would of the world and from all the na- be a spiritual centre of the world. Al- tions of the earth among which though Israel would again be a dis- they have been dispersed? Will tinct nation, Christians would have they come to and dwell in Canaan free access to Jerusalem because Jews and all the lands promised to Abra- would look on Christians as their ham, and will Jerusalem be rebuilt? brethren.13 We believe that these events will It makes sense, Edwards wrote, transpire.11 that corporate redemption should follow the pattern of individual redemption—or, as he would put it, that there perhaps the greatest Reformed theo- is harmony between corporate and logianJonathan after Calvin, Edwards agreed (1703–1758), with Brakel individual redemption. In his that Calvin’s supersessionism used a Blank he wrote that just as the ‘res- hyper-spiritualist hermeneutic that Bible - rode roughshod over Scripture’s plain volves only his soul but then later his sense. He agreed with Calvin that God bodytoration’ at the of angeneral individual resurrection, at first inso had abandoned corporate Israel be- too ‘not only shall the spiritual state cause their idolatry had moved him to jealousy, but he also argued that the divine abandonment would be tem- 12 History of the Work of porary. There would be a second day Redemption, vol. 9 in The Works of Jonathan of grace. Just before the millennium Edwards, Jonathan ed. JohnEdwards, F. Wilson (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989) 189, 469. 13 The Blank Bible, 10 Mystery Edwards Papers, Beinecke Rare Book and 11 The Christian’s Rea- Jonathan Edwards, sonable Mather, Service (Ligonier,, 54, 56–57. PA: Soli Deo Gloria, Edwards, Apocalyptic Writings, ed. Stephen Wilhelmus à Brakel, Manuscript Library,The Works Yale University,of Jonathan 806; Ed- www.abrakel.com/p/christians-reasonable- wards (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, service.html.1992), 4:530–31, accessed 4 January 2016, J. Stein, vol. 5 of

1977), 135. 260 Gerald R. McDermott of the Jews be hereafter restored, from your country and your kindred but their external state as a nation in and your father’s house to the land their own land … shall be restored by that I will show you’ (Gen 12:3). [Christ]’.14 The land continued to be at the Edwards and his Puritan prede- heart of the biblical story: ‘Of all the cessors not only focused on the plain promises made to the patriarchs it sense of Old Testament promises but was that of the land that was the most also took notice of the wide range of prominent and decisive.’ Elmer Mar- suggestions in the New Testament (as tens estimated that eretz15 is the fourth enumerated in the ‘Biblical Evidence’ most frequent noun or substantive in section of this paper) that the people the Hebrew Bible, more dominant sta- and land of Israel would have a future. tistically than the idea of covenant.16 The bottom line is that there has By my count, more than one thou- - sand times in the Old Testament the formed interpretation of Israel. There land (eretz) of Israel is either stated isbeen ample significant room in the diversity tradition infor Re- formed interpreters to see a future for covenant (b’rit) is mentioned, in sev- Jewish Israel and its land while at the orenty implied. percent Ofof those the 250 instances times (177 that - times) covenant is either directly or ence that the Church has inherited indirectly connected to the land of manysame timeof the affirming promises Calvin’s made to insist Old Israel. Of the seventy-four times that Testament Israel. b’rit appears in the Torah, seventy-

include the gift of the land, either ex- IV. Law and Land: Two threeplicitly percent or implicitly. (or fifty-four occasions) Different Promises According to the Dictionary of , ‘Next to God him- If the Reformed theologians cited in Biblical Imagery self, the longing for land dominates the previous section were right, then all others [in the Hebrew Bible].’17 In we might conclude that previous as- other words, when the biblical God sumptions about Israel’s land—that calls out a people for himself, he does its importance was temporary, like so in an earthy way, by making the gift of a particular land an integral aspect Christians have called the ‘ceremonial of that calling. law’—werethat of the sacrificial wrong. On system closer or exami what- But didn’t the author of Hebrews nation of the biblical text, we might make all this moot when he asserted realize that the Mosaic law, with its ‘ceremonial’ commands about worship, was a sign of the covenant, but 15 The Problem of the Hex- that the land was part of the covenant ateuch and Other Essays (London: Oliver and itself Boys, Gerhard 1966), von79. Rad, Abraham, the land was central: ‘Go 16 God’s Design: A Focus . In God’s very first statement to on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, Elmer 1981), A. Martens,97–98. 14 The Blank Bible, vol. 17 24 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Ste- Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Bib- phen Jonathan Stein (New Edwards, Haven, CT: Yale University lical Leland Imagery Ryken, (Downers James Grove, C. Wilhoit,IL: InterVar and- Press, 2006), 1028. sity Press, 1998), 487–88. Can Evangelicals Support Christian Zionism? 261

the land of Israel as continuing to be ‘obsolete’ (Heb 8:13)? Not really. He God’s holy abode. that the first covenant had been made- Scholars have long pointed out cial system revealed through Moses, that Israel’s enjoyment of the land was waswhich probably Rome’s referringdestruction to ofthe the sacrifi Tem- conditional: her people were exiled ple in 70 AD had indeed brought to an when they disobeyed the terms of the end. Mosaic covenant. But just as the origi- Hebrews moves directly from its nal gift of the land was unconditional - and permanent, so too the return to ing obsolete to a discussion of the the land was an unconditional gift of statementtabernacle ofin the wilderness, first covenant where be grace. Repentance did not precede it. The Scriptures suggest instead that perfect the conscience of the wor- repentance and full spiritual renewal ‘sacrificesshipper’ (Heb are 9:1–2, offered 9). that This cannotrefer- would take place after return and res- ence to the tabernacle makes it clear toration. that by ‘covenant’ the text means the In Ezekiel’s vision of the resurrec- Mosaic covenant, not the master covenant cut with Abraham. The land he will take the people of Israel and was God’s principal gift in the master ‘bringtion of them the dry to bones,their own first land’, God saysand covenant with Abraham in Genesis, then later he ‘will make them one na- and this promise was never revoked. tion in the land’. Then, even later, he Jesus spoke of ‘the blood of the cov- ‘will cleanse them’ (Ezek 37:21, 22, - 23). So the relationship between Is- ing there was only one fundamental rael and the land is governed by both enant’(Abrahamic) (Mt 26:28; covenant, Mk 14:24), and suggestthat the conditional law and unconditioned Mosaic law was an aspect of but not - the same as that fundamental cov- ise proceeds by stages. enant. promise, and fulfilment of the prom Scripture never puts the land on the same level as Mosaic law. If the V. Contemporary Implications latter was binding on Jews but not on Today’s 'new' Christian Zionists do Gentiles in the same way (as it only not believe that the state of Israel is teaches spiritual principles of holiness to Gentiles), and if the church is overwhelmingly Gentile, in one sense necessarilya perfect country; the last that Jewish it should state notwe Gentiles can say that it has become be criticized for its failures; that it is obsolete (but not irrelevant) for them. we know the particular timetable or But they can never say that about the politicalwill see before schema the that end will of days;come or either that people of Israel or the land of Israel. 18 The Gentiles of faith have been graft- But they are convinced that the ed into the olive tree of the people of before or in the final days. Israel. And the land of Israel is God’s state of Israel, which currently has diverse as the Catholic Gary Ander- 18 The New ‘holyson, Lutheran abode’ (Ex Robert 15:13). Jenson, Scholars and Re as- Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Is- formed Karl Barth have argued that rael See and Gerald the Land R. McDermott,(Downers Grove, ed., IL: IVP the New Testament authors viewed Academic, 2016). 262 Gerald R. McDermott more than two million non-Jewish There are good prudential reasons residents, is the institution that pro- for supporting Israel today. Israel is tects the people of Israel today, and an island of democracy and freedom that support for this state and its in a sea of authoritarian and despotic people is eroding all over the world. regimes. It needs friends as anti-Sem- The modern nation of Israel lies in itism rises precipitously around the a region of movements and govern- world. But Christians should also rec- ments bent on its destruction. Main- ognize that there are strong theologi- line Protestants have withdrawn their cal reasons to believe that the people support for it, and many evangelicals are now starting to follow their lead, history of redemption, and that the using the same faulty arguments as landof Israel of Israel remain remains significant important for the to the mainliners. God’s providential purposes.

Call for Papers The Evangelical Review of Theology (ERT) is the WEA Theological Commis- sion’s journal. Beginning in 2019, we are more fully synthesizing the content of ERT with the work of the Theological Commission by highlighting, in each issue, a theme related to topics that the Theological Commission is addressing. We invite articles based on these themes, although submissions on any other topics are still welcome. Submit them to editor Bruce Barron at [email protected]. Questions may be directed to Peirong Lin, research coordinator for the WEA’s Department of Theological Concerns, at [email protected]. Engagement in the Public Space (October 2019 issue) At the WEA, we seek to work with other international institutions like the UN as well as in many different government contexts. One important global trend today is the rise in nationalism in politics. Our faith impacts how we interact with the broader public. What does this mean for our theology? What kind one’s theology change in the face of a nationalistic or closed government con- oftext? theological How should reflection Christians is required live out in their pluralistic, theologies postmodern in the public societies? space? Does Due date July 2019. Theological Education (January 2020 issue) As evangelicals, we pride ourselves on taking the Bible seriously. At the same time, we live in a time that is different from biblical times. The world today theological education? What is the role of higher criticism in theology? What is theglobalized place for and contextual digitalized. or systematic How should theology? these considerations Due date 1 October influence 2019 our. ERT (2019) 43:3, 263-267 Frangelism: Evangelizing by Storytelling

Johannes Reimer

Beat Lehmann, a successful busi- news, or the evangel, about Jesus the nessman in Paris, uses the word Son of God himself.2 frangelism to describe his approach To evangelize means to share to personal evangelism. FRAN is an the story of Jesus—his life, teach- acronym for friends, relatives, asso- ing, death and resurrection. He was ciates and neighbours. Alistair Begg, God’s messenger, proclaiming God’s widely known senior pastor at Park- grace and forgiveness of sin through side Church in Cleveland, USA and the his own work of reconciliation. In Bible teacher on the ‘Truth for Life’ him God reconciled himself with the radio program, uses the same expres- - sion.1 The term ‘frangelism’ seems to sage is good news because the mes- express in a nutshell what evangelism worldsenger of marked man (2 the Cor way 5:18). to life.The Hemes is means. In this paper, I argue for a the good news in person. In other broader use of the term. words, the messenger is the message, as D. George Vanderlip rightly says.3 The apostle Paul wrote to Tim- I. Gospelling: Spelling God´s othy, ‘Remember Jesus Christ, raised Story from the dead, descended from Da- In my latest book on evangelism I vid. This is my gospel, for which I am have suggested that we rethink our suffering even to the point of being classic approaches to evangelism by chained like a criminal’ (2 Tim 2:8–9). referring to the old Germanic term The gospel is a story, the Jesus God-spell, the etymological source of story. It is not simply a set of truths, the modern-day word gospel. ‘God- but rather the truth lived by a person. spell’ translates as telling God´s story, Jesus said, ‘I am the way and the truth which is exactly what the New Tes- and the life. No one comes to the Fa- tament does in describing the good 2 Gooseling: Lernen über Jesus zu reden (Mar- 1 - burg: See Francke the discussion Verlag, 2019), in Johannes 12.19– 30. Reimer, lism, Part One’, available at https://www. 3 Jesus Christ: The Mes- truthforlife.org/resources/sermon/frange See Begg’s 1994 audio message ‘FRANge- sage and the Messenger (CreateSpace Inde- lism-1friends-relatives-assoc-/. pendent D. George Publishing Vanderlip: Platform, 2016).

Johannes Reimer is professor for mission studies and intercultural theology at Ewersbach University of Applied Arts (Germany) and professor extraordinarius at the University of South Africa. He is author of numerous publications on mission and evangelism including Gooseling: Lernen über Jesus zu reden [Gospelling: Learning To Talk about Jesus] (2019). Reimer leads the WEA’s Peace and Reconciliation Net- work. 264 Johannes Reimer ther except through me’ (Jn 14:6). He the known world. All this happened in an age marked by primitive means of of the world (Jn 8:12), the good shep- transportation and communication. herdis the (Jnbread 10:10), of life the(Jn 6:35),door tothe God’s light Unquestionably, this story is a mir- people (Jn 10:7), resurrection and acle under the guidance of God himself, through the Holy Spirit, whom 1:1–2), and salvation for the sinner is the believers confessed to be the Lord availablelife (Jn 11:25–26). in his name In (Acts him 4:12). is life (Jn of mission (2 Cor 3:17). The apostolic The most important question peo- church’s method of evangelizing is ple on Earth can ask is who Jesus is quite interesting, however. Persecut- (Mk 8:27–29). This question is the ed by the Roman state, the disciples starting point of all discussion about were excluded from any means of God’s way of life. This is, as the South mass evangelism. Their place of ac- African missiologist J. N. J. (Klippies) tion was the private house. Kritzinger puts it, ‘a question of mis- Thomas Wolf is right when he sion—a mission of questions.’4 claims that the norm of evangelism The story of Jesus determines in the early church was oikos (house- the content of what the good news hold) evangelism. Michael Green, who studied intensively the practice of must be told as a story one knows, evangelism during the constitutive sharedis. And as stories a story are one narratives; loves and lived they years of Christianity, sees in the pri- as a life-changing story. Essentially, vate home the decisive factor for the evangelism is storytelling. The New fast spread of the gospel. Testament powerfully marks the The private house, characterized5 parameter of narrative evangelism. by intense relationships among fam- Frangelism is clearly biblically based. ily and friends, offered a platform Let’s examine the Scriptures. for successful evangelization and allowed unprecedented growth of the church.6 And the church consciously II. Oikos: The Context of used family networks as a key for its Frangelism missionary work.7 Evangelism and Intensive evangelization through the consequently church development 8 apostolic church began soon after were centred on family and friends. Pentecost with amazing effectiveness. In less than hundred years, a 5 Evangelisation zur Zeit der few relatively uneducated disciples ersten Christen. Motivation, Methodik und of Jesus spawned a growing mighty Strategie Michael Green,(Stuttgart-Neuenhausen, 1970), stream of Jesus-followers in all major 240. cities of the Roman Empire, reaching 6 all strata of society and spreading the Christentums: Perspektive für die gegen- good news to the furthest corners of wärtige Jörg Frey,Praxis ‘Dieder Kirche’, Ausbreitung in Kirche des zwischen frühen Kultur und Evangelium, ed. Martin Reppen- hagen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Ver- 4 lag, 2010), 109. Mission of Questions’, Missionalia: Southern 7 African J. N. J. JournalKritzinger, of Mission‘A Question Studies of Mission—a 30, no. 1 8 (April 2002): 144–73. of Frey, families ‘Die in Ausbreitung’, evangelization 105. during the ap- For more detailed information on the role Frangelism: Evangelizing by Storytelling 265

Concentration on private house- members of the family. Soon whole holds could encourage a renewal of households turned to Jesus. evangelistic activity today. Swiss the- Third, family in the ancient world - was not just the nuclear family of our ages today’s church to learn from the 9 day, consisting of father, mother and ologianpraxis of Jörg the Freyapostolic rightfully church. encour The children. A number of generations correlation between successful mis- lived under the same roof, sharing a sion and family-centred evangelization is well documented throughout common profession and space. Fam- the New Testament.10 ily was more like a clan, a close and At least four crucial factors deter- related neighbourhood. Christians mine the prominent role of the oikos could easily reach substantial num- for evangelism. First, in a private bers of people without leaving the house Christians lived side by side protected borders of their clan. with their relatives and those who Fourth, religious associations belonged to the household. People in ancient Greek and Roman times could hardly hide their convictions. were typically formed around private Life took place in an open space. Any households. Markus Öhler shows, in change in attitude and behaviour was his article on the Pauline praxis, that immediately noticed. Christians committed to following Jesus and his ethi- Paul was not particularly original in cal standards could not escape being founding his church plants in private noticed. Accordingly, witness grew households, but rather was complete- into an automatic exercise. The apos- ly consistent with the culture.11 tle Paul refers to those Christians as It is easy to see how the evange- an open letter read by everybody (2 listic praxis of the apostolic church Cor 3:3). Living an alternative life in targeted family members, friends an open environment forced conver- and neighbours. In other words, it sations on what was triggering such a was frangelistic in nature. The private lifestyle. household or oikos set the frame and Second, the family was the most context in which evangelism as story- secure place for sharing the gospel. - telling became the most powerful tool most protect one another, even when to spread the good news through the Familysome members members wouldchanged first their and forereli- Roman Empire. gious convictions. Christians could function for a longer period of time unnoticed by the greater society, pro- 11 Grundung. Antike Vereinigungen und die tected by family ties. This gave them paulinische Markus Gemeinde Öhler, ‘Gr inu nderPhilippi’, und in ihreDer Philipperbrief des Paulus in der hellenistisch- römischen Welt - time to influence and convince other min Schliesser (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, ostolic times, see Johannes Reimer and Wil- , ed. Jörg Frey and Benja helm Faix, Familien—Zukunft der Kirche. Zur Vereinsrecht und christliche Gemeinden’, Korrelation von Familie und Mission (Mar- in2015), Zwischen 121–51; den MarkusReichen. Öhler,Neues ‘RTestamentomisches burg: Francke Verlag, 2017), 77–83. und Römische Herrschaft, ed. M. Labahn and 9 J. Zangenberg (Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 10 Familien, 86–103. Frey, ‘Die Ausbreitung, 105–9. See Reimer and Faix, 2002), 51–71. 266 Johannes Reimer

III. Frangelism: Applying the rather see one local church meeting in multiple private houses, as seems Apostolic Method Today to have been the case in Jerusalem or Stressing the role of house groups in Rome.17 In this case, each house gath- Christian evangelism is nothing new. ering would not have represented an The literature written on this issue is independent church. authors have addressed the topic.12 In this article I will not discuss the Aroundfilling libraries. the world, Numerous home evangelicalgroups are differences between or the implica- considered a key building block for tions of the two views, but will rather successful church growth.13 The pas- concentrate on the frangelistic role of tor of the largest church in the world, the house as such. the Korean David Yonggi Cho, claims It is crucial to note the basic differ- that house cells of the church he leads ence between both the small house determine their ‘keys to evangelism’.14 cell or house church and the oikos fel- He relates the phenomenal growth of lowship in the New Testament. The his church to the many house cells lo- latter involved people from the im- cated in the neighbourhoods where mediate household and neighbour- church members live. The cells con- hood.18 The fellowship was highly fa- nect the message of the gospel with miliar, as the people shared work and the day-to-day life of church mem- life and knew each other well. In con- bers in a way that appears convincing trast, typical modern house cells and to most people. His church counts churches, at least in the Western and thousands of small-group15 cells. urban world, recruit their members A house cell or small group is not from across long distances. Mem- equal to a house church. Some au- bers of such groups seldom see one thors claim that the house churches another beyond the group meeting in the New Testament were inde- or share life and work together. Usu- pendent churches, as indicated by the expression ‘the church in their house' people’ and may be viewed as homo- geneousally they reflectsocial units,a sense as of proposed ‘our kind byof 16 Others (see for instance 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3–5; Phlm 2; Col 4:15). Hauskirchen-Manifest für 12 Klein und stark—Minigrup- Deutschland (Xanten: GloryWorld-Medien, pen: ein Weg zur ganzheitlichen Nachfolge, 2009).1988); Keith Smith, Neal Cole, 17 Hausge- F. George, Prepare Your Church for the Future meinde und Mission. Die Bedeutung antiker 3rd ed. (Glashütten: C&P Verlag, 2005); Carl (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1994), 68ff. Häuser See und especially Hausgemeinschaften—von R. W. Gehring, Je- 13 Hauskreise— sus bis Paulus (Giessen and Basel: Brun- Bausteine für Gemeindearbeit (Basel: Brun- Hausgemeinde und nen, Heino 1992). Masemann, Hauskirche im frühen Christentum (Stuttgart: 14 Erfolgreiche Hausze- Katholischesnen, 2000); H.-J. Bibelwerk, Klauck, 1981). llgruppen (Cologne: Christliche Gemeinde 18 - David Yonggi Cho, chen Familie und Hausgemeinde’, in Haush- 15 Erflogreiche, 60. alt, C. Hauskult, Claussen, Hauskirche. ‘Frühes ChristentumZur Arbeitsteilung zwis 16Köln, 1987), 59. Paul’s Idea of Commu- der Geschlechter in Wirtschaft und Religion, nity: Cho, The Early House Churches in Their His- - torical Robert Setting Banks, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, burg: Echter Verlag, 2004), 61–77. ed. E. Klinger, S. Böhm, and T. Franz (Würz Frangelism: Evangelizing by Storytelling 267 the American church growth move- witness to social neighbours as well, ment, which has followed the ideas such as co-workers, social contacts, of Donald McGavran, founder of the and people with whom one shares School of Church Growth in Pasade- hobbies or leisure activities, will ob- na, California. McGavran suggested viously intensify the results. that an intentional concentration Frangelism functions best in such on such groups effectively promotes a neighbourhood-based, friendly set- church growth.19 His ideas have been ting. No one proved the effectiveness widely disputed and even rejected as of this system better than the ancient 20 Such spe- apostolic church. cialized house cells or Bible studies, theologicallyadvocated by unjustified. McGavran and many other writers on issues of evangelism IV. Frangelism: Steps Towards and church growth, were completely Effectiveness unknown to the ancient apostolic Sharing the gospel frangelistically church. brings new evangelistic life into West- Surely, wider families living to- ern churches. What are the steps together under one roof, as was the case wards doing frangelism in the church? in ancient times, are a rare phenom- First, concentrate your church enon in the Western world today. It life on equipping whole families for experience of the apostolic church. mission and evangelism. Witness- ing must become the DNA of every thusBut neighbourhoods seems rather difficult exist whereto copy peo the- ple theoretically have access to each church member, regardless of age or other’s lives. In fact, communities social status. worldwide exist in neighbourhoods. Second, help your families to Outreach at the neighbourhood level start a meaningful social life in their is probably the closest thing to the neighbourhood. Teach them how to live without always talking about the New Testament oikos format, since the neighbourhood allows a high de- gospel. Families who become centres gree of sharing, helping, assisting one of communal fellowship, neighbour- another in times of need, and so on.21 hood assistance and help will soon And where church families involve attract those who feel left out, those their whole membership in witness- in need of friends and love—the very ing holistically to neighbours, great things that Christians are called to things can happen.22 Expanding one’s give their fellow humans. Third, teach your families to live and share the gospel at the right time, 19 Understanding Church with the right words, and person- Growth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980). ally as much as possible. Things will 20 Donald McGavran,Mission Between the Times: change when more churches under- Essays on the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Eerd- stand and follow this model. Frange- Rene Padilla, Die Welt lism is a way towards renewal and ef- umarmen. Theologie des gesellschaftsrel- fectiveness for all churches. evantenmans, 1985), Gemeindebaus. 168; Johannes Transformationsstu- Reimer, dien, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Marburg: Francke Ver- Its Neighborhood’, in Bruce J. Nicholls, The 21 Familien, 236–48. Church: God´s Agent for Change (Exeter: Pa- lag,22 2013), 256–58. ternoster Press, 1986), 186ff. Reimer and Faix, Alfred Yeo, ‘The Local Church Reaches ERT (2019) 43:3, 268-280 The Doxological Dimension of Ethics

Thomas Schirrmacher

If anyone serves, he should do it which is removed from Christian with the strength God provides, faith. Ethics and dogmatics, life so that in all things God may be and doctrine, do not allow them- praised through Jesus Christ. To him selves under any circumstances be the glory and the power for ever to be separated from each other and ever. Amen. (1 Pet 4:11) within the Bible’s perimeter.1 When Georg Calixt put forth the

I. Worship and Ethics 1634, his intention was not to sepa- Christian ethics is so inseparably firstrate independenthimself from work dogmatics on ethics but in bound to the Christian faith that it ‘rather to include philosophical ethics - within dogmatics’.2 However, in the ing entity. Dogmatics (Christian doc- long run that led to the same result, cannottrine) andexist ethics as a separate, (Christian free-float praxis) namely that ethics was uncoupled are inextricably linked. Heiko Krim- from dogmatics and from exegesis. mer writes: In contrast, Emil Brunner wrote simi- There is no such thing as Biblical, larly to Krimmer, ‘One can only cor- Christian ethics. That there is such rectly present all of ethics as a part of dogmatics because ethics is also a question of God’s actions upon and of theology at all is a consequence 3 aof specialist the invasion field withinof the the Enlighten concept- through people.’ ment into theology. What we now- Christian ethics is also not a con- adays describe and discuss under tinuation of and certainly not an ap- the umbrella term of ‘Christian pendage to Christian worship. Rather, ethics’, i.e., Christian praxis, was it is a direct component and a direct originally contained in all the in- consequence of worship. C. H. Dodd dividual areas of theology and did

1 Ethik’, printed excerpt from Das Fundament: not claim to have its specific area. Zeitschrift Heiko Krimmer, des DCTB ‘Grundlagen(Korntal, n.d.), christlicher 2. Ato biblicalbe its own and, domain more when specifically, Kant, 2 Einführung in die The- Christianfor example, ethic presented was first his declared Enlight- ologische Ethik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, enment ethics with its own ethical Martin Honecker, 3 Das Gebot und die Ordnun- to speak about Christian praxis gen1990), (Zurich: 25. Zwingli Verlag, 1939): 71–72. edifice. And yet, it is not possible Emil Brunner, Thomas Schirrmacher is the World Evangelical Alliance’s associate secretary general for theological concerns. The Doxological Dimension of Ethics 269 wrote, ‘The Christian religion is, as The expression used for true, pure is Judaism … , an ethical religion in teaching, orthodoxy (Greek orthos = the special sense that it does not ac- doxein = to praise, to extol), on the basis of the meaning of worship and social behavior.’4 thecorrect, word, straight; means neither true teach- knowledgeThat worship a final and separation ethics inbetween Chris- ing nor true praxis. Rather, it brings tianity are so closely linked with each both of these together to express true other has to do with the fact that God veneration of God. is a just God, and that all ethics is de- Whereas Paul speaks in Romans termined on the basis of the justness 1:18–32 of irrational worship that of his essence. Thus, Gottfried Quell writes the following about the Old thing he mentions in the practical Testament: ‘One could say that jus- portionrefuses toof Romans give God is thanks, that we the are first ex- tice comprises the foundation of the horted in view of God’s mercy to place vision of God in the Old Testament. … our life at God’s disposal, for ‘this is That God sets what justice is and as a your spiritual act of worship’ (Rom just God is bound to justice is an in- dispensable proposition for the Old 12:1). A form of worship that does Testament knowledge of God in all its not have practical consequences in variations.’ all areas of life is an irrational form of For that5 reason, there are also ar- worship. Even if all confessions surely eas not normally addressed in drafts share this thought, it has historically of Christian ethics, such as prayer,6 been emphasized primarily by Or- worship and the Christian church, thodox and Reformed believers, and which in general belong among the at the present time above all by the innermost issues of Christian ethics.7 Orthodox and Evangelicals (who have a Reformed or Baptist heritage). Of course, the degree to which that ethic 4 Das Gesetz der Freiheit: Glaube has actually been put into practice is und Gehorsam nach dem Zeugnis des Neuen another story and is a topic for socio- C. H. Dodd. Testaments (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1960), logical and historical analysis. 7. In ‘Singing the Ethos of God’, Brian 5 8 AT’, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen R. Brock considers the Psalms to be Testament Gottfried, vol. Quell. 2, ed. ‘Der Gerhard Rechtsgedanke Kittel (Stutt im- a pattern for Christian ethics, because gart: W. Kohlhammer, 1990), 176–78. Quell they do not only speak about and of certainly assumes that the legal thinking of God. Rather, they are conversations Israel was so strong that it shaped the think- with God that receive and express ing about God. According to the New Testa- ethical instruction, ask for strength to ment understanding, this was, however, just the opposite. Cf. what is said about the image and thank God for his ordinances, di- 44.10. and 33.A.2. rectionsachieve fulfilmentand aid. of God’s direction, 6of God in Lesson 54.2., also comp.Das chapters christliche Ethos: Grundlinien der lutherischen Ethik (Hamburg: See for example Furche-Verlag, Werner Elert,1961), 397–408, my Ethik. 8 vols. (Nuremberg: VTR, 2009). and note Calvin’s long discussion of prayer in 8 Singing the Ethos of God: his Institutes. On the Place of Christian Ethics in Scripture 7 (Grand Brian Rapids: R. Brock, Eerdmans, 2007).

See the introduction and arrangement of 270 Thomas Schirrmacher

II. Reformed Theology 11:36), they ought to be referred In the Protestant realm, doxology, as to him. I acknowledge, indeed, that the origin and aim of ethics, became the Lord, the better to recommend a trademark of the Reformed move- the glory of his name to men, has ment. It is not coincidental that the tempered zeal for the promotion World Alliance of Reformed Churches and extension of it, by uniting it in- named its 1977 centennial celebra- dissolubly with our salvation. But tion ‘The Glory of God and the Future since he has taught that this zeal of Man’. ought to exceed all thought and For John Calvin,9 the glory of God care for our own good and advan- was the individual’s goal in life, as tage, and since natural equity also well as the goal of the entire history teaches that God does not receive of salvation: what is his own, unless he is pre- ferred to all things, it certainly is The regiment belongs to the Lord, the part of a Christian man to as- and for people just as for the entire cend higher than merely to seek world there is, outside of his glory, and secure the salvation of his own nothing worth striving for. What soul.11 can diminish God’s glory is foolish, irrational, and malicious.10 For Calvin, the glory of God is primarily found in creation, in Christ and in It is not very sound theology to the goal of salvation history. It was typical for Calvin to place a to himself, and not to set before comprehensive and personal appeal him,confine as thea man’s prime thoughts motive ofso his much ex- for prayer, for the church as well as istence, zeal to illustrate the glory with particular regard for the private realm, before the exegesis of the for God, and not for ourselves. As Lord’s Prayer. At the same time, the of God. For we are born first of all experience of answered prayer plays subsist in him, so, says Paul (Rom 12 as Calvin all things flowed from him, and is overall marked by a deep, practi- acal significant piety. In spite role offor his him, deep exegeti- - 9 cal and systematic digging, he allows ship, see Pamela Ann Moeller, Calvin’s Doxol- ogy On (Eugene, Calvin’s teachingOR: Wipf about & Stock, praise 1997). and wor On the experience of Christian life to 13 Calvin’s view of the glory of God, see Wilhelm ‘According to the Niesel, Lobt Gott, den Herrn der Herrlichkeit: Theologie um Gottes Ehre (Konstanz: Christ- flow into his work. 11 Busch, ‘Calvins Verkündigung der Herrli- de/doku.php?id=autoren:calvin:calvin-ant- chkeitliche Verlagsanstalt, Gottes’, www.reformiert-info.de/288- 1983), 13–16; Eberhard wort_an_kardinal_sadolet. Translation from www.glaubensstimme. - 12 Der Dienst des Gebetes nach texts in Their Place: God’s Transcendence in Johannes Calvin (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, Calvin’s0-105-16.html; Institutes’, James in The J. Tyne, Standard ‘Putting Bearer Con, Hans Scholl, Calvins Institutio als ed. Steven M. Schlissel (Nacogdoches, TX: Erbauungsbuch (Neukirchen: Neukirchener 1968; Paul C. Böttger, , Lob und 10 Auslegung der Heiligen Bitte: Eine systematisch-theologische Unter- CMP,Schrift: 2002), Römerbrief 369–95. und Korintherbriefe (Neu- suchungVerlag, 1990), über das71–74; Gebet Eva (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Harasta kirchen-Vluyn: John Calvin, Neukirchener Verlag, 1960), 240. 13 Neukirchener Verlag, 2005), 112–42. Harmannus Obendiek, ‘Die Erfahrung The Doxological Dimension of Ethics 271 line we have noted up to this point, ally known, this all goes back to Mar- everything is—and it should not be tin Luther’s similar approach of intro- a surprise—geared towards instruc- ducing the explanation of each of the tion for prayer. This is demonstrated Ten Commandments with the words: in the disposition.’14 The true mark of ‘We should fear and love God, so that the church is, according to Calvin, not we … .’ preaching the Word of God but rather The glory of God as the goal of ‘Cal- its being followed, and that is especially expressed in 15personal prayer. famous thesis that Calvinists had The Reformed view has found its vinists’brought also about flowed capitalism. into Max A Weber’s classi- classical expression in the famous cal description of Calvinists from this - - minster Shorter Catechism: sentative indication: first1. twoWhat questions is the ofchief the end 1647 of Westman? discussionEverything should comes suffice down as to a the repre mo- Man’s chief end is to glorify ment when God is honoured: the God, and to enjoy Him for ever. entire world is appointed for his 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify the Christian. God seeks activity on and enjoy him? The Word of glory;the part the of same Christians thing isin the the task world of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New so established that they serve the Testaments, is the only rule to and society; for these should be direct us how we may glorify in the world and society, in which and enjoy Him.16 gloryCalvinism of God; is enjoinedsocial work, as ai.e., duty work in The Heidelberg Catechism ex- majorem gloriam Dei, and it is precisely this character which is also presses it somewhat differently 18 but likewise powerfully, in that the found in vocational work. chapter on ethics, built upon the Ten In a monumental section of his Commandments, goes by the title ‘Of Church Dogmatics, Karl Barth, as is Thankfulness’.17 However, as is gener- generally known, discarded the differentiation between dogmatics and ethics and in good Reformed fashion in ihrem Verhältnis zum Worte Gottes bei set the glory of God in the centre of Calvin‘, in Aus Theologie und Geschichte der the ‘perfections of God’ (as he ingen- reformierten Kirche. Festgabe für E. F. Karl Müller (Neukirchen: Buchhandlung des Er- ziehungsvereins, 1933), 180–214. Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Ex- 14 Calvins Institutio, 71. plained from Scripture 15 Calvin and Au- gustine Böttger, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Watson, A Body of Divinity: (1674; Contained Edinburgh: in Ser- See Benjamin B. Warfield, monsBanner upon of Truth the Westminster Trust, 1980), Assembly’s 1–24; Thomas Cat- 16 Der kürzere Westminster Katechismus echism vonReformed, 1647, trans.1956), Kurt 16. Vetterli (Bonn: Martin Trust, 1986), 6–38. Bucer Seminar, 2006). www.bucer.eu. 18 (1692; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth- 17 The Heidelberg Cathecism, trans. Thomas talismus‘, in Max Weber, Die protestantische Schirrmacher (Bonn: Martin Bucer Seminar, Ethik Felix II: Rachfahl,Kritiken und ‘Kalvinismus Antikritiken, und ed. Kapi Jo- hannes Winckelmann (Gütersloh: Güterslo- two questions, Thomas Vincent, The Shorter 2005); see also, for commentary on these her Verlagshaus, 1978), 65–66. 272 Thomas Schirrmacher iously called the attributes of God) as on ethics, indicating that ‘Theoria a landmark.19 Glory, Barth stated, and Praxis’ are not to be separated.24 is the appearing paragon of all di- The expression of the viewpoint that vine perfections. It is the fullness worship and ethics have to be lived of the divinity of God, it is the erup- out sounds very similar to evangeli- tive, expressive, manifesting real- cal and pietistic formulations. In the ity of all that which God is. It is the USA, where Orthodox and Evangeli- essence of God inasmuch as God is cals most frequently deal with each at a self-revealing being.20 eye level, an unusual show of unity is demonstrated by repeatedly speaking about this openly. III. Orthodox Theology Interestingly, Wainwright, an Or- Outside the Protestant realm, doxol- thodox systematic theologian, ex- ogy has always been emphasized as pressly and approvingly quotes the the origin and aim of Christian ethics, - above all in Orthodox theology. A few er Catechism, a Reformed document! Similarly,first article Wilhelm of the Westminster Niesel calls ‘To Short God25 Geoffrey Wainwright calls his com- alone be the glory’ the ‘slogan of Re- examplesbined dogmatics should andsuffice. ethics Doxology, formed believers throughout time’. and he states in his preface that every At the same time, he suggests that systematic theology is a ‘theology of this truth must be witnessed to by all worship’.21 Vigen Guroian champions churches, and he refers to Easter Jubi- the same view in his ethics, in particu- lation in the Greek Orthodox Church lar in his chapter ‘Seeing Worship as as an example.26 Ethics’.22 He emphasizes that ethics and doctrine are not to be separated from religious practice, at the apex of IV. Other Denominations which worship stands.23 All denominations, not just the Re- Stanley Samuel Harakas likewise formed and Orthodox, confess in prin- emphasizes the character of ethics as worship in his two-volume work and goal of ethics. In each case it is onlyciple athat question doxology of ishow the prominentlyjustification this actually works itself out in the 19 Die kirchliche Dogmatik dogmatic and ethical system—and, of (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), vol. 7, Karl Barth, course, how it looks in practice. 246 (keyword ‘Herrlichkeit’ [glory]), as well Thus, ‘all for the greater glory of as722–64; John M. see Frame, also vol. The 8, Doctrine 362–65, of and God vol. (Phil- 31, God’ (omnia ad maiorem Dei gloriam) lipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, motto. Ignatius, founder of the Jesuit 20 Die kirchliche Dogmatik, was Ignatius of Loyola’s (1491–1556) 2002),21 592–95. Doxology: A Sys- tematic Barth, Theology (London: Epworth7:725. Press, 24 Toward Trans- 1980), Geoffrey preface. Wainwright, figured Life: The ‘Theoria’ of Eastern Ortho- 22 Incarnate Love: Essays in dox Stanley Ethics (Minneapolis, Samuel Harakas, MN: Light and Life Orthodox Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: University Vigen Guroian, 25 Doxology, 17. 23 Incarnate Love, . 26Publishing, Lobt1984), Gott, 3–5, 11. 188–96. of Notre Dame Press, 1987), 51–78. Wainwright, Guroian, 51 Niesel, The Doxological Dimension of Ethics 273 order, wrote the following in his Spir- Much discussion has been given to itual Exercises: ‘Man is created to the relationship between liturgy and praise, reverence, and serve God our ethics. Liturgy is only a part of the en- Lord.’27 tire spectrum of worship. However, In the confession of faith of the it is the most visible and most sig- decrees of the First Vatican Council seeks public and collective reverence of the Canons the following: ‘If any- andnificant pronouncement expression ofof worship.his glory, Godand one(1870–1871), … denies that one the reads world in was point cre 5- the body of Christ, the church, is most ated for the glory of God: let him be visible when more than anything else anathema.’28 it corporately celebrates the Lord’s From a Lutheran point of view, supper and, in so doing, sacramen- Amy C. Schifrin laments that the basic tally places thanks to God and Christ problem in modern Christian social at the centre of the faith. ethics is ‘the cosmetic separation of The ancient maxim lex orandi, lex ethics from doxology’, and she calls credendi, which means that whatever for ‘doxological ethics’.29 Similar ex- one prays and confesses in worship amples can be cited from all Christian determines faith and action, is af- denominations and orientations. - can, Lutheran and Reformed church- esfirmed31 but by admittedly Catholic, Orthodox,has fallen Angli into V. Liturgy and Ethics oblivion in a number of wings of the ‘Honour be unto the Father and the evangelical spectrum. Calvin, for in- Son and the Holy Spirit, as it was in stance, assumed that the church had the beginning, is now and ever will to work intensively on what occurs in be and from eternity to eternity. Amen.’ Since the fourth century, this liturgical refrain has accentu- theologische Grundlegung’, in Handbuch der ated Christian worship services Liturgik, ed. Hans-Christoph Schmidt-Lauber and Karl-Heinrich Bieritz (Leipzig: Ev. Ver- and has summarized its elemen- tary theological structure.30 31 (eds.),lagsanstalt, ‘Ahme 1995), nach, 72. was du vollziehst’: Po- sitionsbestimmungen Martin Sturflesser zum and Verhältnis Stefan Winter von 27 Spiritual Exercises, Liturgie und Ethik (Regensburg: Pustet, chapter 23, quoted in www.jesuiten.org/ Doxology, 218–86 on Ignatius of Loyola, geschichte/index.htm vom 24.2.2009, As a more recent Catholic example, see Karl Zugänge2009); Wainwright, zur Dogmatik: Elemente theologis- Lexikon der christlichen Moral cherthe Orthodox Urteilsbildung and Catholics; Gerhard Sauter, (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1976), columns 109–39 Hörmann, (chapter title ‘Bestimmung des Menschen’ or Ngien, Gifted Response: (Göttingen: The Triune V&R, God 1998), as the Man’s Calling). Causative22 on Lutherans Agency of andOur Responsive Anglicans; Worship Dennis 28 (Milton Kenyes, UK: Paternoster, 2008), 1–2 29 Destiny: DS 3025 Toward (1976 a Doxological edition). Ethics of Sex- - uality’, Amy 28 C.April Schifrin, 2009, ‘Delight,www.lutheranforum. Design and (Basil of Caesarea), 56–58 (Anselm), 75–76 org/sexuality/delight-design-and-destiny- Liturgical(Augustine), Worship’, 159 (Calvin). in Zahl An et evangelical al., Exploring jus toward-a-doxological-ethics-of-sexuality/. thetification Worship is found Spectrum: in Paul 6 ViewsF. M. Zahl, (Grand ‘Formal- Rap- 30

Geoffrey Wainwright. ‘Systematisch- ids: Zondervan, 2006), 25–27. 274 Thomas Schirrmacher worship services, for it is through the Father’ (Eph 1:17). Just as on Mount word, song and sacrament that the Sinai, God’s glory comes from above everyday life of believers is shaped. and becomes visible for people to see As a matter of fact, the consequences (Ex 24:16–17). of the absence of certain elements Created things can be called glo- from modern worship—for example, rious only insofar as their glory is the lack of preaching from the Old derived from God’s glory, with hu- Testament or the lack of intercessory mankind leading the way as the im- prayer for the persecuted church— age of God (see especially Psalm 8:6: is often underestimated. Evangeli- ‘You … crowned him with glory and cals frequently fail to recognize how honour’).33 However, this also in- deeply the elements of worship other than the sermon can shape belief 41) or the splendored lilies of the through their continual presence or cludes celestial bodies (1 Cor 15:40– - all this ‘glory’ is ephemeral just as the tive prayer for forgiveness fosters fieldgrass (Mtis. This 6:28), means even that if since in the the end fall repetition; for instance, the collec a certain feeling that Christians are glory of God.34 humility,generally andbetter its omissionpeople than can others,reflect everyOn the form other of glory hand, only there reflects is also the contrary to Luke 18:11–14. glory that we ascribe to God, or the The thought of the common bond only acknowledges his existing glory, and of dogmatics and ethics is argu- glorification of God, which in the end ofably glorification most pronounced in worship in Orthodox services theology. The classic statement on asfor Psalmhis surpassing 150:2 makes greatness.’ clear: ‘Praise this point may be the following: ‘The himThe for Church his acts Father of power; and martyrpraise himIre- lack of agreement between liturgy and ethics leads to an undesired sepa- and concisely: ‘For the glory of God is ration between that which is worldly naeusa living of man Lyons (gloria formulated Dei vivens it homo briefly and that which is holy.’32 and the life of man consists in behold- ing God’ (Against Heresies IV 20:7). ); Scholastic theology differentiated VI. The Glory of God between the inner honour of God, When the glory of God is commend- which is in essence inherent to his ed to people in Scripture, this mes- nature, and the external honour of sage has two components. On one God, which he assigns to humankind hand, the Bible emphasizes that God and which is expressed in reverence already possesses glory eternally, re- shown by individuals. People see the gardless of what we think of him. He glory of God (Num 14:22) and are re- is the God of glory (Acts 7:2), ‘the God sponsible to see to it that ‘the glory of of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious

33 Der 32 Incarnate Love, 399. The liturgy Mensch in Gottes Herrlichkeit: Psalm 8 und of Orthodox worship is best described in seine On Rezeption Psalm 8, imsee Neuen Esther Testament Brünenberg, (Würz - German Guroian, by Nikolaj V. Gogol, Betrachtungen über die Göttliche Liturgie (Würzburg: Der 34 Die kirchli- Christliche Osten, 1989). burg:che Dogmatik, Echter, 2009), 8:364. 135–239. Especially according to Barth, The Doxological Dimension of Ethics 275

see also 2 Thess 1:10). We render God honour which is due thehim Lord anyway fills theand whole which earth’ he has (14:21). anyway, as stated in 1 Chronicles 16:28– VII. Goodness to the Honour 29: ‘Ascribe to the Lord, O families of of God: Gratitude as the nations, ascribe to the Lord glory and Highest Commandment due his name. Bring an offering and Conversely, it is repeatedly empha- strength; ascribe to the Lord the glory sized that everything good we do the splendour of his holiness.’ should accrue to the honour of God. comeAnother before important him; worship aspect the Lordof the in Thus, the following is said of the gifts glory of God is the fact that he shares of grace: ‘If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words 20:1), which means for us that no one of God. If anyone serves, he should hiselse honour is to be with given no honour—no one (Is 48:11; other Ex do it with the strength God pro- gods and powers and also no other vides, so that in all things God may people, be it the state, the church or be praised through Jesus Christ. To an individual. him be the glory and the power for Although God’s glory is perma- ever and ever. Amen’ (1 Pet 4:11). nent, the failure of believers to glorify According to 1 Corinthians 6:20, we him, especially if we lives unholy lives, are ’bought with a price. Therefore brings disgrace to God, at least in the honour God with your body.’ Thus, eyes of non-believers: ‘You who brag what we do physically is included about the law, do you dishonour God here, as 1 Corinthians 10:31 dem- by breaking the law? As it is written: onstrates with respect to eating: ‘So “God’s name is blasphemed among whether you eat or drink or whatever the Gentiles because of you”’ (Rom you do, do it all for the glory of God.’ 2:23–24). The highest commandment with- God inexplicably ties his honour in Christian ethics is to thank God, to his people. Thus, in Isaiah 48:10– honour him and love him with all of one’s heart. In Romans 1:16–32, Paul because he is the almighty Creator proceeds on the assumption that hu- 13,(verse he 13) calls, and tests states and that refines ‘for my ‘Israel’ own mankind’s original sin is not a certain sake, for my own sake, I do this. How concrete act. Rather, it lies in man’s can I let myself be defamed? I will failure to thank and revere his Crea- not yield my glory to another’ (v. 11). tor and his tendency instead to wor- Correspondingly, Ephesians 1:9–2:22 ship other things and other people. explains that God saves the church by The concrete sins, such as slander grace and has it mature in good works so that all powers will recognize his the consequence of God giving hu- greatness and ‘in order that we, who mankindor sexual over aberrations, to their desires are first of oftheir all hearts (Rom 1:26, 28). It is also typi- be for the praise of his glory’ (Eph cal of Paul that in the midst of his dog- were1:12). the Ultimately, first to hope the in following Christ, might ap- matic-ethical remarks he erupts into plies to believers: ‘When Christ, who spontaneous praise: ‘the creator … is your life, appears, then you also will The fall of man in Genesis 3 is im- who is forever praised. Amen’ (v. 25). appear with him in glory’ (Col 3:3–4; 276 Thomas Schirrmacher mediately followed, as a consequence precepts37 have good understanding’ - (Psalm 111:10). Ethical wisdom with- cide in Genesis 4. One might tend to out the fear of God is thus unthink- thinkof this oftragic the event,horrible by guiltthe first of fratri- able. For that reason, the Bible says, cide as leading to a broken relation- ‘To fear the Lord is to hate evil’ (Prov ship with God. But the Bible stresses 8:13). the reverse: destroyed relationships In both the Old and the New Testa- among people are a consequence of ments, God is by far the person men- the destroyed relationship between tioned most frequently. At the same people and God. time, the Scriptures are fully oriented towards communicating to people in their practical lives. This practical ori- VIII. Awe before God and entation, however, does not come at His Being as the Point of the expense of occupation with God. Rather, it arises from the fact that Departure for Christian Ethics the essence of God, whom the Bible The biblical term ‘fear of God’ (better reveals, is repeatedly the reason for expressed as ‘awe’) very clearly illus- ethical instructions and decisions. trates the basic normative principle David correctly sings, ‘You are my of Christian ethics, which sees everything that happens as intended for thing’ (Ps 16:2). W. S. Bruce has writ- the glory of God. Ernst Luthardt has tenLord; the apart following from aboutyou I thehave Old no Testa good- written that ‘as early as the Old Tes- ment: tament, the fear of God, trust in God, In Israel it is God himself who is and the love of God are the roots of the all wise one, the holy one, and moral behaviour.’ the good one, the prototype of all The essence 35of Old Testament moral life and action. … Religious 36 wisdom literature is the statement, faith and ethical life are so inti- ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning mately bound together through this foundational conception of the 1:7), or with even greater brevity: character of God that they cannot ‘Theof wisdom’ fear of (Provthe Lord—that 9:10; similarly is wisdom’ Prov be separated from each other. ‘At (Job 28:28). Here, ‘wisdom’ refers to this point, Jewish ethics hooks into practical life wisdom and not a purely theology, but theology is itself es- intellectual item, as other texts dem- sentially of an ethical nature.’38 onstrate: ‘The fear of the Lord teaches Emil Brunner coined a similar a man wisdom, and humility comes formula: ‘There is no ‘goodness in ‘The fear of the Lord is the begin- before honour’ (Proverbs 15:33); 37 his refers to the ‘precepts’ in Psalm 111:7, but in ning of wisdom; all who follow his older In translations Hebrew grammar, it referred the to word the ‘fear of 35 Kompendium the Lord’. However, no true contradiction lies der theologischen Ethik therein. Franke, Christoph 1921), Ernst9. Luthardt, 38 The Ethics of the Old Testa- 36 Weisheit(Leipzig: in IsraelDörffling (Neu- & ment (Edinburgh: including W. S. Bruce,a quotation from W. L. Davidson. Gerhard von Rad, T. & T. Clark, 1895), 38–39, kirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), 90–94. The Doxological Dimension of Ethics 277 itself’,39 since there is no goodness without one who is good and who creates, mandates and enables good. wrong’God is (Job the 34:10; point of see departure also Job 8:3;and What is good is what God does and theDeut authority32:4; 2 Chron of 19:7).Christian ethics. Wherever another set of ethics ap- against the will of God. Goodness plies, there is also another authority haswishes; its whatfoundation is evil isand what existence occurs besides the authority of God, for ‘the solely in God’s will. An idea such as Zarathustra’s religion, that of that system.’42 God is the Lord because he chose [final]This authority applies ofnot a systemonly to is foundathe God- the good, the idea of a law which tional statements, such as ‘Be holy stands above God, is unthinkable because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ in the Old Testament. God is not merely a guardian of the moral law applies to individual questions. This and of moral rules. Rather, he is (Lev 19:2; similarly 11:44). It also their Creator.’40 directions as to how many prophets areis how allowed Paul tojustifies speak hisin successionvery specific in a worship service (1 Cor 14:26–32). IX. The Will of God Paul concludes, ‘For God is not a The will of God ‘is the sole valid norm. God of disorder but of peace’ (1 Cor For that reason, what is “religious” is 14:33). To mention an additional case at the same time that which is "mor- of God setting forth ethics by exam- al", and the moral is religious. The ple, in the Ten Commandments the relation to God is grounded in God’s seventh day of the week is a day of rest because God himself rested in the reason, it is a relationship of trust. It creation of the world on the seventh iscovenant nothing withlike a humankind;blind force of for nature that day and blessed that day (Ex 20:11). which asserts claim to God’s rights of There are additional examples of Lordship.’41 substantiating commandments based Since God himself is justice and on the essence of God. The prohibi- he himself institutes just order, he tion against revering other gods is cannot be unjust: ‘Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do The prohibition against the misuse ofgrounded God’s name in God’s refers jealousy to God (Ex as 20:5).an af-

39 Das Gebot und die Ordnun- rationale behind the Ten Command- gen (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1939), 99. mentsflicting isGod the (Ex goodness 20:7), and of God:the overall ‘I am 40 Emil Brunner,Das Gebot, 39. Brunner points - the Lord your God, who brought you totelian-Thomistic Brunner, ethics of the Christian out … of the land of slavery’ (Ex 20:2). Middleout on pagesAges contradicted 83 and 578–79 this thatprinciple the Aris and posited a principle of the good as an objective entity in place of the will of God. It also posited action appropriate to human nature (‘natural law’) as a subjective reaction in place of obedience. 42 God and Government, vol. 1 41 Das Gebot, 40. Gary DeMar, Brunner, (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1982), 58. 278 Thomas Schirrmacher

X. The Twofold opinion, in the relationship between Commandment: Love and have to create a counterpart in order Honour God and Love Others toFather, be ableSon andto actuallySpirit. He love. did notRather, first The combination of honouring God love is the agenda of creation, and it and keeping his commandments, or is founded on the fact that the world loving God and, for that reason, loving was created by a God who is love eter- his commands and living them out, nally in a very practical way, not only pervades the entirety of the Scrip- theoretically. tures. It is the foundational structure of the Ten Commandments. The book of Ecclesiastes ends with ‘the conclu- XI. Shame and Guilt sion of the matter: Fear God and keep At this point, we must go into detail his commandments, for this is the regarding a question that has been whole [duty] of man’ (Eccl 12:13). In carried into systematic theology Micah 6:8 one reads: ‘He has showed from missiology, namely how the dif- you, O man, what is good. And what ference between guilt-oriented and does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk our question and whether bibli- humbly with your God.’ Similarly, calshame-oriented revelation is culturescloser to influences the one Deuteronomy 13:4 states, ‘It is the or the other culture. Since issues in Lord your God you must follow, and shame-oriented cultures are primar- him you must revere. Keep his com- ily addressed as matters of honour, Christians who live in these cultures hold fast to him.’ particularly emphasize God’s honour. mandsIn the and middle obey of him; the praiseserve inhim Psalm and Since on a global basis, evangelicals 86:8–13 regarding the hope that all have functioned predominantly in people will worship God and acknowl- shame-oriented cultures, evangelical edge his goodness because he rescues missionaries, missiologists, and an- people from death, one reads in verse thropologists have submitted related 11, ‘Teach me your way, O Lord, and ground-breaking studies.43 In my book Culture of Shame/Cul- undivided heart, that I may fear your ture of Guilt (German Scham- oder name.’I will walk in your truth; give me an Schuldgefühl?), I have spoken out at The great commandments length in favour of the complemen- of the Old Testaments are well- known: ’Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord 43 Shame and your God with all your heart and Guilt: A Key to Cross-Cultural Ministry (Bonn: with all your soul and with all your For example, Hannes Wiher, Martin Lomen, Sünde und Scham im biblis- chenVerlag und für islamischen Kultur und Kontext Wissenschaft, (Nuremberg: 2003); 12:19–31).strength’ (Deut At this 6:4–5), point, and worship ‘Love your and Klaus W. Müller (eds.), Scham- und Schuldo- ethicsneighbour are placed as yourself’ on the (Lev same 19:18; level. Mk rientierungVTR, 2003); in der Thomas Diskussion: Schirrmacher Kulturanthro and- The inalienability of the teaching pologische, missiologische und theologische of the Trinity and of the reverence Einsichten given to the triune God lies, in my 2006). (Bonn: VKW; Nuremberg: VTR, The Doxological Dimension of Ethics 279 tarity of the biblical message with oriented. Rather, the Bible orients it- respect to this question. It is for this self towards our honour and justness. reason that shame-oriented cultures Whoever orients his or her sense of have accumulated needs in the area of biblical understanding of law and norm errs just as much as those who guilt—extending all the way to po- honourorient their towards sense peopleof justness as thetowards final litical applications. Conversely, guilt- oriented cultures, such as my German - culture, have accumulated needs in peopleplementarity as the finalbetween norm. shame and how the Bible sees the loss of one’s guiltTo orientations some extent, in one the can main find confes com- own honour and the disavowal of sions of the Reformation. Whereas God’s glory as consequences of the the great Lutheran discovery was Fall. They need a deeper understanding of how the cross of Jesus restores oriented towards people and cannot God’s honour and, with that, has re- above all that justification cannot be- stored and will restore our honour. ple, but is rather a gift of God, the Re- As a violation of the law of God, informed the final called event for beeverything produced to by be peo ori- sin against God leads to guilt be- ented towards the glory and honour fore God. And as an encroachment of God and for making this the highest on the honour or glory of God, sin goal of life (without giving up the Lu- leads to shame before God. Only theran discovery). An individual can through God’s righteousness and as little produce this honour out of God’s honour or glory is it possi- himself as he can do so with justness. ble for man’s righteousness to be Through God’s justness, an individual restored.44 can become just and come to God, and through God’s honour and glory, an This ultimate position of the honour individual can gain the derived glory of God makes it impossible to exclude of the children of God. Together, both aspects of an orientation towards lead to a situation where we can have honour and dishonour from Christian fellowship and peace with God (Rom dogmatics and ethics! The Bible is full of commands to God’s honour means, on one hand, give God the honour due him (1 Chron 5:1).being oriented towards giving up one’s own honour and not orienting oneself towards obtaining honour sense16:28; adoration,Ps 3:4; 19:2; i.e. Lkworship, 12:14). andIn the in from people. One should primarily process, to give honour is in the final have shame before God and not be- which only God is entitled: ‘Oh, praise fore people. For that reason, people the greatnessfinal analysis of our that God!’ is something (Deut 32:3). to are criticized who do wrong things For the Bible, the key question is out of fear of other people. A Chris- not whether we are shame- or guilt- tian should orient himself towards God and not towards shame before other people: ‘However, if you suffer 44 Scham- oder Schuldgefühl? Die christliche Botschaft an- as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but gesichts Thomas von schuld- Schirrmacher, und schamorientierten praise God that you bear that name’ Gewissen und Kulturen (1 Peter 4:16). ‘What will others think 39. of me?’ is not a proper life principle. (Bonn: VKW, 2005), 280 Thomas Schirrmacher

The absence of the possibility of well-adjusted individuals and as com- self-redemption means that we can- munity members. not produce justness or honour on Sin against God, as a violation of our own. The idea of self-redemption the law of God, leads to guilt before can come to express the idea that God. And as an encroachment on the humans can work up the necessary honour and glory of God, sin leads to shame before God. For that reason, or that they can work up honour and according to Genesis 3, Adam and Eve gloryjustification before beforeGod on God their on own. their own, God has created us to be imbued considered themselves guilty before God as well as being ashamed (Gen has also given us individually a con- 3:9–12). Only through God’s right- sciencewith honour with a shame and justification and guilt orien and- eousness, glory and honour is it pos- tation. Both orientations contribute sible for man’s righteousness to be restored. significantly to our success in life as ERT (2019) 43:3, 281-288 Books Reviewed Donald Sinnema, Christian Moser Nancy R. Pearcey and Herman J. Selderhuis, eds. Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis Questions about Life and Sexuality Dordrechtanae 1618–1619, vol. 1 Reviewed by Peirong Lin Reviewed by Thomas Schirrmacher Kenneth R. Ross, J. Kwabena Asamo- ah-Gyadu and Todd M. Johnson, eds. Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa Reviewed by Klaus Fiedler Book Reviews ERT (2019) 43:3, 281-285 quent volumes are expected to have an

Acta et Documenta Synodi covers only the various versions of the Nationalis Dordrechtanae 1618– average of 900 pages. The first volume - 1619, vol. 1 [The Acts of the Synod ever, these reports reveal a lot about the of Dordt, 1618–1619, vol. 1] coursefinal reports of the produced Synod. at the time. How Donald Sinnema, Christian Moser The other volumes will contain pre- and Herman J. Selderhuis, eds. paratory documents, minutes, positions taken by the nineteen delegations, re- Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ports of the condemned Remonstrants, 2014 cvii + 539 pp. of the foreign and Dutch delegates. They Reviewed by Thomas Schirrmacher, willand presentfinally the almost reports exclusively and diary unpub entries- WEA Associate Secretary General for lished and predominantly Latin texts Theological Concerns (in addition to individual texts in Dutch, English, German and French) compiled The lack of a critical publication of from archives in the Netherlands, Swit- zerland, England and Germany. the most important historical events concerningthe final documents Reformed regarding churches, one namely of The entire effort is an international the Synod of Dordt, has been one of the undertaking. Selderhuis is a professor puzzles of church history research. The in the Netherlands, Moser in Zurich, sources found in numerous European and Sinnema in the USA. Germany is archives have never been used, nor involved through the Johannes a Lasco have they been made accessible to the Library, which is in charge of the project general public. and which, in an exemplary manner, is also involved in researching and On behalf of the Johannes a Lasco presenting the history of the Reformed churches. It will be interesting to see if the Acta et Documenta Synodi Nationalis DordrechtanaeLibrary in Emden, 1618-1619 the first (ADSND)volume of this ambitious work will truly be com- was published at the end of 2014. This pleted in time for the 400th anniversary volume is to be the least extensive, with of the Synod. just under 600 pages. The eight subse-

The critical edition of the various final 282 Book Reviews reports of the Synod has been a great the international representatives, in fact success. In a clear manner, the detailed constituted a Dutch national synod.) introductory texts in English summarize what has been known so far. However, Synod of Dordt shaped the future of this information is supplemented with Calvinism.Over the course Because of 154 of the sessions, importance the extensive information that became ac- of the Dordt resolutions on the doctrine cessible during the process of editing. of salvation, it is often overlooked that the Synod passed essential resolutions functions of the individuals who are before the arrival of the Arminians and mentioned,The name index but also, briefly the explains front matter the then again after the main Synod. There contains short biographies of all del- was the preparation of a new Bible egates. In addition, there is a very short translation from the original text by a register of biblical passages as well as a large expert committee, which appeared topical index. The texts themselves are in 1637 as the ‘Statenvertaling’ (the lucidly edited. However, the texts of the order for the Dutch church, which enduredstates’ translation); for a long time a text and on exerted church an befinal printed reports in canparallel. be compared only via the topical index; they vary too much to report of the minutes of the Synod (‘Acta establishmentinfluence on many of the Reformed Sunday catechismtexts of Authentica’),There is, first whichof all, thewas official not published final in sermonchurch order on the around Heidelberg the world; Catechism, and the the seventeenth century. Second comes which became customary far beyond the a printed, largely abridged version of the Netherlands. The synod also covered the order of church instruction by the family after the Synod (‘Acta Contracta’). Third all the way up to the study of theology, final report that was published directly an area where foreign participants left year following the Synod and intended deep tracks. The distribution of the is an official version produced in the for international distribution. This third Lord’s Supper to children of slaves and item constitutes a strongly revised and other matters were addressed as well. slightly shortened version of the Acta Authentica, with linguistic changes In my opinion (and Selderhuis agrees), made to almost every sentence. This - version has long determined the histori- parable with that of the Book of Concord cal image of Dordt. Only with the new ofthe the Synod’s Lutheran significance Church, asis roughlyChristians com edition does the extent of the editing - become clear. Even though most of the ers resolved disputes and achieved a editing was stylistic in nature, some ‘formulationfollowing the of first-generation eenigkeit’, or ‘three Reform forms rather subjectively formulated opinions of unity’. - The eighteen representatives of the versely, many very sharp statements in eight Dutch States General consisted of Latinturned were into softened. objective statements; con nine high-ranking members of the high- The Dordrecht Synod (13 November est governing bodies of the states (six of whom had received doctorates in law), only general synod of the Reformed churches1618 to 9 inMay Europe. 1619) All was other the Reformedfirst and plus a sheriff, and also four noblemen. synods in history were national synods. Thesealong with18 state five representativesmayors of large alwayscities (The last two weeks of the Synod, on had the last word, and they had received 13–29 May 1619 after the departure of secret instructions. Meanwhile, almost Book Reviews 283 sixty pastors and theologians, selected by the provincial synods, formed the and taught differently. The President majority of the Synod. ofcluding the Synod, from officeJohannes pastors Bogermann, who thought ex- The foreign representatives came pelled the Remonstrants from the Synod primarily from the Holy Roman Empire on January 14, 1619. From then on, they of the German Nation, namely the Palati- were not even allowed to participate in nate, Hesse, Nassau-Wetterau, Bremen, Emden, the Swiss cantons of Zurich, were being correctly presented. In the discussions or confirm that their views - end, all participants ceremonially signed pendent Geneva. The Electoral Prince of not only the Belgian Confession and BrandenburgBasel, Bern and did Schaffhausen, not let the delegates and inde the Heidelberg Catechism, but also the of Brandenburg participate because of resolutions of the Synod of Dordt. concern about tensions with the Luther- The Grand Pensionary Johan van Old- ans in the country. The French delegates enbarnevelt, who had supported the could not come because of a travel ban Arminians, was sentenced to death and issued by King Louis XIII, which is why beheaded just a few days after the end of four chairs documenting their mem- the Synod in May 1619. Surely it would bership were empty during the entire be too easy to see his death as occurring period of the Synod. However, the synod purely as a result of his Remonstrant of the French Reformed Church adopted position. Moritz of Orange, who thus the results of Dordt in 1620. removed his adversary, was hardly interested in theology and the Calvinist Additional foreign representatives came position. The death penalty was im- from England. The head of the delega- posed for treason, namely the attempt to tion of the Anglican Church, George deprive Moritz of power or to eliminate Carleton, was addressed throughout him. Nevertheless, the blending of the the Synod using his title of Bishop, and competition for power in the Nether- he occupied a chair with an episcopal lands with theological positions shows covering. Walter Balcanqual was an that from the beginning there was more - at stake than a friendly theological sented the reformed Church of Scotland. consensus. TheseAnglican unusual priest relations but officially have repre been little researched. In the aftermath of the Synod, after recognition of the results by the States Experts have discussed whether there General, about two hundred additional was already an intention at the Synod to Arminian clergymen were removed from establish a new teaching standard in a confessional document, or whether the The decisions of the Synod of Dordt results only later gradually developed office and had to leave the Netherlands. into a confessional standard. The editors in 1620 by the National (Reformed) tend to take the former view, and I agree Synodhad already of Alsace. been Just confirmed six years in after France the with them. In my opinion, the volume does not permit any other conclusion, most important patron through the but one will, of course, have to wait for deathSynod, of in the 1625, governor the Calvinists general lostMoritz their the many yet unpublished sources in of Orange. Nevertheless, the Canons of Dordt remained permanently preserved judgement. as a resolution of the Synod. At the same Fromthe next the volumes very beginning, before making the outcome a final time, one important effect of the Synod of the Synod was used as a basis for ex- was that henceforth the Heidelberg Cat- 284 Book Reviews echism represented the extent of theo- omnipotence. logical breadth of the Reformed Church. Governor Moritz of Orange, the head This is also an indication that the Synod of the Dutch States General, passion- promoted a confessional character. ately supported Gomarus. He arranged The decision to formulate the Canons in a popular manner, neither scholastically nor academically, and hence to explain doctrinefor a final of decision predestination in this dispute as its object. by a the consequences of each point for a Thesynod Remonstrants, that had confirming headed theby LeidenCalvinist practical life of faith has contributed to professor Simon Episcopius, explained their popularity and survival. their position to the foreign delegates Besides the victory over intra-church and defended themselves before the opposition and the short-term gain Synod on short notice. However, they of international prestige for Moritz of Orange, the main historical effect of the - Synod of Dordt was probably to clearly mitwere to expelled the resolutions (in the fifty-seventhof the Synod ofand the form the Reformed confession and make to154 recognize meetings) its after legality their prior refusal to knowing to sub it visible alongside the Lutheran confes- its results. sions. It also helped to make the Neth- But if the condemnation of the posi- erlands—especially after the collapse tion of Arminius had already been of the Electoral Palatinate in the Thirty decided beforehand, it is surprising Years’ War and the loss of the Faculty that Gomarus’ counter-position found of Theology in Heidelberg—the leading no majority at the Synod. Even though theological center of Calvinism. supralapsarianism’s claim that election and condemnation preceded the in 1603–1604 as a dispute between creation and fall of man, thus being part twoThe professorsconflict that from led toLeiden, the Synod Jacobus began of the sovereignty of God and not a con- Arminius and Franciscus Gomarus. In sequence of his mercy, was not explicitly 1610, forty-three Arminian theologians rejected in any Synod document, its advocates lost out as most of the foreign articles. The ‘Gomarists’ were therefore delegates were united in their opposi- alsowrote called a remonstrance ‘Anti-Arminians’ composed and ‘Contra- of five tion to Gomarus’ position. Especially to Remonstrants’. be mentioned among the foreign oppo- nents of Gomarus are Mathias Martinius view that God had decided to save all hu- from Bremen as well as Georg Cruciger mans,Arminius but (1560–1609)that only those represented who accepted the and Rudolph Goclenius from Hessen salvation with individual faith would be (more precisely from Marburg). saved. It was thus part of man’s free will, Infralapsarianism (i.e. that election and in his view, that divine grace could be re- condemnation followed the creation and fall of man, thus arising above all from the view of Calvin’s successor in Geneva, God’s mercy) is presumed throughout Theodoresisted. Gomarus Beza, who(1565–1641) had radicalized followed the Synod, which thereby, rather than Calvin to a certain extent. According to following the strict line of Gomarus and Beza, God had determined before the fall Beza, advanced Heinrich Bullinger’s of man—that is, before sin existed—who more moderate position. That is all the was saved and who was lost (supralap- more astonishing as Gomarus himself sarianism), and therefore he did so not was a member of the Synod and had out of mercy but out of sovereignty and Moritz of Orange’s ear! Book Reviews 285

It is hoped that the publication of these and 128 pages on ‘key themes’. It also documents will, by making key docu- contains a concluding essay by Mercy ments more readily accessible, encour- Amba Oduyoye on ‘The Future of Christi- age more detailed research on the anity in Sub-Saharan Africa’, statisti- Synod of Dordt. I would like to thank the cal data by country, a methodological publisher for making possible and sup- account by demographers Todd Johnson porting such a complicated, laborious and Gina Zurlo, and a carefully prepared and extensive undertaking. index. The opening statistical overview by Zurlo is valuable due to its compre- ERT (2019) 43:3, 285-287 hensiveness and precision. The map of majority religions impresses by showing Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa data not only by country but by region Kenneth R. Ross, J. Kwabena within each country, which makes the Asamoah-Gyadu and Todd M. picture more realistic (very important Johnson (eds.) for Ethiopia and Madagascar), although Edinburgh: Edinburgh University I have doubts about ‘ethnoreligionists’ Press, 2017 being the majority religion in so many Hb., xxi + 538 pp. parts of Tanzania. Zurlo shows that from Reviewed by Klaus Fiedler, professor of was the decline of ethnoreligionists theology and religious studies, Mzuzu (26.31970 to 201510.6 percent) the main and religious that Christi- change University, Malawi anity and Islam both grew in proportion to their existing strength, thus putting to Readers who have used and appreciated rest the perception of the ‘rapid Islami- the Atlas of Global Christianity, pub- zation of Africa’. lished by Edinburgh University Press on the occasion of the centenary of the In the article on ‘Major Christian Trends’, 1910 World Mission Conference, will the sevenfold growth among Anglicans, look forward with excitement and antici- which has made black the dominant pation to the new ten-volume Edinburgh colour in worldwide Anglicanism, is Companions of Global Christianity—ed- notable. Catholics and independents ited, like the atlas, primarily by Kenneth Ross and Todd Johnson. grew from 6 to 14 percent of the total have also grown fivefold. Evangelicals appropriately it covers sub-Saharan the explosive growth in Pentecostals and population; much attention is paid to Africa,Now the where first volumethe Christian is out, faith and isquite charismatics (treated separately from spreading faster than anywhere else in evangelicals) from 7 to 21 percent. the world. In 1910, sub-Saharan Africa The country summaries show that

Christian region of sub-Saharan Africa, was less than 10 percent Christian; now whereasMiddle Africa West (82.5Africa percent) is the least is the Chris most- Christiansit is nearly worldwide.50 percent Christian, and tian at 36.1 percent. Thisby 2050 book it coversmay have Christianity 40 percent in ofsub- all Though the articles all follow the pattern Saharan Africa as a global phenomenon of answering several general questions on three levels: a statistical and theo- (like church presence, church and politics, and education), they are refreshing- ly distinctive in their approaches. Many logical overview; surveys by country and of each of the major Christian traditions; 286 Book Reviews of them focus on the growth of Pente- tions are somewhat untenable, like this costals and charismatics, as the most sentence: ‘This is because the Christian- current (and sometimes most disturb- ity of missionaries supplies no answers ing) development in African Christianity. Much attention is given to the ‘prosper- Mary Getui avoids this danger by citing ity gospel’ and its dubious effects, but to the difficulties of daily life’ (p. 357). sometimes this movement receives a to depict the often precarious relation- more positive assessment as appealing shipspecific of faith authors and (fromculture. Mbiti The to article Achebe) on to the urban and the educated. the anthropology of evil restricts itself to three neo-charismatic churches, and The articles present an overall picture John Pobee uses a piece of art depicting of Christianity in each country or area, Christ and the martyr Bernard Mizeki to avoiding the frequently used ‘main- centre his argument. line and others’ approach. For Nigeria, the churches originating in the Faith I appreciate the articles by Isabel Phiri Missions have been fully included, and Chammah Kaunda (on gender) and and major independent churches like by Frans Veerman and Christof Sauer Aladura or Kimbanguists are equally (on religious freedom) for their facticity given prominence. The considerable and approach. However, I feel that Evar- Christian involvement in education and isti Mayoti Cornelli (on inter-religious health services is faithfully recorded. De- relations) generalizes too much when he scriptions and assessments of Christian states that the missionaries demanded political involvement vary, depending the ‘abandonment of African values’ on the country and on the theological (like the family?) and ‘the adoption of assumptions of the authors. European customs’ (p. 413). Further- more, Cornelli goes too far by claiming The third part of the book deals with that the ‘early missionaries did not cross-cutting issues. For the whole series, the following issues have been developed rationally to have a religion’ selected: faith and culture, worship and (p.believe 412). that I also Africans would were like to sufficiently see the spirituality, theology, social and political evidence for the statement that when context, mission and evangelism, gender, Muslims and Christians intermarry, religious freedom and inter-religious ‘these marriages usually have a hidden relations. Three additional topics are agenda’ (p. 418). My research, though limited to Malawi and Tanzania, does in African Christianity (showing both not show this tendency. thecovered importance in this specific of vernacular volume: Bibles the Bible I am somewhat concerned about the and the need to base translations on deeper Greek and Hebrew scholarship), African Independent Churches. They the anthropology of evil (which is in interpretedbook’s frequent (after glorification the missionaries of the had danger of portraying the worldview of failed) the Christian faith properly, and they related the Christian faith effective- for Africa), and migration (which seems ly to African culture. But a group of very specific charismatic churches as typical to me too diverse to bring the current different churches is all lumped together meaning home). (often by ignoring the Ethiopian-type All the thematic articles struggle, in one churches), and the bigger problem is way or another, with generalizations. their limited success. Yes, there are A book covering a whole continent the Aladura, Zionist and Kimbanguist must generalize, but some generaliza- churches with millions of members, but Book Reviews 287 there are also the Zionist churches in sonhood is played out in various areas Malawi (thirty denominations and about of ethics: abortion, euthanasia, casual 100,000 members) that struggle to sex, homosexuality, and the impact of reach the cities and to retain their youth. individual choice in the social realm. She - describes people who are pro-choice tion, but they are not the African church. regarding abortion as accepting the fact IYes, fully they support made Oduyoye’s a significant concluding contribu statement: ‘Today, Christianity should not considering it a person. Since abor- be accepted as one of the “traditional tionthat liesthe babyin the is sphere scientifically of values, human which yet is religions” of Africa. Having existed on relative from a secular perspective, one the continent for over two millennia, it can hold, with no moral consequences, deserves no less an accolade.’ the view that ‘a human is but a dispos- able piece of matter, able to be used for research and experiments’. ERT (2019) 43:3, 287-288 In response to the practical implications of the secular theory of personhood, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Pearcey ends each chapter with solu- Questions about Life and Sexuality tions that Christians can support, such Nancy R. Pearcey as offering safe places where women may hand over their newborn babies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018 Hb., 335 pp., notes, index Writing in an apologetic style, Pearcey effectively analyses the secular world- Reviewed by Peirong Lin, Human view, particularly in relation to public Resources Director and Research Coordinator, Theological Concerns policy, culture and civic religion in the Department, World Evangelical Alliance United States. What seems lacking is a comprehensive explication of her Pearcey, professor of apologetics at understanding of Christian ethics before Houston Baptist University and a former she works out this ethic practically with agnostic, seeks to uncover the worldview that drives the secular ethic. For points, Pearcey provides lucid insights her, this secular worldview is grounded onrespect how toChristian specific ethics issues. addresses At various a in a split in public truth between facts particular issue (e.g. that Christian ethic and values—that is, between what is is wholistic, respecting the value and ‘objective, true and testable’ and what dignity of our embodied existence as ‘a is ‘private, subjective and relative’. good gift from God’, in her discussion of Pearcey contends that this fact/value transgenderism). However, in her desire split is further worked out in the secular to present Christian ethics as completely understanding of personhood, according different from secular ethics on each issue, she sometimes seems needlessly but being a person is an ethical concept combative. This is unfortunate as it to which being human is a scientific fact limits her potential to engage effectively The resulting two-tiered, dualistic view with non-Christians who may struggle ofdefined the human subjectively being has by whatdenigrated one values. the with the issues she examines. importance of the human body in what To some extent, Pearcey’s sharp di- Pearcey considers a dehumanizing way. chotomy between Christian and secular To demonstrate her point, Pearcey ethics is undermined when she acknowl- shows how this secular theory of per- edges that Christians are frequently also 288 Book Reviews susceptible to secular ethics (such as different perspectives, and in fact the when they hold that the body is inferior understanding of the Christian world- to the spirit). Of course, Christian truth is not dependent on the imperfect theological traditions. everyday practice of actual Christians, Nevertheless,view varies significantly this book remains across Christian a valu- and Pearcey herself has long been urg- able resource for Christians, especially ing Christians to overcome dualism in those dealing with the American con- their own thinking. But this admission text. Pearcey provides extensive insight reminds us that the separation between different worldviews is not as clean as weaknesses on several hotly debated she suggests. In reality, most individu- contemporaryon secular thinking issues. and identifies its als’ worldviews are actually a hybrid of