Monday, August 30, 2010

Stop it!

We watched this wonderful video at Officer’s camp about counseling that I thought that I would share with you because I think it relates to the text that we are looking at today – John you’ve studied some different counseling theorists and techniques than I have in my training. Let me know if you have encountered something similar to this:[1]





2 Chronicles 36:15-17:

15 The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. [He told them to stop it!] 16 But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy. [They wouldn’t stop it!]. 17 He brought up against them the king of the Babylonians, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged. [God stopped it for them!] God handed all of them over to Nebuchadnezzar.

read more: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/08/2-chronicles-3611-23-stop-it.html

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Food for Prayer: Gambling in Saskatchewan

Residents of Saskatchewan spend more per household on gambling than people in any other province, according to Statistics Canada.

A report released by the federal agency on Friday says the average Saskatchewan household spent $720 on gambling in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/08/27/sk-gambling-1008.html#ixzz0y2GvL5w1

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Is War Ever Just?

By Captain Michael Ramsay
The Nipawin Journal, November 2007


Is war ever just? This is certainly a difficult question to answer; brilliant churchmen and theologians (Augustine, Aquinas, More, Grotius, CS Lewis, John Paul II...) like the pagans before them (Plato and Cicero) have wrestled with this question and fought to find various theoretical formulae in order to test for a just war. Though their intent was noble, the results are ambiguous. A prime example of the struggle is Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli was a brilliant reformer and staunch pacifist – he died in a battle he voluntarily entered.

Part of the difficulty in addressing the question of a ‘just war’ is, of course, the ‘two Joshuas.’ God used Joshua of the OT to deliver His people into the promised land. War and violence accompanied this conquest. God uses the second Joshua, Jesus, to deliver us into the eternal promised land. Jesus is the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6) who teaches that one should turn the other cheek and offer our attackers even more than they demand (Matt 5, Lk 6). Pacifists have argued that any resistance is therefore disobedience and placing our trust in ourselves rather than in God.

The Salvation Army, in which I am an officer, is not a pacifist movement. We have both pacifists and national soldiers in our ranks. We have a long tradition of standing up for the weak and disadvantaged. John 15 says that a man can show no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends; we do owe a debt of gratitude to all our soldiers who have died for us and, from my perspective, I think Canada’s peacekeeping tradition of sending our troops to defend civilian populations and stand between warring factions is a noble expression of faith in action.

I further believe that our war here is with principalities and powers and that, as this is the case, officers in the Salvation Army pledge to make the saving of people a primary focus of our lives. It is to this end that I have committed to fight; Jesus saves and when His kingdom is fully realised on earth, there will be no further wars, no more tears. This is most certainly a just war.

This is a cursorily look at the topic. For more reading, I have posted a bibliography (below) on www.sheepspeak.com. I invite you to read more and offer me any insights you may have at war@sheepspeak.com..

For further reading:

Captain Michael Ramsay's Remembrance Day address, 2007: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2007/11/greater-love-has-no-man-than-to-lay.html (Comment on that address by the Journal: http://www.nipawinjournal.com/News/354539.html )
An interview with General Shaw Clifton: http://www1.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_ihq_general.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/87BD3DF62F0F179F802572ED00564052?Opendocument
Hugo Grotius and Just War: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/grotius.html
The Just War Theory: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/joshua3c.htm
Cole, Darrell. The Problem of War: C.S. Lewis on Pacifism, War & the Christian Warrior.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

You Can't Go Home Again

Ezra 1:1-2: “In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: ‘This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah.”

We are going to spend the next couple of weeks looking at the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Did you know that some scholars consider that they are actually one book? Ezra-Nehemiah has two distinct sections pertaining to 1) the Temple (Ezra 1-6) and 2) Holiness (Ezra 7- Nehemiah 13)[1] and some people even lump them together with 2 Chronicles as one whole work – if you flip back to the last two verses of 2 Chronicles you will notice that Ezra begins – with overlap – right where 2 Chronicles leaves off.[2]

I used to be a teacher once upon a time. When I was going through my teacher training many years ago, we were always advised to establish prerequisite knowledge prior to commencing a unit. There are a number of ways to evaluate what people know about a subject; can anyone tell me what one of the easiest (for the teacher) and most effective ways to find out what people know about a subject? [a test]I am going to give us an introductory test about Ezra and Nehemiah[3]

1) In what Testament are they contained: the NT or the OT?
2) Is E-N a part of the Pentateuch (the Law, the books of Moses), the Prophets, Wisdom, or History?
3) Who is the primary figure in the book of Ezra (esp. the last half)?
4) Who is the primary figure in the book of Nehemiah?

By the time of the events in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (middle of the 4th Century BCE),

5) Persia was the foremost superpower of the day and they controlled Palestine, who was its leader recorded in Chapter 1 that we read from earlier? (You can look it up, verse 2)
6) Israel (721-721 BCE) and Judah (586 BCE) prior to the time of Ezra were conquered by the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively and many of their people were deported and the city of Jerusalem was totally destroyed (because of the people’s contempt for God among other things Chronicles 36:15-21; cf. 2 Kings 25:1-21 and Jeremiah 52:4-27; cf. also Leviticus 25:1-23, Amos 3-4).
6a) There are 2 key parts of Jerusalem that are being rebuilt in Ezra and Nehemiah: what is Zerubbabel, in the book of Ezra concerned with rebuilding? (hint: Ezra 1:2)
6b) Bonus marks: what is Nehemiah concerned with the rebuilding of…? There is a famous one now in China and one was torn down in Berlin near the end of last Century.

answers: http://sheepspeaks.blogspot.com/2010/08/ezra-11-2-2-chronicles-3622-23-you-cant.html

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Friends don’t let Friends go to Hell

Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 41, February 2006 – March 2006 (pp. 34-36)
Part 1: Aggressive Christianity vs. Friendship Evangelism

"Most of the people that I have heard extol the virtues of Friendship evangelism practice no evangelism at all".

I was speaking with Peter Unya today, a good friend of mine that I haven’t heard from in awhile. He was telling me that "a friendship evangelist is neither [a friend nor an evangelist]" and that they "may be Christians but they certainly aren’t Salvationists". Pete is a smart guy. I think he made some good points in our discussion. Let me try to communicate what he was saying in Mike language.

His argument was that the people he had come across in his life who were opposed to open evangelism often claimed that they preferred ’friendship evangelism’. I believe that he was in a discussion with a ’friendship evangelist’ before we talked today and that set him off with the wonderfully passionate quotes that opened this article.

The argument in favour of friendship evangelism goes like this: you make a friend. They see that you are happy being a Christian. They ask you how to be a Christian and you take them to Church. The problem is that the friendship evangelist is not out there intentionally seeking to serve God by extending the Kingdom. She hopes to fulfil the great commission by having the world come to her.

read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com./Michael_Ramsay_JAC.htm#Friends%20don’t%20let%20Friends%20go%20to%20Hell

Vote for Jesus!

Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 57, October 2008 – November 2008 (pp. 27-39)

In Canada we have an election coming up again – the third in four years. All the 'experts' admit without a doubt that this one will be... a 'waste of taxpayer money'. Even our Prime Minister, who wants the election, admits that it won't change the working dynamics of parliament but it's a contest; a game like any other and the competitors want to win it.

I have gotten to know a number of politicians around here lately and as I was listening to one speech from a recently elected MLA, it reminded me of 1 Corinthians 15:20ff. Here is a paraphrase of that passage as if by a contemporary provincial politician:

read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com./Michael_Ramsay_JAC.htm#Vote%20for%20Jesus

Be Bold for the Gospel

JAC#54

The world changes very quickly, doesn't it? I remember when I was child. I lived in a semi-rural area. All behind my house were cornfields, beside us were Farmer Wild's potato fields and we had a very small orchard of our own in our back yard. The Vantreights, they had Daffodil fields everywhere; so, between Farmer Wild and the Vantreights there was no end to seasonal employment for the kids. In the Spring some of us could even be seen cutting school in order to go earn a couple bucks cutting daffodils.

These days my parents' home has been completely swallowed up by my hometown which is now a city of 300 000 people or so. It is the country's 13th largest city.[2] Things change.

read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article6-54.html

Old Testament Salvationists

JAC#62

In the Salvation Army we have an opportunity to be separated for God in a very important covenant. Salvation Army soldiers voluntarily take a significant oath. We enter into the Soldiership Covenant before God and this vow is not dissimilar from one recorded in Numbers 6 that the Lord used to greatly bless some of the ancient Israelites: the Nazirite vow. This was a special vow of separation unto the LORD and the LORD himself told Moses that if a man or woman wants to take this special vow of separation to the LORD then there are some things she must do (Numbers 6:1,2).

Most of us, if we think about it, can probably name two or three famous people from the Bible who were bound to the LORD through this Nazirite vow: Samson. Samuel, John the Baptist. It is good to keep these three in mind as we think about the Nazirite vow but we should recognize that there are some key differences between the vows of these three and the other people who have been bound to God through a Nazirite vow.

read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article4-62.html

Don't be a McChicken!

JAC#67

One day at the McDonald farm there is a rumbling in the air; something is a foot. In the chicken coop something isn’t just quite right. The old farmer walks all around the chicken wire fence. It seems to be in tact. The barbed wire along the perimeter looks undisturbed. Everything looks fine as he locks up the hens for the night. But inside the henhouse on the top rung, something is stirring…it is Henrietta the poultry hen.

Now, as soon as Farmer McDonald closes the door to the coop, Henrietta the hen, speaks up: “It’s time.” Quickly Henrietta, Polly, Mick, and all the chickens on the top rung run to the southeast corner of the coop. They peck and they peck the ground in the corner like never before. Last night they had almost made it. Tonight would be the night. Finally – breakthrough! Henrietta and the other chickens are free. They are free from the farmer’s coop. They are free from the barbed wire and the chicken wire; they are free from the tedious ritual and routine.

http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-67.html

Jephthah’s Parachute: Covenant and Judges 11:29-40

JAC#59

When I was in my first year of studies at university, a friend of mine and I decided that we were going to have the time of our lives that summer or die trying. That is the year we took up SCUBA diving. I went white-water rafting for the first time, did a lot of ocean kayaking and we went parachuting…

As neither of us had ever been parachuting before we needed to be trained. We spent the day at the airport studying wind trajectories, physics, the speed of acceleration of a free falling object, as well as what to do if your parachute fails to open. I did not understand it at all and even when we practiced with a mock parachute, I didn’t get it.

We went to the plane. Flipping a coin to see who would go first, I lost and was supposed to jump first. Discovering, however, at about 850 ft in the air that I was afraid of heights, I convinced my companion to jump first.

We were jumping from 3000 ft. As this was our first jump, cords were tied to our parachutes so that they would open automatically upon exiting the plane. My friend climbed out on the wing (as he was supposed to) jumped, counted to five (as we practiced), looked up saw that the parachute had opened beautifully and enjoyed one of the most peaceful experiences of his life noticing the miracles of God’s creation while drifting to the ground on this perfectly windless day.

Emboldened, I do the same: climb onto the wing, jump, count, and look to see my parachute; I reach to grab the steering toggles on my parachute…they aren’t there. My parachute isn’t there...

read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article2-59.html

Rights and Responsibilities of Covenant

JAC#56

Judges 2:1,2: The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this?

This is a disappointing but very important passage from which to launch the stories of the Judges.[1] Reading a few verses further (Joshua 2:1-5) we learn why the Israelites and their allies suffer hundreds of years of oppression:[2] the cycle of sin, enslavement, repentance, deliverance, and sin again - which repeats until Israel finally descends into civil war and anarchy - this whole downward spiral[3] stems from one disobeyed promise; a disregarded covenant.

Read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article10-56.html

Covenant, Milkshakes, and Coming of Age...

JAC #64

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”


What is this old covenant that is now obsolete?

This old covenant was very important to the Hebrew people. Their whole society was founded upon it. It was more important than but not entirely dissimilar to the Canadian Constitutional Act of 1982 and 1867, the American Declaration of Independence or even the Magna Carta and its very important Habeus Corpus clause. There were a number of activities, ceremonies and cultural traditions related to this old covenant that were cherished by the Hebrews such as circumcision (this actually relates to Abraham’s covenant but often is seen in light of the Mosaic covenant; John 7:22, see Genesis 17:11); ceremonial hand-washing; worshipping at the Temple; priests and Levites who had various jobs relating to the covenant; Sabbath (this has its roots even before Moses, in creation itself; see Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11, Hebrews 4); the Ten Commandments; the Law and the prophets (see Exodus 20, 34; Deuteronomy 5, 10); frequent sacrifices and much more.

Between all of these things relating to Moses, the election of the Hebrews for the task of proclaiming salvation to the world (see Genesis 12:3), the Temple and the Torah (even though the Israelites did not live up to the terms of this old covenant): these ceremonies were very significant to the people. They loved them. It was like a number of things are to some of us who have been involved with The Salvation Army for a while: the band, timbrels, Songsters, Soldiers, Officers, uniforms, League of Mercy (Community Care Ministries), thrift stores, emergency disaster work, community and family social work, evangelism, social justice, etc. Even more than that: Moses, election, the Temple, Torah, all their ceremonies and holidays were as important to them as is to us: our national anthem at sporting events, birthday parties, Sunday church services, New Years celebrations, Christmas, Christmas Eve, and Easter. It would be as difficult for the Hebrews to imagine life without the ceremonies of the old covenant as it would be for us to imagine winter without Christmas.

read more: http://www.armybarmy.com/JAC/article3-64.html

Covenant: When God is Bound...

Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 52, December 2007 – January 2008 (pp. 5-10)

In our world today, people seem to be entering into covenants less and less and the ones that we are engaging in then are being taken less and less seriously. Of the 'till death do we part' vows that couples take before God, half are broken. Covenants are not being taken any more seriously by those in the church than they are by those in secular society. This is distressing. For the Salvationist this should be even more alarming. I have heard testimony of some soldiers drinking, smoking, gambling, and seen many who are obviously flirting with that 'which can enslave the mind and body.' I think we try to walk away from our vows too easily; I am not convinced that God actually lets the ties of covenant fall as easily as some might like. I am not convinced that simply declaring oneself 'un-wed' in the courts or renouncing our soldiership vows necessarily releases us from these covenants with God. There are no consequences for taking vows but there are consequences for breaking vows.

read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com./Michael_Ramsay_JAC.htm#Covenant%20-%20When%20God%20is%20Bound

Berit[h] (Covenant)

Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 40, December 2005 – January 2006 pp (16-17)

Covenant is obviously an important concept in Salvation Army with full membership requiring a signing of the Soldier’s Covenant. It is also a very important idea in the Old Testament. The word 'testament' itself can be translated as covenant! berit[h] is the most common term translated as ’covenant’ in the Hebrew Bible: it appears 286 times thus proving it an extremely important word.[1]

The origin of this word is not entirely conclusive. It is a form of the word brh, which refers to the meal that accompanies the covenantal ceremony ...

read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com./Michael_Ramsay_JAC.htm#Berit[h]%20(Covenant)

“War has been declared…” The Invasion of Winnipeg

Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 49, June 2005 – July 2005

Shortly after the Bombardment of Manitoba began, an explosive and successful invasion of the City of Winnipeg Began.

The Salvation Army began calling for its ‘Bombardment of Manitoba’ in the April 11th, 1885 issue of the Canadian War Cry Magazine.[1] They ran this advertisement again on the 18th and 25th of April. Staff-Captain Young, Lieutenant Archer, Captain Hackett, Captain Harrison, and Cadets Teirney and Graham answered the call; so, “on the 10th day of December, at –430 below zero The Salvation Army opened fire in Winnipeg.” [2] This is how the War Cry reported the successful invasion:

read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com./Michael_Ramsay_JAC.htm#War

Year of the Learning Child

Journal of Aggressive Christianity, Issue 37, June 2005 – July 2005 (75-77)

The Salvation Army has always helped people with their physical as well as spiritual needs. This year is the year of children and youth in The Salvation Army; and education is one of the most significant areas of need these days. We can meet this need and in the process make ourselves ever ready and useful to God for His eternal purposes.The current sociological thought at the universities across Canada and Europe points to knowledge as the most important commodity of the future. Canada has fallen behind much of the world and we are desperately trying to catch up. Parents and teachers are noticing the decline and are turning to tutoring more and more, so that their students can "catch-up, keep-up and get ahead".

read more: http://www.sheepspeak.com./Michael_Ramsay_JAC.htm#Year of the Learning Child of the Learning Child

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

COVENANT PART 4: The Apostle Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Function of the Law

This is the fourth of four postings on Paul's understanding of covenant and the Law as recorded in Romans Chapters 1 and 2

Paul’s understanding of the nature and function of the Law are important to comprehend in order to fully appreciate Pauline theology. Paul believed that as the promise was given to the Jews - though not to them exclusively and that it was even many years prior to the existence of either Jacob or the Jewish people (Galatians 3:17; Romans 4:13; cf. Genesis 12:3; Acts 2:23-25) - so too the Law applied equally to both Jew and Gentile in that God would not treat the sins of the Jews significantly different from those of the Gentiles (Romans 2:14-16; 3:27-31): this was indeed contrary to popular Jewish understanding.[1] The Law in no way superseded the covenant promise (Galatians 3:17).

It is in verses 2:12-16 where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in his letter to the Romans, making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law who are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.

In Romans 2:14-15, the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law is mentioned: even they, who do not have the Law, are able to do what the Law requires as much as anyone else is for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16; cf. 3:27-31).

The problem is though that no one will be declared righteous under the Law (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16, 21; 3:11, cf. 3:2). No one can perfectly obey to the Law (cf. Romans 2:3, 14-15, 17-26; 3:29-31; 9:20). Those then that attempt to obtain righteousness through an adherence to the Law will fail and thus be under a curse (Galatians 3:10; cf. Deuteronomy 27:26). However, as many scholars have pointed out, the Law demands faithfulness, not sinless perfection[2] and Paul's position is that his gospel upholds and is supported by the Law[3] (Romans 3.31; cf. Matthew 5:17).

“Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the Law; but if you break the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the Law, will not their uncircumcision be regard as circumcision? (Romans 2:25-26).” In Romans 2:25-29, two groups of people are being addressed. This is relevant to an understanding of the nature and function of the Law: The first group is comprised of Jews who do not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). The other is comprised of either Christian Gentiles (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) or non-believing Gentiles.

N.T. Wright argues, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[4]

Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[5] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, Paul is pointing to the fact a Jewish claim to any exclusivity on the basis of the content of their Law must contend with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are practiced by other people as well. As that is the case, it is what one does, rather than what one has in relation to the Law that is important.[6]

James Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement in the context of Romans 2 are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating, “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (Romans 2:15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. Romans 2:13).”[7] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (Romans 2:14-16).

In Romans 2:29, Paul refers to a spiritual circumcision of the heart (cf., Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25, 26). Physical circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law. Paul argues that God “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (Romans 2:27; cf. Galatians 3:10).” The apostle Paul, later in his letter to the Romans, cites Moses: “Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the Law, that ‘the person who does these things will live by them’ (Romans 10:5).” The Gentiles are now grafted into the vine; therefore, as James Dunn argues, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment.”[8]

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he states clearly that, pertaining to relying on the Law and a physical circumcision that “if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you…every man who lets himself be circumcised…is obliged to obey the entire Law. You who want to be justified by the Law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:2-5).” No one is justified by the Law (Galatians 3:11).

Romans 2:17-24 further addresses the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul responds to a Jewish claim that they can know God’s will and determine what is best because they are instructed in the Law (Romans 2:18) and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (Romans 2:19-20).” Paul makes the point that the Jews are not better or more knowledgeable than others. He does this through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. Romans 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in Romans 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[9]

Paul addresses this idea in his letter to the Galatians. As recorded in chapter three, he asks if the Law is indeed opposed to the promises of God (Galatians 3:21)? He responds, “Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the Law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe (Galatians 3:21-22).”

Paul is recorded as asking and answering, “Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator (Galatians 3:19).” Now, however, “There is no longer Jew nor Greek, there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29).”

The Law reveals that we are guilty of sin (Romans 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (Romans 2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (Romans 2:2; 3:19-20). Both the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[10]

www.sheepspeak.com
---
[1] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 126. Cf. also NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.
[2] Timothy G. Gombis “The 'Transgressor' and the 'Curse of the Law': The Logic of Paul's Argument in Galatians 2-3.” New Testament Studies 53, 81-93. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 83, see also Norman H. Young, 'Who's Cursed - and Why? (Galatians 3.10-14)'~ JBL 117 (1998) 79-92, 82-3; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, 140, 147; Michael Cranford, 'The Possibility of Perfect Obedience: Paul and an Implied Premise in Galatians 3.10 and 5.3'. NovT 36 (1994) 242-58, 244-5, 248; James M. Scott, '"For as Many as are of Works of the Law are Under a Curse" (Galatians 3.10)' Paul and the Scriptures of Israel (ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993) 187-221,189; Richard B. Hays, 'Galatians', The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 11 (ed.L. E. Keck et al; Nashville: Abingdon, 2000) 181-348,257.
[3] Timothy G. Gombis, p. 85.
[4] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 136.
[5] Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation: (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985), 51.
[6] Ibid.
[7] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), 122.
[8] Ibid., 123.
[9] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 37.
[10] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” p. 37.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

COVENANT PART 3 (The Good News of Romans: Paul and the Gospel and Salvation, Romans 1:16-17)

It is my intention in this paper to build upon the framework that I laid in my previous two papers: Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16 and Paul’s Understanding of the Role of Law as Reflected in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. Paul’s understanding of the gospel and salvation is very closely related to both his understanding of the Law and of the human condition.

Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid-to-late 50s and is addressed to a Gentile dominated church.[1] In the mid-to-late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD). Immediately prior to this time, in 49 AD, Nero’s predecessor, Claudius had banished the Jews from Rome. The remaining Christians then would be non-Jews. When Nero officially ascended the throne in 54, many of the Jewish Christians returned. Things had changed[2] and this was the historical context of Paul’s letter.

Paul’s letter to the Romans is clearly an important work. N.T. Wright claims that “Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece.”[3] Pertaining to the theme of Romans, I have to acknowledge that, as Douglas Moo warns, “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4]

I would argue, however, that if these verses do not convey the theme of the entire letter, they certainly do reflect Paul’s understanding of salvation. It is significant that immediately prior to the sections of Romans that I examined in my earlier papers (1:18-32; 2:1-16,12-16, 17-24, 25-29) -where Paul introduces his understanding of the Law and the human condition to his readers- he is recorded as stating, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed through faith for faith (ek pisteos eis pistin); as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous (dikaios) will live by [or ‘out of’] faith (ek pisteōs)’ (1:16-17).” I would argue, then, that Paul’s understanding of the human condition and the Law, as expressed in Romans, should be interpreted in light of this gospel of salvation. Drawing on my previous work and citing other pertinent sections of Paul’s letter to the Romans, I will focus on the gospel and salvation according to Paul in his letter to the Romans, as reflected in Chapter 1:16-17.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel…

Verse 16 records Paul’s declaration that he is not ashamed of the gospel. It is likely that there is a connection here with Jesus’ claims that if one is ashamed of him, then the “Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; cf. also Pss 31:1-3; 71:1-2; 143:1).” The word ‘gospel’ is a rendering of the Greek word euangelion, which means ‘good news’ or ‘good message’ (cf. Isa 40:9, 52:7). “The gospel is not merely the initial proclamation of Christ which wins converts, but is the whole Christian message and claim in terms of the rest of the letter.”[5] For Paul, “the gospel was the sovereign message, from none other than God, concerning Jesus the Messiah, God’s unique Son…[It is] news that Jesus had become the spearhead of God’s ‘age to come;’ news that, within this new age, the principalities and powers…and sin and death themselves had been defeated and were now summoned to allegiance.”[6] Paul here is making a clear reference to his earlier statements in the prologue to his letter to the Romans. He states in the salutation, 1:1-7 (which is one very long sentence in the NRSV translation):

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In this opening statement, Paul clearly links this gospel of God (v.1) with the good news of Jesus (v.3) who is descended from David (the anticipated human lineage of the Messiah or ‘Son of Man’) and declared to be the Son of God.[7] Paul declares that he was specifically set apart for this gospel (v.1) which was promised beforehand (v.2) and is now revealed. It is in this gospel that the power for salvation is declared as a result of the resurrection (1:4, 16; cf. 1Cor 15:1-5, 17-22).

Verse 16 also relates to Paul’s statements in the thanksgiving section of the prologue (vv. 8-15), where Paul argues that through mentioning this gospel of God’s Son, he is actually doing a service for God with his spirit (v. 9) and, as such, he is indeed eager to render this service by proclaiming this gospel (v. 15; cf. 15:16).

In Romans 2:14-16, Paul refers to this gospel of which he is not ashamed as being written on people’s hearts in a probable reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34.[8] There it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites.’ Paul alludes to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing, which is now fulfilled, for all nations of the earth (cf. 2:15; 4:13, 16-17; 9:7-8; 10:12-13; Gal 3:6-9). This gospel proclaims the good news that on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:15). There are a number of other direct references to this euangelion throughout the letter to the Romans (cf. 11:28). Most of them specifically relate to Paul’s duty and ambition to proclaim this gospel (15:16,19,20) “that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed, and through the prophetic writings is made known to all the Gentiles, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedient faith (16:15).” This indeed is good news of which he is not ashamed.

…it is the power of God for Salvation…

The term translated ‘salvation’ has a range of meaning from ‘bodily health, preservation, and safety (cf. e.g., Mark 5:23,28,34; 6:56; 10:52; Acts 27:34), to – as is frequently the case in the Psalms and Isaiah - deliverance from peril and restoration to wholeness. God’s righteousness here is linked with the provided salvation. (cf. e.g., Pss 35:27-28; 72:1-4; 85:9-13; 96:13; 98:2-3, 9; Isa 9:7; 11:1-2; 45:8, 22-25; 51:5-6; 53:10b-11; 61:1-2, 11; Jer 23:5-6; Mal 4:2). “In other Psalm texts, it is surely striking that the psalmist prays for the Lord to deliver him in his righteousness (Ps 31:1; 143:1, 11; 71:1-2, 15; cf. 79:9). In these instances, deliverance from the enemy is the godly person’s salvation.”[9] In Paul’s understanding this salvation is “primarily eschatological, a hope for the future, deliverance from final destruction, the end product for God’s good purpose for humanity (see particularly 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Cor 13:15; 5:5; Phil 2:12; 1 Thess 5:8-9).”[10]

Good news is the power (dynamis) of God for this salvation (see also 11:23). It is contrasted with the Law and its powerlessness to save (8:3) and the weakness of our state as sinners when Christ died for us (5:6-8). God’s power (cf. 9:19-22) has been understood and seen through the things He has made from the time of creation itself (1:19-20). It is by power that God has kept His promises to Abraham (4:13-22; Gen 12:3), defeated Pharaoh (9:17; Exod 5-14), and it is through the power of His Spirit that He enabled Paul to proclaim the gospel (15:19-20) and us to abound in hope (15:13).

It is this same power that Christ has and that was used to raise Christ from the dead (1:4). This is significant, for it is the act of the resurrection that showed Paul that Jesus is indeed the Messiah and the Son of God. False Messiahs were not unheard of at this time in history and a strong indication of the falsity of their claim would be their death – especially on a tree (cf. Gal 3:13) at the hands of Israel’s occupier.

The phrase ‘in power’ in Verse 4 then is important for, as Dunn argues, it indicates “Christ’s divine son-ship (v.3) had been ‘upgraded’ or ‘enhanced’ by the resurrection, so that he shared more fully in the power of God[11]…able to act on and through people in the way Paul implies elsewhere (e.g., 8:10; 1 Cor 15:45; Gal 2:20; Col 2:6-7)…The full extent of God’s purpose could only be realized through Jesus as Messiah (of Israel) risen from the dead to become the Son of God in power (for all).”[12]

Dynamis “seems to refer to both the power of God that raised Jesus from the dead (cf. 1 Cor 6:14; 15:24, 43; 2 Cor 13:4; Eph 1:19-10; Phil 3:10) and thereby declared his identity as Messiah, and to the powerful nature of his son-ship, through which he confronts all the powers of the world, up to and including death itself, with the news of a different and more effective type of power altogether. Paul, of course sees this same power at work now, by the Spirit, through the proclamation of the gospel and in the lives of those who are ‘in the Messiah’ (see, e.g., 1:16; 11:23; 15:13; 1 Cor 1:24; 2:4-5).”[13] This salvation then is by the power of God’s gospel and this is indeed good news.

…to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek…

Everyone -whether Jew or Gentile- stands equally before God. “Contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] The Jews will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1),” for even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts (1:14) but, as Paul argues elsewhere in Romans, neither is truly able to do the Law (Torah) perfectly (cf. 2:3; 14-15, 17-26, 3:29-31).

The equality of the Gentile to the Jew before God, as expressed by Paul in Romans in no way negates the primacy of the Jews (cf. 11:7, 11). It was only “through their stumbling [that] salvation has come to the Gentiles…Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! (11:12-13).” In chapters nine through eleven of Romans, Paul goes into great detail about Israel’s election (9:4-18), rejection (10:1-4, 21; 11:15, 28), and future acceptance of the gospel of salvation (11:1-11, 23-36). Now “even those of Israel if they do not persist in unbelief [or rejection of the gospel], will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (11:23).” Salvation then comes ‘to everyone who has faith, first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.’

…For in it the righteousness of God…

Paul is arguing in Romans that through the gospel, the righteousness of God (dikaiosynē theou) is revealed (cf. 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26 10:3). Righteousness is not from the Law (3:21) and we are not inherently righteous (10:3; cf. Isa 46:12; Deut 9:6). This righteousness is sometimes called a ‘faith righteousness’ separate from works[15] (1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:4, 6). It relates to the reason why the gospel contains the power that it does. It is not referring to the Divine faithfulness to ethnic Israel, it instead refers to the fact that, in Jesus the Messiah, the covenant purpose of God for Israel was finally fulfilled; Israel was elected to bear the creator’s saving purposes for the whole world.[16] The concept is not merely individualistic; it has a corporate and even a global side.

Any righteousness that we do display comes directly from God (3:22, 24; 10:3; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous[17] (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16). And as such, we cannot obtain righteousness by either merit or the Law (3:21) so we should submit ourselves to God in order to be instruments of His righteousness (6:13). We do not need to be slaves to sin (6:16-18) which leads to death. But rather we are free to present our “members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification (6:19).” We have been freed from sin and enslaved to God. The gift that we receive is eternal life. “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (6:22-23).”

…is revealed through faith for faith…

The salvific righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel itself. It is revealed ‘through faith for faith’, or ‘out of faith into faith’ (ek pisteos eis pistin). These words in 1:17 have been understood to mean the growth in faith ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faithfulness of believers,’[18] ‘out of the faith of Jesus and into the faith of believers’[19] or even ‘from the faithfulness of God to the faith of believers.’[20] Just as righteousness is from God so is faith or faithfulness (4:20, 12:3; Eph 2:8; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:1; cf. Heb 12:2). It is God’s faithfulness that makes possible our faith or faithfulness. Paul states, as recorded in 3:3-4, ‘‘What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true…’’ This is important to bear in mind as one reads further into 3: 21-26:

But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ or all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

It is significant that ‘faith in Jesus’ in this passage can also be interpreted as the faithfulness of Jesus. This, I submit, makes sense from the perspective of 1:17 and 3:3-4. Prior to the above passage (3:21-26), Paul had just finished making his case that our faithlessness can in no way nullify the faithfulness of God (3:4-5); therefore it follows that, as it is the righteousness of God rather than the righteousness of the works of humankind; so, also it is the faith or faithfulness of Christ (cf. Heb 3:6, 12:2) – as Paul himself makes clear earlier in the chapter (3:4-5) – rather than that of ourselves that provides salvation. Redemption is in Jesus (v.24) whom God offered as a sacrifice of atonement (v.25). It is by his grace as a gift (v.24), rather than anything to be obtained by our works of faith; it is from the faithfulness of God to the faith and subsequent faithfulness of believers: the power of the salvific righteousness of God is experienced in the gospel, ‘through faith for faith.’

…as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith’

It is then the one who is righteous who will live by faith. And this faith is both, as Dunn declares, “the initial act of receiving the gospel and the continuing process toward salvation.”[21] Faith is a result of righteousness (3:22; 4:5, 9,11,13; 9:30; 10:6) and righteousness is from God (3:22, 24; 10:3, 17; cf. 5:19; Psalm 72:11; Isa 46:13; Isa 61:10; Joel 2:23) for it is God who is righteous (3:5; cf. Psalm 35:24; 48:10; 50:6; 51:14; 65:5; 71:19; Isa 5:16) and it is His righteousness that enables us to be righteous, just as it is Christ’s faithfulness that enables us to live by faith.

Conclusion

Read in the context of the entire letter of Romans, Paul’s concept of the gospel and salvation is reflected succinctly in Romans 1:16-17. Paul is not ashamed of the good message of Jesus and God. This good news has the power of God for the salvation of everyone with faith. Salvation was provided through - and first to - the Jew. It was extended to the Gentile: all may be saved. God’s righteousness – not ours – is revealed in this good news through faith for faith. And as a result of the gospel power of the resurrection, God’s righteousness, and faithfulness, we can experience righteousness, come to and continue in faith. God, through His righteousness and faithfulness, has already provided for the salvation of everyone and this is indeed good news.

www.sheepspeak.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), xiv.

[2] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 38-39.

[3] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 395.

[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 24.

[5] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 47.

[6] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, p. 427.

[7] Ibid., 416: Others have been referred to as ‘sons of God’ in the scriptures: angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan3:25), Israel (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; 13:13: Mal 1:6), the seed as David (1 Sam 7:14; 1 Cor 7:13; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27) and “Paul, in fact, lived in a moment of transition in the history of this phrase and helped it on its way to subsequent development.”

[8] Cf. for a different opinion, Everett H. Harrison, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/III. The Need for Salvation: The Plight of Mankind (1:18-3:20)/B. Principles of Judgment (2:1-16), Book Version: 4.0.2: “This ought not to be confused with the promise of the law written in the heart as depicted in Jeremiah 31:33, because if that were the case, as Nygren observes, Gentiles "would indeed have the law, and that in a more intimate way than the Jew had it" (in loc.).”

[9] Don Garlington, “A ‘New Perspective’ Reading of Central Texts in Romans 1-4,” Prepared for Evangelical Theological Society: 15 August 2006. Cited 20 02 2007. Online: http://www.thepaulpage.com/Rom1-4.pdf.12.

[10] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 39.

[11] See Mark 13:32 where Jesus claims his own knowledge as less than his Father’s prior to his death and resurrection. Also see Mark 6:5, where it is claimed that under the circumstances, “he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.” This should not be explained away entirely either by the other two gospel accounts.

[12] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 14.

[13] N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, pp. 418-419.

[14] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126., cf. also N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, p. 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.

[15] John Reumann, “Righteousness (NT),” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6. ed. David Noel Freedman, 1st ed. (New York, New York: Doubleday, 1992), 764-765.

[16] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” p. 65.

[17] John Reumann, p. 765: ‘One can view the ‘righteousness of God’ (8 of the 9 or 10 occurrences of dikaiosynē theou in Paul occur in Romans), especially the four examples in 3:21-26, as the basis for the entire letter, or at least 1:16-5:21.’

[18] Ibid., 765

[19] Roy Jeal

[20] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 48, claims that Paul’s ambiguity as to whether faith or faithfulness is an intentional feature of Paul’s letter.

[21] Ibid., 49.

COVENANT PART 2 (Paul’s Understanding of the Role of Law as Reflected in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29)

I chose to examine Paul’s understanding of the Law as he explains it in Romans 2:12-16, 17-24, and 25-29. This paper is a natural continuation of the work I previously completed entitled Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. As such I will forego much of the ‘introductory issues’ pertaining to Romans itself. This paper, as well as being a continuation of the previous one, does contain some valuable overlap. I submit also that the passages in Romans 2 that will be examined here contain some notable, albeit not infrequently overlooked information about Paul’s understanding of the Law.[1] N.T. Wright, in his article The Law in Romans 2, claims that “Romans 2, for so long the Achilles heel of schemes on Paul and the Law, may make a vital contribution to some eventual solutions, both to the theological questions which surround all of Paul’s writings and, of course, to the exegesis of Romans itself.”[2]

It is in verse 9 actually that ‘the Jew’ is mentioned for the first time. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[3] It is verses 12-16 though where Paul introduces ‘the Law’ in Romans making it clear that it is not those who hear the Law but rather those who obey the Law that are justified (v.13). Verse 12 records that everyone will be judged and, “All who have sinned apart from the Law will perish apart from the Law and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law (2:12, cf. 2:1).” The Law will be the meter for measurement for those under it.

Verses 14 and 15 are important for contained therein is the Gentile responsibility in relation to the Law: even the Gentiles who do not have the Law are able to do what the Law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain an obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the Law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but even more than that, it is reference to the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham that he will be a blessing has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth.

Verses 17-24 speak of the Law and the Jews relationship to it. Paul addresses a Jewish claim that they can ‘know [God’s] will and determine what is best because you are instructed in the Law (v.18)” and that they are “a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (19-20).” He refutes this, emphasising his point through a series of five rhetorical questions pertaining to various sins that illuminate the hypocrisy of the claim. The essence of these questions can be summed up with “How can one claim to be a teacher of a Law when one does not obey the Law oneself (cf. 2.1)?” N.T. Wright goes as far as to claim that “if the covenant was put in place to deal with evil in the world (this is the presupposition Paul shares with his imaginary opponent in 2:17-24), then the failure of the covenant people to be the light of the world means that the covenant itself seems to be under threat.”[4]

Verses 25-29 speak specifically about circumcision and Law. Two groups of people are being addressed but exactly to whom the passage is referring is not entirely clear. The identity of the first person referred to here is clearer than that of the second. The first is a Jew who does not keep the Law (cf. vv 25, 26, 27). It is the second person whose identification is somewhat ambiguous. Is the contrasting person a Christian (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) or a non-believing Gentile?

N.T. Wright puts forth a lengthy argument in favour of the idea that the Gentile is indeed a Christian. He concludes, “that in 2.25-9 Paul is principally describing the contrast between the Jew who breaks the Law and the Gentile Christian who apparently ‘keeps’ or ‘fulfills’ the Law. Such a person has somehow been included in the ‘new covenant’ category, designated simply as ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision.’”[5]

Paul J. Achtemeier conversely claims that “the fact that the context is dominated by appearance, or claims, and reality make it more likely that he does in fact have the Gentiles, not Gentile Christians, in mind…he is arguing that such Gentiles are capable of doing some of the things the Law requires”[6] Since they who have not been given the Law are capable of obeying parts of it and the Jews who have been given the Law are not able to obey all of it, “what Paul is pointing to is simply the fact that the claim of the Jews to any exclusiveness on the basis of the content of their Law must reckon with the fact that many of the virtues commanded in the Law are also practiced by other people. Since that is the case, it is what one does, not what one has that is important.”[7]

Dunn, along the same lines as Wright, argues that the references to judgement here are probably temporal and eschatological (cf. 1 Cor. 6:3) and as such the Gentiles in question are most likely Christians. Though he disagrees with Achtemeier as to whom the passage is referring, it is interesting that he reaches a similar conclusion about the passage’s meaning, stating, “the point here is that the Jew who truly approves of the business of the Law (v.15) should recognize the acceptability to God of those who meet the demands of the Law. Such…was surely in reality the equivalent in God’s eyes to the full member of the covenant people (cf. 2:13).”[8] The Gentile has obtained equivalent status to the Jew. They are on equal footing: on the day of judgement, the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16).

Pertaining to the spiritual circumcision, “there was plenty of background for Paul’s appeal for circumcision of the heart (e.g., Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25, 26).”[9] Paul points out that circumcision is only valuable if you obey the Law and he has already argued that the Jews are not obeying the Law and thus “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (v.24; cf. Isaiah 52:5).” What of the uncircumcised Gentile who obeys the Law? Paul says that he “will condemn you that have the written code and circumcision but break the Law (v. 27).” The Gentiles are grafted into the vine; therefore, “to continue to identify the point of the Law with Israel as a national entity (clearly distinguished from other nations by circumcision) was actually to prevent God’s purpose in the Law attaining fulfilment. This has been Paul’s critique consistently throughout the chapter.”[10]

The role of Law is to reveal how we are guilty of sin (cf. 2:1, 17-24; 3:19). One can neither rely on the Law (2:17) nor condemn others by it, as one will not stand justified before it oneself (2:2; cf. 3:19-20). It is the ‘doing’ rather than the receiving of the Law that reveals that one is justified (2:13-14,18, 25-26). Both Jew and Gentile, the latter not being recipients of the Law, are equally able to ‘do’ or ‘not do’ the Law (cf. 2:3, 14-15, 17-14, 25-26, 3:19-31). Further, if indeed it were possible for him not to transgress the Law (cf. 3:20), the Gentile would stand in judgement of the Jew who did receive it (contrast 2:1-3). At the conclusion of the second chapter of Romans, it is clear that the Jew and the Gentile stand on equal footing before the Law. The Law and “the works of Torah, that is, those practices which mark Israel out from among the nations, cannot be the means of demarcating the true covenant people; they merely point up the fact of sin (3:20, looking back to 2:17-24 and on to 5:20 and 7:7-25). Instead, the covenant faithfulness of the creator of the world is revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus, the Messiah, for the benefit of all, Jew and Gentile alike, who believe.”[11]

www.sheepspeak.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (WUNT 89; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996), republished with English translations of German essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001): 131

[2] Ibid.

[3] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 126. Cf. also NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.

[4] N.T. Wright, “Romans and the Theology of Paul,” Pauline Theology, Volume III, ed. David M. Hay & E. Elizabeth Johnson, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995): 37.

[5] NT Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” 136.

[6] Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation: (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1985), 51.

[7] Ibid.

[8] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas,

COVENANT PART 1 (Paul and the Human Condition as reflected in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16)

“Romans is neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul’s lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece”[1] – N.T. Wright.

Introduction

Paul’s letter to the Romans was written in the mid to late 50s[2] and is addressed to Gentiles.[3] In the mid to late 50s, Rome was by far the Mediterranean world’s dominant power and Nero was the Roman Emperor (54-68 AD, Proconsul since 51AD).

Pertaining to the theme of Romans and not wanting to devote an excessive amount of space to introductory issues, I have to acknowledge that “we must be careful not to impose on Romans a single theme when Paul may never have thought in those terms…a theme that fits 1:16-11:36 may not fit the whole.”[4] In contrast to this difficulty, “the easiest thing to determine about Romans is its basic shape. Its four sections emerge clearly: chaps. 1-4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-16.”[5] Chapters 1-4 can be broken down into 1:18-3:20 and 3:21-4:25,[6] and 1:18-3:20 can further be divided into 1:18-32; 2:1-16, 17-29; 3:9-20, 21-26 and 3:27-4:25.[7] For the purposes of this paper, I will examine Paul’s understanding of the human condition as it is related in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16.

Romans 1: 18-32

The section begins with Paul acknowledging the human condition of those who “by their wickedness [asebeia] suppress the truth (1:18).” This is significant. Their condition is stated as receiving the wrath of God for good reason: Paul points out that the truth they are suppressing must be plain to them for God, himself, has shown it to them (1:19) through the evidence of His creation. Ever since the beginning of the world, God’s power and nature have been understood (v.20).

Though this truth was revealed to them, they neither honoured God nor gave Him the thanks He deserves; rather ‘claiming to be wise they became fools’ in that they abandoned the glory of the creator so that they might worship the image of the created (cf. Psalm 106:20). It is because they, without any good excuse, disregarded the truth and followed this lie that “God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity (v.24).” The human condition here is, by way of denying the obvious truth, one of rebellion against God.

Much could be written on the lists included in vv.26-31. What is significant for our purposes here is that God gave the truth-deniers up to their “unnatural” (para physin) passions (v.26): they had intercourse with people of the same gender and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (v.27).”[8] Further, “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind (v.28):” they were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossip, slander, God-hatred, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventing evil, rebellion against parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartlessness, and ruthlessness (vv.29-31; cf. 2 Tim 3:2,3). This is the general human condition of the truth-deniers while acknowledging that “sinful man is capable of committing all of them [these sins], but not every individual is necessarily guilty of every one.”[9] These truth-deniers, Paul asserts, are aware that they deserve to die for participating in these things and that they not only partake of these actions but also encourage others to indulge in the very same acts. The result, then, of disregarding the truth about the divine nature and eternal power of God is to be given over to these unnatural desires and to act upon a debased mind; this is the human condition and for this they deserve to die.

Romans 2:1-16

This next section is interesting. Paul claims in verse one that no one, whoever you are, has any excuse (cf. 1:18) to condemn others, for you, whoever you are, are doing the very same things. You, whoever you are, are committing the evil acts that come from worshiping the created over the creator and are worthy of the judgement of God.

It is worth examining here the ‘whoever you are’ from verse one. Until this point in the letter Paul has been using the third person plural pronoun (‘they’ in English) to refer to people whose actions he is discussing. He here describes people using the second person singular, ‘you’. This is not to say that he is referring to the recipients of the letter, as that would necessitate a plural form of the word. Rather, “Paul utilizes here…a literary style called diatribe. Diatribe style, which is attested in several ancient authors as well as elsewhere in the NT (e.g., James), uses the literary device of an imaginary dialogue with a student or an opponent.”[10] So who is this ‘you’ that is being addressed? It is probably not a specific person but rather an imaginary one who personifies many arguments that Paul may have previously refuted on this topic. This ‘you’ may be representative of a condemning Jew to contrast with the wicked Gentile ‘they,’[11] in which case it would say here that the Jew will judged as well as the Gentile. By ‘you’ however, Paul may have also meant the Gentiles who deplore the aforementioned evil actions.[12] Either way, this is a significant change of language and it espouses judgement upon the judge and condemnation upon the self-righteous moralizer.[13] You, whoever you are, are not immune to this human condition of being guilty of rebellion against God.

Verses 3-5, through a series of rhetorical questions, point to the hypocrisy of claiming one thing and yet doing another: “Do you imagine…that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (2:3-5).” Even in this judgement, grace can be seen. For while these actions by the truth-deniers lead to death, God’s kindness is meant to lead to repentance for God “will repay according to each one’s deeds (v.6).” The human condition of the truth-deniers is that they are more than creation worshipers (cf. v.25); they are self-seeking (cf. Gen 3:6) in their wrath-provoking disobedience of truth (cf. 1:18) and therefore every bit as guilty as they who were mentioned in Chapter One.

Verse 9 mentions ‘the Jew’ explicitly for the first time in Romans. This is important for “contrary to popular Jewish belief, the sins of the Jews will not be treated by God significantly different from those of the Gentiles.”[14] They will be judged just as the Gentiles will be judged. This is the human condition: “All who have sinned apart from the law will perish apart from the law (cf. 1:20-21), and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law (2:12, cf. 2:1).”

It is not those who hear the law – for they may be truth-deniers or rejecters – but it is those who obey the law that are justified (v.13). Verses 14-15 are an expression of a central part of Paul’s expressed concept of the human condition. Even the Gentiles who do not have the law are able to do what the law requires for it is written on their hearts. On the day of judgement the conscience of both the Jew and the Gentile will bear witness and their own thoughts will either accuse or excuse them before the Lord (2:14-16). These verses contain obvious reference to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 where it is recorded that the law will be ‘written on the hearts of the Israelites’ but it is also an acknowledgement of the good news of Genesis 12:3: the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled for all nations of the earth. They are now blessed as even the Gentiles ‘have the law written on their hearts.’

All of this then is the human condition according to Paul in Romans 1:18-32 and 2:1-16. Those who deny the abundant evidence of God’s eternal power and divine nature (1:19-20) are rightly exposed to the wrath of God (1:18, 2:8), which results in being given over to their unnatural desires to act upon a debased mind. As a consequence of this sin, this rebellion, that they commit, they are condemned and deserve to die. Neither moralizing nor the Torah can save anyone. Christ, however, has ushered in the new covenant (cf. Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hebrews 8, 9, 12:24); therefore, repentance (2:4), blessing (Gen 12:3), justification (2:13), and righteousness (2:13) await those ‘doers of the law’ which is now written on their hearts. In Christ we are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).

www.sheepspeak.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] NT Wright, The Letter to the Romans (NIB 10: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 395.

[2] Ibid., 396.

[3] James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A: Word Books: Dallas, Texas, 1988), xiv.

[4] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 6: Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 24.

[5] NT Wright, p. 397.

[6] Marion L. Soards, The Apostle Paul: an Introduction to his Writings and Teachings. (New York / Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987), 104

[7] Douglas J. Moo, p. 33.

[8] “We are not told how this giving over was implemented, but most likely we are to think of it in negative terms—i.e., that God simply took his hands off and let wilful rejection of himself produce its ugly results in human life.” - Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:Romans/Exposition of Romans/III. The Need for Salvation: The Plight of Mankind (1:18-3:20)/A. In the Pagan World (1:18-32), Book Version: 4.0.2

[9] Ibid.

[10] Douglas J. Moo, p. 125. John Stott, p. 81, agrees with this possibility. While still acknowledging this possibility, NT Wright, p. 439, suggests a different opinion. He asserts that Paul here may be doing nothing more than taking a common ground between himself and his audience for granted here.

[11] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126.

[12] John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 80.

[13] “Perhaps the underlying thought is that, by standing in judgement of others while being guilty yourself of similar offences (in a way yet to be explored), they have been similarly deceitful, holding up their own behaviour as an example when it should in fact have been condemned.” NT Wright, pp. 438-439

[14] Douglas J. Moo, p. 126., cf. also NT Wright, p. 440, where he acknowledges that God’s national impartiality was not totally unconsidered in Jewish tradition.

Monday, August 02, 2010

The Ethics of Salvation: Should we proclaim the Gospel?

Relevant Background Information

In the early 1990’s I finished my training as an elementary school teacher in British Columbia. I remember being told specifically on more than one occasion that I was not to mention Jesus in the classroom. I was instructed to avoid any Christian references especially during my training by the faculty of education. I was instructing a Kindergarten class when all of the Christmas books that made reference to Jesus were removed and I was part of more than one Christmas concert where even the word ‘Christmas’ was not permitted. It was now a ‘Winter Celebration’ and instead of Carols we sang ‘seasonal songs.’ I was in my early twenties at this point. It was too difficult for me to abide by these rules and resolve the internal tension caused by the ethical dilemma of ‘am I denying Christ?’ I went to work in the private sector.

I had a fulfilling career in the business of private education, achieved many of my personal goals, and established a reputation in international education through my work with various schools, educational associations, periodicals, etc. I would be happy in that world today had the Lord not called me into this one.

Case Description

In my most recent ministry experience on the lower mainland of British Columbia, I directed the Renew Network: 3 R Tutoring programme. We ran tutoring programmes at public elementary and high schools, churches, Salvation Army corps, and Family Services Vancouver; private tutorials, ESL programmes, and summer school classes (cf. http://www.havelock-viha.com/3rprogrammes.htm for a detailed list of the programme locations).

My ethical dilemma relates to our work in the public schools. Everyday we were working inside the schools. We were there at lunchtime and after school. The students were recommended through the principal’s office and their parents paid the Salvation Army to have either private or small group tutoring sessions. We supplied them with quality instructors, some of whom were paid (up to $30/hr) and some were volunteers who had education and/or expertise in the field they were instructing. The schools knew that this was a Christian programme; the principals of a couple of the schools informed me that they had seen me on TV (Now TV in Vancouver) promoting this initiative as a Christian outreach. We stated that the goals were to ‘help students catch up, keep up, and get ahead’ as part of our mission to ‘win the world for Jesus starting with where you are’ (614 Vancouver motto).

The majority of our students came from Muslim families. Some of our students came from Hindu or Buddhist homes and a couple were from Christian homes. We were required by the administration and the law not to mention Christ in the public schools. A Salvation Army evangelism school, the War College (thewarcollege.com), asked to supply volunteers for our programme: they wanted to tell people about Jesus. Should we proclaim the Gospel?

Ethical Questions

The primary question that I will attempt to answer in this paper is should we demand that our tutors be allowed to proclaim the Gospel in the public schools? There are many ethical questions that arise directly concerning this. Some of the ones that I will endeavour to answer in this context are: 1) is refraining from proclaiming Christ the same as denying him? 2) Should one disobey the authorities? 3) Must we present the Gospel in every ministry? a) What bearing does our professed and b) historic position have on our actions? c) Is the Gospel actually proclaimed in all or most Salvation Army ministries? 4) Must the Gospel be presented at each event that the Salvation Army organises?

Stakeholders

The stakeholders in this issue were obviously myself, as the coordinator of the programme, 614 Vancouver and its Officers, the Salvation Army, the tutors, the volunteers, the schools, the school districts, the parents, the students, Christians in general, other faith-based organisations and politicians (if we decide to argue for an equal right to express our faith in a public setting).

Operating Definition of the Gospel:

The following is a basic operating definition of the Gospel from Romans 1:16-17 (NRSV): For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘the one who is righteous will live by faith.’

1. Is refraining from mentioning the Gospel in a ministry the same as denying Christ?

Is not mentioning the Gospel the same as denying Christ? I looked into this facet of the discussion a pertaining to the Swissair case study analysis (The Ethics Centre 2000, 156-158). In that case, the United Church News stated that “for Canadian clergy to deny the name of Christ in their public roles [would be] tantamount to a betrayal of all those who have been martyred over the centuries” (United News 1999, rockies.net/~united/united/articles/ 9810news.html). Neither my staff nor I was ordained clergy, but I submit that does not negate the question raised. I am a strong believer in the priesthood of all believers (Isaiah 61:6; 1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:6) and I certainly had the responsibility to live up to people’s expectations in my role as the leader in this venture. As Karen Lebacqz claims, “being in a professional role is a morally relevant difference that changes our assessment of what to do in a situation…roles bring with them notions of what is expected (Lebacqz 1992, 44).” I submit that the term ‘professional,’ or at the very least the sentiment behind it, would apply in this case.

Is the lack of explicit proclamation from the leader then more serious than that of an employee as our actions, as well as words, intentionally or not, provide an interpretation of the world for people (Lebacqz 1992, 115)? One minister to whom Labacqz referred, advocates “the necessity of presenting images of faith that allow the hearers to reframe their experience of the world in the light of God’s saving activity” (Lebacqz 1992, 120). As those in ministry leadership assist others to ‘name realty’ for themselves, is refraining from mentioning Christ in ministry this case equivalent to denying Him (cf. Luke 22:34, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:22, Jude 1:4)? If so, this is serious. Most of the apostles and many others over the years have been martyred for their faith (cf. Acts 6-7); if refraining from presenting the Gospel in a ministry is tantamount denying Christ and refusing your martyr’s crown, then it is not worth it at any cost. What profits a man to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul (Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36)?

2. Should one disobey the authorities?

Assuming that by doing so, one would not be denying Christ and risking one’s soul (Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36), should one disobey the authorities? Disobeying the authorities (in this case the school, and the law) would contradict various teaching in scripture (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:1-3; but see also 1 Chronicles 21:6 where Joab does not heed David’s disobedience of God’s command; this is not a matter of denying God, but it is an ethical dilemma that Joab faced concerning obedience to God’s commands versus a godly man’s commands: David after all was a man after God’s own heart, 1 Kings 11:4). The Apostle Paul, however, teaches unequivocally that “it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience” (Romans 13:5) and further that “everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Romans 13:1; see also Titus 3:1). Are there other principles in Scripture that supersede these commands in this particular instance?

3. Ethical Question: Must we present the Gospel in this (and every) ministry?

Must we present the Gospel in every ministry? Should we mention Christ in the public schools? General Gowens articulated that the reason that the Salvation Army exists is to save souls, grow saints, and serve suffering humanity. Should each ministry accomplish every one of these goals? The first reason he listed for our existence is to save souls. Can individual ministry units/ministries grow saints or serve suffering humanity instead of ‘saving souls’?

Historical TSA Position

William Booth argued that the goal of social ministry itself was to save souls and that serving the suffering people was only a means to that end. Pertaining to the position of primacy of sharing the Gospel, here are a series of quotes by the founder, which were displayed on the Armybarmy blog (Armybarmy blog and the Renew Network are/were both ministries of 614 Vancouver):

For those who think William was all about a social salvation: “I must assert in the most unqualified way that it is primarily and mainly for the sake of saving the soul that I seek the salvation of the body”

“To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labour. You must in some way or other graft upon the man's nature a new nature, which has in it the element of the Divine”

“We must wake ourselves up! Or somebody else will take our place, and bear our cross, and thereby rob us of our crown.” (posted by Stephen Court, Armybarmy.com/blog.htm, March 28, 2007)

Also from the William Booth:

I have no intention to depart in the smallest degree from the main principles on which I have acted in the past. My only hope for the permanent deliverance of mankind from misery, either in this world or the next, is the regeneration or remaking of the individual by the power of the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ. But in providing for the relief of temporal misery I reckon that I am only making it easy where it is now difficult, and possible where it is now all but impossible, for men and women to find their way to the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (William Booth, In Darkest England and the Way Out, 1890, preface).

Catherine Booth was characteristically quite direct in this matter herself, “Friends, are you more concerned about relieving temporal distress than you are about feeding famished souls? If you are, you may know where you Charity comes from – hell” (Catherine Booth, Papers on Godliness, 1882, 27-28). “All other objects and aims of life [are] subservient to the one grand purpose of preaching the Gospel to every creature and striving to win every soul with whom they come in contact to its salvation” (Catherine Booth, The Salvation Army in Relation to the Churches, 31-32).

Official Canadian Position

The Mission Statement of the Salvation Army in Canada is as follows: “The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ, meet human needs and be a transforming influence in the communities of our world.” Its identity statement reads, “The Salvation Army is an international Christian church. Its message is based on the Bible; its ministry is motivated by love for God and the needs of humanity.” Pertaining to Salvation, our value statement (The Salvation Army, salvationarmy.ca/missionandvalues, March 31, 2007) reads:

We proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all our ministries. God’s mission is a mission of love and restoration. Through the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided the way of salvation, culminating in the gift of eternal life for all who respond in faith. We value this gift of grace, believing that it has the power to liberate, heal and transform individuals and communities. We seek to embody this same grace and mission in our thoughts, words and deeds.

These statements certainly do speak to the importance of sharing the Gospel. Our value statement on Salvation claims that, ‘we proclaim the Gospel in all of our ministries.’ It is listed first of the statements in our Mission Statement. Our identity is based on the ‘Christian church,’ ‘the Bible,’ and ‘transforming communities.’ Ethically, we must do what our organisation reports to do, especially since we represent God (Exod 20:7,16; Deut 5:11,20; Matt 5:37; 2 Cor 1:17; Jas 5:12; cf. 1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 2:15). Historically, according to the quote from the Founder, the social services are a means to support the mission. I would suggest then that one could argue - given the assumption that integrity and honesty of important to a Christian organisation (Exod 20:16; 23:1; Lev 6:2-7; 19:11,12,16; cf. Job 13:4) - that each ministry of the Salvation Army must proclaim the Gospel. But is this argument sustainable?

Praxis: Is the Gospel actually professed in each Ministry?

This is important to address, for if the Gospel is not presented in Salvation Army ministries generally any longer than it probably does not need to be mentioned in this particular ministry for our traditional positions would then be dated and - barring a surge in ‘Primitive Salvationism’ - in need of revision to reflect the current reality. Are there units/segments of the Army’s ministry in which proclaiming the Gospel is neither necessary nor beneficial?

Is the Gospel proclaimed in the Ethics Centre? I asked Cadet Bram Pearce for his perspective as he is currently working at the Ethics Centre. He initially replied that it was not (at least to non-Christians) but then clarified his position. He made reference to the fact that the Position Statements are available for anyone to see and that people often contact the Army about the statements. When someone contacts the Ethics Centre he said that he then has the opportunity to present the Gospel. So while the Gospel may not be overtly presented everyday, the opportunity to present the Gospel does exist and is taken.

Is the Gospel proclaimed in the finance department? Is the Gospel declared at DHQ? Should it be declared in the hospitals and the hospices? I would say that, as with the Ethics Centre, the opportunity to proclaim the Gospel presents itself in each of these ministries - with the possible exception of Finance, since Financial Officers are not necessarily in contact with the public – and thus, should be taken.

That being said, pertaining to the Finance Department, there are many commands about the role of money in the Bible (Exod 22:25; Lev 25:37; Deut 23:19; Neh 5:10; Ps 15:5; Prov 13:11; Matt 6:24, 27:6; Mark 6:8; Luke 3:14, 9:3, 16:13; 1 Cor 16:2; 1 Tim 3:3, 6:3, 6:10; 2 Tim 3:2; Heb 13:5; 1 Pet 5:2). Stewardship is very important and how we spend our money is a chief indicator of what really are our priorities. Is this in itself proclaiming the Gospel? Probably not; however, the person in charge of the finances certainly may be involved in other activities that do give her the opportunity to share Christ. I can think of ‘money people’ who, through their jobs, have regular contact with outside clients and frequently share the Gospel with others. Willimon argues in Calling and Character that there should be no separation between public and private, professional and social behaviour, at least as far as clergy are concerned (Willimon, 2000, 19). Another question is then raised…is the financial department really a separate department or is it just each department’s expression of good stewardship? This question is one that I am not going to address here for the sake of space but I think it is worth raising for future consideration.

The important question pertaining to the Finance Department for our purposes is, if one does accept 1) that a financial position is a separate ministry of TSA and 2) that presenting the Gospel is not a part of its role or function and 3) that that is acceptable; is this then also acceptable for the tutoring ministry? While each ministry unit and ministry expression share some similarities. These two ministry expressions are very different. I would think that a key difference between the financial ministry and the tutoring ministry, pertaining to presentation of the Gospel, is access to the public. If a ministry does not come in contact with the general public (or is in a position of influence with others who do, such as with CFOT) then it cannot be expected to be a vehicle to present the Gospel. However, each ministry unit that has access to the public has the opportunity to evangelise.

I would say then that each ministry unit should present the Gospel. As the Canadian value statement on salvation says, “We proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in all our ministries.” Also this is the reason for which the Salvation Army was raised up – Salvation. As quoted earlier by William Booth, “To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labour.”

4. Must the Gospel be presented at each event where we are present?

Must we mention Christ in every venue at every moment though? Is it acceptable to refrain from presenting the Gospel? Is the presentation of the gospel part of my role responsibility (Lebacqz 1992, 55)? This is the crux of the dilemma that I was facing in my role as Coordinator of the Salvation Army’s Renew Network: 3 R Tutoring. This is where I become a little less clear in my understanding and this is what motivated me to further research this topic.

My 2003 Position

In my tutor training classes, I would emphasise (to the evangelism students particularly) that one should not proclaim the Gospel in the classrooms, at the schools. I cited the many Biblical references to obeying the authorities (cf. Ecclesiastes 8:1-3, Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1). I would not deny Christ (cf. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:38, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:22, Jude 1:4) if I was specifically asked about Christianity but I would not bring it up. If the topic was raised, as it was inevitably and immediately if I wore my uniform on a particular occasion, I would acknowledge that I am a Christian and quickly change the subject and I encouraged my employees and volunteers to do the same.

I was not always comfortable with this position. I wondered whether refraining from proclaiming the Gospel at a particular venue on a given occasion was indeed tantamount to denying our Lord. I wondered if this was evidence of being ashamed of the Gospel (Romans 1:16; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:26; cf. also Psalms 31:1-3; 71:1-2; 143:1). I also wondered if it was an indication that I was putting man’s law (cf. Matthew 16:24-28; Romans 2; Galatians 5) or, as we were paid for our services, money (cf. Mark 6:24, Luke 16:13), before God (for further discussion of this idea, see William Willimon, 2000, 101-103).

For some of our students this was the only exposure, of which I was aware, that they had to Christianity. They certainly had a lot of questions. We declined to answer many in the schools. As the programme grew and we were able to offer more and more services in our corps, social services, community churches, and in the students’ homes, we did not shrink from sharing the Gospel. Indeed, we led many people in ‘the sinner’s prayer’ and I was blessed with the opportunity to train some of the evangelism students in ‘leading people to Christ.’ Does this end justify refraining from proclaiming the Gospel in the schools? When we started the programme, there was no guarantee that there would even be very many of these other opportunities for the students. There was no guarantee that the students we met at the schools would come to our other venues – some did not. Were we denying Christ to them? Were we failing in our duty to fulfil the great commission (Matthew 28:19)? I am not sure.

Conclusion

Within the same ministry unit, can some roles be non-evangelistic? Pertaining to the tutors who were serving in the public schools, could we argue that they were still facilitating the proclamation of the Gospel by the ministry unit, even if they were not doing it in the schools? I believe so. I think that this was an opportunity to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves (Matthew 10:16) as well as an example of being all things to all people in order to save some (1 Corinthians 9:21-23) and while I do not ascribe to the view that ‘the ends justify the means,’ (Willimon has a good discussion relating to an aspect of this and its possible consequences on pages 122-124 of Calling and Character.) I must acknowledge that our ministry certainly did bear fruit (Matthew 7:15-23, 12:33; John 15) for the Kingdom of God. People not only confessed that Jesus Christ was Lord through ‘the sinners’ prayer’ but we did endeavour to make disciples of Christ of them (Matthew 28:19) through integration into other Christian events. There is no doubt that our ministry was evangelistic. There is no doubt that it was blessed by the Lord. Would I do it exactly the same next time? Accepting, as Karen Lebacqs asserts, that, “moral decision making is always an interplay between the act of discernment, the actual situation, and certain moral duties” (Lebacqs, 1992, 30), I would have to answer that I may or I may not. I would need to seek the Lord in prayer for as the fear (or deference) of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom (Psalm 111:10: Proverbs 1:7, 9:10), prayer, I submit, is the beginning of ethics.

Works Cited:

3.344 Professional Ethics for Ministry: Readings and Case Studies.

Booth, Catherine. Papers on Godliness. London: The Salvation Army, 1882.

_____________. The Salvation Army in Relation to the Churches.

Booth, William. In Darkest England and the Way Out. NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890.

Court, Stephen. Armybarmy Blog: “March 28, 2007.” 28 March 2007. Available from http://www.armybarmy.com/blog.html. Accessed 28 March 2007.

Havelock Enterprises. “Tutoring Programmes.” Available from http://www.havelock-viha.com/3rprogrammes.htm. Accessed 28 March 2007.

Lebacqz, Karen. Professional Ethics: Power and Paradox (Nashville: Abingdon, 1985)

Pearce, Cadet Bramwell. Interview. 05 April 2007.

The Salvation Army in Canada. “Mission and Values.” Available from http://www.salvationarmy.ca/missionandvalues. Accessed 31 March 2007.

United Church of Canada. United News On-line: “The Swissair Memorial Service Revisited.” 27 December 1999. Available from http://rockies.net/~united/united/articles/9810news.html. Accessed 07 February 2007.

Willimon, William. Calling and Character (Nashville, Abingdon, 2000).