In general, Clowney was a Presbyterian, so put forward what you might call a reformed, conservative evangelical view. This means when the more theological underlying issues of the church's purpose, nature and mission, many evangelicals would be in agreement. As the topics get more practical to women in ministry, the use of some of the gifts (he is a cessationist) and infant baptism, more camps would be in disagreement.
This book was written in 1995, and so some issues engaged in this were a bit dated. The first chapter in particular was trying to be a hook to grab you, but it really didn't for me as the contemporary issues flowing from some world ecumenical council were well past. So don't be put off by the first chapter, for the most part, the rest of the book doesn't necessarily dip into specific controversies but does deal with contention issues that (I guess) have always existed between denominations. Occasional in the book Clowney would push back against this ecumenical council and their decisions, but I sort of just moved on from those comments, as I am sure the rest of the world has too.
I appreciated the threefold mission Clowney laid out, as he perhaps rightly pointed out that different denominations, or streams of thought may major on only one of these. He says in different parts:
The church is called to serve God in three ways: to serve him directly in worship; to serve the saints in nurture; and to serve the world in witness.
The church’s service has three goals: to serve God in worship; to serve one another in nurture; and to serve the world in mission.
The goal of the triune nurture of the church is found in God himself. It is to know the Lord, to do the Lord’s will, and to be like the Lord.
Sometimes a more experiential, charismatic church may major on the service and the worship of God, another camp may be more kind and loving to those in their community while perhaps the evangelical camp might overemphasise the mission (Great Commission) as the marching orders of the church. But Clowney helpfully points out it is all three. God, others and the world. This point alone probably is worth the book, as I found it a constant help in balancing my conversations to people when they are saying what the church's mission or goal is.
As this book covers a bunch of things, below are a few quick observations or thoughts on some statements addressed in the book, to help maybe give an idea on more of the contentious issues.
Politics
On the intersection of church and culture, and in particular, I thought it was interesting that Clowney says:
Christians are not free to form an exclusively Christian political party that seeks to exercise power in the name of Christ. That would identify Christ’s cause with one of the kingdoms of this world.
He is not saying you can't be a Christian in politics, but he did disagree with the idea of a Christian political party form, as it seemed to be using the tools of the state, and the Church isn't to operate at that level. I found this an interesting idea, and not sure how you can separate some of the history of the world where religion and politics were combined or the idea that every secular law is really saying something about morality. But I also agree that the church's task isn't political gain or power, it is a different field altogether.
Women in ministry & prophecy
On women in ministry, the context of 1 Timothy 2 is said to be "where Paul is giving instruction on prayer and appearance in public worship." I am now unsure of that premise that the passage is all about public worship and not the household. This means the rest of the ideas that flowed about church/public worship might not stand.
I found it also confusing with the intersection of how teaching and/or prophecy (mentioned in Joel and Acts) fits together with women. Clowney said:
When a woman has the prophetic gift, she speaks the word of the Lord. Her authority is not her own but the direct authority of the Lord. The fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, proclaimed by Peter at Pentecost, provided the gift of prophecy to both men and women, in harmony with the gift of the Spirit to all the people of God. That Paul recognizes this gift, but yet in the same letter insists on the deference of women to male leadership in the church, shows the importance which he attaches to the continuing order of the church, even in the midst of the outpouring of spiritual gifts that marked the apostolic age.
I think this is saying that first of all prophecy is somehow speaking not with your own authority but with Gods. And so, while sons and daughters are able to prophesy from Acts 2, church order still regulates this practice to men or for it to be under the authority of men. This seems to mesh with 1 Cor 11:5, but I am still not sure if the nuance between teaching and prophecy is really that one (prophecy) comes from the God's authority and teaching comes from your own authority. That seems hard to judge, in the same way, is the Bible is from God, or is some of it was written by Paul. Isn't is both? There is a dual authority with the written word of God, is there a dual authority with (all) the speaking gifts of the Spirit given from God?
Cessation
On some of the gifts like prophecy, tongues and healing; a standard cessation view was put forward, but with this cabeat that sometimes people over look:
The cessation of the apostolic signs does not mean the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit. The saints still possess the graces that were supernaturally heightened in the miraculous gifts.
While there might not be special "healers", people can still get miracilously healed by God today.
Tongues
On tongues, in particular to the debate about what "the tongues of angels" are he said:
Much has been made of Paul’s reference to the tongues of angels (1 Cor. 13:1), as though we might assume that most tongue-speaking, then and now, is utterance in the languages of the heavenly host. Yet Paul is not affirming or implying that this is the case. His language is hyperbolic: no degree of tongue-speaking is of value without love; even if one were to speak the very dialects of heaven without love, it would be in vain. In any case, even if one might speak a language of heaven, a language is still in view.
Clowney says Pauls line about speaking in a tongue of angles is hybolic to make a point, saying even if it was possible to do (which it isn't) but doesn't have any love, it is useless. He goes on about how people have analysed modern day tongues and they don't have the characteristics of languages so are not real languages:
If the references in Corinthians are to the speaking of languages, and tongues today are not languages, then the claim that current ‘tongues’ are legitimated in Scripture fails.
It is quite possible, therefore, that the apostolic gift of speaking in tongues has ceased, even though millions of Christians believe that they now possess it.
Interestingly, Augustin is mentioned to noted that he said this gift hasn't been around in his day, so it may have stopped at some point. While Clowney think tongues aren't a thing, I appreciated his charity toward those who do and practice it today:
It would be wrong, however, to assume that tongues are lying wonders from the powers of darkness. There is nothing inherently wrong in free vocalization, and a person practising it in an attitude of devotion, using the name of the Father and of the Lord Jesus, is shielded by the power of the One addressed and adored. The danger flows from misunderstanding, so that the exercise becomes a source of assurance, or of spiritual pride.
Prophets & prophecy
On prophets and prophecy there was a very good engagement with Wayn Grudem and his position on uppercase P Prophets from the Old Testament and lowercase p prophets in the church age. How the lower case p prophets are about applying God's word in a particular circumstance today, but aren't to be treated as a new inspired word that should be added to the Bible. I am sort of sympathetic to some idea like this, maybe because I read a bit of Grudmen about 20 years ago and he kind of got in first in my thinking. However, Clowney pushes back against this dichotomy,
Yet his [Grudem] view does not do justice to the finality of revelation given in Jesus Christ and to the sufficiency of Scripture in communicating to us God’s last words through Christ’s apostles and prophets. It is not through new revelations, but through the gift of wisdom that the Spirit leads the church into the understanding of the truth and the path of obedience.
Clowney really puts Grudems lower case p prophecy in the category of someone simply exercising their God given wisdom in applying Gods word, and that may well be the case. I personally think I need a more robust definition of what prophecy is and how is or isn't related to teaching, preaching, edification and evangelism, and so how it can be practiced by men and women.
I will be surprised if you have gotten to the end of this rant as it has been a smattering of thoughts from more of the controversial bits in the latter half of the book. Overall, the bottom line was, I though this book was really helpful and there much that I learned from it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment