Two sisters in front of a one hundred
and seventy five year old church
in Tianshui, Gansu province, China
Statement of Faith
If I was to attempt to describe my overall doctrinal position in a sentence, it would be that I am a (small “o”) orthodox Evangelical. I am not a Fundamentalist, and after experiencing Liberalism at Bangor Theological Seminary, I came to understand that I am certainly not a Liberal.
When I was at Ashland Theological Seminary I saw myself as rather Liberal. That was because there is a large (extremely) conservative element in the Ashland student body. Two years at Bangor Theological Seminary brought me to understand that I am much more conservative than I believed. I have also redefined both “liberal” and “conservative.” I now see much (but not all) of what is popularly defined as “Conservative”, as being an echo of 19th century social and political values reflected in the church and given theological support. “Liberal” on the other hand appears to be an echo of 20th century social and political values reflected in the church. Sadly, the Liberal position often includes abandoning (or redefining so as to make them meaningless) the traditional doctrines of Western Christianity[1]. Having defined Liberal and Conservative in those terms I find that since I define my own faith in terms of the great creeds of the church (interpreted in the traditional ways that they have been read by the church since the days they were written) I must call myself “orthodox.”
The Trinity
Before looking at them separately, I must address these three sections (God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit) together. As I said in the introduction, I place much of my emphasis on tradition, so I can best address them in the words of that ancient baptismal formula that we now call “the Apostles Creed.”
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell; and on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy catholic church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting[2]. AMEN
If that was good enough for the Christian community in Rome in the Third or Forth century then I can not question it. The day will come when I will have to face not only the Lord but that “great cloud of witnesses” described by Paul in Heb.12. I doubt that I will be able to stand before men and women who were martyred in Nero’s persecution and argue that I know more about the Lord then did.
I do find that I have difficulty with the language of theology in this area. It is not the existence or autonomy of either the Father the Son or the Holy Spirit that causes the difficulty. It is the language used to describe them that I dislike. In Theology for the Community of God,[3] Stanley J. Grenz refers to two models, “replica models” and “analogue models.” That is at the root of my problem with the traditional language used to describe the Trinity. Neither model works for me. In attempting to describe my own beliefs I find that I need a third model, one that might be called a dramatic or story model. God works in history and I can only understand God within the framework of the story that is history.
Let me start by stating that there are three Personae in the Godhead. The difference is that while a person is a human being,[4] with a body and a mind, a persona can only be seen within the context of a story. In the case of the members of the Trinity the story is the drama of human history. I am neither denying nor questioning the individuality, reality, or autonomy of the personae by the use of that term. I am instead limiting the framework to one that is closer to the boundaries of human experience and understanding. I choose to do this because the use of any model to describe the Godhead is bound to be unsatisfactory, but a replica model must be the least satisfactory of all. It didn’t work for St. Patrick with his shamrock and it doesn’t work for us. It is acceptable only so far as we are willing to ignore it in favor of the experience of the Godhead in our own lives.
The failure of this model is best seen by looking at model airplanes in hobby shops and department stores. When we choose models that use the word person to describe God we are much like the person who attempts describe an airplane by building one of those plastic kits. The difference is that the theologian uses the word “person” rather than plastic parts. Years ago I had a friend who grew up in Germany during WWII. He told of Lying on his back in a field, watching wave after wave of American bombers darkening the sky as they flew on to bomb the industrial centers of the Third Reich. Hearing him describe those formations of bombers and the emotions that his story communicated gave me an understanding of that time in history, and that part of WWII that I could have gotten in no other way. The use of the term “three persons” to describe the Godhead is of even less value than the use of a tiny plastic model of a B-17 to describe those formations of aircraft, and the men who flew in them, more than fifty years ago. The aircraft were a part of a story and the story cannot be understood except in its entirety. To attempt to do differently is to attempt to understand Hamlet by reading a synopsis of the second act.
God the Father
Attempting to describe the nature of God the Father is both simple and difficult to the point of impossibility. In God the Father we are addressing the Creator of the universe. Language is simply inadequate for the task of describing the creator of not just the universe but time and space itself. It is possible to list the attributes of God, but even then we are limited to our own human frame of reference. When we attempt to describe the infinite God we are walking very close to the hubris side of the line between theology and arrogance to the point of hubris. God is best described in the words of Ex: 14 “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.”’ God is self existing, is pure spirit, existing outside of time and place. When physical scientists describe “The Big Bang” they are not talking about God but His action. When we use terms like “eternity, omniscience, omnipresence,” and “omnipotence” we are pretending that because we can apply labels to things we understand them. It just isn’t so. I Cor. 13:12 describes the nature of our understanding of God beautifully: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Paul was a man who had been carried up to see Heaven, but he could only describe the nature of divine things in terms of a primitive, clouded, First Century looking glass.
Jesus Christ
My beliefs concerning Jesus Christ are summed up in the Nicene Creed.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things are made, who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the scriptures and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
While the Incarnation and the person of Jesus are two distinct theological topics I find it difficult to address either without making connections. In entering history God divested Himself of His divine attributes. (Phil.2: 6-8)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
In doing so He faced the world as the man, Jesus of Nazareth. This man defined himself in terms of The Suffering Servant of Isaiah:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our inequities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Isa. 53:5
This definition was validated by the Resurrection and the witness of the Apostolic Church:
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Acts 10:42,43
The Holy Spirit
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets[5].
The Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct member of the Trinity but any attempt to describe that relationship (other than in terms of function) is doomed to failure. Those efforts are in effect attempts to capture God within the limits of human language. God cannot be defined in terms that are themselves limited by the finite realities of time and space. God exists outside of those boundaries. II Tim. 1:9 speaks of “…..This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” To suggest that we can describe a being that exists outside of both time and physical space gives hubris a new and more sweeping meaning.
Scriptural descriptions of the Holy Spirit focus for the most part on activity or function. It is from this that we interpolate personhood, divinity, and relationship to the other members of the Trinity. There are verses which strongly support these characteristics or qualities of the Holy Spirit, but it is the total scriptural witness that must be considered in describing His[6] nature.
While there is no specific passage that describes the Holy Spirit as a separate co-equal part of the Godhead, the overall scriptural witness leads clearly to that conclusion. The descriptions of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament are framed in the language of a people surrounded by polytheism. Under those conditions it was not possible to describe the Spirit of God in the same terms as those used after the Incarnation revealed so much more of the nature of God. To have done so would (in the minds of the Pre-Incarnation community) have seemed to describe a second and lesser God. The Old Testament vision was one of a transient “Spirit of The Lord” that came upon individuals. When Isaiah wrote that “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me,” it was heard as a reference to the power and presence of God, and certainly not as a separate being. In the New Testament we see the distinct nature of the Spirit described. In Matt. 10:20 the Spirit of God is described as entering into, and speaking through the believer in times of persecution. This is still not a clear statement of the individuality of the Holy Spirit, but taken with other passages such as John 15:26 “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me.” Mark 3:29, references to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matt.29: 19, we have the picture of the Godhead that was finally enunciated in the Nicene Creed.
While I accept this I am not entirely happy with it. While on the one hand I understand that it was to a great extent reactive: on the other hand I am unhappy to be locked into a theological structure based on a response to heresies that are now almost two thousand years old, and described in the language of an even more distant intellectual system. Having stated my dissatisfaction I will now, in a limited space, attempt to sum up my own definition of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is that part of the Triune God who dwells within the believer. It is this indwelling nature of the Holy Spirit that makes definition so difficult. The Holy Spirit is more easily experienced than defined. The more responsive we are to the voice of the Spirit, the more clearly we understand His nature. This is the problem that we face when we attempt definitions based on scriptural proofs. In Jn. 3:8, Jesus explains this: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” The writers of the New Testament understood the nature of the Holy Spirit in such a deeply personal way that they saw the futility of attempting to articulate His nature. The only adequate definition must be shown in terms of a life lived in response to His voice. It is the Holy Spirit that speaks to convict us of sin, calls us to a life of discipleship, and empowers us so that we may successfully live that life.
The nearest I can come to a clear definition of the Holy Spirit is in the story of the early Mennonite, Dirk Willems. It was the Holy Spirit who spoke to Willems when an Anabaptist hunter pursuing him fell through the ice of a frozen river. He reminded Willems that in spite of his fear he was commanded to love his enemies. Then it was the Holy Spirit who gave Willems the courage to turn and rescue the man, although it certainly meant that he would be arrested. Dirk Willems rescued the Anabaptist hunter and on May 19th 1569 was burnt at the stake. Today it is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us when we hear that story and asks: “Do you love your enemies as much as Dirk Willems did?”
The Bible and its Use
After many years away from the Salvation Army I still find their doctrinal statement concerning scripture as central to my belief. “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of, God and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice[7].” Now having said that I must add that I tend to interpret Scripture in a Wesleyan manner. Tradition is important. The church has been described as “the only organization in which the dead vote.” I take their votes very seriously and as a result, tradition is my primary tool in understanding Scripture.
If we hold the church to be “The Body of Christ,” then we must give the decisions and positions held by the church serious consideration in all of our decisions. The church is empowered by the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2:38) “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. And in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This power is also the Spirit of Truth (Jn.15: 26) “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” If we accept that description of the church, then we must see the traditional interpretations of scripture as primary. There are areas where Christians may in good conscience disagree, but the core beliefs held by the church since Apostolic times must remain at the heart of our faith. Granted there have been errors in the past (and in the present as well) but when we break with the mainstream positions of two thousand years of Christian tradition we do so at great spiritual risk.
The Human Condition
This one is simple. I was born in 1939 and my earliest memories are of the WWII period. That was a time when Germany, the nation where Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the door of history, murdered more than ten million men women and children. Then, in response, “the good guys” leveled whole cities in firestorms that incinerated civilian populations. Having been born into that world I don’t need to search Genesis to understand the fallen nature of humanity. At the end of that war the victors decided that we would create a better, safer world, but ended up doing what the Apostle Paul described in Rom.7:19 “For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing.” We can watch that evil on CNN and CSPAN 24 hours a day, and in observing it, even the non-Christian must understand that there is something wrong with the human condition and to make that judgment is to make the implicit statement that an absolute standard of goodness exists. For the Christian this means that we must seek a greater understanding of that goodness, and we will only do that through study and response in life to the scriptures. While we do not need scripture to see the fallen nature of humanity, it does define that fallen nature and gives us a roadmap directing us to the path leading out of it and into the Kingdom of God.
Salvation
The crucifixion that took place two thousand years ago on that Palestinian hill when Jesus of Nazareth was executed by Roman soldiers was a complete sacrifice, providing the means whereby humanity may return to the relationship with God that existed before the fall. It is through that sacrifice that we have access to the grace that redeems us from sin. Paul described this in Romans 5:8,9:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
It is also the turning point in history, ending one age of humanity, and beginning another.
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. (Gal.6: 14,15)
While I would never argue with those Christian brothers and sisters who argue that this is the only way we could have been redeemed I see the issue as irrelevant. It is the way God chose to do it. If there was another way that we might have been redeemed it doesn’t matter. Two thousand years ago God entered history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and died on the cross. That’s the way it is, and when that happened the old age ended and a new age began.
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"
That was the beginning of the final act in human history. When it ends the author will step onto the stage, the house lights will be turned up, and we will find that the theatre in which we are sitting has not only been restored but it has been replaced by one which we could never have imagined.
Eschatology
I believe that after His resurrection Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven where He sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. I also believe that he will return to this earth at which time He will come to judge the quick and the dead. This is the heart of my eschatology. I hesitate to go much further than that because the subject is so divisive within the Body of Christ. Throughout the history of the church there have been predictions concerning the Second Coming and they have all proved to be wrong. I base my eschatology on the 24th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel.
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Matt.24:37-29
The two most important elements in my eschatological theology are these facts:
The Charismatic Movement
I have no problem with the Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal movement so long as specific signs of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are not seen as essential marks of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, neither tongues nor any other specific gift of the Spirit is a requirement for salvation. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph.2:8) So long as it is accepted that the gifts of the Spirit are to assist in the life and work of the church they are wonderful. When they begin to become divisive we should look to Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth, written when he was forced to address this very issue.
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
1Cor14:2-9
The fact that believers may receive the gifts of the spirit today, as in Apostolic times is clearly real and must be accepted as such by the church. It is also real that there is a great danger in focusing on only one of the gifts. This is dangerous because it can be, (and has been) divisive to the Body of Christ. This was the case in the Apostolic church and it is true today. We must be aware of that fact, rely on a firm grounding in scripture, and in the words of the Apostle Peter:
make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:5-8
Predestination
On the issue of predestination I have great sympathy for those Christian brothers and sisters who hold such a high view of “the Sovereignty of God” as to be led to see predestination as an article of faith but I cannot share their interpretation of scripture. John 3:16 makes it impossible for me to agree with them. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” means that there are no limits on either the Atonement or Salvation. There is also the fact that not only is the Atonement a means of deliverance from sin; it is also a window into the nature of God. When I look at God through that window I see such an outpouring of love that it is impossible for me to accept the concept of a limited Atonement. This is because implicit in a theological doctrine of Predestination to Salvation is another doctrine, Predestination to Damnation. I cannot accept that. God’s nature is most clearly seen when we stand a the foot of the cross and from that vantage point it is impossible for me to believe that a God willing to go that far because of love, could at the same time condemn the vast majority of all humanity to Hell with no hope of salvation.
When I was at Ashland Theological Seminary I heard a Brethren in Christ minister state the ultimate objection to the position. Glen Robitaille sat quietly as a true “double predestination” Calvinist made the argument not only for Predestination, but for “predestination to damnation” as well. Glen sat with his head down, as if in deep thought or prayer as the young woman made her case. When she was finished he stood up. “I could not accept a God who would create the vast majority of humankind for no reason other than to condemn them to everlasting torment. If I believed that to be true, I would have to choose to go the Hell to serve them.”
Eternal Security
I believe that so long as we remain within the will of God we are secure in our salvation.
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 10: 27-30
Once we become children of God and follow Him, we are eternally secure.
Now, having said that, I must make it clear that we have it in our power to remove ourselves from that condition. We do that by refusing to meet God’s conditions or returning to a life of conscious, intentional sin. We have free will, and having free will can reject God’s grace at any time, just as we can accept it. That is stated clearly in 1Cor.10:12 “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!”
2Peter 3:17 “Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.” Or Heb.4: 11 “Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”
The Purpose, Place, and Mission of the Church in today’s Society
This is a wonderful time for the church. We are no longer burdened with the illusion that the secular society surrounding us is “Christian.” It has finally hauled down its false colors and run up the Jolly Roger for all to see.
The role of the church today is the same as it was two thousand years ago when that rushing wind overcame the frightened group hiding in the upper room in Jerusalem. It is to proclaim the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to live as citizens of the Kingdom that He proclaimed. At this point I must pause and explain what I mean when I say “proclaim the good news.” The good news is not simply the forgiveness of sins. While it includes the forgiveness of sins it is much greater than that. It is that the Kingdom of God is upon us. I wish that the early biblical translators had chosen a word other than “repent” when they translated the phrase now rendered: “repent, the Kingdom of God is upon you.” It might have been better if they had translated it as “Abandon your dominant paradigm, the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Our understanding that our sins are forgiven and we are placed in a relationship with God is only the beginning. When Jesus called His disciples it was not simply to the forgiveness of sins. It was much larger; it was to follow Him in a relationship where death itself has been overcome. We have been given a way to understand and define reality that is different than that of the world around us. We must live our lives in terms of that new understanding.
The Role of the Laity
The laity are the church and the church is the Body of Christ. It is the role of the laity to serve and minister to the world that surrounds us. The central fact of all Christian ministries is that the Kingdom of God is near and we are to make the world aware of it.
The Role of the Minister
While at Ashland Seminary I was strongly influenced by the Anabaptist vision of church. I came to see the church as both separate from and deeply involved with the culture that surrounds it through both service and the proclamation of the Gospel message. I see it as the role of the clergy to lead and train the local congregation to live out that calling in its daily life both as a body and as individual believers. The church is a servant community, therefore to lead the church one must serve. There are four elements that I see as essential to good ministerial leadership:
· A willingness to be open to the voice of the Holy Spirit.
· A broad based training with a theological base.
· An understanding of the complexities of communities of faith.
· An ability to be still and listen to both God and the congregation.
Central to my vision of church is that it is a community. The church is above all a community of believers, an organic part of the universal church and it is that fact that allows it to function as the Body of Christ. "so in Christ we who are many form one body and each member belongs to all the others."(Rom. 12:5 NIV) The role of the pastor is to serve and promote the health and growth of that community. The Mennonite writer Walfred Faher described it in his book, Building on the Rock: "While pastors my baptize, preach, and officiate at communion, they do this in order to accomplish their primary task which is to shape and develop this alternate faith community.”[8] If that is done, then the church will with the help of the Holy Spirit, succeed in proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. If it does that, then no matter what else happens it is successful.
Relationship to other Pastors and Churches
While serving as pastor of two UCC churches in Aroostook County I was instrumental in reviving the clergy association that had been inactive for many years. We also joined together in regular united services as a result of that revived Clergy association. I see this as particularly important as a witness to the community that surrounds us.
[1] See the Apostles Creed p.
[2]Pilgrim Hymnal, The Pilgrim Press, Boston, 1964, p.511
[3] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Nashville, Broadman & Holman, 1994, p.14
[4]Britanica World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, Vol. I, 1968, N.Y. Funk and Wagnall’s Co. p.924. The first definition in this edition defines person as: “A human being as including body and mind, an individual.” It is the third definition that defines the word theologically: “one of the three individuals in the Triune God.” This theological definition should come from Alice in Wonderland where words mean whatever the queen wants them to mean. There is an element of circular reasoning there that serves to block us from really looking at the nature of the Trinity.
[5] The Nicene Creed, quoted by Paul T. Fuhrmann, An Introduction to the Great Creeds of The Church, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1960,p.46
[6] In using the masculine pronoun I am in no way suggesting that gender applies to the Holy Spirit. I do this because it has been a part of the common language of the church for two thousand years and while we must find ways to address the cultural biases in the church, we must do so in ways that do not do violence to the literary beauty of our tradition.
[7] The Doctrines of the Salvation Army, Doctrine One, The Salvation Army Youth Songbook, The Salvation Army, Verona, N.J. 1988
[8]Fahrer, Walfred J., Building on the Rock, Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. 1948
If I was to attempt to describe my overall doctrinal position in a sentence, it would be that I am a (small “o”) orthodox Evangelical. I am not a Fundamentalist, and after experiencing Liberalism at Bangor Theological Seminary, I came to understand that I am certainly not a Liberal.
When I was at Ashland Theological Seminary I saw myself as rather Liberal. That was because there is a large (extremely) conservative element in the Ashland student body. Two years at Bangor Theological Seminary brought me to understand that I am much more conservative than I believed. I have also redefined both “liberal” and “conservative.” I now see much (but not all) of what is popularly defined as “Conservative”, as being an echo of 19th century social and political values reflected in the church and given theological support. “Liberal” on the other hand appears to be an echo of 20th century social and political values reflected in the church. Sadly, the Liberal position often includes abandoning (or redefining so as to make them meaningless) the traditional doctrines of Western Christianity[1]. Having defined Liberal and Conservative in those terms I find that since I define my own faith in terms of the great creeds of the church (interpreted in the traditional ways that they have been read by the church since the days they were written) I must call myself “orthodox.”
The Trinity
Before looking at them separately, I must address these three sections (God, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit) together. As I said in the introduction, I place much of my emphasis on tradition, so I can best address them in the words of that ancient baptismal formula that we now call “the Apostles Creed.”
I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell; and on the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy catholic church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting[2]. AMEN
If that was good enough for the Christian community in Rome in the Third or Forth century then I can not question it. The day will come when I will have to face not only the Lord but that “great cloud of witnesses” described by Paul in Heb.12. I doubt that I will be able to stand before men and women who were martyred in Nero’s persecution and argue that I know more about the Lord then did.
I do find that I have difficulty with the language of theology in this area. It is not the existence or autonomy of either the Father the Son or the Holy Spirit that causes the difficulty. It is the language used to describe them that I dislike. In Theology for the Community of God,[3] Stanley J. Grenz refers to two models, “replica models” and “analogue models.” That is at the root of my problem with the traditional language used to describe the Trinity. Neither model works for me. In attempting to describe my own beliefs I find that I need a third model, one that might be called a dramatic or story model. God works in history and I can only understand God within the framework of the story that is history.
Let me start by stating that there are three Personae in the Godhead. The difference is that while a person is a human being,[4] with a body and a mind, a persona can only be seen within the context of a story. In the case of the members of the Trinity the story is the drama of human history. I am neither denying nor questioning the individuality, reality, or autonomy of the personae by the use of that term. I am instead limiting the framework to one that is closer to the boundaries of human experience and understanding. I choose to do this because the use of any model to describe the Godhead is bound to be unsatisfactory, but a replica model must be the least satisfactory of all. It didn’t work for St. Patrick with his shamrock and it doesn’t work for us. It is acceptable only so far as we are willing to ignore it in favor of the experience of the Godhead in our own lives.
The failure of this model is best seen by looking at model airplanes in hobby shops and department stores. When we choose models that use the word person to describe God we are much like the person who attempts describe an airplane by building one of those plastic kits. The difference is that the theologian uses the word “person” rather than plastic parts. Years ago I had a friend who grew up in Germany during WWII. He told of Lying on his back in a field, watching wave after wave of American bombers darkening the sky as they flew on to bomb the industrial centers of the Third Reich. Hearing him describe those formations of bombers and the emotions that his story communicated gave me an understanding of that time in history, and that part of WWII that I could have gotten in no other way. The use of the term “three persons” to describe the Godhead is of even less value than the use of a tiny plastic model of a B-17 to describe those formations of aircraft, and the men who flew in them, more than fifty years ago. The aircraft were a part of a story and the story cannot be understood except in its entirety. To attempt to do differently is to attempt to understand Hamlet by reading a synopsis of the second act.
God the Father
Attempting to describe the nature of God the Father is both simple and difficult to the point of impossibility. In God the Father we are addressing the Creator of the universe. Language is simply inadequate for the task of describing the creator of not just the universe but time and space itself. It is possible to list the attributes of God, but even then we are limited to our own human frame of reference. When we attempt to describe the infinite God we are walking very close to the hubris side of the line between theology and arrogance to the point of hubris. God is best described in the words of Ex: 14 “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.”’ God is self existing, is pure spirit, existing outside of time and place. When physical scientists describe “The Big Bang” they are not talking about God but His action. When we use terms like “eternity, omniscience, omnipresence,” and “omnipotence” we are pretending that because we can apply labels to things we understand them. It just isn’t so. I Cor. 13:12 describes the nature of our understanding of God beautifully: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” Paul was a man who had been carried up to see Heaven, but he could only describe the nature of divine things in terms of a primitive, clouded, First Century looking glass.
Jesus Christ
My beliefs concerning Jesus Christ are summed up in the Nicene Creed.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things are made, who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven, and was made incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the scriptures and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
While the Incarnation and the person of Jesus are two distinct theological topics I find it difficult to address either without making connections. In entering history God divested Himself of His divine attributes. (Phil.2: 6-8)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!
In doing so He faced the world as the man, Jesus of Nazareth. This man defined himself in terms of The Suffering Servant of Isaiah:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our inequities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Isa. 53:5
This definition was validated by the Resurrection and the witness of the Apostolic Church:
He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Acts 10:42,43
The Holy Spirit
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets[5].
The Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct member of the Trinity but any attempt to describe that relationship (other than in terms of function) is doomed to failure. Those efforts are in effect attempts to capture God within the limits of human language. God cannot be defined in terms that are themselves limited by the finite realities of time and space. God exists outside of those boundaries. II Tim. 1:9 speaks of “…..This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.” To suggest that we can describe a being that exists outside of both time and physical space gives hubris a new and more sweeping meaning.
Scriptural descriptions of the Holy Spirit focus for the most part on activity or function. It is from this that we interpolate personhood, divinity, and relationship to the other members of the Trinity. There are verses which strongly support these characteristics or qualities of the Holy Spirit, but it is the total scriptural witness that must be considered in describing His[6] nature.
While there is no specific passage that describes the Holy Spirit as a separate co-equal part of the Godhead, the overall scriptural witness leads clearly to that conclusion. The descriptions of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament are framed in the language of a people surrounded by polytheism. Under those conditions it was not possible to describe the Spirit of God in the same terms as those used after the Incarnation revealed so much more of the nature of God. To have done so would (in the minds of the Pre-Incarnation community) have seemed to describe a second and lesser God. The Old Testament vision was one of a transient “Spirit of The Lord” that came upon individuals. When Isaiah wrote that “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me,” it was heard as a reference to the power and presence of God, and certainly not as a separate being. In the New Testament we see the distinct nature of the Spirit described. In Matt. 10:20 the Spirit of God is described as entering into, and speaking through the believer in times of persecution. This is still not a clear statement of the individuality of the Holy Spirit, but taken with other passages such as John 15:26 “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about me.” Mark 3:29, references to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and the Trinitarian baptismal formula of Matt.29: 19, we have the picture of the Godhead that was finally enunciated in the Nicene Creed.
While I accept this I am not entirely happy with it. While on the one hand I understand that it was to a great extent reactive: on the other hand I am unhappy to be locked into a theological structure based on a response to heresies that are now almost two thousand years old, and described in the language of an even more distant intellectual system. Having stated my dissatisfaction I will now, in a limited space, attempt to sum up my own definition of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is that part of the Triune God who dwells within the believer. It is this indwelling nature of the Holy Spirit that makes definition so difficult. The Holy Spirit is more easily experienced than defined. The more responsive we are to the voice of the Spirit, the more clearly we understand His nature. This is the problem that we face when we attempt definitions based on scriptural proofs. In Jn. 3:8, Jesus explains this: “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” The writers of the New Testament understood the nature of the Holy Spirit in such a deeply personal way that they saw the futility of attempting to articulate His nature. The only adequate definition must be shown in terms of a life lived in response to His voice. It is the Holy Spirit that speaks to convict us of sin, calls us to a life of discipleship, and empowers us so that we may successfully live that life.
The nearest I can come to a clear definition of the Holy Spirit is in the story of the early Mennonite, Dirk Willems. It was the Holy Spirit who spoke to Willems when an Anabaptist hunter pursuing him fell through the ice of a frozen river. He reminded Willems that in spite of his fear he was commanded to love his enemies. Then it was the Holy Spirit who gave Willems the courage to turn and rescue the man, although it certainly meant that he would be arrested. Dirk Willems rescued the Anabaptist hunter and on May 19th 1569 was burnt at the stake. Today it is the Holy Spirit who speaks to us when we hear that story and asks: “Do you love your enemies as much as Dirk Willems did?”
The Bible and its Use
After many years away from the Salvation Army I still find their doctrinal statement concerning scripture as central to my belief. “We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of, God and that they only constitute the Divine rule of Christian faith and practice[7].” Now having said that I must add that I tend to interpret Scripture in a Wesleyan manner. Tradition is important. The church has been described as “the only organization in which the dead vote.” I take their votes very seriously and as a result, tradition is my primary tool in understanding Scripture.
If we hold the church to be “The Body of Christ,” then we must give the decisions and positions held by the church serious consideration in all of our decisions. The church is empowered by the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2:38) “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem. And in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” This power is also the Spirit of Truth (Jn.15: 26) “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.” If we accept that description of the church, then we must see the traditional interpretations of scripture as primary. There are areas where Christians may in good conscience disagree, but the core beliefs held by the church since Apostolic times must remain at the heart of our faith. Granted there have been errors in the past (and in the present as well) but when we break with the mainstream positions of two thousand years of Christian tradition we do so at great spiritual risk.
The Human Condition
This one is simple. I was born in 1939 and my earliest memories are of the WWII period. That was a time when Germany, the nation where Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis to the door of history, murdered more than ten million men women and children. Then, in response, “the good guys” leveled whole cities in firestorms that incinerated civilian populations. Having been born into that world I don’t need to search Genesis to understand the fallen nature of humanity. At the end of that war the victors decided that we would create a better, safer world, but ended up doing what the Apostle Paul described in Rom.7:19 “For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do - this I keep on doing.” We can watch that evil on CNN and CSPAN 24 hours a day, and in observing it, even the non-Christian must understand that there is something wrong with the human condition and to make that judgment is to make the implicit statement that an absolute standard of goodness exists. For the Christian this means that we must seek a greater understanding of that goodness, and we will only do that through study and response in life to the scriptures. While we do not need scripture to see the fallen nature of humanity, it does define that fallen nature and gives us a roadmap directing us to the path leading out of it and into the Kingdom of God.
Salvation
The crucifixion that took place two thousand years ago on that Palestinian hill when Jesus of Nazareth was executed by Roman soldiers was a complete sacrifice, providing the means whereby humanity may return to the relationship with God that existed before the fall. It is through that sacrifice that we have access to the grace that redeems us from sin. Paul described this in Romans 5:8,9:
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
It is also the turning point in history, ending one age of humanity, and beginning another.
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. (Gal.6: 14,15)
While I would never argue with those Christian brothers and sisters who argue that this is the only way we could have been redeemed I see the issue as irrelevant. It is the way God chose to do it. If there was another way that we might have been redeemed it doesn’t matter. Two thousand years ago God entered history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and died on the cross. That’s the way it is, and when that happened the old age ended and a new age began.
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"
That was the beginning of the final act in human history. When it ends the author will step onto the stage, the house lights will be turned up, and we will find that the theatre in which we are sitting has not only been restored but it has been replaced by one which we could never have imagined.
Eschatology
I believe that after His resurrection Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven where He sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. I also believe that he will return to this earth at which time He will come to judge the quick and the dead. This is the heart of my eschatology. I hesitate to go much further than that because the subject is so divisive within the Body of Christ. Throughout the history of the church there have been predictions concerning the Second Coming and they have all proved to be wrong. I base my eschatology on the 24th Chapter of Matthew’s Gospel.
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
Matt.24:37-29
The two most important elements in my eschatological theology are these facts:
- He will return
- We can never know the day or hour.
The Charismatic Movement
I have no problem with the Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal movement so long as specific signs of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are not seen as essential marks of salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, neither tongues nor any other specific gift of the Spirit is a requirement for salvation. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph.2:8) So long as it is accepted that the gifts of the Spirit are to assist in the life and work of the church they are wonderful. When they begin to become divisive we should look to Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth, written when he was forced to address this very issue.
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
1Cor14:2-9
The fact that believers may receive the gifts of the spirit today, as in Apostolic times is clearly real and must be accepted as such by the church. It is also real that there is a great danger in focusing on only one of the gifts. This is dangerous because it can be, (and has been) divisive to the Body of Christ. This was the case in the Apostolic church and it is true today. We must be aware of that fact, rely on a firm grounding in scripture, and in the words of the Apostle Peter:
make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:5-8
Predestination
On the issue of predestination I have great sympathy for those Christian brothers and sisters who hold such a high view of “the Sovereignty of God” as to be led to see predestination as an article of faith but I cannot share their interpretation of scripture. John 3:16 makes it impossible for me to agree with them. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” means that there are no limits on either the Atonement or Salvation. There is also the fact that not only is the Atonement a means of deliverance from sin; it is also a window into the nature of God. When I look at God through that window I see such an outpouring of love that it is impossible for me to accept the concept of a limited Atonement. This is because implicit in a theological doctrine of Predestination to Salvation is another doctrine, Predestination to Damnation. I cannot accept that. God’s nature is most clearly seen when we stand a the foot of the cross and from that vantage point it is impossible for me to believe that a God willing to go that far because of love, could at the same time condemn the vast majority of all humanity to Hell with no hope of salvation.
When I was at Ashland Theological Seminary I heard a Brethren in Christ minister state the ultimate objection to the position. Glen Robitaille sat quietly as a true “double predestination” Calvinist made the argument not only for Predestination, but for “predestination to damnation” as well. Glen sat with his head down, as if in deep thought or prayer as the young woman made her case. When she was finished he stood up. “I could not accept a God who would create the vast majority of humankind for no reason other than to condemn them to everlasting torment. If I believed that to be true, I would have to choose to go the Hell to serve them.”
Eternal Security
I believe that so long as we remain within the will of God we are secure in our salvation.
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one."
John 10: 27-30
Once we become children of God and follow Him, we are eternally secure.
Now, having said that, I must make it clear that we have it in our power to remove ourselves from that condition. We do that by refusing to meet God’s conditions or returning to a life of conscious, intentional sin. We have free will, and having free will can reject God’s grace at any time, just as we can accept it. That is stated clearly in 1Cor.10:12 “So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!”
2Peter 3:17 “Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.” Or Heb.4: 11 “Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.”
The Purpose, Place, and Mission of the Church in today’s Society
This is a wonderful time for the church. We are no longer burdened with the illusion that the secular society surrounding us is “Christian.” It has finally hauled down its false colors and run up the Jolly Roger for all to see.
The role of the church today is the same as it was two thousand years ago when that rushing wind overcame the frightened group hiding in the upper room in Jerusalem. It is to proclaim the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to live as citizens of the Kingdom that He proclaimed. At this point I must pause and explain what I mean when I say “proclaim the good news.” The good news is not simply the forgiveness of sins. While it includes the forgiveness of sins it is much greater than that. It is that the Kingdom of God is upon us. I wish that the early biblical translators had chosen a word other than “repent” when they translated the phrase now rendered: “repent, the Kingdom of God is upon you.” It might have been better if they had translated it as “Abandon your dominant paradigm, the Kingdom of God is at hand.” Our understanding that our sins are forgiven and we are placed in a relationship with God is only the beginning. When Jesus called His disciples it was not simply to the forgiveness of sins. It was much larger; it was to follow Him in a relationship where death itself has been overcome. We have been given a way to understand and define reality that is different than that of the world around us. We must live our lives in terms of that new understanding.
The Role of the Laity
The laity are the church and the church is the Body of Christ. It is the role of the laity to serve and minister to the world that surrounds us. The central fact of all Christian ministries is that the Kingdom of God is near and we are to make the world aware of it.
The Role of the Minister
While at Ashland Seminary I was strongly influenced by the Anabaptist vision of church. I came to see the church as both separate from and deeply involved with the culture that surrounds it through both service and the proclamation of the Gospel message. I see it as the role of the clergy to lead and train the local congregation to live out that calling in its daily life both as a body and as individual believers. The church is a servant community, therefore to lead the church one must serve. There are four elements that I see as essential to good ministerial leadership:
· A willingness to be open to the voice of the Holy Spirit.
· A broad based training with a theological base.
· An understanding of the complexities of communities of faith.
· An ability to be still and listen to both God and the congregation.
Central to my vision of church is that it is a community. The church is above all a community of believers, an organic part of the universal church and it is that fact that allows it to function as the Body of Christ. "so in Christ we who are many form one body and each member belongs to all the others."(Rom. 12:5 NIV) The role of the pastor is to serve and promote the health and growth of that community. The Mennonite writer Walfred Faher described it in his book, Building on the Rock: "While pastors my baptize, preach, and officiate at communion, they do this in order to accomplish their primary task which is to shape and develop this alternate faith community.”[8] If that is done, then the church will with the help of the Holy Spirit, succeed in proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom of God. If it does that, then no matter what else happens it is successful.
Relationship to other Pastors and Churches
While serving as pastor of two UCC churches in Aroostook County I was instrumental in reviving the clergy association that had been inactive for many years. We also joined together in regular united services as a result of that revived Clergy association. I see this as particularly important as a witness to the community that surrounds us.
[1] See the Apostles Creed p.
[2]Pilgrim Hymnal, The Pilgrim Press, Boston, 1964, p.511
[3] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, Nashville, Broadman & Holman, 1994, p.14
[4]Britanica World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, Vol. I, 1968, N.Y. Funk and Wagnall’s Co. p.924. The first definition in this edition defines person as: “A human being as including body and mind, an individual.” It is the third definition that defines the word theologically: “one of the three individuals in the Triune God.” This theological definition should come from Alice in Wonderland where words mean whatever the queen wants them to mean. There is an element of circular reasoning there that serves to block us from really looking at the nature of the Trinity.
[5] The Nicene Creed, quoted by Paul T. Fuhrmann, An Introduction to the Great Creeds of The Church, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1960,p.46
[6] In using the masculine pronoun I am in no way suggesting that gender applies to the Holy Spirit. I do this because it has been a part of the common language of the church for two thousand years and while we must find ways to address the cultural biases in the church, we must do so in ways that do not do violence to the literary beauty of our tradition.
[7] The Doctrines of the Salvation Army, Doctrine One, The Salvation Army Youth Songbook, The Salvation Army, Verona, N.J. 1988
[8]Fahrer, Walfred J., Building on the Rock, Herald Press, Scottdale, Pa. 1948