Ex Opere Operato!

A casual observer might wonder why I have taken such a keen interest in the subject of baptism. It isn't just that there is a school of thought called "Federal Vision" doing the rounds in Anglican Evangelical circles, my interest predates this. I am a Charge Nurse who has worked in children's intensive care for over a decade and a half. I have lost count of the number of infants I've seen die; not I hasten to add because our death rates are higher than anyone else's - it's just that I've been on this scene a long time! Not surprisingly I've puzzled over the subject of infant salvation and the related topic of the role of infant baptism.... or is it related?

There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.

As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?

The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.

I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.

I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)

The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?

When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.

Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.

Isn't it strange?
Isn't it strange that those who claim to have a 'high view of the Church' usually seem to have a low view of the role of the laity!?

The Baptism of CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
While reading John Julius Norwich's history of "Byzantium" I stumbled across an account of Constantine's baptism which isn't entirely irrelevant to the musings I've indulged in on that topic in this 'blog'. Most readers will be aware that Constantine the Great is the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It might come as a surprise to learn that he was only baptised when he was on his deathbed in 337AD, twenty five years after his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he is said to have seen the symbol of the Cross in the sky and told to "conquer with this sign".

I quote JJN;
Why - the question has been asked all through history - why did Constantine delay his baptism until he was on his deathbed? The most obvious answer - and the most likely - is Gibbon's:
"The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered."
There was indeed nothing unusual, in those early days of Christianity, in deferring baptism until the last possible moment; forty three years later, we shall find the devout Theodosius the Great doing much the same.

I guess there is a certain logic to this approach to baptism if one starts with an overly sacramental view of the ordinance. No doubt a Roman emperor might anticipate having to engage in some realpolitik which may not sit easily with a Christian conscience. Constantine was guilty of many sins not least the murder of his wife and son; so, given this understanding of baptism, it might indeed be "prudent" to defer it.

The problem with Constantine's baptism is that it seems to be a crude attempt to manipulate God Himself. It is as if Constantine is placing his faith in the rite rather than in God. But more than that Constantine seems to believe that only those sins committed prior to baptism are covered and after that 'you are on your own!' Saved by grace but kept by works sort of thinking!

Of course it is not for me to say whether Constantine is saved or not ("The Lord knows those who are his!") but I do think that it is worth noting those points where 'alarm bells' start ringing. Am I accusing anyone of following Constantine's baptismal logic? No, I am not aiming this at those fellow believers who hold to Covenantal Theology (eg LG). I do wonder how easily it sits with those who hold to Federal Vision theology though.

I accept that I will be accused of attempting an 'argument from absurdity' - that I have selected some very extreme and untypical examples to critique - but my purpose is not to project these views onto anyone in particular but to offer them up as interesting discussion points. Well...... at least I find them interesting!

JOHN THE BAPTISTIC.

Our midweek Bible study group has been looking at the Gospel of John and I got to thinking about the baptism performed by John the Baptist and the controversy it provoked among the religious authorities of his day.

In John chapter one a delegation arrives to quiz John about his ministry and they specifically challenge him about his authority to baptise. John is calling upon the Covenant people of God (Israel) to repent and turn around. Clearly this rite had some End Time significance because they question his identity - if he is not 'the Christ', 'the prophet' or 'Elijah' on what basis can he baptise people. By what right could someone set themselves up to offer a sacrament to a people already circumcised?

At this point John points beyond the symbolism of what he is doing to the one who is to come after him; he can get people wet but the One he is heralding will 'baptise with the Holy Spirit.' Clearly something new is about to happen.

It strikes me that there is some considerable controversy about baptism within Anglican Evangelical circles. The issue is not about the baptism of believers - no one in this debate has an issue with this - the issue is about the baptism of the infants of believers and what significance this 'sign' or 'seal' has.

For those of us who are sceptical but accepting of infant baptism we will find ourselves challenged with the accusation that "believers' baptism" really arises from the modern day concepts of consent and self-autonomy, and consequently has little to do with a Gospel of Grace where faith is seen as a gift of God. This compromise with the spirit of the age is called "baptistic".

Readers of this 'blog' will already know that I have puzzled over the issue of infant baptism - and indeed puzzled over the passion felt by Paedobaptists that goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. I recently heard reported that one noted speaker said that not to baptise infants was actually to disobey God.... and would use Reformed Theology as his basis for this assertion. Indeed another proponent of Paedobaptism has argued that one cannot be 'Baptistic' and a 'Reformed' Christian because these are a theological contradiction!

To try and help unravel some of the theology about Baptism I thought that I might start a little series of discussions here looking at Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation" published by The Latimer Trust. Lee was a curate here at St Helen's Bishopsgate until 2009 when he moved on to pursue an academic career in Cambridge. I think that his booklet puts forward a case in favour of infant baptism and that this provides a useful foil to help move this discussion forward in a constructive way.

It goes without saying I take a different view on these matters so watch this space.

UGANDAN LAW ON HOMOSEXUALITY!

There is a proposal in Uganda to pass a law which would include the ultimate sanction against homosexuals.
From an Evangelical Christian perspective I have never understood the church invoking the methods of the world to make people behave as if they are Christian. Such lobbying, at home and abroad, effectively substitutes law instead of grace, judgment instead of mercy and belies our professed trust in the sovereignty of God. When we use the methods of the world, or approve of them, we are in danger of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute.
In the final analysis only Christ can change people's hearts and these sorts of Post-Millennialist projects to enculturate non-believers into Christianity leaves me cold.
"Not by might, nor by power but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts", Zechariah 4 v6.

Federal Vision (again!)

I was recently told about the 'blog' belonging to David Anderson called 'More than Words' http://mothwo.blogspot.com/

He seems to share some of the same reservations I have about the whole "Federal Vision" mularkey; his blog might be worth checking out.

I Was a Teenage Post-Millennialist!

I have previously related the story of the time I joined a church in Bradford (Yorkshire, UK) back in 1979 where this fellowship had a clearly "Post-Millenialist" ecclesiology. The "Millennium" is a term derived from a passage in Revelation 20 - the prefixes of "Pre", "A" and "Post" describe the period when the Kingdom of God, as promised by Jesus Christ, will be truly inaugurated.

"Pre-Mill" means that Jesus will return first and then establish his kingdom on earth. This is usually attributed to a re-establisment of the State of Israel which is then overtaken by "the rapture" and an apocalyptic world conflict. This is often the subject of "pop prophecy" in Christian circles and treats the Gospel era as a kind of hiatus in God's plan.

"Post-Mill" means that Jesus will return after his kingdom has been established through the agency of the Church... generally taken to mean that the Church will so predominate the life of the world community that the vast majority of people will be saved - and the rest will be notionally "Christian". Isn't it interesting that Jesus poses the question in Luke 18 v8, "Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes will he find faith on earth?"

"A-Millenniallism" is a bit of a misnomer. "A" as a prefix means "without" which implies that A-Millennialists do not believe in the Biblical Millennium. A-Millennialists actually believe that the Millennium is a real and present reality - it is what Jesus called the Kingdom of God... an entity which is here now and yet not easily nailed down. It will yet be revealed in all its fullness when Jesus returns. (Contrary to some people who ought to know better "A-Millennialism" does not mean a disbelief in the Return of Christ!).

Does any of this really matter? Well, yes. Depending on your stance regarding the Millennium you will adopt one of several attitudes towards contemporary culture. The pre-mill believer will probably tend to be rather separationist from his or her non-believing contemporaries. The post-mill believer will tend to be an active lobbyist seeking to enculturate Christianity into the contemporary scene; such lobbyists tend to be rather right-wing. An A-mill believer will see that only the gospel of Jesus Christ can reform society by changing people's hearts, neither isolationism nor moralising will change a thing. By refusing to be enculturated in any place or time the Kingdom of God transcends all human categories and by doing so demonstrates the power of God.

"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.

Rules of Engagement!
To facilitate useful discussion I have a few house-rules for anyone posting comments on this 'blog'.

1) This is my blog and as editor I reserve the right to... well... edit!

2) Behave as a guest in my home. See rule 1.

3) Anonymous comments may be deleted. See rule 1.

4) Try and be succinct; you can always come back and build on previous comments, treatises will be deleted. See rule 1.

5) Unauthorised Links to other sites will be deleted as a matter of principle. See rule 1.

6) With due regard to the laws of natural justice these rules are subject to arbitrary and capricious change without warning! See rule 1.

The Bible Timeline.

One of the problems in understanding how to read the Bible and make relevant applications from it is our tendency to read it 'in the flat' without making any allowance for context. There are many sincere Bible believing Christians who misapply the text because they do not allow for what I will call The Bible Timeline. What do I mean? The Bible is an unfolding story of God's salvation plan for mankind.... it has a beginning, a middle and an end. If you focus on one element of this unfolding story at the expense of the rest you will misunderstand it all.

I would argue that there are five acts in the Bible story (not to be confused with the Dispensations of certain Fundamentalist groups). They are Creation, Fall, Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of God and the New Creation.

If in their mind's eye they focus on 'Creation' only - they will conclude that we live in the best of all possible worlds.... and they will have a 'Pollyann-ish' type Christianity. It will be an idealised, sentimental Christianity - actually it will be sub-Christian because it will hold to a naive belief in the perfectability of human nature outside of Christ. And it will be a belief system that will quickly hit the buffers when something evil occurs, because it has no theology of evil. It will be unable to conceive of the possibility of any sort of 'righteous indignation' at injustice and therefore God should have no issue with humanity as it is currently understood. It will be perplexed when noble, talented people do something wicked, or when suffering befalls those they consider 'innocent'.

If you emphasise the 'Fall' to the exclusion of all else - you will conclude that there is nothing good to be said about humanity and will have an unbalanced and unbiblical view of the positive things about Creation; effectively following Pagan Greek thought which held that matter itself was inherently evil.You may also deny any redemptive possibilities in those people you consider 'beyond the pale'.

Sometimes you will find some church folk talking as if we live (or ought to live) in a theocratic state - and here I believe that they are reading themselves into the 'Israel' section of the Bible narrative. They feel that somehow we will become a godly nation if only we could enact some godly laws. They will tend toward moralism rather than the grace of God and consequently they may perceive evil as an external rather than an internal enemy.... they will "otherise" evil. (Evil will always be a description of those in the 'outgroup' - they will never consider themselves evil ). It's possible that they will adopt a naive 'cause and effect' view of blessing and misfortune... 'obey the rules you get blessed, disobey and something bad will happen'. I say 'naive' because in reality this form of spiritual one-up-man-ship was rubbished by the Old Testament prophets let alone Jesus! They may also consider themselves as having some sort of prophetic role modelled on Elijah or Elisha. You may hear these people talking loosely about certain countries being "Christian" nations - which of course they are not. God's plan has moved on from simple nation building and has become something altogether 'cosmic'! We must read the Old Testament from the perspective of Jesus. (Please note: this does not mean that what was wrong BC becomes okay AD, far from it. Nor does it mean that Christians should not play an active role in a participatory democracy - we are obliged to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves). What it does mean is that God's salvation plan has made a step change with the advent of Christ.

You will also find some church people talking as if we are already in the 'New Creation'. For them all is "glory now!" Triumphalism, miracles galore, prosperity, sinless perfectionism etc will be the idealistic marks of such believers. This is unreality; and the danger here is that sincere (if misguided) people will make promises on God's behalf that God has reserved for a future time.... this is not to deny the possibility of a measure of glory now as the Kingdom of God breaks in upon this present age.... but the final consummation is not yet. The problem here is that expectations will be unfulfilled and people will become disillusioned.... or worse, they will live in a fantasy world cut off from reality.

I believe that we are in the fourth act of the five part Bible drama. This in my view accurately describes the world we actually live in.... it is a wonderful creation which should be celebrated joyfully as God's gift, but something rotten has entered the hearts of people and consequently creation is marred by evil, injustice and suffering.... a state of affairs God cannot tolerate indefinately.

God's rescue plan is to bring about a restoration of his creation = "God's people, in God's place, under God's king". This was foreshadowed in the Old Testament but finds it's fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God but right now we live in an overlap of the ages while we wait for him to return to establish his kingdom in full. There is an uneasy co-existence of these rival kingdoms for the time being. The role of the church is to live out the values of God's kingdom even while we live in this present age. This does not mean that the church is perfected, it does not mean that Christian people are ideal. The Church is not co-terminus with the Kingdom of God. Christians are a work in progress... realising this can save us from the cynicism that may come from disappointing servants of Christ.