1 Peter 3:13-22

13 Who can really hurt you if you are dedicated to doing good?

14 If you’re derided for your faithfulness to the covenant,
you’re blessed.
Don’t fear your opponents;
don’t be intimidated.

15 But revere in your hearts the Messiah as the Holy Lord.
Always be prepared to explain your hope
to anyone who asks you about it,
but do it with tenderness and respect,

16 keeping a clear conscience,
so that, when you are mistreated,
those who malign your Messiah-led faithfulness may be ashamed.

17 God’s will is:
It is better to suffer for doing what’s right
than it is to ever do evil.

18 For the Messiah also suffered once for sins –
the one faithful to the covenant
for those unfaithful to the covenant.

In order to bring us to God,
he was executed in the flesh but made alive again in the Spirit,

19 by which he went and proclaimed to the imprisoned spirits

20 who in long ago times
did not obey the God who waited patiently while Noah built the ark,
in which a few people – eight – were saved through water.

21 Baptism is an echo of this,
and now saves us
not by washing dirt from the body
but as a promise of God’s faithfulness
through the resurrection of the Messiah Jesus,

22 who has gone into heaven
and is at the right hand of God,
with angels, authorities, and powers
under his command.

- translated by KHM, 5/17/2017

Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism:Getting Our Terms Right

In today's American discourse, in both culture & religion, the terms "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" are often used interchangeably, both of them contrasted to terms used to designate those who lean to the left regarding faith issues, who are often termed "liberal" or "progressive". I believe there are stark differences between "evangelicals" & "fundamentalists" & that this distinction is vital to understanding today's Church, particularly in America.

Christian fundamentalism as a formal movement arose in the early 20th century as a reaction to modernism in both Church & culture and to Protestant liberal theology, which by the early part of that century was coming to dominate mainline denominations. An attempt to stress what early fundamentalist leaders considered essentials for Christian faith, fundamentalists stressed the inerrancy of & literal interpretation of the Bible, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the bodily resurrection & physical return of Christ & a version of substitutionary atonement theory. It wasn't very long before this "circle the wagons" mentality became genuine animosity toward those who disagreed with the movement, and it seemed that the wrath of God (a legitimate topic in Scripture) was proclaimed far more passionately than the love of God (also a legitimate Scriptural topic). Fundamentalists became stereotyped as mean, uneducated, separatist, and shallow, rejecting most Biblical scholarship, science, historical/archaeological discoveries & even at times aspects of the Great Tradition of Church history & doctrine.

The evangelical movement (or neo-evangelical movement) was birthed out of fundamentalism in the mid-20th century. Originally known as fundamentalists who were willing to cooperate with non-fundamentalist Christians for evangelism & mission work, the movement quickly broadened & soon began gaining adherents in the very mainline denominations fundamentalism was founded to fight.

Because of the breadth of evangelicalism, identifying core principles in this
trans-denominational movement can be difficult. Wesleyan evangelicals, for example, stress the importance of God's prevenient grace, Lutheran evangelicals stress Luther's delineation of law & gospel, Presbyterian evangelicals stress the sovereignty of God, Catholic evangelicals stress proper celebration of the sacraments, Pentecostal evangelicals stress the gifts & activity of the Holy Spirit, Baptist evangelicals stress their particular understanding of baptism, etc. These & other differences are not unimportant.

But what evangelicalism has become, essentially, is a movement which strongly adheres to the core principles of orthodox Christianity as it has been proclaimed for more than 1500 years. The doctrines of the Trinity & the Incarnation are important, as are the Resurrection of Jesus & the authority of Scripture. Evangelicals may disagree as to which atonement theory is to be preferred (ransom, Christus Victor, Anselmic satisfaction, Calvinist satisfaction & governmental approaches have all been taught by evangelical theologians at one point or another) or which style of worship is most faithful or what is the correct understanding of the sacraments or which polity is best, but they are united in that core doctrines such as Trinity, Incarnation & Resurrection are vital to being Christian.

Fundamentalism has also broadened a bit, but not in terms of cooperation. There are Catholic fundamentalists, for example, who insist that unless one is a faithfully practicing Catholic, one is not a Christian even if adhering to the core doctrines of the Great Tradition. Some go further & believe that unless one is a faithful "traditionalist Catholic" rejecting Vatican II & everything which followed, one is not a Christian. There are similar movements in, say, Reformed Baptist circles, where some teach that unless one adheres to Dordt Calvinism, one is not Christian (which begs the question of how any Christians could have existed prior to 1619). Fundamentalism is thus still generally known as an at times nasty approach to culture & the Church, misunderstanding or even ignoring completely the love of God & the fullness of his grace. Put another way, too often our fundamentalist sisters & brothers "major on the minors".

To understand the full breadth of evangelicalism / orthodox Christianity, perhaps no work has been more important than that of theologian Thomas Oden, who has endeavored for decades to gather the wisdom of the ages for the Church to learn & enjoy again. I highly recommend his Classic Christianity as perhaps the best one volume summary of the Great Tradition in the English language. Here, we read of the fullness of orthodox Christianity & rejoice in its diversity as well as its unity.

I am an evangelical Christian in a Wesleyan context. It's a wonderful thing to be.

Easter 2011

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

"There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

"The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: "He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him." Now I have told you.'

"So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.'"

(Matthew 28:1-10, NIV 2011)

Simeon the Buzzkill

"Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother,
'This boy is assigned to be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel
and to be a sign that generates opposition
so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed.
And a sword will pierce your innermost being too.'"

- Luke 2:34-35 (CEB)

The story of Simeon waiting to meet the Messiah is a lovely tale, one which warms the heart and fits easily in the comforts of the Christmas season. Had Luke's Gospel only shared the remark of Simeon's fulfilled hopes, surely this would be a favorite vignette of many Christians. Unfortunately, as so often happens with prophets in Scripture, Simeon opens his mouth to speak, and in addition to the charming dreams of a pious old man we also receive perplexing - even violent - words which shatter the beauty of the scene and create a sense of foreboding and uneasiness.

Simeon's words make the point that Jesus is not and was never meant to be a point of unity, but rather a point of division. In Wesleyan orthodoxy, one's reaction to the gospel, after all, helps determine one's eternal destiny. There is an element to the gospel, therefore that is extremely exclusivist, in spite of the desire of many Church elites to lift up inclusivism as a primary doctrine.

We need to be reminded that the faithfully proclaimed demands of the gospel will repel as well as attract; not everyone is eager to lay everything at the feet of a poor Jew from 1st century Palestine and to acknowledge that this Jew is God incarnate in human flesh and the absolute Lord of one's life.

Elsewhere in Luke's Gospel account, we read these shocking words of Jesus:

"I came to cast fire upon the earth. How I wish that it was already ablaze!... Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, I have come instead to bring division. From now on, a household of five will be divided—three against two and two against three. Father will square off against son and son against father; mother against daughter and daughter against mother; and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

-Luke 12:54-59 (CEB)

This is why pushing too hard in the Church for full inclusivism can be dangerous; definitionally, if sadly, the Kingdom does not include everyone. Not everyone is interested in acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus, and those who reject Jesus may be in for a sad realization when he returns.

John Wesley, in his notes on the New Testament, said of Jesus, "...he will be a savour of death to some, to unbelievers; a savour of life to others, to believers." Strong stuff. Not to be dismissed easily. Trying to be inclusive can be a good thing as long as we admit the gospel-imposed limitations of such practice. Not every behavior or decision can be affirmed in the Kingdom of God.

Simeon introduces to us a painful aspect of the gospel through his words to Mary, but, though they are not easy words, they are important and should not be ignored. We need Simeon's words at Christmas to put the miracle of the Incarnation and God's soteriological plan into its proper perspective. Obedience can be difficult, and it carries a price.

This post is part of the 2010 Advent Blog Tour
sponsored by the publishers of the Common English Bible.

Arminianism vs. Calvinism

Here is a link to an admittedly simplistic but effective analogy of the Atonement presented by the Wesleyan Arminian blog.

Thanks to Craig L. Adams.

F A C T S

Here's a great acronymn take-off on the famous (and incorrect) TULIP of Calvinism:

F reed to believe by God's grace
A tonement for All
C onditional Election
T otal Depravity
S ecurity in Christ

Thanks to A.M. Mallett over at Introspectives of an Arminian Christian

Rerun: Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant "correction", "chastisement", "instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they are freed from their cell, having served out their punishment.

It would be inappropriate for a judge to then say, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan sisters and brothers to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

- Originally posted 3/19/2007

Good Friday 2008

"O Love divine, what hast thou done!
The immortal God
hath died for me!
The Father's coeternal Son
bore all my sins upon the tree.
Th' immortal God
for me hath died:
My Lord, my Love,
is crucified!

"Is crucified for me and you,
to bring us rebels back to God.
Believe, believe the record true,
ye all are bought with Jesus' blood.
Pardon for all flows from his side:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!

"Behold him, all ye that pass by,
the bleeding Prince of life and peace!
Come, sinners, see your Savior die,
and say, 'Was ever grief like his?'
Come, feel with me his blood applied:
My Lord, my Love, is crucified!"

- Charles Wesley, 1742

Rerun: Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant
"correction", "chastisement",
"instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they freed from their cell, having served out their punishment. It would be inappropriate for a judge to then s ay, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan brethren to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.

Was Jesus "punished" for us?

"...he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the suffering that brought us peace,
and through his wounds we are healed."
- Isaiah 53:5

This wonderful verse is crucial in Atonement theology, yet it is often, in my view, mistranslated and misunderstood. This can lead to some views of the Atonement which are not Wesleyan and, perhaps, not even Biblical.

The misunderstood word is the Hebrew word "musar". This is a word that traditionally has meant
"correction", "chastisement",
"instruction", "suffering", "rebuke", or "discipline", as from a loving father. In fact, "musar" is used 50 times in the Old Testament, and the King James Version always utilizes one of these English words. The ASV followed suit, as did the RSV about 50 years later.

According to Isaiah 53:5, then, and assuming a messianic perspective, Jesus suffered for us. The verse does not teach that Jesus was punished for us; "punishment" comes from an entirely different Hebrew word which is not used in reference to atonement.

This is an important distinction, because punishment and forgiveness are not synonomous, and salvation hinges on forgiveness in Wesleyan theology. When a person is found guilty of a crime, they are sent to prison, the imprisonment being their punishment. Let us assume that they have been sentenced to two years in prison. At the conclusion of those two years, they freed from their cell, having served out their punishment. It would be inappropriate for a judge to then s ay, "You have been in prison for two years; now, you are forgiven." The criminal was not forgiven; he took his punishment. The same would be true if a person received a fine for a parking violation. If they pay the fine, they have received their punishment, they have paid their debt.

Conversely, if a judge were to say to the criminal, "You don't need to serve two years; you are forgiven", or to the parking violator, "You don't need to pay the fine; you are forgiven", then there would be no punishment. Punishment and forgiveness are not the same thing.

In the 1970s, the Good News Bible (also known as "Today's English Version") appeared, translated quite loosely, a style known as "dynamic equivalence" (as opposed to the more literal KJV and RSV). In this translation, "musar" was rendered in Isaiah 53:5 as "punishment". Still, this can be forgiven, since the Good News translation itself was fairly paraphrastic and not really intended for academic or theological use.

The New International Version (NIV) emerged in 1978 as a legitimate translation alternative to the KJV and RSV. This wonderful translation made the mistake of translating "musar" as "punishment". Why?

Calvinists have held to a particular view of Atonement theology which states that Jesus, on the Cross, received our punishment. Thus, the demands of divine justice were satisfied by the death of Christ. The NIV was translated primarily by Calvinist scholars, so it is only natural that Isaiah 53:5 reflects their theological bias, even if translating "musar" as "punishment" was truly innovative, and without real precedent in the history of the English Bible. Surprisingly, the NRSV followed the NIV upon its release a decade later, as did the HCSB in 2004. I am grateful for the ESV (2001), which renders "musar" as the more traditional "chastisement".

Wesleyans should not forget the actual meaning of the verse. Jesus suffered for us, thus reminding us of the importance of suffering and the terrible pain inflicted upon our loving Lord...not that any debts would be paid through punishment, but rather that we might be truly forgiven. Jesus' suffering was substitutionary in that his suffering, "...became a substitute for something else that would otherwise occur" (in the words of the late J. Kenneth Grider). In other words, Jesus' suffering served as a substitute for our punishment.

In the words of Gordon Olson, "The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied."

This is more than simply a "moral influence", intended to show God's love and break our hearts, as much of traditional Protestant Liberalism maintains. Jesus suffered and died for a reason...to uphold God's moral sovereignty and to make real forgiveness possible, that we might know salvation. This is truly good news. We can know real forgiveness! Without question, due to our sinfulness, we deserve punishment - but are forgiven, because of the faithful suffering of Our Lord.

I urge my Wesleyan brethren to ponder this perspective as we approach the darkness of Good Friday and the glories of Easter Sunday.