Adrian's Blog: T4G - the introduction & when to give up the fight

Just had a quick read of Adrian's Blog: T4G - the introduction & when to give up the fight, one comment struck me immediately.

I am convinced that many of our denominations are already past saving.

Didn't the disciples think much the same about the gospel when Jesus was dead in the tomb? In human terms Adrian might be right - but when we remember that the Church is the Bride of Christ nothing seems impossible and hope never disappears.

I also find it interesting that Adrian is almost trying to play down the statement.

So, what is this statement?  As far as I can tell this just aims to be a joint declaration by the four friends who formed together for the gospel of some points that they currently feel strongly about.

The problem is that the strident language of the statement and the accusations it makes to anyone who does not agree with it, go much further than Adrian would like to read in it.

Also:

The absence of certain points from the statement – eg church government, the role of the Holy Spirit, baptism – no doubt reflects the areas that these four guys still disagree on rather than a statement that these things don’t matter.  Clearly in a local church congregation there are all kinds of additional things that agreement needs to be reached over that this collection of articles don’t address.

This is a good point. But it reinforces my views about how inappropriate the whole statement is. You cannot redefine the gospel to be the things that four friends agree on, ignoring the areas where you disagree and then tell everyone else that these things are now foundational requirements to be faithful to the gospel. This starts to move in the direction of the heresy of changing the canon, of deciding that the Bible should not include certain books because you can't agree on them.

Anyway I nearly found something to agree with :-)

It is significant that God never left us with a complete doctrinal statement of faith in the bible.  What keeps the gospel safe?  I would argue two things predominantly- firstly an appropriate humble attitude to the bible itself, and secondly the presence within the church of men like Mahaney, Dever, Mohler and Duncan and many others today who preserve the apostolic foundation of doctrine through their teaching and direction of their own churches and those in relationship with them.  Thus for me, churches are built on people more than they are on pieces of paper.

Adrian, please watch your language. You are saying that that the Gospel is kept safe only by men within the Church. This cannot be described as Biblical even for a complementarian. You should reword this to be

the presence within the church of people like

Mind you even then this sounds like a Church that is kept safe through the work of humans. Not my view at all. Who is the head of the Church - it is Christ. The Church cannot and must not be a human institution and hence we humans must not set ourselves up as the ones who save, protect and control the Church.

That is enough for a Bank Holiday. Off to spend time with the family.

Comments

[sally]

Hi Dave,
just a thought for you..I forgot my sermon notes yesterday and was really challenged by what I did say- one of those times when the Holy Spirit steps in- I was reminded of a little chapel about to close, and of what God did- I wonder what would happen is failing churches and denominations responded likewise???
Posted on it on Eternal Echoes
Having said that I believe that there are times when things die out simply because there is a tendeny for us to make the gospel about us, reading our own twists and preferences into it, and God simply allows it to fade away...

[Pam]

Adrian, please watch your language. You are saying that that the Gospel is kept safe only by men within the Church. This cannot be described as Biblical even for a complementarian.

I can only speak for 'my former lot' many of whom would still happily say that they believe in male headship rather than using the smoke-screen of 'complementarian', but I think that this is exactly the point of why women can't be ordained. We were allegedly not created by God with vocations to keep the Gospel 'safe'; it's the whole reason we are not to have preaching or teaching authority.

[DaveW]

Pam,

My point is that even the most died in the wool male headship church should not be saying that only men keep the gospel safe.

Keeping the Gospel safe must include the whole life, worship, service and outreach of the Church. So far as I know no Church today claims that all these are for men only. Therefore no Church can believe that only men keep the gospel safe. Thus even the most hardened male headship view should not imply that only men keep the gospel safe.

Oh and by the way I still am wary of anything that implies human beings keep the Gospel safe. Is it our Gospel to protect? I think not.

[sally]

Dave you said-I still am wary of anything that implies human beings keep the Gospel safe. Is it our Gospel to protect? I think not.
I am so glad you said this- I often contend that we have no need tio defend God, so surely he/ she will keep the gospel safe- as if the gospel were a safe and tame document anyway...
Living and active- sharper than a two edged sword...what is there that needs defence???

[Pam]

My point is that even the most died in the wool male headship church should not be saying that only men keep the gospel safe.

I agree with you. But my point is that this is a point of fundamental disagreement.

Oh and by the way I still am wary of anything that implies human beings keep the Gospel safe. Is it our Gospel to protect? I think not.

Well, I agree with you too. But this is why we're talking about two different mind-sets and why I think that the gap is almost unbridgeable. The male-headship model, in my experience of it, assumes that God has ordained a hierarchy amongst human beings and just as adults have authority over children, so men have authority over women and God has authority over men. 'Complementarianism' seems to accept that model whilst trying to use language that is more acceptable to the year 2006, but it's the same model. It's a model that is hierarchical and based on 'power over' which is why people keep talking about women wanting power.

I'm not even going to begin to write here about what it is like to try to run away from God for 30 years because men (no 'sic' in this instance) have told you that it's impossible that God might be calling a woman to preach and teach. Trying to run from God is not a good place to be. But I know that there is no point in telling the story because then I was in obedience and now I'm in rebellion.

[sally]

Pam- do you really consider yourself to be in rebellion or is that a little bit of ironic humour I detect???

[Pam]

Ironic humour? MOI???

[DaveW]

Come on this is a serious Methodist blog, we will have no humour here!

Clearly Women should not be ordained if they have a sense of humour like you two!

[Pam]

Ordination. Must wear black suit. Must not wear clown suit. Must wear black suit. Must not wear clown suit.

[DaveW]

Pam, It has been done before (well nearly, I understand).

[Pam]

There is no accounting for sartorial taste. I think it was a bloke, though, if collective memory serves me? Multi-coloured clerical shirt, wasn't it?

[DaveW]

Pam, We didn't need more reasons not to ordain men. So lets just assume that bloke was written by you in an inclusive way. Otherwise there won't be anyone left that is ordainable.

[sally]

ah- a clown suit- must get one- and a red nose and a trick flower...great make up too!!!
For the ultimate in testing your sense of humour I reccomend twins- I have a set on hire to anyone who would like them... God must have been having an inclusive day when he gave me those two, girl and boy!!!
As for ordination thoughts- not sure I'll get that far.... if I do then a clown suit it is.... tastefully rainbow coloured of course!!!