Philippians 3 v1-11.

I recently led a Bible Study at church on Philippians 3 v1-11. The Apostle Paul tells the hard pressed church in Philippi to 'rejoice' and 'look out'. In fact one 'rejoice' to three 'look outs'. Paul is very concerned about a wave of false teachers about to fall upon this church.

It isn't difficult to see what sorts of things this new wave will be preaching. These teachers will be quite proud of their credentials and their authority. The Philippians will be tempted to respond in one of two ways; they will probably feel inferior to these people and/or will want to emulate them. Their qualifications as big fish however is undermined by Paul who points out that he has all the same religious credentials these characters have... but he counts it as rubbish!

The natural default setting of us humans is towards 'works religion'. We believe that, if God exists, he has nothing to complain about with us. Why should God need to forgive us anything? We haven't done anyone any harm we say... but if we are honest with ourselves we know that that is not true! We are not blameless. Nor can we can claim we are in God's good books because of our birthright or any supposed good deeds we have done. If we do we are literally being self-righteous, trusting in ourselves; just as these false teachers were.

What is the alternative? Paul wants the church to stand strong against the tsunami of false teaching he can see hurtling their way. Paul has all the same qualifications these phoney teachers have and a good deal more but paul counts all this as rubbish compared to the surpassing worth of Jesus Christ and what he accomplished for us on the Cross. Our security rests, not on our abilities or credentials, but solely on what Jesus has done for us already.

But he takes it a stage further. We are not to find our security in the 'Doctrines of Grace' as if theological rectitude will keep us safe. We are to 'Rejoice!' in the Doctrines of Grace. These will only keep us safe when we truly grasp what Jesus has done for us and respond appropriately. When we find our source of joy in Christ alone we won't be tempted or awed by anything else.

The only thing which will truly keep us safe is the joy of the Lord!

ORIGINAL SIN & THE "BIBLE'S BURIED SECRETS". In the final episode of Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou's TV series she seeks to locate The Garden of Eden. Her conclusion is that the Adam & Eve story and the account of their subsequent Fall can be traced back to the Temple, Judah's king and the Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Empire in 586bc. I consider myself fairly clued up on Biblical literature and have some familiarity with opposing positions, but I cannot say I have ever heard of this hypothesis before. Of course that doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it is almost certainly wrong. It is very important to say that the drive in academic circles is always to innovate; if you want to make a reputation for yourself in academia you have to find a novel angle. That impetus is not always conducive to conserving what is good. If you want to make a name for yourself some public exposure, controversy and novelty are the name of the game. She said the concept of original sin has had a "devastating" effect on human affairs because it implicated everyone but if the real story relates to one particular king's hubris then humanity can say, as she did, "we are off the hook!" Humanity is innocent of evil. The link between the Garden of Eden and Solomon's Temple seems tenuous - it is just as likely that the garden decoration in the Temple is symbolic of something earlier. But even if one concluded that the Bible we have was largely constructed during the Babylonian exile that does not negate the message. If it is strikingly different from the original source all the more reason to ask 'why?' What are the writers of the Bible getting at? It strikes me that the questions raised by the TV programme always stop short; in so far as the Bible has buried secrets why not dig deeper? I can't help but conclude that the series has an agenda, it isn't difficult to perceive what it is. Smear words like "devastating" when attached to concepts like 'original sin' imply that she has a humanist outlook. Her 'straw man' argument about Eve as the cause of evil imply she has a Feminist agenda. But the real feature of this TV series is Post-Modernism; from Dr Stavrakopoulou's point of view it does not matter what the evidence actually is, it is sufficient that this is true for her. A Post-Modernist does not believe in objective reality and that is dangerous for a historian (as for a scientist!) because then the focus shifts from the external realities to the internal and subjective encounter of how 'I' see it and what it means for 'me' as if somehow our present day self-serving worldview is what this history is primarily about. Given this; it is no wonder that the presenter inserts present day priorities into her historical interpretation. Clearly Dr Stavrakopolou is hostile to the concept of 'original sin' and that informs her historical reconstruction. It is not unreasonable to ask if the Bible has got it so wrong regarding evil what is the correct view? She does not answer that. If evil is something which does not touch us all then who does it touch? It is very easy to 'otherise' human evil by identifying a convenient outgroup who can be demonised while we claim to be totally innocent ourselves. Humanists, Atheists, Feminists and Post-Moderns all have their favoured outgroups - in fact that sort of moral fingerpointing is a major feature of human nature... and 'original sin'! The Christian position, drawn from the Eden story, is unique in that it recognises our own culpability. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn from 'The Gulag Archipelago' "If only there were evil people some where insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."

"Federal Vision" (aka Auburn Avenue Theology).

Until last Summer I had never even heard of "Federal Vision" and since then I have done a bit of a crash course to get up to speed as it has become a hot topic within some churches and organisations I know of. (St Helen's is not directly affected I hasten to add!). Trawling the internet is a bit of a minefield - you find skilful proponents of "Fed Vis" and passionate critics, along with 'the good, the bad and the ugly' voices in between. In a nutshell "Federal Vision" seeks to reaffirm the importance of the sacraments within the life of the church and indeed to reform our view of the Church itself. In support of these ideas they look to the Westminster Confession and Book 4 of John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" among other worthy sources, so at first glance it would be unfair to say that these people are outside the Reformed faith or that they are heretics. The most visible practice of the movement is a passionate belief in infant baptism for reasons which will become clear below.

Reading "The Baptized Body", by Peter J Leithart, has shaken me and caused me to review what it is I believe. I thought that we, the Reformed church, were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Have I so badly read the Bible that I have imposed on it my own pre-suppositions? An issue for me is, have I misidentified myself as a 'Reformed' christian? To be a 5 point Calvinist seemingly isn't enough. Can I still at least say I'm reformed with a small 'r'? But then again John Calvin didn't actually write 'The 5 Points'; they were written by his successors and dedicated to him. Nonetheless I feel a bit of an orphan.

I am not an academic theologian but I consider myself to be a reasonably well read layman who has a clear idea about what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about; and even if I do not know how to winkle out every nuance hidden within the curlicues of academic vocabulary I am sufficiently concerned to make this modest attempt. It may be that in writing on this topic I am making a right charlie of myself and merely displaying my ignorance for all of blog world to see - but I would far rather run that risk than say nothing.

Not knowing where to start - or frankly which source to trust - I figured the best place to begin was with some of the literature written by Peter J Leithart who is a leading proponent of "Fed Vis". This movement arose within reformed circles in the Presbyterian Church of the USA but has made significant inroads into the reformed scene in the UK. And when I say significant this is not mere hyperbole.

Peter Leithart's seminal book is "The Baptized Body". He asserts that when the word baptism is used in the New Testament it normally means the sacrament of water Baptism. I will have to consider the texts carefully again but if he is correct then the rite does achieve some remarkable things for the recipient. In Leithart's view water Baptism is a 'radical life transforming event'. But I always thought that the word "baptism" has a range of meanings or at least it could be used as a metaphor. Could not the word be legitimately translated as "immersed" rather than being transliterated from the Greek without neccesarily doing an injustice to the text? Is it so unfair, as Leithart suggests, to treat the word "baptism" as shorthand for the process of conversion which culminates in a public, symbolic identification with Christ's death and resurrection (a rite of passage if you like) and official welcome into the local church community? Leithart thinks this is playing fast and loose with the plain meaning of the text; put simply 'the sign effects what it signifies'. I do find that hard to swallow because it does seem to set these texts at odds with many others that seem to impute the benefits of salvation to the believer by the sheer grace of God alone without the agency of the sacraments. I will have to think on these things some more, but I am still inclined to view baptism as a testimony to regeneration rather than a regenerative act in itself!

There are some helpful correctives in the book. When we come to Christ we are called to be part of the church community and not just live our lives in splendid spiritual isolation. We also need to be aware of the dangers of an inward looking, pietistic form of spirituality. Both these stress "me" and "my walk with God" to the exclusion of our relationships with other believers. A distinction is drawn between the personal and the individual in the Fed Vis lexicon - personal is good: individual bad, an issue that will pop up again in this essay. Leithart makes a fair point about infants being able to form trusting relationships and that there isn't some magical age of responsibility; but that argument really scores against Arminianism rather than believers' baptism as such because faith is a gift of God at whatever age.

Here I want to draw attention to the problem of language and why Federal Visionists(?), Federal Visionaries(?), Federal Visionistas(?) often find themselves 'talking past' people like me... and indeed start to arouse concern. Fed Visers are very intelligent and articulate people who use language with precision - usually borne out of academic rigour - but the words used mean something signifcantly different to the men and women in the pew, or at least the evangelical in the pew. For example the word "Reformed" is used of this theology but something much more sacramental is meant by it than I would hitherto have thought possible. I accept this is probably sheer ignorance on my part.

That aside I am troubled by several aspects of the book, which I read genuinely in good faith. A lot of the words with which we are familiar on the evangelical scene seem to be radically redefined by "Fed Vis" eg, "regeneration", "sanctification" and even "justification" are to be applied to anyone who happens to be Water Baptised regardless of whether they are ultimately saved. "Baptism" texts can be advanced which seem to imply these amazing benefits - but, of course, for Leithart that almost invariably means literal water Baptism and invariably fall short, in the final analysis, of actual salvation. I can't help feeling that this 'radical life transforming event' is not so life transforming after all! Within this new lexicon it is possible to be justified, adopted, sanctified and regenerate and yet ultimately remain unsaved.

The crux of the sacrament is to induct the recipient into civic society. This is a fundamental reorientation away from the Gospel which saves sinners through individual repentance and faith in Christ to a Gospel which seeks social and cultural change through the agency of the Church as a formal institution. In this context it is easy to see why infants can, indeed must, be regenerated and encultured into the Church by means of Baptism. The concept of believers' baptism is treated with some scepticism on the basis that the notion of choice is an illusion derived from our modern worldly mindset. The "baptistic" approach of believers' baptism, is viewed by Fed Vis as deeply suspect and compromised by worldly pre-suppositions rather than being truly Biblical. Maybe I missed a step in the argument somewhere but (as I said earlier) I've always viewed faith as a gift from God. None of these criticisms 'hit home' and I wonder if he really has Arminianism in his sights rather than the target he claims.

Please note that not all paedo-baptists are Fed Vis! There is a spectrum of thought within the church community as to how much continuity or discontinuity exists between the Old and the New Covenant. I tend toward the discontinuity end of the spectrum but others see much more continuity ie, water baptism is the new sign of the covenant taking over from the OT sign of circumcision. Water baptism is, for them, an appropriate sign used to include infants within the covenant people of God; personally I'm not convinced but I do not regard this theology as "beyond the pale" by any means. Maybe this was where John Calvin was positioned. The question is how much further down this Covenantal spectrum is Fed Vis and at what point do we consider it to have crossed the line? Or put another way, do the proponents of FV regard us, sotto voce, as too far up the line?

The essence of the argument goes much further beyond infant Baptism because it turns on our understanding of "the Body of Christ. Leithart says our concept of "The Body of Christ" should be taken literally to mean just that, it is not a metaphor. If I read him correctly he seems to be saying that the Church is an incarnation of Christ in the world today - to say otherwise is to be guilty of Nestorianism no less! Hence the 'federal' tag ('federal' being a Latin derivative alternatively translated as 'covenantal' in English). The body of believers are in a federal/covenantal union with Christ. I don't have a huge problem with this provided we take care to distinguish between the Body and the Head. I cannot help but feel that Leithart sees the Church as sharing in the Headship/Dominion of Christ. Here it is useful to say that "Fed Vis" is firmly 'Post-Millennial' in its philosophy, which means that, in its opinion, Jesus will return after a glorious millennial Church age during which the world's culture, economics and politics will have been transformed through the agency of the Church. (A-millennialists interpret the 1,000 year reign of Revelation ch. 20 as a present reality we call "the Kingdom of God" which will find its complete fulfillment when Christ returns. Pre-millennialists see Christ as returning beforehand to inaugurate his kingdom in the modern land of Israel).

The discussion within Evangelicalism about Christ and Culture in recent years has been a helpful way of thinking Christianly about how we interact with the world around us and as a way of proclaiming the Gospel meaningfully in a variety of settings. But the "Fed Vis" position seems to be that redeeming culture is the principal mission of the Church, which is a step up from classic "post-millennialism". The classic Post-Millennialists I've met would say that culture will be transformed coincidentally as people come to faith in Christ; I don't have a problem with this conceptually because they recognise that "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart!" You cannot change anything until the human heart is changed! However I worry that Fed Vis sees our primary mission as changing people's presuppositions as an end in itself, if so then they have started to lose sight of the grace of God and its ability to change the human heart; "not by might nor by power, but by my spirit" says the Lord Almighty. The danger in my view is that the Fed Vis version of post-millennialism will substitute mere formalism for spiritual reality as people are enculturated into Christianity and their confidence is focused on the institutions of the Church.

Perhaps the profoundest difference I have with Leithart is his view on assurance. I just cannot see how Baptism, or the Church minister's "absolution"(!) for that matter, offers objective assurance of anything. Indeed I would argue that the danger here is of placing our faith in people or institutions or rites rather than in Christ alone. Maybe Leithart would deny this on the basis that the Church is Christ, but I'm not convinced. Assurance can only be assurance when the focus is taken away from ourselves or our particular group and placed in Christ exclusively. I have assurance precisely because I have trusted Jesus and have no confidence in myself or any one or any thing else to see me right. I think Leithart would say that this is an unhealthy, disembodied, spiritualised, pietistic kind of belief. I think he is wrong.

I have to say that if Leithart is correct in his theology then my understanding of grace is actually wide of the mark, for the following reason: God would have instituted certain rites and religious practices, not as "a means of grace" - as if it were funnelled by the sacraments - but as grace itself! Not merely would these rites be crucial to our faith but faith itself would actually be more about sharing in the life of the Church community as expressed through the sacraments and less about who we have come to put our trust in. When Jesus promised the thief next to him on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" the thief had had no opportunity to be water Baptised (ie in Leithart's theology = adopted, sanctified, justified, regenerated etc) did he? I cannot help but conclude that Federal Vision has moved from the concept of "by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone".... it's not that they neccesarily deny any of those beliefs per se, it is that they deny the 'alones' by making something critical of the sacraments.

I can understand why one Fed Viser I heard of described himself as a "Reformed Catholic". And, at least, that also leaves the door open for me to call myself a Reformed Protestant; I'm not an orphan after all!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

post-script: Monday 16th March 2009. I've been reading chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession (about Justification) and frankly it is difficult to square it with Leithart's take on the subject: Leithart says as much himself. Justification is about 'effective calling' in the W Conf (Rom 8 v30 etc) and for Leithart it is about the possibility of new life.

It seems to me that the contrast is between "Justification (in this strong Rom 8v30 sense) by Faith" versus "Justification (in the diluted Leithart sense) by Faithfulness"! Unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick (and I am open to being put right!); this is no mere academic discussion, this is about the soul of the Evangelical/Reformed faith no less.

I'll have to make this a topic for a future 'blog' I think.