Not the end of the world

After a brief summer break, some controversy to kick us off again. Why not?

Amongst those Christians who talk about such things, there are three basic views of what happens at the end of the world, which are roughly as follows:

Premillennialism - the idea is that Jesus returns to the earth, where he reigns over an earthly kingdom for 1000 years. A good time will be had by all, but at the end of this period there will be a rebellion, leading to the final victory over evil and the judgement.

Postmillennialism - on this view, the spread of the gospel enjoys such success that the world gets gradually 'better'. Christian influence grows and grows, as does the church itself. After 1000 years (or thereabouts) of this blessing, Christ returns and initiates the events leading to the final judgement.

Amillennialism - essentially, a denial of the two previous positions. No future 1000 year period of any significance, and only one really significant event: the return of Christ, which will be accompanied by final judgement, and then the inauguration of the new creation.

That is a gross over-simplification; for more detail, consult Grudem's Systematic Theology, and particularly his rather helpful diagrams.

All three of these views are very much within the bounds of orthodoxy. (There is a subset of premill views associated with dispensationalism which I think push the envelope. Their view of the covenant seems heterodox to me. But let us leave them to one side). Varieties of each sort of view have been maintained by eminent theologians through the centuries. Nobody needs to go excommunicating anybody over disagreements of this sort. It's not the end of the world if we disagree about the end of the world.

Nevertheless, I think that one of these systems has serious problems theologically, which I mention because I detect that it is on the rise in certain circles. Yes, I speak of postmillennialism, the view that the world is getting, or at least will get, better through the influence of the Christian Church.

This view has much to recommend it. Postmills are optimistic about the gospel - they really believe in its power to transform. They are also committed to making the world a better place, something which is certainly commendable in a Christian but absent in many (or at least playing second fiddle to evangelistic concerns). Postmills have also often thought deeply about important issues, like the role of the state, or the extent to which one can insist on Christian morality being given legal sanction - issues which many of us push to the sidelines. They are committed to the gospel and committed to the world, and thus far huzzah for them.

My issue is at exactly the point where postmills part the ways with their pre- and amill brethren. Postmills divide two things which the other views hold together, namely the presence of Christ and the blessing of the world. The world is blessed, on the postmill scheme, and becomes decisively improved, in the absence of the Lord Jesus Christ. And that is theologically unacceptable.

To anticipate two potential rejoinders...

Of course Christ is not utterly absent for any Christian - he is present by his Spirit. Might it not be the case that Christ brings about the subjugation of the nations by the power of his Spirit at work in the Church? Well, it might be, and I could be wrong. But note how exalted a status this gives the Church. And note how easy it is on this scheme to identify the work of Christ with the work of the Church. I would contend that this assigns too large a part in the redemption of the world to human beings, and exalts the Church as the vehicle of Christ's redemptive activity in a way that reminds me of Roman sacramentalism.

And of course, the world does not consistently and continuously get worse. There are ups and downs. The church does, and should, have an influence for good. But that influence waxes and wanes in so far as powerful people listen to the church. Because the church merely witnesses to a salvation to be bestowed at Christ's return. In no other way does she mediate that salvation. She goes from being the martyr Church to being the Church of Constantine happily enough, but she must always be prepared to go back again. Because without Christ, no ground on this fallen world can be taken and held. The battle rages, but it won't be won until Jesus comes back.

Oh, and I think premill is wrong too, I'm just less uptight about that one right now ;o)

GAFCON

Excuse me for just pinching other people's blogs in lieu of writing anything of my own, but Peter Comont, my Pastor at Magdalen Road Church, has some very useful comments about GAFCON from the point of view of a non-conformist, with which I find myself in pretty much complete agreement. Have a read.

P.S. These links won't work anymore as Peter's blog isn't archived...

Students, love the church!

Thus saith Bish:

It's easy for a Christian Union to view the local churches as an ATM to which they can periodically receive prayer and finance from. Local churches love to offer both of these, but it's really only appropriate if the individual members of the Christian Union are well rooted in the church. Church isn't 'them and they' who can help us, but 'us and we' which we love to be a part of.

I'd go as far as to say that if a leader in a Christian Union is not doing the above they need to repent of that and sort it out immediately. And if they're not prepared to do that they should resign. Likewise, when choosing new CU leaders it would be appropriate for current leaders to make commitment to a local church a non-negotiable qualification.

Read the rest, because it explains exactly how churches and CUs ought to work together.

Shepherding the Flock

It strikes me that there are two things that I need when it comes to pastoral care.

The first one is that I need comforting in the trouble of life. I need to be reassured of the gospel. I need to have my broken heart bound up. I guess this is what we normally think of when we think of pastoring.

But I also need to be led. I need to pushed on and led on to greener pastures. I need to be made to go deeper in my understanding of Scripture and my love of Christ. I need to be challenged to grow.

Let's call the former reactive pastoring and the latter directive pastoring.

Would it be fair to say that some churches are very good at reactive pastoring but not so good at directive? They look after the weak, but never encourage them to become stronger. They take care of people, but never prod them into doing things they don't want to do. The result is self-indulgent Christians.

On the other hand, might it be legitimate to point out that some churches are good at being directive but very bad at reactive care? They know where people should be, and will do anything to get them there. They helpfully push the strong, but sometimes don't notice when the weak fall by the wayside. The result is often dishonesty, as people don't feel free to admit their failings and weaknesses.

Not so Jesus. He knows when we need leading on to greener pastures, and he knows when we need carrying through the valley of the shadow of death. Isn't it great that Christ, that great Shepherd of the sheep, knows just how to look after us?

I want to be free

David Davis is my hero. I think he ought to be your hero too. This week he has taken the Chiltern Hundreds (which is a funny way of saying he resigned from Parliament; there are historical reasons into which it is unnecessary to diverge now) because he believes in liberty. Specifically, he believes that the state ought not to have the right to lock anyone up for longer than is absolutely necessary without charging them with a crime. I cannot see how anyone can be against that belief.

I know that people think we are facing an unprecedented terrorist threat. Personally, I don't believe that. But even if I did, I would not consider it prudent to combat that threat by surrendering fundamental rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. It should be blindingly obvious that one does not fight against threats to one's liberty by giving up that liberty. This week, Islamist terrorism won a battle in the heart of British government: Parliament, the guardian of the people's freedom, allowed our freedom to be diminished. Why? Because we are scared of terrorists. And that means they win. Terrorists win if we are terrified. They win if we are scared enough to change our way of life.

I don't want them to win. I am not scared of them.

All power to Mr Davis. I hope he can rally the country behind his cause.

Guilt

A thought process aided by Bonhoeffer's Creation and Fall...

I was pondering yesterday how temptation seems to be strongest when you are on your own. Introspection, self-absorption, lust, laziness, pride... All seem to hit me, at least, when I'm by myself.

Then I had a sudden flash: what does that tell me about my sinfulness?

It tells me that the source, fountainhead and spring of all that is wrong and corrupt in my life is not out there but in here. I am the sinner. The blame cannot be shifted in any way, not even to the devil or all his angels. Sin comes out of my heart, because that is where it begins. I could explain all of the things that led up to my sin, all of the contributory circumstances, but would still at the end of the day have to say 'I sinned'. Nobody made me. None of the circumstances caused it. It was all me.

Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!

"Yes, but" Theology

A problem which plagues conservative theology especially is what I call 'yes, but' theology. A desire for 'balance', 'moderation' or even just a (generally good) desire to take into account the whole of Scripture results in the truths that Scripture presents being blunted, sometimes against each other. It works like this...

Person A: I'm not worried about future finances; God has promised to provide.
Person B: Yes, but we do need to be prudent and wise in our saving and make sure we provide for our families!

or...

A: Jesus says I should lose my life for his sake.
B: Yes, but of course you ought not to do anything rash or foolhardy!

or...

A: Human reason is utterly corrupted by the fall.
B: Yes, but of course humans are still in the image of God so we can still address them as rational people.

'Yes, but' theology evacuates the promises, threats and descriptions given by God of any force, and it does so in the name of thoroughness, systematization, and consistency. In reply, I say... No. When the Word of God is heard, it comes with force that crashes through every system. It may involve us in what seems to be a contradiction. It may cause us to pursue a course of action that looks like fanaticism. But it (he!) will not be tamed.