Together for the Gospel: Article 4

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 4- Affirmation:

We affirm the centrality of expository preaching in the church and the urgent need for a recovery of biblical exposition and the public reading of scripture in worship.

Article 4- Denial:

We deny that God-honoring worship can marginalize or neglect the ministry of the word as manifested through exposition and public reading. We further deny that a church devoid of true biblical preaching can survive as a gospel church.

This is the last of the articles dealing with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. The primary concern of T4G in this article is that the special, authoritative scriptures be assigned a special, authoritative position in the regular and frequent gathering of the congregation of Christ’s disciples.

The central issue under consideration in this article is in no sense controversial, as has been the case with each of the other articles which we have examined thus far. All three of the major branches of the Christian church, including the very specific Protestant groups whom this document is (likely) chiefly directed against, would concur with T4G that the scriptures should be read from, taught and discussed on a frequent basis within the assembly.  

A second and related issue that T4G and their opponents would certainly agree upon is that there are other things as well, besides hearing and studying the scriptures, which the church should be involved in. These range from public prayer, to the administration of sacraments/ordinances (specifically, though not limited to the Lord’s Supper) to spending time loving one another in practical ways, to communal deeds of charity, to collective acts of justice. 

As far as I can tell, there are two basic areas of disagreement between T4G and their adversaries on this point: the form in which the reading or teaching of scripture should be presented, and the amount of time that should be allotted for the reading and teaching of scripture when the church assembles.

There is much debate regarding the form of biblical teaching. Obviously, T4G is entirely convinced that the long-form, expository lecture/sermon is the most effective and appropriate format for teaching in the church. There are of course groups who are not associated with T4G who would agree with them on this particular issue, however there are others who prefer alternative methods.

Many favor a more participatory model that limits the role of the pastor/teacher in order that the remainder of the Body of Christ might become more involved in the learning process. This can take a variety of shapes. It could resemble a classroom setting, with one person leading the discussion, and others asking questions and/or making observations on occasion. It might also be something of a less-structured dialogue, where enquiries and insights are shared in a much more random fashion.

It should be noted that the scriptures themselves display a variety of teaching methods, including the use of poetry, music, proverb, parable, narrative and drama; and numerous others as well. The scriptures do not appear to single out one particular methodology as universal. To put it another way, there is no style that is presented as the most effective or the only biblical approach to teaching.

As for the second difference, it is clear that T4G believes that when Christians are gathered together, the overwhelming majority of the time should be set aside for the reading and teaching of the scriptures. Again, there are Christians who are not associated with T4G who would concur with them on this point, but there are also many others who would disagree. Why?

Some churches value the sacraments/ordinances more than T4G does. In fact, the reading and teaching of scripture is itself often regarded as a sacrament in a number of traditions. The sacraments/ordinances are similar to the reading and teaching of scripture in that they unveil the Word of God in a special and effective manner; through the re-enactment of God’s promises in Christ. These churches do not want to neglect the ways (besides through the reading and teaching of the scripture) that God has chosen to reveal Godself to humanity.

There are other churches and traditions who perceive that the rationale behind the reading and teaching of the bible is in order that people would be moved into action. These churches believe that hearing the Word alone is not nearly enough. They desire wholeheartedly to be doers, and not merely in their own individual and personal lives, but specifically as a community. They treat the reading and the teaching of the bible as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself, and trust that it is their primary duty, as a collective, to reveal God to the world through acts of love, charity, mercy and justice. Thus the reading and the teaching of scripture (according to these folks) should be granted temporal priority only when the church is neglecting its mission. They should never be prioritized over obedience to the church’s mission.  

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel: Article 3

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 3- Affirmation

We affirm that truth ever remains a central issue for the church, and that the church must resist the allure of pragmatism and postmodern conceptions of truth as substitutes for obedience to the comprehensive truth claims of scripture.

Article 3- Denial

We deny that truth is merely a product of social construction or that the truth of the gospel can be expressed or grounded in anything less than total confidence in the veracity of the bible, the historicity of biblical events, and the ability of language to convey understandable truth in sentence form. We further deny that the church can establish its ministry on a foundation of pragmatism, current marketing techniques, or contemporary cultural fashions.

There is quite a bit going on in this article. The focus of the article is epistemology; a branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. This philosophical sphere asks and seeks to answer questions such as: what is knowledge (truth), how do human beings obtain knowledge (truth) and to what extent is it possible for a certain subject or object to be known (truthfully).

Pragmatism is one epistemological approach. It is a consequence based tradition which states (more or less) that the truth of any given concept or theory should be evaluated on the basis of how well it works. Postmodernism is another epistemological approach. This tradition claims (to simplify) that objective truth is much more difficult to acquire than modern-era philosophers and scientists had previously supposed.

Despite what appears to be insinuated by the author’s of this document, neither of these epistemological methodologies are inherently antithetical to the gospel or to the concept of objective truth.

The concerns of the document’s authors in this particular article are once again to secure a special, truthful and authoritative position for the bible within the life of the church. They worry that adherents to pragmatic or postmodern conceptions of truth will utilize these approaches as means by which they can undermine the truth claims and thus the authority of the bible.

Once again, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians whom T4G and their allies have directed this article towards (churches that have an appreciation for pragmatism and/or postmodernism) are equally as concerned as T4G to preserve the special, truthful, trustworthy and authoritative standing of scripture in the Christian church. What those churches who value pragmatic and/or postmodern epistemologies have recognized is that pre-modern and modern notions of truth can just as easily be applied in manners which are hostile to the gospel, and which can circumvent the authoritative truth claims of scripture. At heart, all sides perceive themselves to be contending for the faith, therefore this is not something that T4G can claim exclusively for their own epistemological position.

Besides the concurrence between T4G and their opponents regarding the importance of knowing truth and the special, authoritative station of the bible in the revelation of it, there are other areas of agreement which bear significantly upon our current discussion.

First, everyone involved believes that God created everything good, and simultaneously that all things have been affected by sin. This means that everything which exists can potentially be employed in service of God, the good, truth and the gospel, or in service to the devil, evil, the lie and death. 

Second, all parties believe that there are aspects of the scriptures which are true in a universal sense, and other aspects which are true in a particular sense in relation to the specific cultural situations in which each individual book of the bible was written. Particular truths are not necessarily binding outside of their original historical setting (the practices surrounding the Hebrew Temple cult prior to Jesus and head coverings for women in Corinth are good examples of this).

Third, I believe that there is basic agreement that particular truths are the application within a given culture of a person or group of persons’ interpretations of universal truth. In other words, while universal truths are in some sense absolute and unchanging, particular truths are the diverse efforts at bringing universal truth to bear within a specific cultural situation. Particular truths thus vary, not merely across time and culture, but within individual cultures as well (for examples, see the apostle Paul’s damning criticisms of the Temple cult and circumcision, as well as his post-baptismal participation in Temple cult ritual and circumcision of Timothy, and furthermore, examine his handling of disagreements in Rome and Corinth between stronger and weaker brethren).

Fourth, T4G and their opponents all believe that historical context and ancient cultural situations play some sort of role in the process of the interpretation of the scriptures.  

Now we can move on to areas of disagreement. While pragmatic and postmodern epistemologies in the hands of T4G’s Christian adversaries are not a threat to the bible, its truth claims or its authority, they can be perceived as a threat to modern positivistic epistemology (T4G’s basic presupposition) the neo-Puritan tradition of interpretation and thus T4G’s self-proclaimed authority.

The positivist epistemology of T4G and their allies allows them to equate their own interpretive tradition with the authority of the bible. This is why they liken any rejection of their own interpretative tradition with denial of the truth, the scriptures and the gospel. However, we must be clear. The disagreement between T4G and those whom this article is directed against has nothing to do with the authority of the bible. It has to do with the ontology of the bible (what is scripture and what does it mean) and hermeneutics (how do we interpret the bible). Neither of these matters have been settled historically; by any means.

Although there is agreement that the scriptures present both universal and particular truths, disparity exists regarding what in the bible is universally true, and what is particularly true. These are difficult questions that the church must wrestle with if we hope to come to any knowledge of the truth.

Next, while T4G and their adversaries agree that everything within creation can potentially be used for good or evil, there is not always agreement concerning the ways in which creation (i.e. materials, philosophies, actions) should be employed so as to magnify God, the good, the truth and the gospel, and so as not to conflict with or to engender harm upon them. Again, these questions are challenging, and for a number of reasons; not the least of which being the fact that it is practically impossible for creation to be utilized purely for good or purely for evil.

Lastly, although there is harmony with regard to the recognition on all sides of the importance of historical and cultural context to faithful interpretation of scripture, differences become quite evident once we ask the question, how much? In my opinion, it is manifestly obvious that T4G and their supporters are much more dependent upon cultural and historical context than they like to admit (just ask them if they have ever used a lexicon) so in reality, disagreement on this point is not as drastic as it might appear at first glance. Actually, I am persuaded that T4G will not object to historical and ancient cultural insights as long as said insights do not threaten the authority of the neo-Puritan theological tradition. Therefore insistence upon the necessity of historical and cultural contextual insights for faithful interpretation is not really a problem in and of itself. It is only when these insights appear to discredit the truth claims of the neo-Puritan tradition that they become problematic for T4G.                

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel: Article 2

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 2- Affirmation:

We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of scripture extends to the entire bible, and therefore that the bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.

Article 2- Denial:

We deny that any portion of the bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

In this second article, T4G is concerned to protect the truthfulness and the trustworthiness of the scriptures. Interestingly, this affirmation is not going to be all that controversial amongst the three major branches of Christianity. The majority of professing Christians would probably agree that the scriptures paint a faithful portrait of God, and that they impart wisdom to the church, so that we might live lives that are well-pleasing to our God and King.

There is also agreement regarding the fact that the scriptures do not instruct the church on every possible matter which might arise in life (i.e. they do not explicate how to repair a car or give us an understanding of the human circulatory system).

Additionally, all parties involved in this discussion, including T4G, recognize that there are times when one portion of scripture disagrees with another. I will offer a few brief examples of this phenomena. First, Jesus overturns many of the Old Testament commands regarding cleanliness and Temple worship. Second, in the dispute which rages on between Calvinists and Arminians, there a number of passages which seem to present divine determinism, while others appear to teach human free-will. Third, open theists and classical theists argue with one another because while there are places in scripture which give the impression that God can repent and have a change of mind, there are others which insinuate that God knows everything in advance. 

Of course, those on the more conservative end of the Christian spectrum (like T4G) would not define any of the above occurrences of disparity as disagreement or contradiction; something which those who are more liberal would be content with. They might be more comfortable with terms such as progressive revelation or paradox or accommodation. My point though is that all sides are aware of the incongruities, regardless of the language one prefers to utilize when speaking of them or how one chooses to deal with them. 

It is precisely at this juncture where we can begin to identify areas of disagreement between T4G and their opponents. How are we to define these apparent discrepancies, and what are we to do with them? Do we reinterpret texts which seem to contradict others so as to reconcile them? If so, which set of texts are we to prioritize; especially if both sets are arguably clear? What if we do reconcile them, but they are not meant to be reconciled; aren’t we in effect creating a canon within the canon (or perhaps a canon without the canon) or even worse, suppressing and/or ignoring the intended message of the reconciled text? Is it possible for the church to locate a unified, solitary message within the scriptures without (intentionally or unintentionally) employing some sort of canon within the canon? Is locating a unified, solitary message of scripture even a desirable end?

These are the kinds of questions which T4G’s adversaries are intent on discussing; not in an endeavor to circumvent the truthfulness, trustworthiness, authority and sufficiency of the bible, but rather, because they desire to uphold these vital attributes. The conflict between T4G and their opponents therefore concerns the nature and meaning of the scriptures (which are truthful and trustworthy) what it means for the scriptures to be authoritative and how that authority functions, and how far sufficiency extends.

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel: Article 1

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 1- Affirmation:

We affirm that the sole authority for the church is the bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible and totally sufficient and trustworthy.

Article 1- Denial:

We deny that the bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.

The authors of this document are concerned to protect the traditional place of the scriptures as something distinctive and special in comparison to all of what is referred to as general revelation; which would include the wisdom of non-Christian religions and traditions. This is a respectable and responsible objective in my opinion; one which all three branches of Christianity would support enthusiastically. 

To be sure, of those whom this denial is specifically directed towards, there is not one who would reject the central Christian confession that Jesus Christ is Lord; the Word, the consummate revelation of the one true God. Furthermore, each one would desire to uphold the scriptures as a book that reveals Christ (and thus God) in a unique, and therefore a trustworthy and authoritative manner.

Another area of agreement that is shared between all parties involved is in the belief that the scriptures are a divine/human product. That is to say that all of these concur that while the scriptures were in some sense inspired by God, they were also the product of human beings. During the process of writing, the intellects, styles, cultural situations and immediate concerns of the human authors were not in any way superseded.

One final point that can be agreed upon by both T4G and their opponents which is significant to the current subject is that God is able, willing and determined to utilize fallible, sinful humankind to communicate truth and to accomplish his purposes.

As I see things, there are two matters which are specifically being disputed within this particular article: the relationship between Christ and the scriptures, and the relationship between the divine and human natures of scripture.

Concerning the first subject, T4G and their associates view Christ as more or less equal to or the sum total of the scriptures. Their opponents understand Christ to be above or superior to the scriptures, and the lens through which all scripture must be interpreted. While there is some overlap between the positions of both groups, I believe that this brief summary gets at the crux of the disagreement.

As for the second topic, T4G and those who stand with them place a heavy emphasis upon the divinity of scripture, without explicitly denying the human aspect. On the other side, those whom T4G are directing this article against stress the humanity of scripture, which they do without rejecting divine inspiration.

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Revelation: God’s Coming Out as Radical Love

The launching point for Cheng’s discussion of God is the doctrine of revelation. The doctrine of revelation tells us how human beings can know who God is and what God’s relationship to humanity is all about. It also addresses the ways in which God reveals Godself to humanity. Traditionally, theologians have taught that God reveals Godself in at least two ways; through the scriptures and through human reason. In queer theology, revelation is also comes through human experience. Cheng argues that revelation is analogous to the self-disclosure that occurs when an LGBT person comes out to someone whom she/he loves about her/his sexuality and/or gender identity. His primary contention in this section is that God’s coming out is an act of radical love because it results in the dissolving of existing boundaries.

The first boundary that is dissolved by God’s coming out is the boundary between the divine and the human. It is through revelation that the seemingly infinite gap between the divine and the human is bridged. Without revelation, God would remain a complete mystery to humanity. It would be impossible for us to speak about, let alone to comprehend God. As a consequence of revelation, we are enabled to speak of the God who is out there, for this same God is also Emmanuel or God with us. When an LGBT person reveals the truth about her/his sexuality and/or gender identity to another individual, the boundary that had previously existed between these two people disappears. The division between the public and private lives of the LGBT person is erased. Cheng reasons that the doctrine of revelation challenges the traditional view that a person’s sexuality and gender identity should be privatized; never spoken about and left outside of the realm of public discourse.

The second boundary that is dissolved by God’s coming out is that which exists between the strong and the weak. God has come out of the closet of heaven and out of the ancient Jewish religious system to reveal Godself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The fact that God would come out as the infant Jesus reveals God’s solidarity with the vulnerable and the marginalized. Likewise, God’s self-revelation as the Jesus who ministers to the unclean reveals God’s preferential option for the excluded outcast. God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. Cheng also wants us to explore the ways in which the boundary between LGBT people (the weak) and the church (the strong) is dissolved by the revelation of God in the preaching of scripture. He suggests that God comes out of heterosexism every time an LGBT person preaches the word. The closet door opens, and there stands a gay God who longs to be welcomed into full communion.

The third and final boundary that is dissolved by God’s coming out is the boundary betwixt knowing and unknowing. In accordance with the mystical tradition of negative theology or apophatic, human beings can never know God completely in a positive sense. God is beyond all of our limited human senses, and thus He can only be known through a progressive process of unknowing. The mystical experience of God is a state of apophatic that resists any definitive or absolute knowledge of God. Cheng argues that transgender should be understood as a form of apophasis. The transgender experience is a state of resistance against binary oppositions of sexuality and gender identity as well as any final knowledge of the homosexual and heterosexual polarities. A climactic vision of perfection is rejected by both the doctrine of revelation and the transgender experience in favor of a picture grounded upon uncertainty and continual journeying. Living in the midst of this unsettling tension is what it ultimately means to mature as a human being.