Christ in all the Scriptures: December 2006

Monday, December 18, 2006

The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today

The Use of the Bible in Evangelical Preaching Today, Evangel 13.1 (Spring 1995): 16-21.
Charles Cameron

[p.16]

Ernest Best was Professor of New Testament at the University of Glasgow. Robert Davidson was Professor of Old Testament at the University of Glasgow. The late George Macleod was the Founder of the Iona Community. Each of these men has exerted a significant influence on the ministry of the Church of Scotland. Comments made by Best, Davidson and Macleod provide an appropriate point of departure for this short study concerning contemporary preaching. In his book, From Text to Sermon, Best writes, 'The preacher ... ought to avoid merely using the text as a jumping-off for what he wants to say.'1

When invited to introduce a former student ― Rev. Fraser Aitken ― to his first charge, Neilston Parish Church, Davidson preached from Ephesians 3:8, concerning Paul’s description of his ministry in terms of preaching ‘the unsearchable riches of Christ’. Macleod’s book, Speaking the Truth in Love, contains this arresting remark concerning ‘preaching’ which, though it ‘may be without doctrinal error hardly stirs a soul’. Taken together, these three comments highlight three essential features which must surely characterize evangelical preaching in every generation. Our preaching should be grounded in Scripture, centred on Christ and empowered by the Spirit. The Scriptures, the Saviour and the Spirit ― here we have a ‘threefold cord’ that cannot be broken. By stressing the importance of the Bible for contemporary preaching we are not simply being ‘traditional’. We ground our preaching in Scripture because we find Christ in the Scriptures (Lk. 24:27; Jn. 5:40; 2 Tim. 3:15). We do not base our preaching on Scripture simply because we wish to be ‘Biblicists’. We preach from Scripture because the Spirit points us to the Son through the Scriptures (Lk. 24:2; Rom. 10:17). This ‘threefold cord’, the Scriptures, the Saviour and the Spirit, must be preserved if contemporary preaching is to be truly evangelical. Today’s preachers are, like Paul, called to ‘preach the unsearchable riches of Christ’. Our situation is not however precisely the same as Paul’s. We are to preach the Word of God ‘as addressed to modem man’. 3 This application of the gospel to the situation of modem man requires to be handled in a careful and sensitive manner. We dare not remain locked in the past if we are to speak a word which has genuine relevance for the present day. On the other hand, the threat of modernism’ is real. We can be so easily ‘squeezed into the mould of the world’s way of thinking’, rather than allowing our minds to be renewed by ‘the living and abiding word of God (cf. Rom. 12:1-2 J. B. Phillips; 1 Pet. 1:23). Where modern thinking is accorded an undue importance, the gospel can be seriously distorted. This kind of distortion takes place in the theologies offered to us by Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich. Commenting on Bultmann's theology, G. C. Berkouwer writes, ‘The fact that he proceeds from a pastoral and missionary motive ― namely, to preserve modern man from rejecting the New Testament because of its mythical structure - does not diminish by one iota the theological presumption of this undertaking’4. K. Hamilton describes Tillich theology thus: ‘Jesus Christ and the biblical revelatic have been fitted into a structure already complex without them.’5 One particularly serious consequence of this type of theological reductionism is selectivity in the use of Scripture. This may be illustrated with particular reference to the theology of Bultmann. Discussing Bultmann’s exegetical procedure, N. J. Young offers a penetrating analysis. Bultmann’s norm for understanding the New Testament is the theology of Paul and John as interpreted by Bultmann. Those parts of the New Testament which do not accord with Bultmann are not given careful attention. Paul

[p.17]

and John, as well as the rest of the New Testament, are treated in this way.6 This method of exegesis, ‘in which a variety of views are aknowledged, but only one selected for attention, leaving the others virtually ignored’7 is particularly noticeable when he discusses Paul’s eschatology. He acknowledges that there is evidence that Paul does have an ‘apocalyptic eschatology with its expectation of a cosmic catastrophe’.8 Nevertheless, Bultmann pays no further attention to this aspect of Paul’s eschatology. What are we to make of this approach to the New Testament? This is what Young says: ‘If some parts of the New Testament prove to be impervious to a particular hermeneutical approach ... it may be because the hermeneutical approach is not adequate for the task, not because it claims too much.’9 Young contends that there is a better way than Bultmann’s way. ‘A proper recognition of the diversity of the New Testament witness... makes unnecessary Bultmann’s attempt to achieve harmony by silencing those voices which appear to him to be off-key.’10 Best makes this point more positively ― without any direct reference to Bultmann’s theology. ‘Christ is greater than any single description of him, and we need the variety we have in the New Testament.’11 What relevance does this discussion of Bultmann’s selective exegesis have for the preacher? N.Weeks, clearly alluding to the kind of theology propounded by Bultmann, makes an astute and most important observation: ‘The belief that modem man cannot understand biblical concepts becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we believe that men cannot accept such truths, then we will not preach and teach them. Hence they will not be received because faith comes by hearing the word preached. If we would preach the ‘whole counsel of God’ from the pulpit, there must be a thorough searching of the Scriptures in the study. Selective exegesis can never be a real option for those who would seek to ground their preaching in the Scriptures. To dissociate ourselves from Bultmann’s method of reading the New Testament is not to involve us in stepping back from the complexities of biblical interpretation. Rather, we stress that the complex business of biblical interpretation will never permit one particular line of interpretation to take a stranglehold over our thinking. Whenever a particular method of interpretation dominates our thinking, it becomes our authority. Scripture ― the authoritative Word of God ―is then moulded to fit what we think it should be. The interpretation of Scripture is not to be separated from the authority of Scripture. Divorced from an authoritative Word from the Lord, biblical interpretation can become a very confusing business. We are not, however, forced to choose between a real involvement in the complex issues of biblical interpretation and a naive biblicism which refuses to get involved with the difficult questions. It has been said that ‘the Bible is like a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim’.13 There are many areas where differences of interpretation can leave us quite confused. Nevertheless, we are still able to affirm that Jesus Christ is the centre of the biblical message. We are still able to experience the power of the Holy Spirit as he leads us to Christ through the Scripture. By refusing to align ourselves with Bultmann’s approach to the New Testament we are not dissociating ourselves from his concern with relevance. We are, however, stressing that there is another concern to which we must give careful attention ― faithfulness: ‘In seeking for relevance we must not renounce faithfulness.’14 We must not set relevance and faithfulness over against each other, as though we are forced to choose between them ― be faithful at the expense of relevance; be relevant at the expense of faithfulness. Relevance and faithfulness belong together. Relevance is not to be divorced from faithfulness but grounded in faithfulness. God’s Word is seen to be ‘the living and abiding word of God’ as God’s people believe it to be and proclaim it as ‘the living and abiding word of God’. The faithfulness which is ever relevant involves a real commitment to walking in the Spirit as ‘ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills but the Spirit gives life’ (2. Cor. 3:6). J. Veenhof, expounding the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures, emphasizes that it is the Holy Spirit who binds faithfulness and relevance together. He ‘makes it clear that this ancient word never becomes antiquated but is permanently relevant’.15 This relevance is always a matter of something more than mere words. Our lives as well as our words must be faithful to the Word of the Lord. Faithfulness and relevance do not belong only to the study and the pulpit. There is a life to be lived in the world as well as a sermon to be preached in the church. Our lives are to be a ‘letter from Christ’, ‘known and read by all men’ (2 Cor. 3:2). In the pulpit, faithfulness and relevance are to be held together. In the study authority and interpretation are to be held together. If, in the study, Scripture is not honoured as the authoritative word of God, there will not be faithful preaching from the pulpit. A commitment to faithfulness carries with it a concern for relevance, since God ‘is not God of the dead, but of the living’ (Matt. 22:32). He is the living God and his Word is to be proclaimed as the living Word. If we are to speak a word of relevance, we need to interpret God’s Word for this generation. It is not sufficient to affirm the authority of the Bible, if we do not give serious

[p.18]

consideration to understanding what God is saying to the world of today. The preacher, who seeks both faithfulness and relevance, will seek to understand the relationship between authority and interpretation. In the preface to his book, A Theology of the New Testament, G. E. Ladd writes, 'All theology is a human undertaking and no man's position can be considered final.' 16

However strongly we affirm the authority of Scripture, we dare not elevate our own theological understanding to the level of Scripture itself. When we recognize clearly the distinction between authority and interpretation, we will not be afraid of interacting with theological perspectives different from our own. We need openness without a loss of the divine Word. We need not make the ideal of ‘open-mindedness’ so prominent in our thinking that we end up emptyminded, with no clear conviction concerning the divine Word. Nevertheless, we must surely welcome the kind of openness described by G. C. Berkouwer in the foreword to his book, A Half Century of Theology: 'A curiosity that works itself out in passionate study and serious listening to others promises surprises, clearer insight, and deeper understanding ―no matter from which direction they came.17 Our interpretation of the vital relationship between authority and interpretation is directly connected to our understanding of the dual character of Scripture as both the Word of God and the words of men. Scripture speaks to us with authority because it speaks to us as the Word of God. The study of Scripture involves us in the complex business of interpretation, since it speaks to us as the words of men, words written at various times and places by many writers. E. Schillebeeck describes the dual character of Scripture in a helpful way: All human speech about what comes ‘from above’ (‘it has been revealed’) is uttered by human beings, i.e. from below ... However human it may be, this language is not an autonomous human initiative.18 G. C. Berkouwer offers an insightful perspective on Scripture as both Word of God and words of men. He describes ‘scripture’ as ‘the human witness empowered by the Spirit’.19 He stresses the divine origin of this witness: 'This witness does not well up from the human heart but from the witness of God in which it finds its foundation and empowering as a human witness ... This Scripture finds its origin in the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ, and witnesses of him through the human witness.’20 Berkouwer emphasizes that this ancient word speaks with relevance to every generation: 'These witnesses are not ‘lifted out’ of their time and milieu, but as living witnesses could interpret in their era what was destined for all times.’21 He helps us to understand both how we are to approach Scripture and how we are not to approach Scripture: 'Believing Scripture does not mean staring at a holy and mysterious book, but hearing the witness concerning Christ.'22 It is within this context of a human yet divine, ancient yet permanently relevant witness concerning Jesus Christ that we are to understand our confession of faith. The Bible is the Word of God: 'The respect for the concrete words is related to this and the ‘is’ of the confession points to the mystery of the Spirit, who wants to bind men to Christ through these words, through this witness.23 The faith with which we are to receive God’s word has been well described by Calvin: 'The word is not received in faith when it merely flutters in the brain, but when it has taken deep root in the heart.'24 From Berkouwer and Calvin the preacher can learn much. Faithful, relevant, authoritative preaching is preaching which focuses upon Christ, preaching which is empowered by the Spirit, preaching which calls for faith that takes deep root in the heart. With this understanding of preaching, we will take care to hold doctrine and experience together. J. 1. Packer emphasizes that ‘revelation is ... much more than propositional’.25 E. Schillebeeckx emphasizes that ‘the right propositional understanding of revelation ... must be kept in a right relation to the experience with which this propositional language is associated’.26 Developing this theme further, Schillebeeckx describes Scripture as the point of contact between the spiritual experience of the biblical writers and today’s readers and hearers who are now being invited by Scripture to enter into the same experience of the living God: 'As a testimony to the experience of those who created it Scripture is an offer ― a possibility that this experience can be extended to others'.27 There is the relationship between the words of Scripture and the power of the Spirit. Rightly understood, the words of Scripture are not mere words. They are words which speak with power. Jesus makes this point within the context of his own ministry. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn. 6:63). Paul, like Jesus, could not conceive of ministry as a thing of words only. True ministry is ministry empowered by the Spirit:

[p.19]

'My speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (1 Cor. 2:4); 'Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction' (1 Thess. 1:5).

In our preaching of God’s word today we must earnestly pray for this dual ministry of the Spirit: 'The Spirit ... opens up the Scripture to us and ‘opens’ us to the Scripture'.28 Being opened up by the Spirit to the Scripture can be an uncomfortable experience. Where the Word of God is preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, we have the situation described in the letter to the Hebrews: 'The Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword ... discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do' (4:12-13). Scripture does not speak of salvation only. It also speaks about sin. Scripture does not speak only of the love of God. It also speaks of the holiness of God. When Jesus spoke of the ministry of the Holy Spirit he said this: 'When he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement' (Jn. 16:8). There are uncomfortable truths concerning which the Lord Jesus says, ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). If we should be faithful preachers of God’s word, we must preach what people need to hear, and not simply what they want to hear. This is not only the way of faithfulness, it is also the way of relevance. Those who seek relevance at the expense of faithfulness turn out to be irrelevant. Their shallow and superficial preaching turns out to be no real substitute for ‘the living and abiding word of God’ through which alone the hearers can be ‘born anew’ (1 Pet. 1:23). Before we can truly appreciate the grace of God in the gospel, we must understand that ‘there is no human solution to the human problem’.29 This can be a painful experience. We do our hearers no favours if we pay little attention to the uncomfortable truths of God’s word. G. C. Berkouwer ends his discussion, ‘The Voice of Karl Barth’ with these words: 'He discovered the powerful witness of the ‘tremendous’ word that always speaks against us so that we can learn to stop speaking against it'.30 To appreciate Barth’s emphasis on the centrality of Christ, we must first hear the Word speaking against us. Concerning the message of the Bible, Barth writes: 'The Bible says all sorts of things certainly; but in all this multiplicity and variety; it says in truth only one thing ―just this: the name of Jesus Christ'.31 In the presence of Jesus Christ we learn that we are sinners, but we learn also that Christ loves sinners. Unlike the Pharisees who despised ‘sinners’ Jesus Christ ‘receives sinners’ (Lk. 15:2). In the presence of Christ we encounter both perfect holiness and perfect love. In Christ, we discover ‘an unmerited abundance of love’.32 This love leads us to a special kind of obedience ― the obedience of love. ‘We love because he first loved us’ (1 Jn. 4:19). In Christ, we face the claim of love upon our lives. This living presence of Christ inviting us to receive salvation and calling us to embark on the pathway of discipleship is the depth-dimension of preaching. On the face of it, preaching involves a preacher giving an address to a congregation. There is, however, something much deeper than that going on when the Word of God is preached. D.G. Miller, in an article entitled ‘Biblical Theology and Preaching’, highlights this depth-dimension of preaching: 'In a real sermon ... Christ is the preacher. The preacher speaks through the preacher ... The biblical view of preaching is to confront men with the question, ‘What think ye of Christ?’ And out of this question, to have the encounter shift into the dimension of a personal confrontation by Christ, who himself asks, ‘Who do you say that I am?’ This is the unique task of the Christian preacher'.33 Describing further the purpose of preaching, Miller continues: 'Preaching must always be for decision. Our aim is not merely to inform the mind, to stimulate the feelings so that men have a rather pleasant emotional experience: it is rather to strike directly at the will with the demand for decision ... until we have confronted men with the issue so that they either have to surrender or rebel further, to accept it or reject, believe or disbelieve'.34 This decision concerning Jesus Christ is also a decision concerning the meaning, purpose and direction of our own lives ― ‘Deciding about him is at the same time deciding about ourselves.’35 As we hear the story of Jesus Christ, the word of God tells us the story of our own lives ―

what we are and what we can become. The call for decision is a call to leave behind what we are in our sin, and move on to what we can become in Christ. If evangelical preaching is to make a significant impact on today’s world, it dare not rest content with giving theological lectures. Stressing the relevance of

[p.20]

the Bible to our life today, D. E. Stevenson describes the Bible as ‘a hall of mirrors’ and offers this advice: ‘Look into it properly and you will see yourself.’36 The preacher dare not place himself far above the people, preaching a message which goes over the heads of the people.

The preacher, no less than his hearers, must sit under the Word of God. If he is to preach a message which is relevant to the life of his hearers he must first find in Scripture a Word that is relevant to his own life. This involves much more than being an academic theologian who seeks intellectual stimulation from his study of the Bible. The preacher is not to remain a stranger to the people. He dare not speak as a theologian, proud of his education yet detached from his hearers’ life-situation. The preacher is to be a friend to his hearers. He lives among them. He meets them in the streets and at the shops. He visits them in hospital and at home. He teaches their children at school. He hears about and shares the joys and concerns of the community in which he lives. Within this very human context the pulpit must not become an ivory tower of irrelevance. Though not merely human ― he is an ‘ambassador for Christ’, bringing to his hearers ‘the message of reconciliation’ (2 Cor. 5:19-20) ― the preacher must not ignore the very human context in which the word of God is to be preached. In preaching from the Scriptures he proclaims a word which transforms the present and not merely a word that belongs to the past. The preacher who is sensitive to the pastoral relationships which exists between himself and the people will not preach messages which could be preached anywhere and at anytime. He takes account of the particular situation into which he is called to preach God’s word. He seeks to hear and to speak the word which God wants to speak to this people at this time. The method of preaching will vary from sermon to sermon, from one series of sermons to another. The manner in which we preach remains constant. It is to be preaching grounded in the Scriptures, centred on Christ and empowered by the Spirit. Such preaching has relevance, not only for the Church but also for the world. The gospel cannot be kept within the ‘four walls’ of the Church. Paul described the gospel in this way ― ‘The gospel for which I am suffering and wearing chains like a criminal’. He then went on to say, ‘But the word of God is not fettered’ (2 Tim. 2:9). Sometimes, the preacher will feel like Paul ― imprisoned within his circumstances. He may feel imprisoned within a clerical strait-jacket. He may feel imprisoned within the limitations of being only one man, able to do so much and no more. Like Paul, however, the preacher can lift up his eyes to the Word of God which is able to break free from such imprisoning limitations. When the Word of God is preached, it is not simply a proclamation by one man within the ‘four walls’ of the Church. It is a proclamation which reaches out into the world. It is carried by the hearers into their life-situations. This fact encourages the preacher to believe that his message preached may be just the spark which gets a fire going. His preaching may be just the spark which sets the Church on fire with a real desire to pass on the good news of Christ’s love to the needy world. The possibility of being the spark which lights a fire gives the preacher greater boldness. It assures him that his preaching is not as insignificant and ineffective as he may sometimes feel. There is, however, a humbling factor here. The preacher receives boldness in answer to the prayers of God’s people. 'Pray ... for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel' (Eph. 6:18-19). There is no true boldness in preaching without the prayers of faithful man and women who call upon God on behalf of the preacher. With the supporting prayers of God’s people, the preacher goes into the pulpit. Through the continuing witness of God’s people, the preached word goes beyond the pulpit into the world. The preacher is one among many within the fellowship of the Lord’s people. His minstry is significant, but so also is the ministry exercised by others. As we consider the relationship between the pastor and the people we must never forget that the spark which gets the fire going is the power of the Holy Spirit. If there is to be a fire lit in our day, it will not be the work of man but the mighty working of the Spirit. In all the works of ministry-the ministry of the preacher and the ministry of the people ― there is something we must never forget: 'We are servants of the word and not its masters ... Not only are we servants of the word ... we are unprofitable servants'.37

1 The Saint Andrew Press, Edinburgh, (1978), p. 100.

2 SCM Press, London, (1936), p. 30.

3 A. Richardson (citing G. Ebeling), 'Hermeneutics' in A. Richardson (ed.), A Dictionary of Christian Theology, SCM Press, (1969), p. 154 (emphasis original).

4 The Person of Christ, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, (1954), p. 41.

5 'Paul Tillich' in P. E. Hughes (ed.), Creative Minds in Contemporary Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids (Second Revised Edition), (1969), p. 473 (emphasis original).

6 History and Existential Theology, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1969), pp.51-55.

7 Young, p. 53.

8 Young, p. 53 (citing R. Bultmann, History and Eschatology, p. 151).

9 p. 54.

10 p. 55.

11 From Text to Sermon, p. 29.

12 The Sufficiency of Scripture, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, (1988), pp. 82-83.

13 D. A. Carson ‘Interpreting the Bible’ in Evangel, 3:2 (Summer 1985), p. 13.

14 B. Meeking & J. Stott (eds.), The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission, 1977-1984,The Paternoster Press, Exeter, (1984), p. 21.

15 'Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture' in The Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Autumn 1986), p. 76.

16 Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1974), p. 5.

17 Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1977), pp.7-8.

18 Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modern World, SCM Press, London, (1980), p. 46.

19 Holy Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1965), p. 167.

20 Holy Scripture, pp. 165-166.

21 Holy Scripture, p. 167.

Holy Scripture

, p. 166.

Holy Scripture

, p. 166.

Institutes

, III.36 (Associated Publishers and Authors Inc., Grand Rapids, p. 304).

‘Infallible Scripture in the Role of Hermeneutics’ in D. A. Carson & J. D. Woodbridge (eds)Scripture and Truth, IVP, Leicester, (1983), p. 35.

Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modem World

, SCM Press, London, (1980), p. 54.

Christ, the Christian Experience in the Modem World, SCM Press, London, (1980) p. 68.

28 J. Veenhof, ‘Holy Spirit and Holy Scripture’, Scottish Bulletin Evangelical Theology, Vol. 2, (Autumn 1986).

29 J. Macquarrie, Studies in Christian Existentialism, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1965), p. 8 (italics original).

A Half Century of Theology

, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, (1977), p. 74.

Church Dogmatics

, 1.2. T & T Clarke, Edinburgh, (1956), p. 720.

E. Schilebeeckx, Christ, The Christian Experience in the Modem World

, SCM (1981).

Scottish Journal of Theology

, Vol. 11, No. 4, (Dec. 1958), pp. 393, 395-6.

Scottish Journal of Theology

, Vol. 11, No. 4, (Dec. 1958), p. 399.

N. J. Young, History and Existential Theology

, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, (1969), p. 122.

36 D. E. Stevenson, In the Biblical Preacher’s Workshop, Abingdon Press, Nashville, (1967), p. 93.

37 D. E. Stevenson, In the Biblical Preacher’s Workshop, Abingdon Press, Nashville, (1967), p. 16.

© 1995, Evangel. Reproduced by permission. Rev. Dr. Charles M. Cameron is a Church of Scotland minister in Darvel and a regular contributor to Evangel. Prepared for the Web in October 2006 by Robert I. Bradshaw. http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/

Labels: Theological Articles

John Hick's Religious World

Charles M. Cameron, “John Hick’s Religious World”, Evangel, 15.1 (Spring 1997): 22-27.

[p.22]

Introduction

John Hick is eminently readable. He is a theologian who wears his heart on his sleeve. He has no time for the kind of theology which uses traditional language without making clear whether such language is to be taken literally. Hick puts his cards on the table. There is no way he will entertain anything other than a thoroughly demythologized theology. Thus the pluralist theology of John Hick and the theology of conservative evangelicalism are poles apart. Nevertheless, the conservative evangelical may benefit from Hick’s frankness. We know exactly where we stand with Hick, who says what he means without worrying about whose sensitivities he is offending. The evangelical who is in dialogue with other less radical theologies than that of Hick has to spend time over questions of basic comprehension. With Hick, he can concentrate on responding to his theology without being sidetracked by the issue of correct interpretation. It is often said that in order to understand a theology, we need to understand something of the theologian’s development and progress. This is particularly true in the case of Hick. He began his theological development as a conservative evangelical. He has moved via theodicy to universalism, and then to a demythologized Christ. Commenting on his concern with theodicy, as reflected in his early book, Evil and the God of Love, Hick writes, '(I)n wrestling with the problem of evil I had concluded that any viable Christian theodicy must affirm the ultimate salvation of all God's creatures'

1. Taking this stance on universalism, Hick questions the viability of the view that the only way of salvation is the Christian way: ‘Can we accept the conclusion that the God of love who seeks to save all mankind has nevertheless ordained that men must be saved in such a way that only a small minority can receive this salvation? It is the weight of this moral contradiction which has driven Christian thinkers in modern times to explore other ways of understanding the human religious situation.’2 At the heart of Hick’s own exploration of other ways of understanding the human religious situation lies a demythologized Christ. This view of Christ, for which Hick was to gain both fame and notoriety through his book, The Myth of God Incarnate, may be summed up thus: The incarnation is ‘a mythic expression of the experience of salvation through Christ... (which) is not to be set in opposi-

[p.23]

tion to the myths of other faiths as if myths were literally true-or-false assertions’

3. This brief summary of Hick’s theological development raises the issue of whether or not he has begged some important questions. We might well ask such questions as these:

Is it true that any viable Christian theology must affirm the universal salvation of all God’s creatures? Is it self-evident that there is a moral contradiction between God’s desire to save all mankind and the view that not all will receive salvation? How legitimate is it to write off biblical teaching about Jesus Christ as mythology which has nothing to do with literally true-or-false assertions?

Hick and the Contemporary Scene

The question now arises of the relationship between the problems Hick addresses and the theology he propounds. We have the impression of the problems creating the theology rather than the theology working with the problems. Is this not a case of the tail wagging the dog? Hick writes as though a modern theology must make drastic changes as it moves from one problem to another. We may well wonder if this does not undermine the divine origins of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its relevance for every generation. Hick makes much of the uniqueness of the contemporary situation. He writes as if the problems of pluralism were entirely unknown in earlier generations There may be some truth in Hick’s analysis of the modern world. We need however to look at the history of pluralism at a time before Hick came ‘to live in the multi-cultural, multi-coloured and multi-faith city of Birmingham’

4. We can, in fact, go back into the world of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. In the Old Testament, there is a continuing conflict between God and the gods.5 The peoples of the Ancient Near East could accept and worship as many extra deities as their needs demanded. Within this pluralist context, the Old Testament proclaims God not as one among many but as the God who is incomparable ―the God in whose sight the ‘gods’ are nothing.6 In the New Testament, we find Paul preaching in Athens, a ‘city... full of idols’.7 When Paul preached Christ ‘perhaps... (the Athenians) were astonished that anyone would want to bring still more gods to Athens, god capital of the world! Athenians, after all must have needed something like the Yellow Pages just to keep tabs on the many deities already represented in their city!’8 From the Old and New Testament Scriptures, we discover that pluralism is nothing new. The people of God in biblical times could not avoid the fact of pluralism. They did not, however, succumb to its pressures. Hick’s reaction is very different. Pluralism for him is the norm to which the Christian message is expected to conform. A Christ-centred message is not congenial to modern pluralist society. So the Christian message must be adjusted in order that it can be fitted more readily into the contemporary outlook.

For Hick, the pluralist context has become the pretext for treating the biblical text lightly and for producing a theology which no longer accords the central place to Christ.

A Demythologized Christianity

Hick assumes that the only viable interpretation of Christianity will be a thoroughly demythologized one. ‘Christian theology has long recognised the presence and function of myth in the scriptures ... and has long been concerned to couch the Christian message in ways that are intelligible to the demythologized modern mind'

9. Although Hick may take demythologization for granted, we must point out the importance Scripture attaches to historical truth ― for example, ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.’10 Again Paul declares that Jesus Christ has been ‘designated Son of God in power ... by his resurrection from the dead’.11 Hick, however, will not think of Christ in this way. Commenting on the direct connection between demythologizing and pluralism in Hick’s thought, James Cook writes: ‘For Hick the unique character and claim of traditional Christianity are obstacles in the way of attaining “a global religious vision” to which he feels Christians are being called ... When proper deference has been paid to John Hick’s statement that The Myth of God Incarnate needed to be written because of the growing knowledge of Christian origins, one suspects that a motive at least as strong is the opinion that Christianity must surrender the uniqueness of the incarnation in order to make peace with other world religions.’12 In order to understand the significance of this ‘global religious vision’, we should appreciate how deeply committed Hick is to both demythologizing and pluralism. Hick is not one of those theologians whose definition of ‘myth’ is so ambiguous as to leave us wondering how seriously he takes the whole process of demythologizing. Here is how he defines myth: ‘A myth is a story which is told but which is not literally true or an idea or image which is applied to something or someone but which does not literally apply, but which invites a particular attitude in its hearers.’13 He proceeds to describe ‘the truth of a myth’ as ‘a kind of practical truth consisting in the appropriateness of the attitude it evokes’.14

By speaking of this ‘kind of prac-

[p.24]

tical truth’, Hick tries to look behind ‘the incarnational mythology to the religious experience which it expresses’

15. In this way, he seeks to discover a ‘quality of psychological absoluteness’ in the ‘incarnational mythology’. In other words, he emphasizes the believer’s personal testimony ―this is true for me― as distinct from the authoritarian demand that Christianity be presented as an absolute truth for the adherents of other religions as well as for Christians. This view of practical truth is very different from that of the New Testament, which refuses to dissociate practical from historical truth. According to the apostle Paul, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then all who believe and preach the Christian gospel are in error.16 Take away the historical truth of Jesus Christ, and we are left not with practical truth, but with an illusion. Hick relates the incarnational mythology to pluralism by suggesting that we have not properly understood the ‘Christian myth of incarnation if we take it to mean an exclusive claim for Christianity as the only way of salvation’.17 Hick’s pluralist theology makes a radical contrast with the views of Lesslie Newbigin, who distinguishes between cultural pluralism and religious pluralism. ‘Cultural pluralism I take to be the attitude which welcomes the variety of different cultures and lifestyles within one society and believes that this is an enrichment of human life ... Religious pluralism, on the other hand, is the belief that the differences between the religions are not a matter of truth and falsehood, but of different perceptions of the one truth: that to speak of religious beliefs as true and false is inadmissible.’18 Hick would not allow such a distinction. According to Hick, ‘(I)t is not appropriate to speak of a religion as being true or false, any more than it is to speak of a civilisation as being true or false.’ In line with this, Hick describes religions as ‘distinguishable religio-cultural streams within man’s history, (which) are expressions of the diversities of human types and temperaments and thought forms’.19 In Hick’s view, cultural pluralism and religious pluralism are inseparable. From his radically pluralist perspective Hick writes, ‘I now no longer find it possible to proceed as a Christian theologian as though Christianity were the only religion in the world. Surely our thinking must be undertaken, in the “one world” of today and tomorrow, on a more open and global basis.’20 Hence Hick ‘seeks to develop a Christian theology of religions which takes the decisive step from… a ... one’s-own-religion centred to ... a God-centred view of the religious life of mankind’.21 This contrast is presented with a view to developing a ‘global religious vision’. This approach is open to question on two counts. First we must call in question the idea that a Christ-centred view is neither God-centred nor global in its vision. Christians are convinced that salvation has its origin in the God who so loved the world as to give his only Son.22 When we keep Christ at the centre of our theology, we honour God and his global concern for man’s salvation. Second, we must challenge the view of God contained in Hick’s ‘global religious vision’. According to Hick, ‘a revelation of the divine reality to mankind ... had to be a pluriform revelation, a series of revealing experiences occurring independently within the different streams of human history’.23 What kind of ‘God’ does this suggest? Does Hick not leave us with a ‘God’ who can be conceived in whatever way we choose? To pursue Hick’s global religious vision is, in effect, to abandon the search for truth. Is that a price worth paying? If, in view of his radically pluralist theology, Hick is still to be regarded as, in any sense, a Christian theologian, it can be only in the sense that he belongs to a Christian religio-culture tradition. He was born and brought up in a society shaped by Christianity. Any attempt on Hick’s part to continue to speak of salvation must face the criticism that, ‘in this total relativism, we have no ground for speaking of salvation at all’. Hick’s discovery of a ‘quality of psychological absoluteness’ (that is, truth for me) would appear to be nothing more than sheer pragmatism. He does not wish to be burdened with a theological absolute, which must be imposed on adherents of all religions. Nevertheless, conscious of the need for an absolute, he clings to this notion of ‘psychological absoluteness’. Cut loose from the historical foundations of the Christian faith, Hick’s theology offers no alternative but a leap, which bypasses history and moves from a rather contentless ‘divine transcendent’ to ‘man’s religious awareness’. He stresses the importance of ‘the construction of theologies (in the plural) based upon the full range of man’s religious awareness’.24 The adequacy of this preoccupation with experience has been questioned by Newbigin ― ‘Anyone who is familiar with the religious literature of the world knows that the religious experiences of the biblical writers are not unique. There is a large amount of devotional literature in the worlds of Hinduism and Islam which can be used without incongruity by a Christian. What is unique about the Bible is the story which it tells, with its climax in the story of the incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection of the Son of God. If that story is true, then it is unique and also universal in its implications for all human history'25.

However much we may value the religious experiences associated with the other religions, we, who take seriously the biblical story, must affirm that the way between the divine transcendent and man’s experience, the true and living way, is Jesus Christ. When the focus of attention is on man’s experience rather than Jesus Christ, theology becomes more of a

[p.25]

description of pluralist society than a proclamation of the gospel. With Hick’s account of Christian beliefs, we find that theological affirmation is swallowed up by sociological observation. Emphasizing that ‘Christian beliefs consist in the beliefs of Christians’, he stresses the variety of beliefs held by Christians. It is this which, according to Hick, must be ‘the starting-point for our inquiry into the relationship between Christianity and the other religions of the world’

26. If Christians hold such a variety of beliefs, it follows that ‘the Christians of one age cannot legislate for the Christians of another age’. In effect, as a modern pluralist, Hick is trying to retain the name ‘Christian’, while dissociating himself from historic Christian beliefs. Hick’s demythologized, pluralist theology is presented as an authentic expression of Christianity. In taking his own version of Christianity as the starting-point for dialogue with other religions, Hick contemptuously dismisses those who would honour the Scriptures and stand by the faith once for all delivered to the saints ‘Christianity will ― we may hope ― outgrow its theological fundamentalism, its literal interpretation of the idea of incarnation, as it has largely outgrown its biblical fundamentalism.’27 Or again, ‘The doctrines of Incarnation and Trinity may turn out to be part of the intellectual construction which has to be left behind when the disciple of Jesus discards the cultural packaging in which Christianity has wrapped the gospel.’28 However confident Hick is about his version of Christianity the question remains whether, in fact, his view is a denial rather than an interpretation of the gospel. Once we have seen what Hick proposes to leave behind, we may wonder where he would take us from here. Hick writes, ‘the future influence of Jesus may well lie more outside the church than within it, as a “man of universal destiny” whose teaching and example will become common property of the world, entering variously into all its major religions and also secular traditions.’29 Without speculating about Hick’s view of the whole range of ideas and practices which are collectively described as the New Age Movement, we may note a general similarity between Hick’s theology and New Age teaching. If this Movement has been shown to depart radically from biblical theology, a similar criticism may be levelled at Hick. Does he not present us with a deviation from rather than a variation of Christianity? In stressing the importance of dialogue between the various world religions, Hick contrasts dialogue and confrontation. ‘The dialogue between these who accept and value religious diversity is quite different from the older kind of confrontation in which each group was concerned to establish the unique superiority of its own tradition.’30 While true dialogue must always be more than a monologue in which both sides speak at each other rather than to each other, we must not overemphasize the contrast between dialogue and confrontation. The Communist writer, Milan Machovec has made this point well. ‘We do not want half-baked believers in dialogue: we want to confront real Christians.’31 Authentic encounter is the way to fruitful dialogue. This is the approach which has been emphasized by Stephen Neill. He seeks to enter into the heart and spirit of other religious without disloyalty to his own. He asserts, ‘It is those who have the deepest and most confident faith themselves who have the courage to launch out on this adventure of the human spirit.’ He insists that ‘dialogue does not involve indifference to truth or the abandonment of all objective criteria of judgement’.32 A deep and confident faith is not the same as ‘self-assertion’ which ‘is always a sign of lack of inner confidence’. 33 Neill maintains, ‘the Christian cannot compromise. Nevertheless, his approach to other forms of human faith must be marked by the deepest humility.’34 The contrast between Neill and Hick is striking. Neill writes, ‘There are certain basic convictions which must be maintained, if Christianity is to be recognisably Christian.’35 These convictions include ― ‘The Christian faith may learn much from other faiths: but it is universal in its claims: in the end Christ must be acknowledged as Lord of all.’36 In the light of this understanding of dialogue, representatives of other religions may not readily assume that Hick’s theology is an authentic expression of Christian faith.

Hick’s Universalism

We have paid considerable attention to the way in which Hick demythologizes the Christian faith and removes Christ from the centre of divine revelation. We now turn our attention to his view ‘any viable Christian theodicy must affirm the ultimate salvation of all God’s creatures’. In the context of Hick’s pluralist theology, demythologizing and universalism are closely related. Nevertheless, they are distinguishable. Pluralism, demythologizing and universalism may all be present in Hick’s theology, but it does not follow that they always belong together. There are some who feel a strong pull towards universalism without being attracted to a demythologyzed version of Christianity or a pluralist interpretation of the Christian faith. Despite Hicks boldness in asserting that theodicy must affirm the ultimate salvation of all God’s creatures, there are important questions to be asked. Can we simply assume that there is no life-and-death decision to be made? Can we relax the urgency with which the gospel calls for faith in Jesus Christ? Can we

[p.26]

assume that everything will turn out well for everyone in the end? Universalism may be highly appealing to modern man, but is it biblical? Can we really accept universalism without loosening our commitment to the authority of Scripture? These questions demand answers. They cannot be lightly dismissed. Hick’s view of mankind’s salvation stands in stark contrast to the answer given by Jesus Christ to the question, ‘Lord, will those who are saved be few?’ Jesus gave this reply: ‘Strive to enter by the narrow door: for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able’

37. Those who are drawn to Hick’s position must face the fact that the adoption of such a viewpoint will mean disregarding the teaching of Jesus Christ. Whatever Hick may claim for himself, we must ask whether any theology which so easily dismisses the teaching of Jesus Christ can ever be considered as a ‘viable Christian’ point of view. According to Hick, ‘every one will be saved’. In Paul’s letter to the Romans we find the words ‘every one ... will be saved’ with the addition of a very significant phrase ― ‘every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’38 There is a universality in the New Testament gospel, but it is very different from the kind of universalism boldly proclaimed by John Hick. There is, in God, a universality of love. His love is directed toward the whole world ― ‘God so loved the world’. This love is directed toward but does not guarantee the salvation of the whole world. In reacting against Hick’s universalism, we must not lose sight of this universality of the gospel. In John’s gospel, we read, ‘God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.’39 Both Paul and Peter stress the universality of the gospel’s saving intent. Paul emphasizes that ‘God desires all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth’.40 Peter affirms that the Lord does not wish ‘that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance’.41 This universality of the gospel does not, however, lead to Hick’s kind of universalism. While Hick tells us that ‘any viable Christian theodicy must affirm the ultimate salvation of all God’s creatures’, the New Testament is not at all uncomfortable with setting the universality of divine love and the fact of judgement side by side. Following the great declarations of divine love in John 3:16-17, we have these solemn words of judgment ― ‘he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the only Son of God’.42 Hick urges us to choose the love of God rather than the judgement of God. The New Testament does not, however, present love and judgement as mutually exclusive alternatives. We are told, on the one hand, that God loves the world. Alongside this is placed the fact of judgment. Through unbelief, man brings himself under judgment. In the New Testament gospel, there are two strands which must be held together. In God, there is the universality of a love, a love which is directed towards the world’s salvation. Out of the divine heart of love comes a call for the response of faith in Jesus Christ. Hick’s ‘must’ ― the love of God ‘must’ lead to ‘the ultimate salvation of all God’s creatures’ is not found In the New Testament. When Hick exhorts us to take the love of God more seriously, we must respond by asking the question ― Does this not mean that we must also take the call for faith in Jesus Christ more seriously? When Scripture speaks of salvation, it speaks of both the love of God which provides salvation and the faith in Christ which receives salvation. Scripture speaks of grace in connection with faith, and not in isolation from it. The gospel does not say, ‘By grace you have been saved apart from faith or without faith.’ The gospel emphasizes both grace and faith ― ‘By grace you have been saved through faith.’43

Conclusion

However unpopular it may be in the contemporary theological climate, the conservative evangelical, with his commitment to the norm of Scripture, must seriously raise the question,

Is this view biblical? When, for example, Hick boldly declares that ‘Christianity ... has abundant resources which are capable of being developed in the interests of a world ecumenism’, we must question both his concept of ‘Christianity’ and his object of ‘a world ecumenism’, as a biblical goal.44 When we examine Hick’s theology, it is clear that he shows much less respect for Scripture than for the pluralist environment of contemporary society. In criticizing 'half-way house’ views such as Rahner’s notion of ‘anonymous Christianity’, he writes, ‘These rather critical theories are all attempts to square an inadequate theology with the facts of God’s world.’45 We can, of course, turn this question round ― how convincing is Hick’s attempt to square his view with the teaching of God’s Word? Hick’s use of Scripture is extremely selective. He picks those parts which are convenient for his purpose, and discards those which he does not find useful. He speaks of the Johannine rewriting of Christ’s teaching.46 This cavalier approach to Scripture must be questioned. Is it not Hick himself who is re-writing Jesus’ teaching? Hick prefers the Synoptics to John. Even this creates problems for him. In the Synoptics, as well as in John’s Gospel, Hick finds passages which simply have to be dismissed if his view of Christianity is to be maintained. Any similarity which remains between Hick’s version of Christianity and the biblical presentation of the gospel is purely coincidental. Clearly, Hick does not take Scripture at all seriously. The theological norm for Hick is not Scripture but the modern pluralist outlook. Wherever

[p.27]

Hick does touch on biblical exegesis - and this does not happen very often - it is with the intention of arguing himself and others out of any serious attachment to a biblically-based faith.

When we consider Hick’s notion of ‘world ecumenism’, we must understand that his idea of ecumenism is very different from that associated with the World Council of Churches ― ‘The W.C.C. is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ Hick will have none of this. His ‘world ecumenism’ is not concerned with a ‘fellowship of churches’, united around incarnational and Trinitarian doctrine. Hick’s ecumenism would entirely dispense with the call for world evangelism. In responding to Hick’s idea of world ecumenism, we may say with Newbigin ― ‘It is indeed the duty of Christians in multi-faith societies to cooperate with people of other faiths in seeking a just ordering to society, but this is in no sense a substitute for the missionary preaching of the Church.’47 I began by saying that the conservative evangelical may benefit from Hick’s frankness. With the clear statement of his position, Hick challenges us to present more clearly and convincingly the biblical alternative to his pluralistic theology. Dissatisfied with Hick’s version of Christianity and his notion of world ecumenism, we must seek to be more effective in our presentation of the better way ― commitment to the authority of God’s Word and obedience to the call for world evangelism.

1 God has Many Names (Macmillan, London, 1980) p. 4.

God and the Universe of Faiths,

(Macmillan, London, 1973) pp. 122-3.

ibid ix.

4 ibid viii.

A helpful exposition of this theme may be found in A. Konig, Here Am 1: Believer’s Reflection on God,

(Marshall Morgan and Scott, London 1982) pp. 2-13.

cf Isa. 41:24.

Acts 17:16.

Don Richardson Eternity in their Hearts,

(Regal Books Ventura California 1981) pp. 23.

9 God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 104.

1 Cor. 15:17.

Rom. 1:4.

‘God Incarnate: Myth or Truth?’ Reformed Review, (Winter 1979), Vol 32 2 pp. 71, 74.

God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 166.

ibid, p. 167.

ibid, p. 173.

16 1 Cor. 15:17.

God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 172.

L. Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society,(SPCK, London, 1989,) p. 14.

God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 102.

ibid. viii.

ibid. viii-ix.

Jn. 3:16.

God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 136-7.

24 ibid. p. 103.

L. Newbigin, op. cit. 97.

God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 119.

27 God Has Many Names, p. 78.

ibid p. 67.

ibid p. 78.

J. Hick and H. Askari ed. The Experience of Religious Diversity (Gower, Aldershot 1985), p. 4.

quoted in G.C. Berkouwer, A Half Century of Theology, p. 188.

S. Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths (OP, 2nd edition, 1969), p. 5.

ibid. p. 19.

ibid. p. 18.

ibid. p. 231.

36 ibid. p. 232.

Lk. 13:23-24.

Rom. 10:13.

Jn. 3:17.

40 1 Tim. 2:3-4.

2 Pet. 3:9.

Jn. 3:18.

Eph. 2:8.

Hick, The Experience of Religious Diversity, p. 11.

God Has Many Names, p. 74.

46 i

bid., 69.

47 L. Newbigin, op. cit. p. 158.

. Reproduced by permission. Rev. Dr. Charles M. Cameron is a Church of Scotland minister in Darvel and a regular contributor to Evangel. Prepared for the Web in October 2006 by Robert I. Bradshaw. http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/

Labels: Theological Articles

An Introduction to Theological Anthropology

Charles Cameron, “An Introduction to ‘Theological Anthropology’,” Evangel, 23.2 (Summer 2005), 53-61.

[p.53]

Keywords

postchristian, postmodern, image of God, creation, sin, salvation, worship, faithfulness, sovereignty, judgment, Adam, grace, relationship, faith, response, redemption, knowledge, glory, transformation, revelation, emotion, understanding, will, choice, community, stewardship, service, hope, kingdom of God

What lies behind the idea of producing a theological anthropology? Why is it so important that there should be a distinctively theological anthropology? Anthropology concerns itself with understanding human experience. Theology is concerned with God. God and humanity -should not the two be left in quite separate compartments? Some would wish to leave ‘God’ in a remote ‘ivory tower’. They want to get on with the business of human life without having to be bothered with a ‘God’ who is, for them, a complete irrelevance. Others pride themselves on their theological orthodoxy while showing little interest in getting to grips with the many ― sided complexities of human experience. There is a real need for an anthropology, which adopts a distinctively theological point of view. Understanding human experience ― this is not something which theologians can safely leave to others. It is vitally important for everyone. It concerns a better understanding of ourselves. We may write as Theologians, who, affirming their faith in God, must speak as those who have their feet upon this earth. The Anthropological vantage-point is undoubtedly ‘from below’. This must, however, be accompanied by the bold affirmation that the Word of God has come to us ‘from above’. Refusing to ‘put the cart before the horse’, to get so bogged down in this-worldly concerns, Christian Theology must take care not to create God in its own image as a prelude to forgetting about him altogether. Any attempt to write a theological anthropology is a bold undertaking. Ours is a time when nothing can be taken for granted. Many, who write about the meaning of human experience, would be entirely dismissive of the very idea of God. If ever there was a time when Christians ought to ‘give a reason’ for the faith which they hold (1 Peter 3:15), this is it. Perhaps in previous generations, more could be taken for granted. This is certainly not the case now. The present generation has been described in different ways: postchristian, postmodern. Biblical descriptions of moral and spiritual chaos are particularly apt. With little understanding of and respect for the biblical teaching that ‘the Lord is King’, ‘everyone does what is right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25). In a time when many will listen only to what they ‘want to hear’, there is a widespread ‘turning away from the truth’ (2 Timothy 4:3-4). Writing a theological anthropology requires courage ― the courage to say things that few other commentators on human life are saying, the courage to make statements which are unlikely to be well received within the academic community. This essay on theological anthropology aims at being an academic piece of work, touching upon many different dimensions of human experience. It does, however, adopt a starting-point which would be deemed unpopular within the wider academic community. We affirm the reality of divine revelation. To the ancient question, ‘Is there any word from the Lord?’ (Jeremiah 37:17), we answer, ‘Yes. God has spoken’. This does not involve replacing anthropology with theology. This is an anthropology, written from a theological perspective. We write from the standpoint of the Christian faith. We do not speak of ‘an unknown God’ (Acts 17:23), a ‘God’ whose character is shrouded in vagueness, a ‘God’ of whom we can say very little. Human experience is understood in the light of the God of revelation, the God of redemption. We confess the Christian faith: God has made himself known in Jesus Christ, his Son, our Saviour. Enquiring about the meaning of human experience, we direct attention to God, our Creator and Saviour. Enquiring further about God, we deepen our understanding of human experience. The aim of the present discussion is to provide the theological foundations on which further discussion needs to be built. Fundamental to our whole approach is the conviction that humanity has been created in the image of God. For those who affirm the authority of Scripture ―as we do ― the search for a true understanding of human experience involves paying close attention to the teaching of the Bible.

[p.54]

This is the story, told by God himself in Scripture, his own Word. God himself has told his story so that humanity might understand its own story. Within his story, there is our story, the story of what he intended us to be in creation, the story of what we have become through sin, the story of what he still intends us to become through salvation. Human experience, with all its complexities and ambiguities, is viewed from the standpoint of the biblical story, which is both the story of sin and the story of glory, the glory of divine salvation. The biblical story is the story of creation, sin and salvation. This is the story which informs our theological understanding of human experience.

Creation

The story begins with creation. The Bible teaches us that God is our Creator, and we are his creation. Highlighting the relationship between Creator and creature, the Bible raises both the anthropological question

― ‘What is man?’ ― and the theological question ― ‘Who is God?’. The anthropological question is asked in relation to God, and the theological question is asked in relation to humanity. When, in Psalm 8:4, the Psalmist asks the question, ‘What is man that you are mindful of him... that you care for him’, he is not asking the anthropological question in the way that the contemporary researcher might ask it. He is not giving the kind of answers that we might be looking for. He is not providing a description of various characteristics of human life. He is bowing before God in worship, praising him for his continuing love. Finding the question, ‘what is man…?’, within a psalm of praise to the God of constant love, serves to remind us that our deepest significance lies not in ourselves but in God our Creator. Grappling with all the complications and ambiguities of human experience, we look beyond all that, and we see the God who cares, the God to whom we matter. Micah asks the theological question ― ‘Who is God?’. Like the psalmist with his ‘anthropological’ question, the prophet is worshipping God, thanking him for his love. He does not offer a comprehensive description of God. He does not attempt to say everything that could possibly be said about God. He does not enquire about a detached, remote ‘God’, whose existence is of little interest to us. He worships the God who cares for us. He asks the question, ‘Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives ... transgression… ?.’ This is not only a question. It is a testimony, a joyous celebration of the God who ‘delight(s) to show mercy’ and ‘have compassion on us’ (7:18-19). From both the psalmist’s ‘anthropological’ question and the prophet’s theological question, we learn that God cares for us. He cares enough to forgive our sins. This is the great declaration made by the prophet as he asks the question of God. When the two questions ― ‘What is man?’ and ‘Who is God?’ ― are asked in close connection with each other, we see that theology and anthropology are not, as some would suggest, worlds apart from each other. They are, in fact, very closely related to each other. The anthropological question ― understanding ourselves ― raises the question of God, ‘Can human experience be adequately understood without reference to God?’. Viewing humanity in relation to God involves seeing everything in a quite different light ― the light of his love. The continuing love of God expresses his faithfulness. He does not abandon his creation. While we may learn much about the relation between God, the Creator, and humanity, his creation, from the constancy of God’s love, we should also go back to the beginning, to the biblical statement that God created humanity in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27). Implicit within this statement is this dual perspective ―seeking to understand human experience raises the question of God, and thinking about God helps us to understand ourselves. The question, ‘What does it mean to say that humanity has been created in God’s image?’, is, at one and the same time, both theological and anthropological. It would be one-sided to say that it is primarily a theological question or to suggest that it is essentially an anthropological question. It is both ― theological and anthropological. This is the question of theological anthropology. This is the basic question with which we are concerned: What does it mean to say that humanity has been created in God’s image? In this phrase, ‘created in God’s image’, there are two fundamental distinctions being drawn ― between humanity and the animals (of humanity alone is this description given, ‘created in God’s image’), between God and humanity (we have been created in God’s image, but we are not God). Immediately after the statement concerning creation in God’s image there is the further thought of dominion: ‘Let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground’ (v.26). Commenting on the relationship between creation and dominion, R. Davidson writes, ‘Just as God is sovereign over all creation, including man, so man reflects this sovereignty. He has sovereignty delegated to him.’ As a consequence of this ‘delegated sovereignty’, humanity’ stands in a position of responsibility before God’.1 The unbreakable connection between ‘delegated sovereignty’ and ‘responsibility before God’ is succinctly expressed by D. Bonhoeffer: ‘There is no dominion without serving God.’

Sin and Salvation

Saying that humanity has been created in God’s image is not all that has to be said in a theological anthropology. We must also speak of sin and salvation. The creature rebels against

[p.55]

the Creator. The human will asserts itself over against the divine will. This leads to separation from the Creator. By his own sinful choice, the creature places himself at a distance from the Creator. Creation in the image of God is followed by the fall from God, brought about by sin (Genesis 3). The fall was followed by the flood (Genesis 6-8), the judgment of God upon humanity, whom he had created and by whom he had been ‘grieved’ and ‘filled with pain’ (Genesis 6:6-7). In view of the fall of humanity into sin and the consequent judgment of God, the question must be asked, ‘How does this affect our view of humanity as created in God’s image?’ After the fall and the flood, we have, in Genesis 9:6, the statement: ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.’ Here, ethical teaching is grounded in the idea that humanity has been created in the image of God. There is no suggestion here that

― consequent to the fall and the flood ― humanity is no longer ‘in the image of God’. Further study of Scripture provides no explicit statement to the effect that ‘the image of God’, has been removed from humanity. To highlight the phrase, ‘created in the image of God’, would be to present a lop-sided theological anthropology. God is our Creator, and we are his creation. Alongside this, we must say something else ― we are sinners, and God is our Saviour. The fact of human sin must be taken into account. This fact also entails our need of divine salvation. This theological anthropology, seeks to draw attention to both creation and salvation. Any attempt to drive a wedge between the two results in a loss of the fine biblical balance which it is so important to maintain. We are caught in the middle, between what we once were and what we will yet be ― ‘in the middle, coming from the beginning and going towards the end’.3 We are ‘Adam, mankind, the human race’,4 created in God’s image, but we are also Adam the sinner (Romans 5:12-21). This is not, however, the end of the human story. Realistic about the increase of sin, the Christian faith proclaims, with faith, the increase of grace, leading to the reign of grace, reigning ‘through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Romans 5: 20-21). As well as emphasizing the human privilege ― created in the image of God ― we also emphasize the human responsibility of coming in faith to Jesus Christ and, thus, becoming a ‘new creation’ in him (2 Corinthians 5:17). The human situation, in the beginning, was quite different from our present situation ― ‘Adam knows neither what is good nor what is evil’.5 Adam walked with God, without shame (Genesis 2:25). He did not know ‘evil’ as an inescapable fact of his everyday life. He did not know ‘good’ as a kind of ‘elusive butterfly’ which always seem