Gene Robinson and the Bible

I always wondered whether the reports on the split in the Anglican Communion was missing the point.

Was it about the role of women? Or homosexuals? Or is there something more important behind it? The role of scripture in the life of the church. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire says:

Could it be that God revealed in Jesus Christ everything possible in a first-century Palestine setting to a ragtag band of fishermen and working men? Could it have been God's plan all along to reveal more and more of himself and his will as the church grew and matured?

His point seems to be that God is always revealing more of Himself to us. That though the Canon is closed, that's not all we are to expect. Although he says that he doesn't think that God changes, i can't see how he could feel that God doesn't change if He revealed one thing in scripture but then changes that revelation as (coincidentally) culture changes. Or is it that God speaks today through and in accordance with His Word. Not because Evangelicals have bound Him by it, but because that is how He has decided to do it.

This view of scripture is so sad to me. There's so much glory and greatness in scripture. So much bread to be feasted upon. Perhaps this is a rich thing to say to a Bishop (but perhaps not), but anyone who describes the Bible as 'static' perhaps needs to spend more time reading it. And is God restricted by the Bible? NO! He is revealed through it. And who is Jesus? The Word of God! Come on Gene! See the bigger picture, enjoy the Lord as He has chosen to reveal Himself. Commune with Jesus as the Word. Get to know Him in scripture. Worship God as He would be worshipped. And trust the Book. Yes, the Book, with words and sentences and participles and propositions. With laws and commands and demands. Trust the Book, save the world.

God is love?

What we say about the atonement naturally flows from our understanding of the charecter of God. I believe, as i make clear in my book, that the most profound theological truth expressed in the whole canon of scripture is 'God is love' (1 John 4:8) Indeed again i have been attacked for 'over emphasising God's love and not putting it in context'

It seems that the statement 'God is love' is sometimes used to cover and end a multitude of disagreement and controversy. Indeed, even yesterday i was checking my Nooma post from the summer again, to see how many more comments have been made on it, (current tally, 37) and one guy ended his comment of disagreement with the statement 'God is love'. Now, thats true. God is love, otherwise the Bible wouldn't tell us He was. If we don't affirm that scripture is God-breathed and therefore true and authoritative then we are cut adrift as Christians with neither boat nor paddle.

So yes, of course. God is love. That is a great neccesary and life giving truth. And i love it. But it what sense is is a life giving and neccesary thruth? What does it mean that God is love? How is this love expressed. In the quote about Steve Chalke says he's been accused of 'not putting it in context'. Well thats do that now, and lets see if the argument against, particularly in this case penal substitution is affected in any way by the context of the rest of the passage:

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

So John's argument seems to be 1) if we don't love each other we don't know God, why? Because 2) God is love. And how can we know His love? What does His love look like? 3) He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 4) Look how much God loves us, so love each other.

So it seems from this that 'God is love' far from giving trouble to the doctrine of penal substitution is actually based on that doctrine. God is love. This is what His love looks like, that He sent His Son to bear our sins on the cross. God is love seems to lead us straight to penal substitution. And it seems to suggest that God is love means that God will give us Himself, that God's greatest gift in His love is Himself in His Son. Why? Well what did the cross achieve for us? Forgiveness of sins? Yes,

Infinitly neccesary but not ultimate. It's not ultimate because the cross is not about God. So what difference does that make? Well when a God ultimatly concerned with His own glory (as we also see from this verse, God being love demonstrates Father loves Son, Father loves Holy Spirit, Son loves Father and Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit loves Father and Son) sends His own Son to die, it's going to be for God glorifying reasons. It's going to be to bring us to Him, so we can worship, enjoy and praise Him. And thats what it does.

So God's love is the gift of His Son so that we might know Him. But do we see this idea anywhere else in scripture? I think we do, in John 17:26: I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them. So Jesus makes known to us the love of the Father. Why? So that we might love the father has for the Son will be in us. This must be referring to Heaven, when we see Jesus as he really is, and therefore begin to love Him as we should do. 'And I in them'. Which i think means, given the context, the love i have for the Farther you will have for the Father. So suddenly we're caught up into this eternal intra trinity love

In Heaven we will love the Son as the Father does, and vice versa. This love withh be eternal, infinite, white hot, overwhelmed with joy. And, for us, as we continue to see the glory of Jesus unfold for eternity, it will be a love that grows and grows. How does this happen? How can jesus possibly win this for sinners like you and me? By what He did on the cross. By removing every barrier, every sin that stood between us and this all satisfying, white hot joy filled relationship with the Father.

So yes, God is love. All day every day. But we can only know and taste this because in His love, because God is love, He sent Jesus, to bare the wrath that we deserve on our behalf, so that we might spend eternity caught up in, and experiencing this Father, Son, Holy Spirit love.

Doctrine

Of course it is Jesus who saves, not the doctrine. And so our faith rests decisively on Jesus. But the doctrine tells us what sort of Jesus we are resting on and what we are resting on Him for. Without this, the word Jesus has no content that could be good news.

John Piper: 'The Future of Justification' P86

I'm reading Piper's new book on justification at the moment. I'd seen a review that said if you weren't really part of the debate yourself, not a pastor of a church where this was a problem, not someone torn between the new Perspective and orthodoxy, or not someone with an academic interest in the subject, it's probably a work to be avoided. I'd have to say that since i don't fall into any of those categories, but am still enjoying and gaining much from the book, i'd have to disagree.

Anyway, Piper, in the above quote, makes the distinction between saving faith in Christ, over above saving faith in doctrine, which doesn't actually exist. And thats right, but it got me to thinking not that 'all we need is love' or that if we say we're Christians we'll go to Heaven, but that it makes the study and belief of sound doctrine all the more important. If i just say i love maths, but do no work in the study of maths, and then just make up a load of random junk on my maths exam, i'm not going to get very far. A football team that tries to pass the ball from hand to hand isn't going to do very well, despite how much they claim to love the game.

Last year saw serious controversy over, and defence of the doctrine of, penal substitution. And that was right and crucial controversy, not because we are saved by believing the doctrine, but because the doctrine helps us to know and see how we are saved and what from. If i don't believe that all my sin was punished in Jesus on the cross, my sinful heart will naturally waiver and worry and try to work to deal with sin itself. But if i know that all my sin has been dealt with by Jesus forever, then there will no such problems. In theory at least.

The same with that foundation stone of the church, justification by faith alone, something at stake in 'The Future if Justification'. Not that believing in the doctrine saves me, but that it shows me what sort of Christ i believe in, and shows me how i'm being saved. If i didn't have faith in this doctrine i'd be trying to do all sorts of Christ diminishing work to make myself right with God, whether it was being nice to people or running backward down the high street at full moon. Knowing, loving, studying, communing with God and trying to defend this doctrine teaches me that none of that is true. That i was delivered from the curse of the law by the One who became a curse for me. That Christ died as a ransom for many. That if i'm saved by my works i make the cross of no benefit.

Sound doctrine is vital. Vital because it shows us what sort of Christ we believe in. Vital because it shows us what He's done. Vital because it shows us what that means. There's little more important in life than those truths. Nothing actually.