As One of the King's Sons

This morning in my Old Testament reading cycle I came again to one of my favourite stories in all of Scripture. In the ninth chapter of 2 Samuel we read about the young man Mephibosheth. David had finally ascended to the throne of Judah and was reigning at Jerusalem. One of his first acts as king was to ask his servant if there was anyone left of the house of Saul. The old king was finally out of the picture, and as much as Saul had made himself David's enemy, David mourned the death of "the Lord's anointed" and father of his best friend, Jonathan, who had died in battle with him.

Saul had hounded David, trying to kill his divinely appointed rival to the throne. And even after Saul was dead, his family was still a problem as his son, Ishbosheth, tried to establish a rival throne. The text says that "there was a war between the house of Saul and the house of David." And yet with Saul and Ishbosheth out of the picture and David firmly established as King, one of his first royal actions was to search the kingdom for living descendants of Saul. Mephibosheth was the only one left -- a man lame in both feet and living in hiding for fear of his life. Ancient kings were known to cement their hold on the throne by executing the sons of their rivals. And yet David sent for Mephibosheth saying, "that I may show kindness to him for Jonathan's sake."

The young Mephibosheth was sought out and brought to Jerusalem -- brought before King David -- and when he entered the king's presence "he fell on his face and did reverence." He no doubt feared the inevitable: that as the last surviving man in Saul's line he was about to die. But David said, "Fear not, for I will surely shew thee kindness for Jonathan thy father's sake, and will restore thee all the land of Saul thy father; and thou shalt eat bread at my table continually."

Mephiboseth was baffled. Why should the new king, the rival of his own family, show him such mercy? He responded to David, bowing and saying, "What is thy servant, that thou shouldst look upon such a dead dog as I am?" And yet David mercifully and graciously assured him of his good intentions. He restored to the young man the property that had belonged to Saul and made him a daily guest of honour at his own table.

Every time I read this story I am reminded of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ. We are, by virtue of our very birth, enemies of God, just as Mephibosheth was David's enemy by birth into the family of Saul. And yet, as David brought Mephibosheth into his home and provided a seat for him at his table on account of his friendship with Jonathan, God has mercifully done the same for us. He invites back into his fellowship, not because of anything we have done, but because of what his Son, Jesus Christ, has done in making himself a sacrifice for our sins.

Chapter Nine ends: "So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem: for he did eat continually at the king's table; and was lame on both his feet." That should strike a familiar chord with each of us. The Father has invited us to his own Table where we who are spiritually lame in both feet find new life in his Son and receive the assurance of that life in as we partake of the spiritual food of his Body and Blood. Pax.

Evangelicals, Liberalism, and Hermeneutics

There was a time in my pre-seminary days when I would have fallen in the camp of those who support the ordination of women. The Anglican churches I'd been a part of all had women on staff and, in fact, while attending Regent College in Vancouver, I served in a small parish assisting its woman rector. But midway through my seminary studies a professor asked me to write a paper defending my views on women's ordination. It was a general class assignment dealing primarily with hermeneutics, and the professor, in his wisdom, assigned a specific topic to each student that he knew would be a personal challenge. Writing that paper brought me to a sudden stop and forced me to change my views as I realised that the hermeneutic with which I justified women's ordination was the same hermeneutic that would ultimately undermine all of Scripture itself.

And so it was with interest that this past week I picked up Wayne Grudem's book, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? It was recommended by a good friend who's been reading a number Grudem's books on the subject. This is one of Grudem's shorter books and deals mainly with the issue of hermeneutics, which was especially interesting for me, because that's where all our biblical arguments stand or fall. What Grudem explains, as each chapter addresses one of the arguments used by various evangelical feminists, is essentially what I found in writing that seminary paper. Everyone wants to take the Bible seriously -- we are Christians after all and it's God's Word -- but if you claim to take the Bible seriously and insist on holding to a belief or doctrine contrary to it, the only option left is to make Scripture say something it doesn't. That's what most of these arguments amount to -- undermining Scripture by twisting its words or by supposing cultural situations (with no historical evidence or support I would add), and then using them as explanations for why the text says what it says rather than taking the text at face value.

It's scary to hear evangelicals make these arguments, because they're using the same hermeneutic that folks like Bp. John Spong have used to justify a total denial of virtually every doctrine essential to the Christian faith. Spong also claims to take Scripture seriously, and yet he and many like him have managed to use it to support their denial of the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, and other doctrines, while at the same time using it to rename sin as virtue in the case of things like homosexuality.

And so it was particularly disturbing to read what Grudem has to say about Gordon Fee -- and doubly disturbing considering the fact that Fee was my exegesis professor in seminary. Rather than using the usual arguments to justify the evangelical feminist position, Fee goes further. He has trouble reconciling 1 Corinthians 14:35b-35 with his theology, and so he makes the following claim:

The case against these verses is so strong, and finding a viable solution to their meaning so difficult, that it seems best to view them as interpolation....One must assume that the words were first written as a gloss in the margin by someone who, probably in light of 1 Tim. 2:9-15, felt the need to qualify Paul's instructions even further. (Discovering Biblical Equality, 251-252)

Fee's solution is simply to claim that the verses aren't Scripture -- that they were added later. He breaks every rule that he taught in his classes. The problem is that it's not a matter of there being a strong or even small case for these verses not being Scripture, as he says, but that there is NO CASE against them. Fee excises them from St. Paul's text, claiming they weren't written by the Apostle, when every manuscript attests to their origin with Paul. A few later manuscripts have shifted them to the end of the chapter, but every early manuscript places them exactly where we find them in our Bibles. Even the critical apparatus found in both the UBS and Nestle-Aland texts indicate that there's no question about these verses.

This is very disturbing, because it shows that even conservative Christians, as they bow to the popular culture, are undermining Scripture the same way that liberals have been doing for more than a century. Lord have mercy.

Christian Unity, Part II

My re-reading of Baxter's The Reformed Pastor continues and I find myself once again inspired by his words on Christian unity. This was a man with a truly "catholic" mind and vision. I've read that he was one of the cooler heads in attendance at the Savoy Conference, who worked for the unity of the Church, appealing to the great things held in common by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents. He writes:

Of the multitude that say they are of the catholic Church, it is rare to meet with men of a catholic spirit. Men have not a universal consideration of, and respect to, the whole Church, but look upon their own party as if it were the whole. If there be some called Lutherans, some Calvinists, some subordinate divisions among these, and so of other parties among us, most of them will pray hard for the prosperity of their party, and rejoice and give thanks when it goes well with them; but if any other party suffer, they little regard it, as if it were no loss at all to the Church. If it be the smallest parcel that possesseth not many nations, no, nor cities on earth, they are ready to carry it, as if they were the whole Church, and as if it went well with the Church when it goes well with them. We cry down the Pope as Antichrist, for including the Church in the Romish pale, and no doubt but it is abominable schism: but, alas! how many do imitate them too far, while they reprove them! And as the Papists foist the word Roman into their creed, and turn the catholic Church into the Roman Catholic church, as if there were no other catholics, and the Church were of no larger extent, so is it with many others as to their several parties. Some will have it to be the Lutheran catholic church, and some the Reformed catholic church; some the Anabaptist catholic church, and so of some others. And if they differ not among themselves, they are little troubled at differing from others, though it be from almost all the Christian world. The peace of their party they take for the peace of the Church. No wonder, therefore, if they carry it no further.

Sadly, I think the factious spirit Baxter describes is often more prevalent amongst Anglicans, between this jurisdiction and that, than it is between Christians of drastically differing traditions. He goes on:

How rare is it to meet with a man that smarteth or bleedeth with the Church’s wounds, or sensibly taketh them to heart as his own, or that ever had solicitous thoughts of a cure! No; but almost every party thinks that the happiness of the rest consisteth in turning to them; and because they be not of their mind, they cry, Down with them! and are glad to hear of their fall, as thinking that is the way to the Church’s rising, that is, their own. How few are there who understand the true state of controversies between the several parties; or that ever well discerned how many of them are but verbal, and how many are real!

Baxter also has some wise words regarding the foundational principles for our unity. I think that we Anglicans might want to phrase things a bit differently, but I think that Baxter's points are valid and every Christian ought to be able to agree here:

I would therefore recommend to all my brethren, as the most necessary thing to the Church’s peace, that they unite in necessary truths, and bear with one another in things that may be borne with; and do not make a larger creed, and more necessaries, than God hath done. To this end, let me entreat you to attend to the following things:

(1) Lay not too great a stress upon controverted opinions, which have godly men, and, especially, whole churches, on both sides.

(2) Lay not too great a stress on those controversies that are ultimately resolvable into philosophical uncertainties, as are some unprofitable controversies about freewill, the manner of the Spirit’s operations and the Divine decrees.

(3) Lay not too great a stress on those controversies that are merely verbal, and which if they were anatomized, would appear to be no more. Of this sort are far more (I speak it confidently upon certain knowledge) that make a great noise in the world, and tear the Church, than almost any of the eager contenders that ever I spoke with do seem to discern, or are like to believe.

(4) Lay not too much stress on any point of faith which was disowned by or unknown to the whole Church of Christ, in any age, since the Scriptures were delivered to us.

(5) Much less should you lay great stress on those of which any of the more pure or judicious ages were wholly ignorant.

(6) And least of all should you lay much stress on any point which no one age since the apostles did ever receive, but all commonly held the contrary.

In many ways Baxter describes what Lancelot Andrewes outlined in his famous words, “One canon reduced to writing by God Himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries and the series of fathers in that period, the three centuries that is before Constantine, and two after determine the boundary of our faith.” Whatever verbiage and subtle nuances we may choose, this is what all Christians need to grasp at if we are ever to be the faithful Body of Christ we are called to be. Pax.