Volume 26 No. 4 October 2002

WORLD EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE

Theological Commission

Volume 26No. 4October 2002

BOUNDARIES AND IDENTITY

paternosterperiodicals

Theme:Boundaries and Identity

ContentsEditorial 291

Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries Biblically, Historically, 292Theologically, Culturally, and in Ministry in the 21st Century by Lok M. Bhandari

Relativism and Christian Theology 310by James P. Danaher

Coming of Age: The Future of a Post-soviet Evangelical Theology 319by Darrell Cosden

Proselytism or Evangelism? 337by Cecil Stalnaker

Being ‘Under the Law’ in Galatians 354by In-Gyu Hong

Book Reviews 373

Index for Volume 26 381

Paternoster Digital Publishing: A New Venture 385

THE EVANGELICAL

REVIEW O

F THEOLO

GY/VO

LUME 26/No. 4/O

CTOBER 2002

0144-8153(200210)26:4;1-0

Laser Proof

EvangelicalReview ofTheologyEDITOR: DAVID PARKER

Volume 26 • Number 4 • October 2002

Articles and book reviews original andselected from publications worldwide for

an international readership for the purposeof discerning the obedience of faith

Published byPATERNOSTER PERIODICALS

forWORLD EVANGELICAL

ALLIANCETheological Commission

ISSN: 0144-8153Volume 26 No. 4 October 2002

Copyright © 2002 World Evangelical Alliance Theological Commission

EditorDavid Parker

CommitteeThe Executive Committee of the WEA Theological Commission

Dr Rolf Hille, Executive Chair

Editorial PolicyThe articles in the Evangelical Review of Theology reflect the opinions ofthe authors and reviewers and do not necessarily represent those of the

Editor or the Publisher.

Manuscripts, reports and communicationsshould be addressed to the Editor and sent to Dr David Parker,

17 Disraeli St, Indooroopilly, 4068, Qld, Australia

The Editors welcome recommendations of original or published articles orbook reviews that relate to forthcoming issues for inclusion in the Review.

Please send clear copies of details to the above address.

Email enquiries welcome: [email protected]

Typeset by Profile, Culmdale, Rewe, Exeter, Devon EX5 4ESand Printed in Great Britain for Paternoster Periodicals,

PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 0QSby Polestar Wheatons Ltd., Exeter, Devon.

Our opening paper in this issue is awide ranging study by Lok M. Bhan-dari of Kathmandu, Nepal on thequestion of the boundaries of evan-gelicalism. He calls on biblical andtheological perspectives to show thatthere are no simplistic answers andthat the search for identity in achanging world is likely to be a‘painful dialogical process’.

Some of the broader philosophicalaspects of this situation are exam-ined by James P. Danaher of NyackCollege, NY, in his paper on Rela-tivism and Christian Theology. Hispoint is that even although relativismmay undermine traditional religion,it is actually more conducive to faithand the spirit of Christianity than theobjective and universal realism of thepast.

We follow up these two theoreticalpapers with two that touch on someof the practical outworkings of theissues. Drawing upon his experiencein Ukraine, Darrell Cosden of Inter-national Christian College, Glasgow,discusses the state of evangelical the-ology in the former Soviet Union,focusing on the opportunity it nowhas to develop its own distinctivenessby gaining a critical awareness of andhealthy distance from the westernevangelical theological method thathas dominated it thus far. He sug-gests that consciousness of theimpact of cultural influences will be avital factor in this process, while atthe theological level, insights may begained from the work of post-liberalscholars.

Proselytism is a sensitive issue inthe contemporary world which CecilStalnaker of Tyndale TheologicalSeminary, The Netherlands faceshead on. Realizing that for many,evangelism is regarded as none oth-er than proselytism (with its conno-tations of coercion, threat andmanipulation), this paper clarifiesmany of the issues by means of care-ful definition and by examining bibli-cal precedents. It concludes that theterm ‘proselytism’ is never confusedwith ‘evangelism’ in the New Testa-ment, and that although misunder-standings are likely to occur, evan-gelism is integral to the gospel and isconcerned primarily with the contentof the message rather than its recip-ients, which is the case with prose-lytism.

We conclude this 26th volume ofour journal with a detailed and inten-sive study by In-Gyu Hong of Cheo-nan University, South Korea of theconcept ‘Under the Law’ in the Epis-tle to the Galatians. While this is pri-marily an exemplary exegeticalwork, it focuses on the relationbetween bondage to the law andfreedom in Christ which is one of themost crucial foundational themes forany consideration of our identity asChristians.

David Parker, Editor

Editorial

0144-8153 ERT (2002) 26:4, 291

Lok M. Bhandari, Ph.D. (Fuller) is Presidentand Professor of Philosophy and Theology atKathmandu International University/Kath-mandu Theological Seminary. He is also Pres-ident of Himalayan Missions Inc. His disser-tation (1999) was entitled, ‘The role of pow-er encounter in the growth of Christianity inNepal’.

nant theological emphasis).2Nevertheless, in order to do justice

to this topic, we must situate theboundary setting of evangelicalism inthe 21st century in its wider context:the development of fundamentalism(and its variants) as a worldwidesocio-religious phenomenon. In theclimate of inter-religious and ethnicconflict and violence, this wouldinclude the so-called culture wars inAmerica, the ongoing conflicts inNorthern Ireland and the Balkans,the Muslim-Jewish conflict in theMiddle East, the Muslim-Christianconflicts in Africa, the Middle Eastand Southeast Asia, the Hindu-Mus-

1 Stone, John R, On the Boundaries of Ameri-can Evangelicalism: The Postwar EvangelicalCondition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), p.197.

2 Bebbington, David, Evangelicalism in Mod-ern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the1980s (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), pp. 2f.

ERT (2002) 26:4, 292–309 0144-8153

Defining Evangelicalism’sBoundaries Biblically,

Historically, Theologically,Culturally, and in Ministry in

the 21st CenturyLok M. Bhandari

Keywords: Culture wars, worldview, inclusivity, sectarianism, tradition,context, inerrancy, justification, foundationalism, community, subtext

The issue of boundary definition isone of the key characteristics ofPost-World War II evangelicalism. Ithas centred on evangelicals settingboundaries vis-à-vis both fundamen-talism and liberalism.1 But this begs amore basic question: How do wedefine evangelicalism? In examiningevangelicalism from a sociological,historical and theological perspec-tive, one scholar has opined thatevangelicalism evinces four qualitieswhich ‘form a quadrilateral of priori-ties’: conversionism (in evangelisticpractice), activism (in mission), bibli-cism, and crucicentrism (as a domi-

lim, Hindu-Sikh, Hindu-Christian,and Hindu-Buddhist conflicts inSouth Asia. Looked at in this globalperspective, the issues of communi-ty boundaries and socio-religious andpolitical identity are inextricably tiedtogether.3

It is entirely natural for evangelicalsto be concerned about boundaries atthis present juncture in historybecause the fundamentalist/evangel-ical movement in Protestantism isdirectly related to the reaction of tra-ditionalists to the rise of modernism(and postmodernism) as the rulingcultural paradigm.4 The naturalresponse is to erect boundaries in theform of various beliefs, practices andsymbols to shore up an embattledworldview.5 ‘A fundamentalist move-ment thus originates when a self-identified group of true believersdraws an ideological boundarybetween itself and the “other” bywhich it feels threatened.’6

While we accept the inevitability ofthis phenomenon, we must also be

3 Nielson, Nils Jr., Fundamentalism, Mythos,and World Religions (Albany: SUNY Press).

4 Stump, Roger, Boundaries of Faith: Geo-graphical Perspectives on Fundamentalism (Lan-ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), pp. 1ff.This seminal work, focusing on geopolitical andsocio-historical factors in the formation of contem-porary religious movements, needs to be interactedwith by evangelical missiologists and theologians.

5 Wright, N.T., The New Testament and thePeople of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp.122-126; Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation ofCultures (New York: Basic Books 1973). Wright’sinnovative construal of the concept of worldview asthe matrix for understanding Christian theology, andwhich serves as the basis of his examination of Jesus,the Resurrection, Paul and early Christianity, is heav-ily dependent on the pioneering work of culturalanthropologist Clifford Geertz. It represents a boldand fruitful direction for evangelical NT theology.

6 Stump, Geographical Perspectives on Fun-damentalism, p. 9.

honest in acknowledging the nega-tive ramifications, reflected in thedevelopment of the ‘softer’ evangel-ical expressions of fundamentalism.7

But there seems to be little sustainedcritique of the underlying socio-cul-tural dynamics of evangelicalism andits fundamentalist roots. We needthis to do the theological reflectionneeded to chart our path in the 21stcentury, which is so full of opportu-nities and challenges.

This brief paper will attempt toengage this topic in an exploratorymanner, hoping to spur furtherthought, dialogue and action. Theapproach here will be eclectic,emphasizing the latest researchesprimarily from historical-critical andsocial-scientific perspectives in bibli-cal studies and theology.

This perspective is necessarybecause we must admit that evangel-icalism, as a Christian paradigm, isrooted in a specific socio-historicalcontext (modernity, and increasinglypostmodernity), just as Eastern andWestern Catholicism are rooted inthe ‘Ecumenical Hellenistic Paradigmof Christian Antiquity’.8 For good orill ‘[indeed] every age has its own pic-ture of Christianity which has grownout of a particular situation, lived outand formed by particular social forcesand church communities, conceptu-ally shaped beforehand or afterwardsby particularly influential figures andtheologies.’9 For this reason it is

7 Bloesch, Donald G., The Future of Evangeli-cal Christianity: A Call for Unity Amid Diversity(Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 8-22.

8 Kung, Hans, Christianity: Essence, History,and Future (New York: Continuum, 1998), p. 111.

9 Ibid., p. 7.

DEFINING EVANGELICALISM’S BOUNDARIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY 293

important for evangelicals to take ahard look at the issue of their bound-aries, as it engages in the mission ofthe kingdom of God in the 21st cen-tury. We will, in turn, briefly examinethe issue of evangelical boundariesfrom the perspective of the history ofevangelicalism, the Old and New Tes-taments, and contemporary theolog-ical method. Finally, we will draw outsome implications for Christian mis-sion and ministry in the 21st century.

Evangelical Boundaries from aHistorical Perspective

In order to examine evangelicalism’sboundaries historically at the begin-ning of the new millennium, we mustview this movement in the context ofthe development of fundamentalismas a modern, worldwide socio-cultur-al phenomenon, encompassing allmajor religions. While there are basichistorical, cultural and religious con-ditions that differentiate them as aninter-religious and intra-religiousphenomenon, it is evident that ‘bothexclusivist Judaism, Islamist Islam,and fundamentalist Christianity rep-resent a rebellion against the moder-nity which threatens traditional faith.There is a concern to stop this, turnthe clock back on it, in order torestore earlier religious, political, andeconomic conditions.’10 Fundamen-talist movements characteristicallybelieve that without the religious cer-tainty provided by their belief systemand praxis, society will suffer a moraland spiritual decline, for it is thefoundation for the society and cul-

10 Ibid., p. 644.

ture.11

Unlike most traditional examina-tions of fundamentalism in generaland evangelicalism in particular,which focus on the relationshipbetween the historical exigencies ofthe time and the belief system of thevarious groups, we must understandevangelicalism in relation to a widearray of socio-cultural dynamics: therise of modernism, secularism, cul-tural pluralism, colonialism andimperialism.12 This is the context inwhich we are to ‘exegete’ evangeli-calism as a worldwide, cross-culturalmovement, and to consider it interms of discussion about bound-aries.

Evangelicalism (and its fundamen-talist precursor) reflects the generaltrend of the development of funda-mentalist movements highlighted bysociologists of religion. For example,the success of the revivalist move-ments of the 19th century in Ameri-ca (and Great Britain) spurred awhole religious culture of reformismin the social and political realm—from the abolition of slavery and theuse and production of alcohol (tem-perance), to attacking political cor-ruption, child labour and the issue ofwomen’s rights. Evangelicalism, to alarge extent, set the moral and polit-ical agenda of the nation.13 Howev-er, changes in the intellectual, socio-political, and economic landscape

11 Stump, Geographical Perspectives on Fun-damentalism, p. 8.

12 Ibid; also cf. Dyrness, William A., ed., Emerg-ing Voices in Global Christian Theology (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1994).

13 Frank, Douglas W., Less Than Conquerors:How Evangelicals Entered the Twentieth Century(Grand Rapids: Eerdamans, 1986), pp. 12f.

294 LOK M. BHANDARI

threatened this evangelical hegemo-ny: ‘Protestant culture accustomedto deference…was now beleagueredby the combined forces of the city,the immigrant, the political boss, anelite of new wealth, and the intellec-tual forces represented by Darwin-ism and the “new” biblical criti-cism.’14

As a result, behind the claims torepresent the true biblical religion,evangelicalism has also been coopt-ed by an overly optimistic and tri-umphalist ideology of worldly suc-cess, often adjusting its theology tosuit the values of the dominant cul-ture. Thus by concentrating onboundaries that are a reactionaryresponse to the loss of cultural dom-inance (whose values themselvesrepresent ambivalent socio-econom-ic and intellectual forces like capital-ism, secularism and technologism),evangelicals often failed to discernhow the deep theological meaningand implications of the euangelion(‘gospel’) should transform thismovement. One evangelical histori-an, writing in the 1980s, commentshow American evangelicalism, if it isto be self-critical in a biblical sense,

would not find itself adding to the world’sdivisions, and thus to its violence, byproclaiming its superiority to sinfulhumanity, whether found in Americanhomosexuals or Libyan terrorists or Sovietcommunists. It would see itself in theprodigal son, in the adulterous woman, inthe pious Pharisee, in the mockers at thecross, in the stoning of Stephen. Like Paulafter years of Christian experience, itwould proclaim itself to be ‘foremost of

14 Williams, Peter W., America’s Religions:Traditions and Cultures (New York: Macmillan,1990), pp. 23ff.

sinners’ and thus one with the human racefor whom Christ died (1 Tim. 1:15).15

Evangelicals of all nationalities andbackgrounds must engage in the cru-cial work of differentiating evangeli-calism as a cultural phenomenon,interacting with the geopolitical,social and economic currents of theday from the living reality of thegospel of God, for ‘[the] gospelstands in judgment over all humanideologies, including the ideology ofcultural evangelicalism’.16 It is ironic,yet understandable, how many west-ern (especially American) evangeli-cals have often failed to grasp thetheology of the cross in their implic-it political and evangelistic theolo-gies: the allure of worldly power, suc-cess and favour can even lead Chris-tians to use the biblical tradition in aself-serving manner.17

While American evangelicalismhas developed in a specific historicalcontext and does not necessarilyreflect the struggles and temptationsof evangelicalism in other parts ofthe world, nevertheless it brings tothe fore that all evangelicals mustmaintain a self-critical stance in rela-tion to evangelical theological tradi-tions, in dialogue with a narrative-based, NT-shaped, missional and

15 Frank, Less Than Conquerors, p. 277.16 Bloesch, Future of Evangelical Christianity,

p. 5.17 Elliott, Neil, Liberating Paul: The Justice of

God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, NY,1994).


political ethic.18 Evangelicals ‘mustlearn to distance both themselvesand God from their own subculturesso as to be able to critically examinethose subcultures rather than unsus-pectingly reading both the Bible andthe world through the lens of thosesubcultures.’19 Otherwise, theboundaries we set among ourselvesand those outside our group may be,at their deepest level, a reflection ofa secular or non-Christian world-view.20 For example, any Christiantheology which supports a racial,ethnic, gender, or class based ideolo-gy as the basis for group boundariesis contrary to the gospel. ThePauline doctrine of justification byfaith ‘rules out any claim before Godbased on race, class, orgender…This was the battle Paul hadto fight in Antioch and Galatia, andseveral other places as well.’21 Yet invarious places evangelicals haveeven used the Bible to justify thesevery boundaries.

18 Cf. Hays, Richard B., The Moral Vision ofthe New Testament: A Contemporary Introduc-tion to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco:HarperCollins, 1996); Spohn, William C., Go andDo Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (New York: Contin-uum, 1999); Sine, Tom, Mustard Seed vs.McWorld: Reinventing Life and Faith for theFuture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999); Crysdale, Cyn-thia, Embracing Travail: Rethinking the CrossToday (New York: Continuum, 1999); Gorman,Michael J., Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spiritu-ality of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

19 Volf, Miroslav, ‘Teachers, Crusts and Top-pings’, Christian Century 113/1 (1996), p. 133.

20 Clarke, Andrew D., Secular and ChristianLeadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical andExegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6 (AGAJUXVIII); Leiden: Brill, 1993), p. 19.

21 Wright, N.T., What Saint Paul Really Said:Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Chris-tianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 160.

Evangelical Boundaries from aBiblical Perspective

When attempting to examine theconcept of boundaries, evangelicalsultimately must do this in relation toScripture, for this is central to evan-gelical self-understanding. Phenom-enologically speaking, this is truealso because ‘the function of tradi-tion-scripture-canon has largelybeen to answer for the believingcommunities the two essential ques-tions of identity and lifestyle.’22 Butthis forces us to ask the question: Doevangelical claims about Scripture(which functions as a theologicallinchpin of evangelical boundaries)‘amount to the affirmation of theinerrancy of the evangelical tradi-tion, where evangelicals ought to beaffirming the inerrancy of Scrip-ture’?23 This section of the paper willdialogue with contemporary biblicalstudies to help us flesh out the issueof how community boundaries aredrawn, and on what basis.

When the Bible is viewed as a com-plex grand epic of YHWH’s savingrelationship with the world throughIsrael, and ultimately through Jesus,we see that the God-questionbecomes the main focus of Scrip-ture.24 The whole array of theologi-cal and ethical questions, includingthe one regarding the boundaries ofthe people of God, has a centrifugal

22 Sanders, James A., Canon and Community:A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1984), p. 28.

23 McGrath, Alister E., ‘Evangelical TheologicalMethod: “The State of the Art”’ in EvangelicalFutures: A Conversation on Theological Method,ed. John G. Stackhouse (Grand Rapids: Baker,2000), p. 31.

24 Wright, New Testament, pp. 471-476.

296 LOK M. BHANDARI

relationship to theology proper (i.e.,who God is). So the operative ques-tion becomes: What demarcates thepeople of YHWH in both the Oldand New Testaments in relation toYHWH’s salvific purposes forhumankind and the cosmos?

The main belief of Judaism issuingfrom the OT was monotheism,embodied in the Shema (Deut 6:4). Itasserted that the God who created theworld and its peoples is in a special,covenantal relationship with Israel:‘The creator calls a people throughwhom, somehow, he will act decisive-ly within his creation, to eliminate evilfrom it and restore justice andpeace.’25 Within this understanding ofIsrael’s vocation as YHWH’s peo-ple—in light of the challenges of per-secution and apostasy from pagannations—is the tension betweenYHWH as the universal creator atwork in the world (creationalmonotheism) and the salvific intent ofIsrael’s vocation under YHWH, whichis constantly under threat (covenantalmonotheism).26 This is reflective ofthe fact that ‘Israel’s religion, and thusthe texts are incessantly pluralistic. Onevery religious question the matter isunder dispute, and we frequently areable to identify the several voices tothe adjudication that are sounded inthe text. This process, moreover,applies not only to this or that subject,but to the very character of Yahweh,the God of Israel.’27

25 Ibid., p. 252.26 Ibid., pp. 248-50.27 Brueggemann, Walter, Theology of the Old

Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Min-neapolis: Fortress, 1997), p. 64; for the NT cf.Dunn, James D.G., Unity and Diversity in the NewTestament, rev. ed. (London: SCM Press, 1990).

There is this dual emphasis of cre-ational and covenantal monotheismin the book of Jonah, for example.The critical consensus is that Jonahwas written during the Persian peri-od during the 4th century B.C.28

Jonah ‘conveys the idea of a deitywho responds to the plight of thenon-Israelite and Israelite alike .Thebook of Jonah appears to be a cau-tionary challenge to standard theo-logical formulations.’29 In nuce, thisbook attempts to ‘convert’ theIsraelites to a more universalisticview of YHWH’s relationship to thenations, in a context where therewould be a natural tendency to viewYHWH as primarily centred on theirsurvival as the beleaguered people ofGod.

The fact that the Bible consists oftheological voices that are often intension with others and vie for dom-inance means that there is a ‘catholi-cizing’ or inclusive thrust to thecanon, and the traditions it incorpo-rates.30 Thus, if evangelicalism’sethos is to be truly biblical, it mustreflect this canonical theologicalinclusivity. Wrestling with this willhelp evangelicals to view their intra-group and inter-group boundary def-inition as an ‘ongoing work of adju-dication, in which any settled point isreached only provisionally and in

28 Bright, John, A History of Israel 3rd ed.(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), p. 431.

29 Birch, Bruce C., Terence E. Fretheim &David L. Peterson, A Theological Introduction tothe Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), p.429.

30 Albertz, Rainer, A History of Israelite Reli-gion in the Old Testament, Period 2: From theExile to the Maccabees (Westminster: John KnoxPress, 1994), p. 481.


turn is subject to reconsideration’;this ‘ongoing adjudication is faithfulto the character of the [biblical] textitself’.31

One cannot discuss the issue ofboundaries as it relates to the NTwithout understanding the socio-cul-tural and political dynamics from thetime of the two exiles. It only intensi-fies. The Ptolemaic and Seleucidperiods in Palestine were marked bythe challenge of Hellenization andpolitical uncertainty. These pres-sures led to an emphasis on groupboundaries and the formation of var-ious Jewish parties or sects, as dif-ferent groups reacted differently tothe threat of religious, cultural, andpolitical assimilation.32 The upshotof all this is that the intra-religiousboundary setting of the time, as aresponse to the ambiguities of the2nd century B.C., ‘created the pluri-form Judaism known by Jesus andPaul’.33

We must realize that, in somesense, the Jesus movement was asectarian response to the ongoingcrisis of socio-political oppressionand the hope for YHWH’s salvationin Jewish Palestinian society duringthe Roman era. Thus the basic exis-tential concerns, which led to furthergroup definition, had to do with thefollowing issues: ‘How and whenIsrael’s God would rescue his peoplewere questions whose answers,

31 Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology, p.64.

32 Cf. Koester, Helmut, Introduction to theNew Testament, Vol. 1: History, Culture, and Reli-gion of the Hellenistic Age (New York: Walter deGruyter, 1995), pp. 197-235.

33 Wright, New Testament, p. 159.

reflecting different perceptions ofwhat it meant to be the people of thecovenant God, divided one Jewishgroup from another.’34 The Phar-isees, for instance, who have beentraditionally characterized by theirhyper-scrupulosity in terms of ritualpurity and legalism (cf. Mark 2:23-3:6), had a much deeper modusoperandi: a theologically-based polit-ical resistance to Roman rule. Thisheld true, in different ways, for the‘houses’ of Shammai and Hillel.35 Inthis time of the threat of assimilation,the religious symbols of ‘Temple cult,and the observance of Sabbaths, offood taboos, and of circumcision,were the key things which markedout Jew from Gentile, which main-tained and reinforced exactly theagenda, both political and religious ofthe hard-line Pharisees’.36

Jesus’ eschatological teaching con-cerning the inauguration of the king-dom of God led him to a ‘radicallydifferent interpretation of Israel’sancestral tradition. Jesus, preciselyin affirming Israel’s unique vocationto be the light of the world, wasinsisting that, now that the momentof fulfillment had come, it was timeto relativize those God-given mark-ers of Israel’s distinctiveness.’37

Thus, theologically speaking, Jesus’eschatological focus and programmerightly maintained the centrality ofthe creational monotheistic vision asthe goal of covenantal monothe-

34 Ibid., p. 167.35 Ibid., p. 201.36 Wright, N.T., Jesus and the Victory of God

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p. 384.37 Ibid., p. 389.

298 LOK M. BHANDARI

ism.38

Because, as we have observed,fundamentalist movements arise insituations where traditional socio-religious worldviews are being chal-lenged, the problem of evil is usuallyprojected onto the evil forces behindthose outside the boundaries of thecommunity. But in the case of 1stcentury Jewish Palestine, Jesus’understanding was somewhat atypi-cal: unlike many who would posit‘Evil’ motivating their pagan ene-mies, he believed that ‘the Israel ofhis day had been duped by the accus-er, the “satan”. That which waswrong with the rest of the world waswrong with Israel, too. “Evil” couldnot be conveniently located beyondIsrael’s borders, in the pagan hordes.It had taken up residence within thechosen people.’39

Recent researches into the socialhistory of the Galilee of Jesus’ timegive us some idea of the nascentsocio-economic and cultural pres-sures that illuminate his proclama-tion of the renewed Israel and itscommunity boundaries.40 The inte-gration of the Galilee into the Roman‘global’ market economic system,

38 Glasser, Arthur F., Kingdom and Mission(SWM; Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary,1989), pp. 122-135.

39 Wright, Jesus, p. 389.40 Cf. Crossan, John D., The Birth of Chris-

tianity (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1998),pp. 230-235; Stegemann, Ekkehard and WolfgangStegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social Histo-ry of Its First Century (Minneapolis: Fortress,1999), pp. 129-136. While one may disagree withsome of the findings of these works due to their par-ticular use of certain sociological and anthropologi-cal models in analyzing the NT and the social histo-ry of Jewish Palestine and the Greco-Roman worldin the first century, the goals and approaches theyemploy are certainly valid and illuminating.

exemplified by the development ofthe cities of Sepphoris and Tiberias,was a challenge to the traditionalagrarian subsistence economy andits social system, which was based onthe ‘Jewish patrimonial ideal, as ithad been enshrined in the Penta-teuch, upheld by the prophets andre-enacted by reformers such asNehemiah (Neh. 5:1-11)’41 This ledto a heightened tension between theso-called Herodian and Jewish theo-cratic ideals of the social order. Itappears that Jesus, cognizant ofboth the negative assimilationist andrevolutionary tendencies with theserespective socio-economic systems,charted a different path whichaffirmed the true intent of the king-dom of God: a new way of being thepeople of God as the light of theworld, based on the old but tran-scending it. ‘In proposing such anideal Jesus was not seeking to revertto the status quo ante for Israel asstated in the Pentateuch, but wasoperating within the framework ofadapting the received tradition to thedemands of a new situation, anddoing so in the name of God’s finalprophetic word to Israel.’42

This results in a revolutionaryresponse to the question of commu-nity boundaries, embodied in thekingdom stories (viz. parables) hetold. For instance, the parable of theGood Samaritan has to do with thefact that ‘[loving] Israel’s covenant

41 Freyne, Sean, ‘Galilean Questions toCrossan’s Mediterranean Jesus’ in Whose Histori-cal Jesus?, ed. William E. Arnal and Michael Des-jardins (Waterloo, Ont: Wilfred Laurier Press, 1997),p. 87.

42 Wright, Jesus, p. 307.


God meant loving him as creator ofall, and discovering as neighboursthose who were beyond the bordersof the chosen people. Those whofollowed Jesus in this way would be“justified”; that is, they would be vin-dicated when the covenant god act-ed climactically within history.’43

In terms of Pauline studies and theissue of community boundaries,there is not a more important evan-gelical theological boundary markerthan ‘justification by faith’.44 Tradi-tionally, Protestants (including evan-gelicals) have read this Pauline ter-minology as denoting ‘the means bywhich man’s relationship with God isestablished’.45 Justification by faithwas understood in contrast to thelegalistic nature of the Judaism ofPaul’s day, whereby one earnedone’s salvation by works. MartinLuther saw in his time a similar the-ology in Medieval Catholicism. Heappealed to Paul’s insight as a break-through in his own spiritual strug-gles.

In the last twenty-five years therehas been a revolutionary change inthe interpretation of 1st centuryJudaism, Paul and justification. InProtestant Christian circles, E.P.Sanders’ work, Paul and Palestin-ian Judaism, offered the opinion,after examining a wide array of evi-dence, that Jewish soteriology is tobe understood as based on the graceof YHWH’s covenant. One stayed in

43 McGrath, Alister, Iustitia Dei: A History ofthe Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 Vols.(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

44 McGrath, Iustitia Dei, pp. 2f.45 Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian

Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), p. 420.

a right relationship with YHWH byobedience to Torah. Therefore onemust speak of Jewish soteriology ascovenantal nomism.46 Many evan-gelical biblical scholars, havinglooked at the same evidence, havecalled this thesis into question.47 Butmore have accepted it (with criti-cisms), and gone about articulatingits implications for Pauline theologyand Christian doctrine.48 Eminentevangelical biblical scholar N.T.Wright states that ‘until a major refu-tation of [Sanders’] central thesis isproduced, honesty compels us to dobusiness with him. I do not myselfbelieve such a refutation can or willbe offered; serious modifications arerequired, but I regard his basic pointas established.’49

In this new scheme, then, what

46 See those who advocate the ‘new perspec-tive’ on Paul and Judaism cf. Dunn, James D.G.,‘The New Perspective on Paul’ (with AdditionalNotes) in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Markand Galatians (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), pp.183-214; Wright, N.T., What Saint Paul ReallySaid; and Mattison, Mark, The Paul Page,http://www.angelfie.com/mi2/paulpage/. On thecontrary (traditional) view cf. Sefrid, Mark, Justifica-tion By Faith: The Origin and Development of aCentral Pauline Theme (NovTSup 68; Leiden: Brill,1992); Westerholm, Stephen, Israel’s Law and theChurch’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 105-197; andCarson, D.A., Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Sefrid,eds., Variegated Nomism,, Vol. 1: The Complexi-ties of Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids:Baker, forthcoming).

47 Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 20.48 Ibid., p. 117.49 Abegg, Martin, ‘4QMMT, Paul and the Works

of the Law’ in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shapeand Interpretation, ed. Peter T. Flint (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 203-216. For a less success-ful analysis of 4QMMT that supports the traditional(Lutheran) understanding of Paul and Judaism, cf.McDonald, Lee M. & Stanley Porter, Early Chris-tianity and its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 2000), p. 360.

300 LOK M. BHANDARI

does justification mean? And howdoes this affect evangelical bound-aries? Wright believes that evangeli-cals have misunderstood Paul byreading him through the lens ofReformation (viz. Lutheran) theolo-gy:

Paul may or may not agree withAugustine, Luther, or anyone else abouthow people come to a personal knowledgeof God in Christ; but he does not use thelanguage of ‘justification’ to denote thisevent or process. Instead, he speaks of theproclamation of the gospel of Jesus, thework of the spirit, and the entry into thecommon life of the people of God.50

Justification, in contrast, in its Jew-ish setting, had to do with the escha-tological vindication/acquittal of thepeople of YHWH, which was nowunderstood to be affected by God inChrist through the resurrection (withthe full manifestation to come at theend of the Age). The eschatologicalunderstanding of this term, with itsconceptual roots firmly planted inJewish apocalyptic, has been con-firmed by an examination of ‘justifi-cation by works’ in 4QMMT (MiscatMasseh ha-Torah), a recently discov-ered and translated document fromthe Dead Sea Scrolls.48 As a result ofa contextual examination of thisphrase (the only time it is attestedoutside Paul), it is confirmed that ithas to do with ‘how you tell whobelongs to the community, not leastin the period before the eschatologi-cal event itself, when the matter willbecome public knowledge…In stan-dard Christian theological language,it wasn’t so much about soteriology

50 Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p.119.

as about ecclesiology; not so muchabout salvation as about thechurch.’51

Because justification means that allthose who exercise faith in Christ arevindicated/declared righteous now,that is, they are part of the eschato-logical people of God, it had theeffect of redefining the boundaries ofthe people of God, from a more reli-gio-ethnic one to an inclusive one,based on faith in Christ (cf. Gal. 2;Rom. 14-15; Eph. 1-3). Thus justifi-cation should be understood as the‘ecumenical doctrine’. ‘It cannot beright,’ opined Wright ‘that the verydoctrine which declares that all whobelieve in Jesus belong at the sametable (Galatians 2) should be used asa way of saying that some, whodefine the doctrine of justification dif-ferently, belong at a different table.[It] rebukes all our petty and oftenculture-bound church groupings, anddeclares that all who believe in Jesusbelong together in one family.’52

Evangelicals, who are very vocifer-ous about their fidelity to the Refor-mation heritage, will question thewisdom of blurring or sacrificing thisparticular theological boundarymarker. But Wright correctly makesthe point that ‘one is not justified bybelieving in justification by faith. Oneis justified by believing in Jesus.’53

Therefore as Anglican reformerRichard Hooker taught, many pre-Reformation people (and non-evan-gelicals today?) were justifiedbecause they trusted in Jesus, eventhough they might not have known

51 Ibid., p. 158.52 Ibid., p. 159.53 Ibid., p. 159.


of, understood, or necessarily agreedwith the Reformation doctrine assuch.54 If this is so they must be con-sidered within the bounds of theChristian family and must be treatedas such, whether or not we wouldfeel comfortable affixing the label‘evangelical’ to them.

While abstract doctrinal formula-tions regarding theology, christol-ogy, eschatology and certain moralissues tend to predominate in defin-ing evangelical boundaries, for Paula community ethic, based on the the-ological implications of the self-sacri-ficial life of Jesus, was one of themain foci of his boundary settingactivity in 1 Corinthians.55 Theproblem of boasting, parties andemphasis on ‘wisdom’ reflects asocial context in the highly competi-tive atmosphere of the Romancolony of Corinth where ‘the basis ofthe parties is the secular practice ofaligning oneself with someone ofestablished status and reputation inorder to advance one’s status. Thishas been clearly seen in the dynam-ics of patronage, politics, and sophis-tic practices.’56 Evangelicals havebeen very astute in adopting thetechnology and means of communi-cation to advance the gospel ofChrist. But has there been the requi-site effort to discern how the worldly

54 Cf. Barclay, J.M.G., ‘Deviance and Apostasy:Some Applications of Deviance Theory to First Cen-tury Judaism and Christianity’ in Social-ScientificApproaches to New Testament Interpretation, ed.David G. Horrell (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), p.305.

55 Clarke, Andrew C., Secular and ChristianLeadership in Corinth, p. 107.

56 Budde, Michael, The (Magic) Kingdom ofGod (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), p. 104.

wisdom and practices concomitantwith it are in agreement with the spir-it of Jesus? Thus in the West, andincreasingly in the Two-ThirdsWorld,

Church leaders may be incapable ofrecognizing the threats to Christianpractice and life because they areremaking the Church in the image andlikeness of the global cultureindustries…As they begin adopting thetechniques, worldviews, and, criteria ofadvertising/marketing and masscommercial media, Church leaders make itmore likely that whatever elements ofgospel non-conformity and radicaldiscipleship yet endure will be buriedbeneath the data of focus groups, Q-scores, psychographic profiles, andmultimedia campaigns.57

From a brief examination of thebiblical evidence, from a socio-his-torical and social-scientific perspec-tive, we have seen that the issue ofcommunity boundaries, socio-cultur-al context and theology are inextri-cably tied together. Hopefully, thiswill encourage evangelical leaders toshow more insight in exegeting, notonly the Bible, but its contextsresponsibly as we struggle to carryout God’s mission in a world whereeconomic and cultural change willinevitably lead to reactionaryresponses by traditionalists of all reli-gions in the world. This is not a newphenomenon; the Bible itself testifiesto this dynamic. Now we will exam-ine how evangelical boundaries havebeen affected by the interplay of themodern and postmodern intellectualand social context with the evangeli-

57 Cf. Murphy, Nancey, Beyond Liberalismand Fundamentalism: How Modern and Post-modern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda(Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996).

302 LOK M. BHANDARI

cal theological tradition.

Evangelical Boundaries from aTheological Perspective

While the critical rereading of biblicaltexts has helped us to define andrefine the concepts of boundaries inthe biblical tradition, it can be arguedthat one of the greatest challenges toevangelical boundaries comes in theform of shifting philosophical para-digms that set the agenda for theo-logical discourse, because, unlike theBible, evangelicals do not give asmuch place explicitly to the conceptof tradition and its philosophicalunderpinnings as a source of author-ity. Thus this tends to be a blind spotthat affects the concept of evangeli-cal boundaries.58

This is an important matter sincemany traditional evangelical doctri-nal formulations which have tendedto demarcate its boundaries arethemselves grounded in post-Enlightenment realist philosophy,namely the Princeton theology ofCharles Hodge and his followers.59

Inasmuch as fundamentalism andevangelicalism are a reaction tomodernism, this has arguably led toan imbalanced, speculative doctrineof Scripture and an attenuated doc-trine of the Holy Spirit.60 ‘Althoughfundamentalists typically adhere to awide range of beliefs and practices,they often focus on a few selectissues. Rather than espouse a whole-sale return to a traditional past…,

58 Grenz, Stanley, Renewing the Center: Evan-gelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era (GrandRapids: Bridge Point, 2000), pp. 70-73.

59 Ibid., pp. 141-144;148-150.60 Stump, Boundaries of Faith, p. 11.

fundamentalists concentrate on whatthey consider to be most importantfeatures of that past in defining theideological boundary that separatesthem from others.’61

This phenomenon has recentlybeen intensified in a context whereradical constructivist and pluralistnotions of truth are increasinglyviewed as hostile to evangelical doc-trine, epitomized, for example, inDavid F. Wells’ book, No Place forTruth, Or Whatever Happened toEvangelical Theology?62 It can beargued that this evangelical theolo-gy, based on a realist, foundational-ist philosophy, which is still regnantamong laypersons and most schol-ars, is used as a ideological boundarybetween itself and theological liberal-ism, while often seemingly unawarethat its language and formulationsare ‘modern’ too. What is happeningthough, in some scholarly evangeli-cal circles, is a real critical engage-ment with contemporary intellectualcurrents, fully cognizant of evangeli-cal distinctives and the biblical her-itage.63 We will take this importantdevelopment up presently.

61 Wells, David F., No Place for Truth, OrWhatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).

62 Cf. Hauerwas, Stanley, Nancey Murphy &Mark Nation, eds., Theology Without Founda-tions: Religious Practice & the Future of Theolog-ical Truth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994); Stackhouse,John G., ed., Evangelical Futures: A Conversationin Theological Method (Grand Rapids: Baker,2000); Grenz, Stanley, Renewing the Center:Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era(Grand Rapids: Bridge Point, 2000); Murphy,Nancey, Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism:How Modern and Postmodern Philosophy Set theTheological Agenda (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity PressInternational, 1996).

63 Grenz, Renewing the Center, p. 72.


In this section we will look at sev-eral areas of revisioned evangelicaltheology and their implications forevangelical boundaries. First, there isthe fundamental question thatimpacts our inquiry: What is evan-gelical theology and how do we con-ceive of it? A dominant strand ofevangelical thought has posited arealist, foundationalist epistemology,which saw the propositional truths ofthe Bible, literally understood, as itssource. The organization of thesetruths into a rational theologicalscheme, according to traditionalChristian dogmatics, was the basicmethod and mode of discourse.

Thus the great theologian[Charles] Hodge ‘patterned his workafter that of the scientist. Just as thenatural scientist uncovers the factspertaining to the natural world, heasserted, so the theologian brings tolight the theological facts found with-in the Bible.’64 Likewise, ‘[the] questfor scientific theology required anunassailable foundation, one thatcould endow the theological con-struction with epistemological certi-tude when subjected to the canons ofempirical science.’65 Philosophically,this is the basis of the ‘modernist’doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptureand its refinements, which still servesas a defining theological boundarymarker for most evangelicals.

It is clear that this way of doingtheology (and many of its resultant

64 Ibid.65 McGrath, Alister E., ‘Evangelical Theological

Method: “The State of the Art”’ in EvangelicalFutures: A Conversation in Theological Method,ed. John G. Stackhouse (Grand Rapids: Baker,2000), p. 33.

doctrinal formulations) was essential-ly enthralled to the prevailing secularphilosophy of the time. For evangel-icals to make this theologicalmethod—and the doctrinal formula-tions flowing from it—indispensableevangelical identity markers is toconfuse the Word of God with thefallibility of human wisdom, andundermines the Protestant emphasison the necessary self-critical stancewe must take vis-à-vis Scripture.Thus ‘evangelicals, of all God’s peo-ple, cannot allow revelation to beimprisoned within the flawed limitsof sinful human reason’.66

It was precisely the notion of a uni-versal, objectivist rationality thatpostmodernism has challenged.Philosophers like Alasdair McIntyreshowed that human rationality is a‘tradition-constituted rationality’,dependent upon the justification ofparticular communities ofdiscourse.67 Some evangelical the-ologians have worked assiduously inarticulating what a proper evangeli-cal theological method should looklike in a postmodern context, awareof the need for a critical engagementwith this particular intellectual andcultural context also.68

Some of the more exciting pro-posals for an evangelical theologicalmethod refocus on the narrativegrammar of the story of Scripture as

66 Murphy, Nancey, ‘Introduction’ in Hauerwaset al eds., Without Foundations, p. 17.

67 Cf. Vanhoozer, Kevin, ‘The Voice of theActor: A Dramatic Proposal About the Ministry andMinstrelsy of Theology’ in Evangelical Futures, ed.John G. Stackhouse, pp. 61-106.; Work, Telford,Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy ofSalvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

68 Wright, New Testament, pp. 131-137.

304 LOK M. BHANDARI

a key element in evangelical self-understanding and boundary mak-ing, within the church’s ethical, cate-chetical and missional vocation.69

Evangelical theology deals not withdisparate bits of ideas and information butwith an all-embracing narrative that relatesthe unified action of God. What theevangelical theologian ultimately wants tosay about x, y, and z stems not fromisolated word studies but from substantialreflection on the meaning of what God hasdone through Christ to create and recreatethe world. The Bible is not a theologicaldictionary but a theological drama, and itshould be used as such.70

What about the notion of biblicalauthority, in which the doctrine ofinerrancy or infallibility serves as anevangelical boundary marker to safe-guard against a lapse into theologicalrelativism? NT theologian N.T.Wright’s non-foundationalist con-strual of this doctrine attempts toarticulate a more ‘biblical’ notion ofScriptural authority derived from thenarrative grammar of the Bible as agrand epic. He believes that theBible’s authority should be conceivedlike that of an unfinished multi-actplay with the normal development ofthe plotline, in which the actors mustimprovise the unfinished act beforethe final act, based on the ‘authority’of the previous acts.71

Specifically, Wright envisions thebiblical epic in five acts: creation; fall;Israel; Jesus; church. The writing ofthe NT would be the first scene in theact, with some parts of the NT (e.g.,Rom. 8 and 1Cor. 15) adumbratingthe end of the drama. Christians live

69 Vanhoozer, ‘Voice of the Actor,’ p. 64.70 Wright, New Testament,140; Vanhoozer,

‘Voice of the Actor,’ pp. 98-101.71 Wright, New Testament, p. 142.

under the authority of the earlieracts, with the requisite sense of plotdevelopment. Therefore a faithfulperformance of the story cannotconsist of repeating the previousacts.72 Thus ‘[we] are not searching,against the grain of the [biblical]material, for timeless truths. We arelooking, as the material is looking,for and at a vocation to be the peo-ple of God in the fifth act of the dra-ma of creation.’73 As a result, in thismodel there is a shift from a mod-ernist, foundationalist appeal to the‘scientific’ reliability of the Bible, to amore biblical understanding of Scrip-ture as God’s story with the world,‘focused on Israel and thence on thestory of Jesus, as told and retold inthe Old and New Testaments, andstill requiring completion’.74 It bringsto the forefront YHWH, the God ofthe Bible, who promises redemp-tion, and is bringing it about throughJesus Christ by the Holy Spirit in andthrough the church.

This orients us to the missiologicalimpetus of God’s work reflected inScripture and away from fruitless,speculative theories about the Bible,about which the Bible itself (andhence YHWH) is not concerned. Assuch, these should be questioned asevangelical boundary markers. Thisis true inasmuch as the Bible is a‘norma normans non normata, anorm that norms but has not itselfbeen normed, a source of authoritythat provides the standards of judg-

72 Ibid.73 Ibid., p. 143.74 Griffiths, Paul J., ‘The Proper Christian

Response to Religious Pluralism’, Anglican Theo-logical Review LXXIX/1 (1997) p. 15.


ment for us, but that is itself not sub-ject to standards of judgment extrin-sic to it.’75

In the end evangelicalism alwayscomes back to the centrality of theeuangelion (‘gospel’) as the climaxof God’s work in redemption. It isregrettable but true that some evan-gelicals have not often had to take ahard self-critical stance in order tocome to terms with their heritage;that time is now past. This exercisein rereading biblical texts and engag-ing in socio-historical analysis to helpus understand evangelical bound-aries must be fleshed out in terms ofour present day agendas. This is ournext destination.

Ministry Implications forRevised Evangelical

BoundariesSpace limitations and the nature ofthe inquiry in these days mean thatan extended coverage of the ministryimplications of this topic will be brief.As a result, the following commentswill not be of the ‘how to’ variety orconcern specific policy prescrip-tions; they will deal more with a‘grammar’ or hermeneutic of evan-gelical Christian existence and prax-is for the 21st century. The post-modern turn in philosophy and the-ology has rightly eschewed ‘one-size-fits-all’ theologies; they are to beunderstood as largely culture specif-ic. Thus how we do ministry, to agreat extent, will be affected by thecultural, socio-political, and econom-

75 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, Paul: A Criti-cal Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p.198.

ic milieu. As Paul did, we must learnto critically reflect on Jesus’ kingdomproclamation, life, death and resur-rection and, in the power of the HolySpirit, allow our communities to dothe work of incarnating this way-of-being-in-the-world in our diverse cul-tures and contexts (cf. Philp. 2:1-2).76

Given this reality, we must assertthat truly there is no such thing as(nor has there ever been!) a non-con-textualized gospel. For example, wehave four gospels in the NT, reflect-ing four contextual understandingsof what God has done in Jesus’ life,death and resurrection. Thus the realissue for evangelicals, in terms ofdefining their boundaries, has oftenbeen to reidentify as ‘biblical’ thecontextual application of certain the-ological principles and practices,which are to be understood in thecontext of fundamentalists/evangeli-cals defining them selves polemicallyagainst others, as we have noted.

The danger is that there has not atall times been the self-critical stancetoward the in-group to see if it hasbeen faithful to its own reputedScriptural self-understanding, orwhether it has on occasion confusedbeing biblical with reflecting the cul-tural or pragmatic concerns of its giv-en context in ministry. For example,the growth and vitality of the evan-gelical church in South Korea hasbeen lauded worldwide by westernmissiologists and church growthexperts. It is truly remarkable what

76 Suh, David Kwang-Sun, The Korean Min-jung in Christ (Hong Kong: Christian Conference ofAsia, 1991), p. 116.

306 LOK M. BHANDARI

God has done there! But recentlyboth Korean and western scholarsand church leaders have taken acloser look at this phenomenon andhave come to some searching con-clusions. The Korean church mayhave come close to compromisingthe evangelical boundary of religioussyncretism by assimilating the modusoperandi of shamanism, the tradi-tional folk religion of Korea. In thewords of one Korean scholar,

Korean Protestantism has almost beenreduced to a Christianized mudangreligion. That is, the form and language ofthe worship service are Christian, but thecontent and structure of what KoreanChristians do are basically mudangreligion. Although missionaries rejectedshamanism and thought it had beendestroyed, Korean Christianity hasbecome almost completely shamanized.77

This mudang orientation particu-larly manifests itself in the intensespirituality geared towards the acqui-sition of material wealth and wellbeing. This has led Jae Bum Lee toobserve that ‘participants are strong-ly motivated to individual interestsand do not pray for others…andprobably half are motivated by mag-ical interests’,78 Another scholar hasgone as far to say that Korean Pen-tecostalism reflects ‘a truncated ver-sion of the Gospel that has eliminat-ed personal and public disciple-

77 Lee, Jae Bum, ‘Pentecostal Type Distinctivesand Korean Protestant Church Growth,’ Ph.D. dis-sertation, School of World Mission (Pasadena, CA:Fuller Theological Seminary, 1986), pp. 154-157.

78 Mullins, Mark R., ‘The Empire Strikes Back:Korean Pentecostal Mission to Japan’ in Charis-matic Christianity as a Global Culture, ed. KarlaPoewe (Columbia, SC: University of South CarolinaPress, 1994), p. 98.

ship’.79 These indictments mayappear harsh and judgmental but ifevangelicals are to take their heritageseriously, then they have to exercisea vigorous self-critical biblical andtheological stance if its boundariesare to have biblical and theologicalintegrity.

The question that must be asked ofthe South Korean evangelical church(and, in different ways, of othersaround the world too) is: How does aChristianized form of mudang reli-gion square with Jesus’ proclamationof the kingdom of God, with its callto a sacrificial life for believers with-in the church, the community ofJesus (cf. Mark 10:17-45; Mt. 5-7).This theme is also central to everystrand of the NT (cf. Rom. 12,14; 1Cor. 1:10-3:21; 1 Pet. 4; 1 Jn.3:11-4:12; Heb. 13:1-7; James 2,4, 5 etc.). Strengthening this under-standing is the seminal work of NTscholar Luke Timothy Johnson,whose examination of soteria (‘sal-vation’) and its cognates in Luke-Actsand Paul leads him to state that ‘sal-vation means belonging to the rem-nant people God is creating out ofJew and Gentile in the present sea-son. For Luke and Paul, extra eccle-siam nulla salus [‘there is no salva-tion outside of the church’] wouldnot only be true but tautologous.’80

In other words, if salvation has todo with one’s status in the true com-munity of God, then that means that

79 Johnson, Luke Timothy, ‘The Social Dimen-sions of Soteria in Luke-Acts and Paul’ in Societyof Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1993(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), p. 536.

80 Aune, David E., Revelation 1-5 (WBC 52a;Dallas: Word, 1997), p. 104.


we must pay particular attention tothe paradigmatic narrative ethics ofthe Gospels and Paul, which help usdefine what evangelical boundariesare in various contexts. When wethink of salvation as largely extrinsicto community or social ethics, thenwe tend to evaluate many of the cul-tural belief-systems and practicesaround us (usually excluding genderand sexual ethics!) as adiaphora, andthus worthy of assimilation to furtherthe gospel in a given culture. Butwhen we look at the NT critically, wesee how deeply Paul and the otherwriters thought about the theologicalnature of what was central to thefaith—issues that impinged upontheology, christology and what itmeans to be the community of thekingdom of God in Christ.

A small example would be Revela-tion 1:18d, where the risen Jesussays he has ‘ the keys to Death andHades’. This imagery is not found inthe OT; and ‘in early Jewish under-world mythology, the netherworld isnot thought of as having doors orgates’.81 Surprisingly, this image ofthe Risen Christ in Revelation (whichis one of the most fiercely Jewishmonotheistic books in the NT) isdrawn from popular Greco-Romanconceptions of the goddess Hekete,the regional deity in the Romanprovince of Asia (Asia Minor), whowas worshipped as the queen of thecosmos. She was associated withSelene/Luna in heaven,Artemis/Diana on earth, and Perse-phone/Proserpina in Hades, whereshe had the name keybearer (Gr.

81 Ibid.

kleidouchos).82 Perhaps this imagewas used by the author of Revelationto impact believers living in thesocio-religious context of the Romanprovince of Asia, where the bookwas probably written, to signify that,in his death and resurrection, Jesushad assumed the role held by Heketein the popular imagination.

What is interesting from the per-spective of our inquiry is that thisassimilation of the function ofHekete to Jesus is truly subversive:Jesus is the ‘king of the cosmos’because of his sacrifice on Calvaryand his subsequent resurrection byYHWH. Thus the story of Jesus andthe theology of the cross and resur-rection is not compromised. Thisdynamic is repeated time and timeagain in the NT. If our theologicalreflection for our preaching, teach-ing and praxis is done at the level ofciting proof texts from Scripture,then we will miss the deep theologiz-ing implicitly reflected in the bound-aries evinced in the NT, done in ref-erence to the socio-religious, politi-cal and economic currents of lateGreco-Roman antiquity.83

In conclusion, there are no easyuniversally applicable answers to the

82 In order to see how NT boundaries are vari-ously defined in Luke-Acts, Paul and the PastoralEpistles in relation to the religion and political theol-ogy of the Roman Empire cf. Wright, N.T., ‘Paul’sGospel and Caesar’s Empire’, presented at the Cen-ter for Theological Inquiry, Princeton, NJ:http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htmand Bonz, Marianne P., ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christvs. the Gospel of Rome’, presented at the WGBHLowell Institute Symposium at Harvard University:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/symposium/gospel.html .

83 Cf. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NewTestament.

308 LOK M. BHANDARI

question of defining evangelicalism’sboundaries in the 21st century.Why? Because, as we have shown,both the OT and the NT exhibit adiversity of construals of what itmeans to be the people of God in dif-ferent contexts, even though there iscontinuity in the grand epic of thestory of YHWH with his people inthe Bible.84 Also, we must recognizehow often our vision of who we arein relation to God and the world is

84 One of the main problems in evangelical cir-cles has been the relative lack of interdisciplinarywork being done by theologians, biblical specialists,ethicists, missiologists, church leaders, etc. inaddressing this issue of boundaries. In the NorthAmerican and British context a broad-based group ofevangelical and mainline scholars and church leadersare engaged in reflection on the missional vocationof the church in the postmodern context, whichdeals with the topic of this inquiry. This cadre of lead-ers is known as the Gospel and Culture Network:http://www.gocn.org/. See selected books of thoseassociated with this network: Hunsberger, GeorgeR., Craig Van Gelder, eds. The Church betweenGospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission inNorth America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996);Chin, Shiba, George R. Hunsberger, Lester Edwin J.Ruiz, eds. Christian Ethics in Ecumenical Context:Theology, Culture, and Politics (Grand Rapids:

blurry and myopic. Thus defining ourboundaries will often be a painful dia-logical process as we wrestle, as theearly church did, with the basic issuesof identity in our changing world.What is required of us is better criti-cal exegesis of our text (the biblicaltradition), context (socio-historical,religious, political and economic),and subtext (the philosophical, theo-logical and cultural assumptions ofour various contexts).

Eerdmans, 1995); Volf, Miroslav, Exclusion andEmbrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity,Otherness and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abing-don, 1996). For other authors who engage in thistask from a similar perspective, incorporating all theelements we have advocated in this paper (text, con-text and subtext) and whose theologizing would behelpful to evangelicals in the task of defining theirboundaries, see Jones, Serene, Feminist Theoryand Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000); Middleton, J. Richardand Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stranger than it usedto be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age (Down-ers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity, 1995); Fowl, StephenE. and L. Gregory Jones, Reading in Communion:Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1991); Spohn, William C., Whatare they Saying About Scripture and Ethics? rev.ed. (New York: Paulist, 1995).


ConscienceReproach yields no relief,To a darker side that would not be so dark.God within me, yet unknownProtests misdeeds with gnawing discontent.Disquiet hardens into cold remorse,And regret becomes dull resignation,Till ears bend keenly to Gospel wordEmbracing the possibility of new birth.

by Garry Harris, South Australia (used with permission)

ERT (2002) 26:4, 310–318 0144-8153

Relativism and ChristianTheology

James P. Danaher

Keywords: Perspective, truth, realism, imagination, language,structuralism, mystery, dialogue, revelation

The relativism of our present age isnothing new. In fact, human under-standing has always been relativeand perspectival in spite of our naivebeliefs to the contrary. What isunique today is that great numbers ofhuman beings have become aware ofthe fact that our understanding of theworld is not objective but seenthrough the filter of our understand-ing. It would seem that among thelast to accept this truth are Christianswho cling to an antiquated realism inthe belief that it is essential to Chris-tianity. Such a belief, however, is nomore essential to Christianity than

James P. Danaher, Ph.D., M. Phil. (City Uni-versity, New York) is Head of the Departmentof Philosophy, Nyack College, NY and Chairof the Department of Arts and Sciences,Berkeley College, White Plains, NY. He haspublished articles in many philosophical andtheological journals, including ‘Forgiveness:Human and Divine’ (Lexington TheologicalQuarterly, Summer 2000) ‘The Dynamics ofFaith: from Hope to Knowledge’ (The AsburyTheological Journal, Fall 2000), ‘The placeof Berkeley’s ideas’ (Philosophical EnquirySummer 2000), ‘Concepts and our under-standing of them’ (Ashland TheologicalJournal, 1999). He is the author of Post-modern Christianity and the Reconstruc-tion of the Christian Mind. (AcademicaBooks, 2001)

was the belief of many early modernChristians that the universe was geo-centric. Furthermore, not only issuch a realist view less than true, it isalso less conducive to the spirit ofChristianity than a perspectival, rela-tivist view of reality.

Since the time of Kant it has beengenerally accepted that our under-standing of the world is always medi-ated by concepts that are in us andnot part of the world. Of course,Kant tried to salvage the idea of uni-versal knowledge in spite of our notbeing able to know objective realityor things-in-themselves. The Kantiansolution was that what the individualbrought to the experience, and whatwas therefore not part of the worldas given, were ideas that existed asuniversal mental hardware which,although not part of the world itself,are part of the way all human beingsconceptualize and think about theworld.

After Kant, however, a host ofphilosophers as diverse as Hegel,Nietzsche, James, Wittgenstein,Gadamer, and Foucault, just to men-tion a few, argued that much of what

Kant thought to be innate hardwarewas, in fact, the product of history,culture, language communities, andthe philosophical perspectives andvalues of individual human beings.Of course, there remains anothercamp of philosophers who haveretained something of a Kantianclaim that what we bring to our expe-rience of the world is more a matterof innate hardware. There is certain-ly some truth to their claim and wedo have a degree of hardware whichallows us to process our experienceof the world. Mixed with that hard-ware, however, is imagination, and itis largely because of a freedom in theimagination that our understandingchanges with history, culture, andlanguage communities.

It may not appear that imaginationis at the root of our conceptualunderstanding of the world sincemost concepts which play such a bigpart in making up our understandingare dictatorially imposed upon uswhen we are very young. In our ini-tial acquisition of language, we aregiven the concepts of our language,community and culture. In the earlystages of that acquisition, however,we did have concepts that were not‘given’ but rather were the product ofour own experience and imagina-tion. In fact, the concepts wereceived from our language commu-nity were generally corrections tothose initial concepts.

The initial concepts we formedwere those based on a limited num-ber of instances and often did notmuch resemble the concepts of ourlanguage community. Our initialconcept of a dog may have been that

of a four-legged sock-eater, but as weexperienced more instances signifiedby the same signifier or word, dog,our concept changed, and came evercloser to reflect the concept of ourlanguage community. Not allinstances to which the signifier, dogwas attached were sock-eaters andthere were many more things thathad four legs than were signified bythe word, dog. Our concept of dogchanged to accommodate theinstances signified by other speakersof our language community. If wehad been presented with a differentset of instances, it would have pro-duced a different concept within us.

Most of our concepts have beendictatorially imposed upon us in justsuch a way. Prior to that imposition,however, we were forming conceptsout of our imagination. Later in life,some of us become philosophers,and that imagination again becomesa major source of many of the con-cepts we come to form.

Of course, the concepts of youngchildren and philosophers aside,most of our concepts are not theproduct of our imagination, but areimposed upon us as we adapt to theconcepts of our language communi-ties. But even those concepts ulti-mately had their origin in the imagi-nation of some individual or individ-uals whose concepts eventuallycame to be accepted and to repre-sent the concepts of an entire cultur-al, historical epoch, or languagecommunity. So the understandingthat human beings have of the worldis made up of a strange mix of rawsensations, innate hardware, and theimagination.

RELATIVISM AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 311

It is, of course, the imaginative ele-ment that is the main contributor torelativism. Although Einstein provedthe relativity of simultaneity by show-ing that even our experience of rawsense data is relative to our perspec-tive, and no perspectival position inthe universe can be privileged overanother, the main source of rela-tivism is certainly the imagination.Since concepts are not simply givenin experience but are a combinationof raw experience combined withjudgments concerning how that rawexperience is to be organized andthus understood, imagination plays alarge role in our understanding of theworld.

Because the imagination is to agreat extent free, we can imaginethat there are different racial kinds ofpeople or we can imagine that thereis only one human race. We canimagine sets of symptoms as a singledisease or several different diseases.It is out of our imagination that wedivide up the world and create ourunderstanding. That does not mean,however, that the divisions we makeare not based upon what we actuallyexperience. It is rather that what weactually experience affords us morebases for dividing up the world thanwe could ever use. Hence, we mustmake choices concerning where tomake our divisions and form ourconcepts. Consequently, our con-ceptualization of what we experi-ence is largely supplied by our imag-ination and is therefore relative andperspectival rather than objectiveand universal.

What is necessary to overcome rel-ativism is not that we all have the

same basic understanding, becausewe all adhere to the same conven-tions. That would merely producethe illusion of realism. What is nec-essary is some God-given means tolimit the freedom in our imagination.Medieval Aristotelians believed thatwe did have such a God-given meansin the form of a mental hardware oractive intellect that caused our con-ceptual understanding to be formedin a God-prescribed way. If this werethe case then we would all form notonly similar concepts, but correct, orGod-given, similar concepts. Ofcourse, such a view is difficult tomaintain today in the light of whatwe know about the way our under-standing of the world changes due tohistory, culture, and philosophy.

Additionally, in the twentieth cen-tury, we have become aware of thestructural nature of our understand-ing. The great contribution of struc-turalism, and what even post-struc-turalists retain from structuralism, isthe fact that language constitutes aweb of meaning. The meaning ofone word effects another, and noword stands as an atomistic entitywhose meaning is self contained andindependent from other words. Thisfurther adds to the relative nature ofour understanding, for as the mean-ing of one word changes due to cul-tural, historical, or philosophical fac-tors, so does the meaning of otherwords.

In light of all this, can we believethat there is a correct conceptualunderstanding, or a God’s-eye-viewto which we might have access? Theanswer to such a question dependsupon what we mean by a God’s-eye-

312 JAMES P. DANAHER

view. If we mean that our under-standing of the world can be some-thing like mathematics which allhuman beings have access to merelyby being human, and whose contentis objective and universal, then theanswer is certainly, no. If, however,we mean by a God’s-eye-view thatwe are able to enter into a personaland intimate relationship with a Godwho desires to reveal his perspectivalunderstanding in order that we mightbecome ever more like him, then theanswer is certainly, yes.

The Enlightenment science ofmodernity sought an objective anduniversal understanding. Christiansof the modern era followed thatdominant view and fashioned theirunderstanding of God after such amodel. Moderns supposed that sincemathematics is not perspectival butobjective in a way that other ways ofknowing are not, it would give us anideal form of knowing. The integralcalculus developed by moderns likeNewton and Leibniz allowed such anobjective way of knowing to bemapped to our ideas of the externalworld and thus gave us the notionthat such a world did not need to besubjective and perspectival.

Certainly there is merit to this andwe would not want to do without amathematical physics and all thebenefits it brings. The problem aris-es when we suppose that it is the bestand, in fact, the only model for trueknowledge. The problem withmodernity was not just that it offereda mathematical model for knowl-edge, but it insisted that all knowl-edge be objective and universal.God, however, never intended to be

known with objective certainty. Toknow God in an objective and uni-versal way may bring us into religionbut not faith.

If we are to come to faith, ourovercoming of relativism will not beby getting to some objective realitybut by getting to a perspectivalGod’s-eye-view through a personaland ongoing dialogue with God. Thereason we need to get to a God’s-eye-view through a personal dia-logue is because God is a personand, like any person, God is a mys-tery that cannot be discovered butmust be revealed.

Whenever we wish to know some-one in more than a casual way, weare faced with a mystery which wecannot penetrate. Another’s inner-most thoughts and desires are notaccessible to us and therefore appearmysterious. But although we do nothave access to the mysteries whichlie within another person, they canreveal those mysteries to us. Hence,the mystery of a person is not anunknowable mystery, so long as theperson we wish to know both under-stands the mysterious depths of herown being, and is willing to revealthose mysterious depths to us. For-tunately, God is a person who bothknows himself and is willing to makehimself known. Thus, although amystery, God is a mystery that isknowable. In fact, God is a mysterythat is infinitely knowable.

Relativism is therefore overcome,not by getting to some ultimate,objective reality but by getting tosome ultimate perspective. We cometo that perspective through a series ofrevelations which constitute an ongo-


ing dialogue. Whether the revelationsby which we come to know God takethe form of a written or spoken word,a vision or small still voice is of littleconsequence. What is essential to thenature of the revelation is that it isboth ongoing and dialogic. One rev-elation, or even a dozen, no matterhow spectacular, will not bring us veryfar into an understanding of who Godis. The revelations must constitute acontinuing series by which our under-standing and intimacy increases. Inorder for such growth to occur, thenature of the revelation must also bedialogic.

The form of this dialogue is notunlike the way we personally commu-nicate to other human beings whomwe wish to know evermore intimate-ly. In the Scripture, God’s relationshipwith us is likened to a husband’s rela-tionship to a wife (e.g., the fifth chap-ter of Ephesians, the book of Hosea,the Song of Songs, et al.). In the rela-tionship between spouses, if there isan interest to know the depths of theother person, it will always begin as amystery. With patience and an ongo-ing dialogue through which the otherperson reveals himself, however,understanding and intimacy begin todevelop.

Of course, it is not enough that theperson reveals herself. If the revela-tion is to be ongoing and dialogic,the other person in the dialoguemust participate. That does notmean that we necessarily need tospeak back to God. God knows ourhearts so it is not necessary that wespeak, but we must participate in therevelation and respond by formulat-ing the next question in order that

the dialogue may continue. Everyrevelation must bring us to a stilldeeper question.

With human beings some ques-tions may be considered too delicateto ask for fear that such questionsmight end the relationship, but in notasking the question, we end the dia-logue and our understanding of theother person goes no further. WithGod, we need not have such a fearso long as the next question we for-mulate is for the purpose of knowinghim better and coming into a greaterintimacy with him.

Of course, we must also be willingto accept the answer that, at thepresent time, God cannot reveal ananswer to a particular question.There may be many reasons for this,but one certainly is that we do notknow enough about God at the pres-ent time and would thus misunder-stand what was revealed to us. I amvery grateful that God did not revealcertain things to me until I hadenough understanding to handlethem. Indeed, many things that Godreveals to us after a thirty-year jour-ney with him, could not have beenproperly understood after two yearsor even ten. This is the nature of anyongoing dialogue with anyone but itis especially true of our relationshipwith God.

In spite of the fact that God, or anyother person with whom we are inintimate dialogue, is able to revealtheir unique perspective to us, itwould, nevertheless, be an error tothink that such a revelation gives usa comprehensive understanding ofthat other person. We may have par-ticular insights, but much of that oth-


er person will always be a mystery tous. The great error in Christian the-ology is to either believe that God isnot knowable on a personal and inti-mate level, or to believe that God iscompletely knowable. Our under-standing of God, like our under-standing of anyone with whom weare intimate, is both something wegrasp and something which escapesus.

Furthermore, the nature of theunderstanding we gain concerningGod, or any other person, is not anobjective knowing. It will always beperspectival and therefore relative toour present understanding of thatperson. This is especially true ofGod. Indeed, when God speaks tous, either through a spoken or writ-ten word, a vision, or an inner wit-ness, we have to interpret what Godis attempting to communicate, andthat interpretation is not only influ-enced by where we are in our ongo-ing dialogue with God, but by a hostof other factors as well. Certainlywhat God communicates to us is ‘thegiven,’ but the meaning we attributeto it is always relative to our histori-cal, cultural, and philosophicalunderstanding.

Additionally, our understanding ofGod is also structural and exists with-in a web of meaning and thereforeour understanding will be relative tothat web. If my idea of love changes,so does my idea of God. The same istrue of a host of other concepts suchas faith, forgiveness, sin, holiness,repentance, etc. Any change inthose concepts will affect my con-cept of God as well.

In spite of all these factors which

make our understanding of God per-spectival and relative, our under-standing is not relative in the sensethat we can think anything we want.If we truly are in an ongoing dia-logue, there is an anchor which pre-vents us from drifting here and there.Just as the external world of sensedata provides an anchor for ourunderstanding of the physical world,the other person in a dialogue pro-vides an anchor which keeps us fromthinking anything we want about thatperson. If fact, it is much more of ananchor than the sense data of thephysical world. With the sense datathat the world provides, we are atgreat liberty to conceptualize thatdata, not in any way we want, but ina great variety of ways.

Such freedom is more limited in adialogue that seeks to know anotherperson in that the other person pre-vents us from believing a vast varietyof false assumptions. If the other per-son is knowledgeable, trustworthy,and open, our understanding ofthem, as perspectival as it may be,will be constantly kept in check andnot allowed to drift too far from thereality of that other person. Thus,although the thing we seek knowl-edge of is not an object but a subject,and thus our knowledge will be sub-jective rather than objective, we can-not think anything we want. There issomething or someone to whom ourknowledge is attached. So our under-standing is not wildly relative, so longas we stay in an ongoing dialoguethrough which the other person con-tinually corrects the understandingwe have of them.

Additionally, when this ongoing


dialogue is with the person of God, italso provides us with a knowledgethat is certain. Of course, the cer-tainty we have concerning ourknowledge of God is unlike theobjective certainty of mathematics.Indeed, the certainty we acquirethrough our ongoing dialogue withGod is a subjective certainty con-cerning God’s faithfulness. Such sub-jective certainty is the kind that devel-ops slowly over time as another per-son consistently demonstrates theirfaithfulness. As such faithfulness isdemonstrated, we become evermorecertain of that other person and theirfaithfulness.

This kind of subjective certainty dif-fers greatly from the kind of certain-ty insisted upon by mathematics. Forone thing, it is not the kind of cer-tainty which we can demonstrate orpass on to other people, for evenwhen God repeatedly shows himselffaithful, and we get the personalassurance that God can be explicitlytrusted, it is not the kind of certaintywe can demonstrate to others as wecan with mathematics. With God wemust let everyone come to that cer-tainty through their own personalencounter and journey with God.

CONCLUSIONThis kind of subjective, relative, yetcertain understanding of God is notonly different from the objective anduniversal understanding that theolo-gians had attempted to set forth inthe past, but it is also more con-ducive to the spirit of Christianity. Tobegin with, it produces an invaluablehumility in us. With the view we havebeen suggesting, whatever our theol-

ogy is, it is never the last word. Ourunderstanding of God is alwaysongoing and therefore always per-spectival and less than stable. Ofcourse, what we desire is stability,and a theology which purports to beobjective and universal gives us thesecurity we desire. Such security,however, is in ourselves and our wellcrafted theology rather than God.Such a theology puts us in charge,while a theology based on an ongo-ing dialogue through which Godreveals himself puts God in chargeand reduces us to a proper place ofhumility and dependence.

The consequence of such humilityand dependence is that it causes usto draw near to God and seek his wis-dom rather than simply applyingstandard theological solutions to thesituations we find ourselves in.Admittedly, that is uncomfortable,and we would all prefer to have beenequipped with a better knowledge ofGod in order that we could serve himout of our own knowledge and wis-dom rather than out of a dependenceupon him. But, of course, such adependent relationship is the veryessence of Christianity.

Certainly, God could haveequipped us with an ability to con-ceptualize as he does and make wisejudgments out of that understanding,but the fact that God chose not to dothat tells us that he has somethingbetter for us. What God has for us isto personally lead us with his wis-dom. Indeed, God chose to retaintrue knowledge for himself and dis-pense wisdom as individuals soughthis counsel. This is a central themeof the gospel. Jesus commands us to


follow him, to live as he lived. Theway he lived was to be in constantcommunion with the father, and todo nothing out of his own wisdom.

The Son can do nothing by himself, he canonly do what he sees his Father doingbecause whatever the Father does the Sonalso does. (John 5:19 NIV)

Or as he says later in John’sGospel,

The words I say to you are not just myown. Rather, it is the Father, living in me,who is doing his work. (John 14:10 NIV)

It is God’s desire that we would alllive in such close relationship withhim that it would be his wisdomrather than our own that would leadus through this life. Thus, we do haveaccess to true wisdom, but it is notthrough objective methods like thoseof mathematics and science butthrough a personal relationship witha living God. This is why, in both thethird chapter of James’ Epistle andthe second and third chapters of 1stCorinthians, we are told that thereare two wisdoms. One is a wisdomthat ‘does not come down fromheaven but is earthly . . . (James3:15),’ and another wisdom thatdoes come from heaven (James3:17). If our theology is to be basedon a wisdom that comes down fromheaven, it will require a theologyrooted in a personal and intimatedialogue with God and not in the nar-row and exacting doctrines of a the-ological system.

Finally, it will be only through sucha dialogue and the subjective andperspectivally relative theology itproduces that the unity God intendsfor his people will come about.Indeed, what has kept Christiansapart for so long has been our belief

that we possess an objective and uni-versal theology. Once constructed,such an objective theology causes usto see others who have reasoned upa different theology as either ration-ally or spiritually deficient. In thepast, Christians have killed each oth-er over rather minor doctrinal pointsbecause they believed they were inpossession of an objective and uni-versal truth.

Such a position is not possible if webelieve that an understanding of whoGod is comes through dialoguewhich is personal, intimate, andongoing. With such a view, it is easyto understand how others can be in adifferent place in the journey whichis the Christian life. Indeed, the sameScripture and the same God havedifferent meanings to a seven-year-old who has just encountered God,and to one who has been on the jour-ney with God for fifty years. True,the seven-year-old can experienceGod every bit as much as the matureChristian, but the understanding andthe meaning attributed to that expe-rience will certainly be different.What should be the greatest differ-ence between the two is that the newbeliever is tempered to think thathis/her understanding is complete,while the mature believer should bereluctant to draw such conclusions.Unfortunately, this is not always thecase and often the older Christianhas not mellowed but has becomemore rigid. Ideas of God have nar-rowed rather than broadened, anddoctrines are ever more exacting. Iwould suggest that such a theology isthe product of the ego’s desire forobjective certainty rather than gen-


uine communion with God.It is very different with the mature

believer whose wisdom and theologyhave come out of an ongoing dialog-ic journey with God. Such a believeris more likely to embrace what a col-league of mine refers to as ‘humblehermeneutics’. Such ‘humble

hermeneutics’ result from a reducedconfidence in our own understand-ing and alone makes possible thekind of unity God desires for hischurch. That is, a unity establishedupon the recognition of other humanbeings engaged in the mysteriousdialogue which is the Christian life.


NEW FROM PARTNERSHIP

Church Leaders HandbookEditor: Harold Rowdon

The Church Leaders Handbook is a readable, practical and biblical introductionon what it means to be a local church. With fifty-one subjects addressed by forty-

four contributors, the whole range of church leadership is examined bypeople living at the coal face of local church life. Whether serving the community

with Fran Beckett, discussing the authority of leaders with Jonathan Lamb, orlistening to Peter Maiden’s commendation for service, there are many wiseinsights into how to ‘do’ church in biblical, thoughtful and relevant

ways. The result is a collection of material that makes sense and provides ideas.

Harold Rowdon taught church history at London Bible College for 37 years and hasbeen deeply involved in the work of Counties. Now living in retirement at Lymington,

his major involvements are with Partnership, as its general editor and internationalsecretary.

‘What a wonderful resource! . . . An ambitious book but one that more thanfulfils its ambition . . . There is nothing available to compete with it. Church

leaders . . . will find it an indispensable work for years to come. I shallcertainly be recommending it enthusiastically.’

Derek Tidball, Principal, London Bible College

‘Its great value is in combining theological reflection with practical applicationfor a comprehensive range of contemporary issues facing Christian leadership

in the local church . . . A must.’Joel Edwards, General Director, Evangelical Alliance

0-900128-23-2 / 229x145 / p/b / 413pp / £14.99

Partnership, PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 0QS, UK

0144-8153 ERT (2002) 26:4, 319–336

Systematic Theology orPoetry?

‘The problem is that our pastorswrite poetry, theirs write the system-atic theologies.’ We all laughedheartily and continued eating. I wassure that he was right. This must bethe problem. After all, this observa-tion disparagingly comparing cur-rent Russian/Ukrainian evangelicalswith their western counterparts was

made by a prominent UkrainianEvangelical Christian leader andseminary president. Actually, it wassimply a fleeting tongue-in-cheekcomment, a mixture of humour andexasperation. For me however, it hasbecome a small verbal icon illuminat-ing the current condition of theologyand theological education in post-Soviet evangelicalism.

Ukrainian/Russian Church leaderswriting poetry rather than more dis-cursive or specifically ‘systematic’forms of theology—how sad, howshameful! But is it really? Is this real-ly a problem for the post-Sovietevangelical church, for her theology,and for Christian living? Or, mightthis insight be the key for how to doChristian theology in a post-Sovietcontext? These questions are noteasy to answer negatively or posi-tively.

On the one hand, even a casualobserver of post-Soviet evangelical-ism will quickly discover that thisexpression of the faith is plagued

Coming of Age: The Futureof a Post-soviet Evangelical

TheologyDarrell Cosden

Keywords: Russian Protestantism, contextual theology, theologicalmethod, post-liberalism, narrative theology, systematic theology,evangelical identity.

Darrell Cosden is Lecturer in Christian Doc-trine and Ethics at the International ChristianCollege in Glasgow, and a Lecturer on theMTh in Contextual Theology at DonetskChristian University (Ukraine). He worked forKeston College on religious freedom issuesduring Glasnost in the late 1980s, afterwhich he moved to the Soviet Union as a mis-sionary with International Teams. Darrell hasserved as a lecturer in theological ethics, andacademic dean at Donetsk Christian Universi-ty. Darrell holds a BA in Christian Educationand Greek from Bryan College, MDiv fromDenver Seminary, and PhD in TheologicalEthics from the University of St. Andrews,Scotland. His research specialization includesa theology of work, the theology of JurgenMoltmann, Catholic social thought, theologi-cal anthropology, and evangelical theologicalmethod.

with problems and inconsistencies,practical and intellectual. Manyreformers from within and friendsand critics alike from the outsideoften criticize this tradition for lack-ing a consistent, critically reflectiveand sophisticated biblical exegesisand theology. Certainly, my ownexperience with this church confirmsthat such criticism is not without war-rant. Maybe a healthy dose of ‘sys-tematic’ theology is just what is need-ed.

On the other hand there is nodenying that these Christians – laityand leadership – as unsophisticated,enigmatic or even sometimes sectar-ian as they may be, have a genuineChristian faith that has been forgedin prayer with scripture amidst realpersecution and suffering and in obe-dience to God’s call. There is simplyno question that these folk havesomething important and necessaryto contribute positively to Christiantheology—their own and the rest ofthe world’s. Indeed, they do have atheology, and maybe it is best devel-oped and expressed poetically ratherthan systematically.

The question of which is better,systematic theology or poetry, pres-ents an interesting dilemma. Would ashift in emphasis from writing poet-ry to writing more discursive or sys-tematic theology really meet, orbegin to meet, the vast theologicalneeds (reflective and active) of thechurch and believers in the formerSoviet Union? Possibly, but maybenot.

Before going further I want to beclear that I am not denying the needfor a careful, reflective, critical, con-

structive, orderly and informed intel-lectual engagement with the doc-trines and practices of the Christianfaith. Every expression of Christiani-ty needs theology with these charac-teristics. The question is not whethertheology characterized as such needsto be done, or whether a discursiveform is an appropriate way to goabout doing theology.

The question here is rather howcould or should the whole enterpriseof theology be approached in a post-Soviet context? Where should theemphasis lie and what form should atheology for the post-Soviet evangel-ical church take? Likewise, howwould a choice for one approach oranother, i.e. poetry or ‘systematic’theology, affect the content andpractice of faith in that context?Here is a question of the method andcategorical structure of theology aswell as its content for method andstructure inevitably influence the sub-stance of the ideas.

There is currently a growing con-viction among many post-Sovietevangelicals and expatriate theolo-gians that it is time for post-Sovietevangelicalism to ‘come of age’ the-ologically speaking. The challenge isfor these brothers and sisters tobegin to experiment critically andconstructively in the Holy Spirit withthe Word toward developing a trulycontextualised post-Soviet evangeli-cal theology. In what follows I willexplore what this might mean andwhat might be involved in thisprocess. I likewise suggest somedirections that this might fruitfullytake. Ultimately, this will mean prob-ing the significance of the observa-

320 DARRELL COSDEN

tion that western evangelical Chris-tians ‘tend’ to write specifically sys-tematic theology while their easterncounterparts ‘tend’ to write poetry.

Further, a derivative purpose stem-ming from this exploration will be tosuggest that, given the current con-text, post-Soviet evangelicals woulddo well to begin to dialogue theolog-ically with others, rather than exclu-sively relying upon dialogue with orbe under the dominance of main-stream conservative North Americanevangelical theology. Specifically,these partners would need to includeamong others, Eastern Orthodoxy,various contextual theologies, and, Ibelieve, postliberalism. (This article isspecifically interested in the last ofthese.) This call to broader dialoguehowever, does not mean that thesepost-Soviet Christians should losetheir distinctive identity as evangeli-cals. On the contrary, what is need-ed is for them, in dialogue with oth-ers, to finally find it.

A Contextualised post-SovietEvangelical Theology

To begin, what do I mean by devel-oping a truly contextualised post-Soviet Evangelical theology?1 Whatis meant by contextualisation? Theidea of contextualisation can meanmany different things for both mis-sion and theology. Currently, as forexample with some radical feministtheology, it often means an almosttotal reinventing of Christianity for a

1 For an interpretation of various approaches tocontextual theology see: Stephen Bevans, Models ofContextual Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis Books,1992).

specific group or culture. At the oth-er extreme however, as for examplewith some evangelicals, it can implythe conservative approach of prima-rily ‘translating’ a given formulationor expression of Christianity intoanother culture or context. Theproblem with the former under-standing is that these expressions ofthe faith are often so divergent fromscripture and tradition that they inessence cease to be Christian. Theproblem with the latter approach isthat it fails to recognize as contextu-ally determined the very presupposi-tion that it is possible to start theolo-gy with an objective or ‘given’expression of theology.

Of late many contemporary the-ologians and missiologists havecome to understand that all theologyis by nature contextual. Every formu-lation of theology reflects within itsomething of the context in which itis developed. Every expression oftheology, whether consciously ornot, has been significantly and nec-essarily shaped in content and form,intellectually and practically, by theconcerns and thought-forms of itssetting. Indeed, this realization that‘objective’ formulations of theologyare neither possible nor desirable iswhat gives theology its power as avehicle for the Word of God to a giv-en people at a given place and time.So, as Stephen Bevans has argued,‘contextualization is part of the verynature of theology itself’.2

Theology must be intrinsically linked with aspecific social and cultural situation. Infact, building on the ‘sociology ofknowledge,’ liberation theologians would

2 Bevans, p. 1.

COMING OF AGE: A POST-SOVIET EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY 321

argue that all theologies always are linkedwith and shaped by a specific social andcultural milieu. In the words of Dermot A.Lane, ‘Knowledge is not neutral or value-free. Instead all knowledge tends toembody the social circumstances andconditions of its time.’ In other words,knowledge always tends to reflect thevested interests of the knower. Vestedinterests vary considerably from onesociety and culture to another;consequently, knowledge will reflect thisvariance.

Such a theory of knowledge can andsometimes does lead to relativism—theidea that knowledge is so conditioned bysocial, political and economic realities thatit is impossible to rise above them.Liberation theologians do not embrace thiskind of deterministic and reductionist view,however… [They suggest that] eachperson must gain awareness of one’s ownvested interests and subject them toscrutiny and criticism. By becomingsuspicious and critical (dialectical) inrelation to the dominant thought-forms ofone’s own culture, a person’s knowledgecan rise above this social-environmentalconditioning… So theology is alwayscontextual, never universal. What isdeveloped in one place, whether Rome, orTubingen or New York, cannot be imposedon every other place.3

One need not be a Liberation the-ologian to embrace these insights.Conclusions like these about objec-tivity and theological method ulti-mately grow from the realization thathuman knowing is always less thanperfect and is to a large degree nec-essarily dependent upon factors aris-ing in the knower’s context. ‘As ourcultural and historical context plays apart in the construction of the realityin which we live, so our context influ-ences our understanding of God and

3 Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olsen, 20thCentury Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992),pp.214-15.

the expression of our faith.’4 Libera-tion Theology may have beenamong the first expressions of thefaith to grasp this, but stemmingfrom the demise of enlightenmentepistemology, many theologians areagain coming to see as proper thesubjective aspects of the theologicalenterprise.

Such subjectivity is not the death oftheology or of truth as some mightimagine however. Recognizing thecontextual nature or subjectivity oftheology (indeed of all knowledge)does not mean that theology is nowhopelessly subjective and no longerable to speak of God and thingstruthfully as they ‘really are’. Normust such an understanding signal adenial of revelation as the primesource and ultimate test for all theol-ogy. Rather, such an observationabout the nature of theology is sim-ply the recognition of an unavoidablecondition of theology.

By nature theology is a humanenterprise, even though it works withGod’s revelation to us. It is incarna-tional in the sense that it brings andholds together both human anddivine reality. Indeed, this is whytheology can meaningfully be a vehi-cle for God’s Word to us at a partic-ular place and time. The point is sim-ply to recognize the contextualnature of all theology as a given, cel-ebrating and embracing contextualcontributions to it where appropriateand criticizing and reforming thecontext where necessary. This ulti-mately means that there will be dif-ferent particularised or localised the-

4 Bevans, p. 2.

322 DARRELL COSDEN

ologies depending upon one’s con-text, but that there must be a realsense that these theologies are a partof genuine Christian tradition.

The problem for Soviet and post-Soviet evangelical theology, howev-er, has not been the lack of a contextor the lack of the context’s influenceupon it or church life. Rather, theproblems for Soviet and post-Sovietevangelical theology, its shortcom-ings as a theology, have been subtler.Among other things, they havestemmed from Soviet and post-Sovi-et evangelical theology’s own lack ofidentity, and of late, its lack of confi-dence and acceptance of itself as aunique and particularised expressionof theology. That is, ironically givenits usual dogmatism, its inferioritycomplex in relationship primarily toEastern Orthodoxy and WesternProtestantism, both of which con-tribute to her own unique identity.The difficulties here, similar to thosein any family, seem to be those facedby the youngest child who whilematuring seeks to establish her ownidentity and uniqueness in relation-ship with and in contrast to her moredominant brothers and sisters.Puberty is a painful time.

To take this further, these short-comings can be traced to Soviet andpost-Soviet evangelical theology’slack of conscious self-awareness andself-critical analysis of its own theo-logical constructs and practices.Until recently it has simply not hadthe tools or the opportunity for thisreflection, which is essential for thenatural maturing process. So far ithas in many ways been like theyoung handicapped child who,

although admitting that she hasneeds, nevertheless still believes thatshe is the centre of reality and isalways right. However, as she nowseems to be entering puberty andeven overcoming many of her earli-er handicaps, or coming of age, shefeels the pains of insecurity and tendsto react in sometimes contradictoryways. She is only now learning theskills necessary for the kind of self-awareness and self-critical analysisthat will help her as a theology bothcome to accept herself as she is, toimperfect as this may be, and growthrough some of her weaknesses.

In short, many weaknesses of Sovi-et and post-Soviet evangelical theol-ogy can be argued to have comefrom its failure to come to grips intel-lectually and existentially with thetotality of contexts that have and docontribute to its life as a tradition(Russian, Soviet, Protestant, andOrthodox).

Such conclusions however, are notmeant to be ‘stone-throwing’ criti-cisms. Given their context with all ofits restrictions and limitations, Sovietand post-Soviet evangelicals havedone admirably well. Rather, theseconclusions are simply interpretiveobservations offered by a sympathet-ic outsider. A cruel and harsh exis-tence until recently made such a self-understanding next to impossible.Nevertheless, if a mature post-Sovietevangelical theology is to emerge outof both the triumphs and ashes of thepast, (one able to serve its own peo-ple and Christians worldwide) thenthese identity issues will need to beaddressed seriously. Indeed, thedilemma of whether to write system-


atic theology or poetry is indicativeof such a struggle and will probablybe answered only in the self-identify-ing process.

What do I mean though, that post-Soviet evangelicals will need to cometo grips with their context and theforces that have uniquely shapedthem? Since its beginnings Russianand Ukrainian Evangelicalism hassuffered an identity crisis similar tothat of all Eurasian institutions: Is iteastern or is it western? The answeris that it is genuinely both. Neverthe-less, whether accidental or not, west-ern (often North American ‘conser-vative’) evangelical theology, both inits category/structure and content,has formally dominated this Church.This is partly due to an often-neces-sary dependence upon its westerncounterparts for theologicalresources – concepts, materials andteachers. It is also partly due to anoften prevalent western evangelicalinsistence that only its questions,forms and content taken togetherform a truly Christian and evangeli-cal theology; a universal theology.

However, new contextual realitiesare beginning to call for new ways ofthinking. Ten years on from the fallof the Soviet Union, and ten yearsinto this current wave of mission intothese countries many are saying thatthe stage is now set and that the timeis now right for post-Soviet evangel-icals to ‘come of age’ theologically.Initially this simply will entail a dis-covery of who they actually are(rather than who others, Evangelicalor Orthodox say they should be).From this self-awareness they willthen be in a position to suggest in

which direction they might or oughtto head for the future.

Importantly however, this ‘discov-ery’ does not mean that post-Sovietevangelicals need to reactively rejecttheir past or present partner rela-tionship with western evangelicals.Nor does it mean that they mustbecome hostile and reactionary tothe form/content of the western tra-dition that has for so long nurturedand helped it. Rather, what thisprocess means is that it is time forpost-Soviet evangelicalism to matureand thus to truly become itself. Onlythen will it truly enter as an equaltheological partner into the world-wide fellowship of Christian believ-ers; both challenging others andbeing challenged by them.

Practically, to achieve this maturitypost-Soviet evangelical theology willhave to come to grips with its ownunique identity by critically evaluat-ing the conservative western evan-gelical theology that has often domi-nated it. It will have to understand thecontext within which this sister the-ology developed. Such a coming togrips with its identity will likewiseinevitably mean that post-Sovietevangelical theology will need toenter into a close dialogue with East-ern Orthodox theology which hasalso shaped it and formed it cultural-ly, intellectually and in terms of itsspirituality.

Having said this however, there isno reason why post-Soviet evangeli-cal theology needs to limit its dia-logue to those with whom it isalready related. It need not becomeisolationist in its growing process. Itwill also be important for it to seek

324 DARRELL COSDEN

other dialogue partners, especiallythose with which it already has someaffinity, if not relationship. Othercontextual theologies like LatinAmerican Liberation theology orAsian theology might offer insightsinto the triumphs as well as the pit-falls of doing theology in context.Some of these might even be doingtheology in a context similar to thatof today’s post-Soviet Christian.Post-Soviet evangelicals will need tolearn from such people even if in theend they become critical of manyconclusions they have come to.

Additionally post-Soviet evangeli-cals will need to engage other moretraditional approaches to theology(those not self-consciously contextu-al). Given their intellectual and geo-graphic location, engaging Euro-pean theologies like Moltmann’s‘Theology of Hope’ might be bothrevealing and helpful. Again howev-er, the goal here will be a dialogueand critical appraisal of these theolo-gies in their contexts rather than sim-ply the adoption and translation ofthem into Russian. Specifically, themethod and approach of ‘postliber-alism’ (its North American and relat-ed European expressions) could be aquite fruitful dialogue partner forpost-Soviet evangelicals. My reasonsfor suggesting this will emerge inwhat follows.

Systematic Theology: WesternEvangelicalism in Context

Now, having considered what a con-textualised post-Soviet evangelicaltheology might mean and what kindsof enquiries might be necessary for amove toward it, I want to evaluate

the idea that western evangelicals(conservatives) tend to write ‘system-atic’ theologies, rather than poetry.The brief analysis that follows shouldhelp post-Soviet evangelicals both tounderstand a part of their own iden-tity, and to begin to question whetheror not they should, or might want to,continue to model themselves aftertheir slightly older western brother.

To begin, we must consider theclaim that western (often NorthAmerican conservative) evangelicalleaders tend to theologise by writing‘systematic’ theologies rather thansay, poetry. Of course, this is a gen-eralisation and as such it is onlymeant to be true only generally.Conservative evangelicalism in gen-eral and western/North Americanconservative evangelicalism in par-ticular is a long-standing and multi-faceted theological and ecclesiasticaltradition, incorporating many move-ments like pietism, Reformedscholasticism, and revivalism. Thus,any stereotype of it is bound to beless than comprehensive. Likewise,there is North American evangelicalpoetry, devotional literature, hym-nology and the like. Usually howev-er, these are considered to be some-thing other than proper ‘theology’,and often, though not always, theydo fail to show the depth of reflectionand rigour that is thought to usuallycharacterise theology.

This being so, it is generally correctto characterise conservative evangel-icalism, (particularly the NorthAmerican variety which has been soinfluential in Soviet and post-Sovietevangelicalism) as favouring theolo-gy (when it does) that is primarily


cognitive, logically systematic andoften dependent upon some heuris-tic device for its cohesion and struc-ture. This has been particularly(although by no means exclusively)so since the rise of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy of thelate nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies. Indeed, given this debateand the other related ‘contexts’ inwhich the theology developed, it wasboth necessary and to a large degreeinevitable that this theology wouldprimarily be constructed along cog-nitivist and systematic lines.

As Stanley J. Grenz helpfully sum-marises in his 1993 programmaticbook Revisioning Evangelical The-ology:

Despite the orientation toward spiritualitycharacteristic of the movement as a whole,contemporary evangelical thinkersgenerally engage in the theological taskwith eyes focused on epistemology or thecognitive dimension of faith, rather thantoward our shared piety. Evangelicaltheology tends to move from theconviction that there is a deposit ofcognitive revelation given once for all inthe Bible… As a result, many evangelicalsview the task of theology primarily assystematizing and articulating the body ofdoctrine they assume to preexist implicitlyor explicitly in Scripture.

Klaus Bockmuehl speaks for evangelicaltheologians in general in declaring that thetask of systematic theology ‘is to produce asummary of Christian doctrine, an orderedsummary or synopsis of the themes ofteaching in Holy Scripture. We are tocollect the different, dispersed propositionson essential themes or topics of the OTand the NT and put them together in an

order that fits the subject-matter at hand.’5

On this account the theologicalenterprise is primarily an intellectualactivity undertaken by trained tech-nicians who seek to gather-up ‘right-ly’ exegeted doctrinal propositionsfrom the Bible and then seek toorganize them formally with the pri-mary help of logic onto a coherentsystem – and the system itself oftenthen functions as the heuristic key forthe continuing process of ‘rightlydividing the Word of truth’. The dualtest for truth in such an undertakingof theology involves firstly, judgingwhether one’s exegesis is objectively‘correct’ according to certain ‘mod-ern’ scientific canons of hermeneu-tics, and secondly, judging whetherone’s logic is correct. Thus, while notdenying the value of other forms ofChristian expression like poetry, thesermon, devotional literature, dra-ma, story and the like, ‘theology’ inthis view has come to be seen moreas an objective science of exegesisand logical systematisation. Thus, inthe words of Grenz,

Conservative theologians, whetherCalvinist, dispensational, Wesleyan orArminian, fall into step with theassumption that theology is ‘the science ofGod’ based on the Bible. Just as thenatural world is amenable to the scientist’sprobings, they argue, so also the teachingof Scripture is objectively understandable.Systematic theology organizes the ‘facts’

5 Stanley Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical The-ology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century(Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), p. 62. For furtherexamples, and, a more detailed examination of thisapproach in the history of conservative Evangelical-ism see particularly Chs. 2-6 and Ch. 7 pp.220-229., in: Grenz, Renewing the Center: EvangelicalTheology in a Post-Theological Era, (GrandRapids: Baker, 2000).

326 DARRELL COSDEN

of Scripture, just as the natural sciencessystemize the facts of nature.Consequently, the correct theology is acrystallization of biblical truth into a set ofuniversally true and applicablepropositions.6

Now the limitations of this essay donot allow a full evaluation or critiqueof this understanding of theology.This has been done elsewhere in suf-ficient detail.7 Rather, I want here toprobe briefly the claim that such a‘scientific’ and systematic under-standing of theology necessarily andinevitably came to dominate westernevangelicalism. That is, I want toconsider why, due to context, this isthe particularly appropriate way forwestern evangelicals both to do the-ology and understand its nature.Admittedly this is a very complexexploration and here I will be ableonly to sketch the contours of a fewideas. However, I believe that thesefew general illustrative points will suf-fice to make the point.

Evangelicalism generally has itsroots in western Catholic theologyand particularly in the ProtestantReformation. Western theology inboth of these traditions has always

6 Grenz, Revisioning, p. 65.7 In addition to Grenz, Revisioning, chapter 3,

see also Nancy Murphy, Beyond Liberalism & Fun-damentalism, (Valley Forge: Trinity Press Interna-tional, 1996). Likewise, Grenz has developed furtherhis critique of the modernist, or, rationalistic andfoundationalist premises with which much conserva-tive Evangelical theology is constructed. See for this,Beyond Foundationalism, co-author John R.Franke, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,2001), and, Ch. 4 in John G Stackhouse, Jr., ed.,Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theolog-ical Method, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) Theseare specifically Evangelical responses to the per-ceived problem. Also I mention here that ‘postliber-alism’ in general is a critique of this understanding oftheology.

been somewhat more rationalisedand less mystical than its easterncounterpart. As such, it has likewisealways emphasized the cognitive andrational ability in the search for the-ological universals8 (although mod-ern Protestants—conservative andliberal—have taken this tendency toextremes). This is what Bevansmeans when he claims that, ‘Classi-cal theology conceived theology as akind of objective science of faith.’9He meant this of all western theolo-gy and he was not referring specifi-cally to post-enlightenment theologyas one might expect. This is the firstcontributing factor to recognize.

Next, this tendency toward therational and cognitive in conserva-tive mainstream evangelical theologycan be further traced from the part ofits heritage steeped in Reformed the-ology. It can be seen emerging inCalvin (a lawyer). It developedthrough Protestant Scholasticism. Itis evident in the theology of West-minster, and it made its way intoNorth America with the Puritans andpeople like Jonathan Edwards. It lat-er came to prominence in places likePrinceton Seminary with the theolo-gy of Hodge and Warfield, andthrough this it became the backboneof conservative theology. This is notto deny the pietistic, and lessReformed roots of evangelicalism.However, the more theological sideof mainstream evangelicalism does

8 It should be noted that this desire for universalsprobably came as much from the practicality of need-ing unifiers for a diverse ‘Christendom’ as is did frompurely speculative philosophical or theological rea-soning.

9 Bevans, p. 1.


seem to own more to its Reformedroots than to either its pietistic,revivalist or other roots. This is eventrue of Dispensationalism, which isoften contrasted with Reformed the-ology.

Parallel to this specifically theolog-ical heritage, the Enlightenment withits epistemological scepticism andresultant empiricism and rationalismlikewise set an intellectual context inwhich cognitive and systematic waysof doing theology would be natural,if not inevitable. The Enlightenmentis the soil in which contemporaryProtestantism and thus evangelical-ism grew.

Now one might be able to see howthis would be true for liberal Protes-tantism, with its tendency to absorbrather uncritically modern Enlighten-ment beliefs. But could it be true ofconservative evangelical or funda-mentalist Protestantism which isessentially a reaction against mod-ernism? Nancy Murphy in her bookBeyond Liberalism and Funda-mentalism: How Modern and Post-modern Philosophy Set the Theo-logical Agenda has convincinglyargued that both conservative evan-gelicalism (at least in North America)and the liberalism that it was fightingare essentially modern construc-tions. She has demonstrated thatthey can exist only in a thought worldwhere modern Enlightenmentassumptions are to a large degreeaccepted. This should come as nosurprise. Contemporary conserva-tive North American evangelicalism,particularly the brand that has soinfluenced Russian and Ukrainianevangelicalism, forged its current

identity and many of its particulardoctrinal formulations (i.e. inerran-cy) against the backdrop of and indirect battle with liberal Protes-tantism. For this battle to take placethere had to be enough commonground for the fight. Arguably, sinceconservative evangelicalism was thecombatant often lacking confidenceand the supposed intellectual highground, it often ended up accommo-dating, or to state it more positively,contextualising itself to modernity.

This does not mean that it ‘wentliberal’ in the same way that Classicalliberalism and the mainline denomi-nations did. However, it does meanthat it often both fought on theirintellectual turf and developed intel-lectual weapons that would be effec-tive for fighting in that context. Inthis sense, it could be argued to have‘gone liberal’ to a degree, or, at leastto have borrowed many of the foun-dational tenants of liberalism withwhich to defeat the liberals. What arethese borrowed weapons? One canfind a willingness among many con-servative evangelicals to accept to asignificant degree: 1) The modernistcriteria for genuine historicity. 2)Modern epistemology’s standardisa-tion of truth depicted as rationallyorganized objective ‘facts’ in thesearch for objective universals. 3)Foundationalism. 4) Modernity’soverly propositionalist understand-ing of the nature of language. 4) Aform of Cartesian anthropologyleading to a ‘strong’ individualism.

The point here is not to throwstones at the achievements of theprevious generation of evangelicals.Conservative North American evan-

328 DARRELL COSDEN

gelical theology has been a powerfulcontextualised expression of theolo-gy in its own context. Its emphasis onsystem, the individual, and cogni-tivist rationalism fits well both withinits theological heritage of ProtestantOrthodoxy and within the intellectu-al and apologetic contexts demand-ed by modernity. Nor does pointingout these accommodations necessar-ily mean that conservative NorthAmerican evangelicalism is outdatedand thus to be abandoned (althoughit does need some reform).

The point is that as an expressionof theology evangelicalism hasalways been much more particu-larised / contextualised and muchless ‘universal’ than it itself has oftenthought. Although it might be, or atleast have been, an appropriate formof contextual theology in NorthAmerica or even in NorthernEurope, it may not be appropriate inanother context like the former Sovi-et Union. What needs to be carefullyconsidered by this generation of the-ologians is whether conservativeNorth American evangelicalism isthe best model for a post-Sovietevangelical theology that was con-ceived and has grown in a very dif-ferent intellectual, cultural and reli-gious context.

I do not believe that it is the besttheological model for the post-Sovi-et context, notwithstanding theimportant relational and resourcinglinks that post-Soviet evangelicalshave with conservative North Amer-ican evangelicalism’s missions,churches and theological schools.Nonetheless, I do believe that it willcontinue to be an important theolog-

ical dialogue partner and that itsinstitutions will be needed as part-ners for many years to come. Thepenetrating question here for NorthAmerican evangelicals is whetherthey are theologically and emotion-ally mature enough to have such rela-tionships without necessarily insist-ing upon the theological dominancethat they are accustomed to? At thevery least the concerns that I am out-lining should begin to challenge tacitassumptions of some that conserva-tive North American evangelical the-ology is the only truly orthodox the-ology (and as such should be the onlydialogue partner needed) and that itsparticulars should simply be ‘trans-lated’ into the post-Soviet context.

Post-Soviet Evangelicals:Poets?

With this in mind I return to the ques-tion of whether it in fact would bebetter for post-Soviets evangelicalsto develop systematic theologyrather than poetry. I refer here towhat conservative North Americanevangelicals mean by systematic the-ology since this is the kind that mostpost-Soviet evangelicals tend toread, are trained with, translate andattempt to copy.

First however, is it actually true thatSoviet and now post-Soviet evangel-icals tend to write poetry rather thanmore discursive or systematic theol-ogy with the characteristicsdescribed above? Generally theanswer is yes, but with importantqualification. Overall, theological lifein the churches tends to take more‘literary’ than ‘scientific’ approach-es. Nonetheless, one does find that


even during the Soviet era therewere pastors and church leaders whowere concerned with writing morediscursive theology. As WalterSawatsky has argued when speakingof the Soviet era: ‘The major substi-tute for a seminary has been BratskiiVestnik [the journal of the Baptistdenomination]. General SecretaryKarev and his assistant Mitskevichdevoted major effort to filling thisjournal with high-quality didactic arti-cles.’10 Likewise, during this periodSoviet leaders also produced a dis-cursive and more systematic theolo-gy, or theology textbook called Dog-matika (although this is not system-atic to the same degree and in thesame way as North American sys-tematic theology would be.)11

Having acknowledged these exam-ples however, it is important toremember that the believers devel-oping these were strongly influencedby and tended to adopt withoutmuch question western theologicalmethod. They had accepted thatBritish and North American Dispen-sationalism and Keswick spiritualitywere the evangelical norm. This the-ology was passed on to the churchesthrough Bratskii Vestnik and Dog-matika, but also through the officialcorrespondence training course usedto train leaders.12 This of coursedemonstrates that there have alwaysbeen those in the movement whowant something more than simplypoetry.

10 Walter Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals SinceWorld War II (Kitchener Ont.: Herald Press, 1981),p. 331.

11 Sawatsky, p. 344.12 Sawatsky, pp. 17, 340-41.

Likewise, to move more into thepresent, there are a host of theolog-ical colleges and budding theologianswho are interested in writing text-books, exegetical commentaries andsystematic theologies. That the tradi-tion (or at least its more formally the-ologically trained members) nowwants to do its own theology is cer-tain. Yet, this desire raises the ques-tion of what kind of theology, orwhat method would be most appro-priate in the context.

Even the casual observer in a wor-ship service would begin to sensethat post-Soviet pastors and theirchurches (those not primarily in thenewly developed academies) do pre-fer something like poetry to ‘system-atic’ theology. A sermon that grabsthe emotions and spirit is much moredesirable to many of these folk thana rational discussion of theology oran exegesis of a biblical passage thatbreaks the passage down and analy-ses its smallest parts for the sake ofmastering its truth. Even my stu-dents, before they become western-ised in their theological orientation,tell me that at times the westernevangelical theology presented inclass is for them too rationalistical /scientific, too building-block-outlineoriented, and in content and formsimply not alive nor spiritual enough.For some years I assumed that thiswas another lazy-student ploy to getthem out of the hard work of ‘real’and rigorous theology. Now I am notquite so sure that this is always thecase.

This general preference for literaryand poetic method over rationalisticstructure could mean several things.

330 DARRELL COSDEN

It could mean that these students,pastors, and churches need to ‘growup’ and desire the meat of the Wordrather than simply its milk. Doubt-less, this is sometimes the case. Or, itcould mean that we teachers andtrained pastors need to do a betterjob of showing the church memberthat a sustained theologising is actu-ally important and relevant. This toois doubtlessly true in many cases.However, it might also mean moresignificantly that an overly systemat-ic approach to theology simply doesnot fit the post-Soviet (Russified) cul-tural and church context.

Why might this latter be the mostsignificant reason? There are severalpoints to consider. Anglo or north-ern Europeans who work regularlywith Russians, who know the Russ-ian language and who know Russianliterature (popular and classic) recog-nize that Russians ‘know’ in a differ-ent way from our knowledge. Intel-lectually trained Anglos and Ger-manics tend to think like an arrow—that is, in straight logical lines towarda specific end. Russians, however,don’t think in this way—they areSlavic culturally and linguistically,and tend to have a more Asian think-ing pattern. It might be described asmore pictorial or ‘iconic’ thinking. Interms of a directional patterns itmight be described as a corkscrewspiralling and narrowing toward aconclusion or group of conclusions.

This group of conclusions (some-times seemingly contradictory) canbe held together in tension as truewith little difficulty. This is becausethe movement in the process ofthinking and concluding allows such

complexity in a way that more ratio-nalistic tests of truth do not. Thisdoes not mean that Russians are irra-tional or illogical, or, even that theyhave a supposedly different logic, asif that were possible. It does howev-er, mean that thinking and knowingto them involves much more thanlogic, and that reality is understoodas more complex than simple logicor straight thinking in propositional-ist terms can convey. Truth andknowing is simply a more complexprocess than a logical ordering ofpropositions can grasp.

One finds this ‘Russian’ style ofthinking and knowing evidenced innormal conversation with Russians,in more popular prose or newspa-pers and, importantly for our discus-sion here, in much of their serious lit-erature and philosophy. Given thisway of thinking, it is not surprisingthat Russians tend to consider thatsome of their best and deepest think-ing and their best philosophy isfound in their more narrative or artis-tic literature—Dostoevsky for exam-ple. Even their discursive philosophytends to read like narrative or attimes like poetry. This probablyaccounts for why the untrained (usu-ally non-westernised) post-Sovietevangelical pastor or lay Christianwould find it more natural to expresshimself theologically in poetry, testi-mony, sermon or song rather than ina more ‘systematic’ form of theolo-gy.

Of course Russian mathematicsand science tend to be more system-atic in their structure and thinking.This is understandable, given thenature of these disciplines. However,


for deeper subjects like probing thedepths of human meaning / exis-tence or theology they do tend toadopt less systematic genres for bothexploration and expression. Indeed,spiritual poetry, Orthodox icons andthe apophatic method of doing the-ology are good examples of how thiskind of thinking works itself out intheology. For example, I doubt thatRussian evangelicals could ever haveworked out the doctrinal formulationof inerrency as has been done inNorth America. Their understandingand experience of life and languagewould simply not lend itself in thisdirection. An extremely proposition-al and atomised view of languagesimply does not fit within theirworldview. We can see this already inthe one main theology that Sovietevangelicals produced. ‘The Dog-matika affirmed biblical inspiration.It rejected the dictation theory ofinspiration, as well as a verbal inspi-ration theory that did not allow for arecognition of the individual writer’smemory, intuition, judgment, andcharacter. But it was an affirmationof the Bible as divinely inspired andinfallible.’13

In the introduction to his book Tri-umphs of the Spirit in Russia, Don-ald Nicholl summarises well theunderstanding of Russian knowingthat I am describing here when hesays: ‘(T)heories and doctrines arenot, after all, the most helpful meansof shaping human beings to confrontthe issues of life and death. But mod-

13 Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals, pp. 334-35.(Footnoted: Dogmatika, pp. 161ff. especially p.167. Essentially the same argument in I. I. Motorin’sarticle, Bratskii Vestnik 3-4/55, p. 67.)

els are: whether in the form of iconsor biographies of the saints, espe-cially when these are set in the con-text of a liturgy where the chorus ofhuman voices raise the spirit of theworshipper.’14 Through art,story/testimony, and singing – theseare the ways that Russians both thinkand know.

Of course, there are post-Sovietevangelicals who would argue thatdespite this natural cultural and lin-guistic tendency, what they need issomething like the systematic theol-ogy described above. And, althoughit is doubtful if they would feel thisway were it not for training from orcontact with the West, it is neverthe-less now a fact that they have hadsuch contact or training and thatsuch thinking has become a part oftheir experience. Since no culture isa monolith, and since culture isalways growing and changingthrough its contacts with other cul-tures, a case might be made thatsuch systematic theologising needsto become a part of their culture,regardless of whether average pas-tors and churches seem ready for it.

To this I would like to respond asfollows. There is doubtless the needfor post-Soviet evangelicals to under-take a sustained and rigorousprocess of doing and writing theolo-gy. Likewise, there is doubtless theneed for post-Soviet evangelicals towrite theology for training their ownchurch folk, church leaders and the-ologians. However, it is highly doubt-

14 Donald Nicholl, Triumphs of the Spirit inRussia (London: Darton, Longman and Todd,1997), p. 9.

332 DARRELL COSDEN

ful that they need a theology ormethodology for doing theology likethe systematic theology describedabove. Apart from the general cri-tiques that can be offered againstsuch an method, the entire way ofthinking employed therein is not nat-ural for them and as such, theapproach will continue to alienatethese believers from both EasternOrthodoxy and secular post-Soviets.Possibly average church folk wouldnever identify with such anapproach. If it does not sound right,look right, or feel right the chancesare it might not be right for that con-text.

That post-Soviet evangelicals tendto write poetry rather than systemat-ic theology may not be the real prob-lem at all. This is especially true if wemean by systematic theology thekind of theology that is characteristicof conservative North Americanevangelicalism. That post-Sovietevangelicals tend to write poetry maybe an indication of what kind of sus-tained and rigorous theology waits tobe done. This may indicate the bestfuture for post-Soviet evangelicaltheology.

Postliberals and Post-SovietEvangelicals Together

With this in mind I now turn to thelast area of discussion in this essay. Ifthe situation as I have described itthus far is accurate, then one of thebest dialogue partners for post-Sovi-et evangelicalism may prove to be amovement that has come to beknown as ‘postliberalism.’

Postliberalism, is not associatedwith any particular denomination.

Nor is it a tradition in the same senseas evangelicalism. Rather, it is amethodology or movement amongtheologians that ‘seeks to reverse thetrend in modern Christianity ofaccommodation to culture’.15 Thisspecifically means the accommoda-tion to modern culture or modernity(culture formed by the Enlighten-ment), which has been a prominentfeature of Liberal theology. Postlib-eralism however, is not any longersimply a reform movement within orgrowing out of liberal theology.Rather, it has become a broader cre-ative and constructive programmefor theological exploration in light ofthe demise of modernity. For thisreason it has become an appealingdialogue partner for Evangelical the-ology in recent years.16

Who are the postliberals? ‘Whilesignificantly influenced by thethought of Ludwig Wittgenstein,Karl Barth, Clifford Geertz, PeterBerger and others, the originators ofthe distinctive “postliberal” agendaand label were Hans Frei andGeorge Lindbeck. Their students,creative and provocative theolo-gians like William Placher, StanleyHauerwas and George Hunsinger,have further developed these keyideas.’17 Often postliberalism as alabel is associated with Yale DivinitySchool in the US. However, there

15 Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L Okholm.eds., The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals &Postliberals in Conversation (Downers Grove: IVP,1996), p. 11

16 The Nature of Confession, which grew outof the 1995 Wheaton Theology Conference is evi-dence that evangelicals have realized the potentialvalue of interaction with postliberal methodology .

17 Phillips, Nature, p. 11.


are also many theologians in Europelike Colin Gunton and Trevor Hartthat in parallel broadly share themovement’s concerns, including arepudiation of modernity (includingmodern epistemology) and a revital-isation of and return to biblical nar-rative in theology.

Essentially postliberalism is a theo-logical methodology that is commit-ted to removing modernity or liberal-ism (explicit and implicit) from Chris-tian life and thinking. This is its neg-ative function as a movement. Itspositive function is to call Christiansto return to the Bible so that Scrip-ture rather than say, philosophy, canform Christian thinking, actions andcommunity life. Specifically forpostliberalism this means returningto the Bible but not as if it were a col-lection of propositions to be dissect-ed, broken down, objectively mas-tered by the reader, and thenextracted from their literary formsfor logical organization into a systemthat we can call theology. (This is theliberal approach.) Rather, a postlib-eral return to the Bible involves a callto read it more as a narrative, as lit-erature, and thus as a whole whichwe can ourselves enter into and beformed by.

Postliberalism includes a theory thatexplains the loss of Scripture’s formativeauthority and the church’s correlativeaccommodation to culture as well as astrategy for cultivating Christian identity.As Hans Frei’s pathbreaking The Eclipseof Biblical Narrative (1974) showed,modern theories of biblical interpretationfind the meaning of the text in somethingmore basic and foundational thanScripture—a universally accessible reality.Whether meaning was found in eternaltruths that the text symbolized (as forliberals) or identified exclusively with the

story’s factual reference (as forconservatives), both displaced the priorityof Scripture. Scripture no longer definedthe church’s social world in a normativeway. ‘The great reversal had taken place:interpretation was a matter of fitting thebiblical story into another world withanother story rather than incorporatingthat world into the biblical story.’ Whenanother authority was found, Scripture’sworld-forming narrative was fragmentedand eventually dispersed.

This shift in understanding—the loss ofScripture’s grand narrative as well as itschristological center and unity—impededthe biblical narrative from shaping thecommunity of disciples. Increasingly,Scripture became a strange book that wasclosed to the laity and under the control ofthe academic elite…In place of thesemodern theories of interpretation,postliberals propose a ‘classical’hermeneutic in which the scriptural worldstructures the church’s cosmos andidentity.18

Here is a critique of not just classi-cal liberal hermeneutics but also oftraditional conservative evangelicalprotestant principles of interpreta-tion, systematic theology, and evenmissiology. Conservative evangelicalbiblical exegetes and theologians,like the liberals, have often tried to‘get behind’ the scriptural stories ornarratives to find the eternal truths orprinciples that are assumed to be theWord of God. It is thought that thesetruths exist abstractly with God, whoencoded them in the particular bibli-cal literature. Thus the task for exe-gesis, systematic theology and missi-ology is to dig these timeless abstractuniversals out of the text, organizethem systematically, and then re-encode them into some contempo-rary setting.

18 Phillips, Nature, pp. 11-2.

334 DARRELL COSDEN

Postliberalism rejects thisapproach to doing exegesis, theolo-gy and mission. Broadly it says thatthe message is the story rather thansomething that is hidden behind it.The narrative is the important andnecessary formulation of the depthsof the message. To de-particulariseand abstract the message out fromthe narratives (or other genres) into asupposed ‘universal principle’ withlogic or modern/critical exegeticalmethodology is to destroy both theintegrity of the message and its pow-er as the Word of God to transformthe Christian community and believ-er therein.

Of course, narrative hermeneuticsand approaches to doing theologyare much more complex, diverse,and more nuanced than describedhere. Nor is this narrative/postliber-alism without its weaknesses andshortcomings (some of them quiteserious).19 However, for the purpos-es of this essay, trying to show itspotential as a dialogue partner forpost-Soviet evangelicals, its generalconcerns are clear. Postliberalism

19 See Alister McGrath ‘An Evangelical Evalua-tion of Postliberalism’ in Nature, pp. 23-44. Like-wise, Stan Grenz’ recent thought, in working towarda specifically Evangelical and yet postmodern(‘postliberal’) theology, has offered important chal-lenges to postliberal formulations. See for example,Beyond Foundationalism, pp. 51-54. Yet illustra-tively, Grenz here models the kind of evangelical /postliberal dialogue and interaction that I am sug-gesting would be valuable for post-Soviet evangeli-cals. While his theology does not ultimately take themore narrative or ‘poetic’ form as might prove to bethe case for post-Soviet Evangelicals, it is neverthe-less a conscious attempt to take evangelical theolo-gy, here western, beyond the same kind of limita-tions highlighted by post-Soviet concerns of conser-vative evangelical theology—e.g., a theology shapedby rationalism and prone toward abstract and intel-lectualised propositionalism.

wants to emphasize: 1) The Bible asscripture and central for formingChristian life and community, 2) Theaccessibility of scripture to all Chris-tians, 3) The literary nature andwholeness of the bible and thus theneed for a theology that embracesrather than destroys this nature, 3)The dangers of liberalism and mod-ernist approaches to Christianity,and related to this 4) The need for acontemporary theology that gen-uinely gets us beyond modernity.

Since postliberalism is a move-ment striving after these generalcharacteristics, I think that itbecomes clearer why I have suggest-ed that it might be a particularlyappropriate dialogue partner forpost-Soviet evangelical theology. Inmy experience of living in Russia andteaching and working with Sovietand post-Soviet evangelicals, I havefound that many of post-Soviet evan-gelicalism’s concerns (either explicit-ly or implicitly expressed) are quitesimilar in both ethos and content tothose developed or being developedwithin postliberalism.

Firstly, Soviet and post-Sovietevangelicals are, as Walter Sawatskyhas described them, ‘a Bible move-ment’ whose approach has alwaysbeen, ‘to read the Bible and put intopractice its plain and simple mes-sage’.20 Secondly, post-Soviet evan-gelicals lean culturally and intellectu-ally toward more literary or narrativeapproaches in their thinking andknowing. They tend to write poetryrather than ‘systematic’ theology.And thirdly, post-Soviet evangelicals

20 Sawatsky, Soviet Evangelicals, pp. 337-39.


(like their Eastern Orthodox neigh-bours) are very wary of westernenlightenment liberalism and itsinfluence upon theology, even uponwestern evangelical theology. I havemany times heard them accuse west-ern evangelicals (including me) ofbeing ‘liberal’ because of our empha-sis upon logic and systemisation.Often they have lacked the sophisti-cated arguments to explain whatthey are sensing. However, as thisessay attempts to demonstrate, theremay be more to their criticism thansome of us have previously consid-ered.

Now of course postliberalism, as ithas been developed so far, is pre-dominantly a western construct. Assuch, its methods and conclusionsneed to be evaluated in that contextjust as any other theological methodand programme needs to be evaluat-ed in its context. And in doing this,many of its specifics may be shownto be flawed, inadequate, or at leastto be foreign to a post-Soviet/evan-gelical context. However, I am call-ing here for a dialogue to begin and

not for an uncritical adoption of itsmethod and conclusions. I am callingfor this specific dialogue because Ibelieve that it will help clarify forpost-Soviet evangelicalism manyissues that are actually internal to it.The result of such dialogue I suspectwill be that western postliberalismand post-Soviet evangelicalism willbe helped and moved forward by theinterchange.

ConclusionIn conclusion I simply want to stateagain that I and others believe that itis time for post-Soviet evangelicals tocome of age theologically. It is timefor these believers to hammer out amore contextualised post-Sovietevangelical theology, and to do thisconsciously in context. Whether thistheology ends up taking a more sys-tematic form (systematic asdescribed in this essay), a more poet-ic or literary/narrative form, orindeed some other yet undiscoveredform remains to be seen. My hope isthat his essay has simply contributedsomething helpful to this process.

336 DARRELL COSDEN

ProclamationPreaching recounts the dialogue between God and humankind,Exposing our reticence to hear and reluctance to respond.Christ-filled words become saving logology,And God’s gracious vehicle to call the dead to life.


0144-8153 ERT (2002) 26:4, 337–353

1 Jay Newman, Foundations of Religious Tol-erance (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1982), p. 89.

Those who seek to convert othersare ‘arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical,meddlesome’.1 For many religiousleaders any efforts of evangelism arenothing more than proselytism.Proselytism is for most religious lead-ers a derogatory term, depicting theimage of coercion, force, abandon-ment, threats, manipulation, andcults. It is an act that is abhorred anddetested by all religious bodies, bothnon-Christian and Christian—Catholic, Eastern or Greek Ortho-dox, Mainline or Evangelical Protes-tant. But is proselytism distinguish-able from evangelism? Are there dis-tinctive differences?

The focus in this work concerns

proselytism within Christianity. Anattempt will be made to answer theabove question by providing a bibli-cal and historical overview of prose-lytism, the distinction between pros-elytism and evangelism, and the rea-son for true evangelism. In essence,proselytism is prohibitory but evan-gelism is to be pursued.

Proselytism is problematicConcern for proselytism is on theagenda of many Christian religiousbodies. At one time the Commissionon World Mission and Evangelism ofthe World Council of Churches in itspublication A Monthly Letter onEvangelism invited its readers tosend in comments, opinions, andremarks regarding this subject. It wasoverwhelmed by the response fromOrthodox, Catholic, Evangelical,Pentecostal, Jewish, Lutheran,Methodist bodies as well as other

Proselytism or Evangelism?Cecil Stalnaker

Keywords: Foreigner, rights, justice, alien, diaspora, Pharisees, Judaism,manipulation, freedom, persuasion

Dr Cecil Stalnaker has been a career mis-sionary in Europe for more than twenty years,engaged in teaching, training, church plant-ing and evangelism. He is currently AssistantProfessor, chairman of Ministerial and Missi-ological Studies and Director of Field Educa-tion and Internships with Tyndale TheologicalSeminary, Badhoevedorp, Netherlands. He isalso a visiting professor at Institute BibliqueBelge (Belgian Bible Institute),Heverlee/Brussels, Belgium, where he previ-ously taught full time. Dr Stalnaker holdsMaster’s degrees from Talbot School of The-ology and Fuller Theological Seminary Schoolof World Missions, and his PhD is from Evan-gelische Theologische Faculteit (EvangelicalTheologcial Faculty) Heverlee/Leuven, with amajor in missiology.

groups.2 The same debate, discus-sion, frustrations, and hostilities con-tinues today with little relief.

The charges of sheep-stealingarise. Within the World Council ofChurches, proselytism is recognized‘as a scandal and counterwitness’.3Accusers testify that these intrudersare insensitive regarding theologicaland cultural issues. Evangelicals,Pentecostals, and charismaticgroups are especially accused ofproselytism. Any religious group thateven attempts to talk, discuss, andshare their religious ideas, even thegospel, is often labelled a sectbecause of its so-called attempt toproselytise. As if the term ‘sect’ is notenough, some Christian groups havebeen likened to vicious wolves orcrocodiles because of their attemptsat contact with other Christiangroups. In a private survey taken inBelgium among the general Catholicpopulation regarding evangelicalProtestantism, one Belgian respond-ed: ‘That’s the religion where thepeople always visit you,’ which, forthis individual indicated some impuremotive on the part of the visitor. Notonly do churches fear that certaingroups, especially evangelicals andPentecostals, fish in their water butthat they are taking the fish out oftheir own basket as well.

2 Originally published by the World Council ofChurches, A Monthly Letter on Evangelism, 10-11(March, 1988) to 12 (January, 1989). The publica-tion by Raymond Fung, Evangelistically Yours(Geneva: WCC Publications, 1992), pp. 188-223contains many of these responses and commen-taries.

3 ‘Towards Common Witness: A call to adoptresponsible relationships in mission and to renounceproselytism,’ International Review of Missions.LXXXVI (October 1997), p. 463.

Why these accusations and con-cerns? The reasons are varied. A pri-mary concern by the World Councilof Churches is that it is a destructiveforce in the ecumenical movement.For them, ‘It does not build up butdestroys. It brings about tensions,scandal and division, and is thus adestabilizing factor for the witness ofthe church of Christ in the world.’4Yet, the core of the problem verymuch focuses on the theological andhistorical tenants of several of theChristian churches.

For historical reasons, certainChristian denominations, often thetraditional and mainline churches,consider themselves as keepers ofthe basket of faith. Rightly so, theyfeel that they have an obligation toguard and protect their people fromthe enemy. These churches ‘are likemothers who embrace all childrenborn to them—that is, all those whowere baptized’.5 Those practisingcertain religious rituals such as bap-tism are, without question, consid-ered to be authentic Christians. Theauthenticity of the baptized is not tobe questioned even though they maybe considered to be nominal in theirfaith and have little or often nothingto do with the church.

In some countries where nominalChristianity appears to be the normrather than the exception many ofthese baptized are even hostiletowards ‘the mother’ and have littleidea of the true gospel. Yet, they are

4 ‘Towards Common Witness’, p. 468.5 Miroslav Volf, ‘Fishing in the Neighbor’s Pond:

Mission and Proselytism in Eastern Europe’, Mis-sionary Bulletin of Missionary Research 20 (Janu-ary 1996), p. 27.

338 CECIL STALNAKER

considered to be authentic in theircommitment to Jesus Christ by theirparticular church denominationbecause of their religious upbringingand practice of particular religiousrituals. However, some, in their ownwords admit to lacking any true rela-tionship with Jesus Christ. In anycase, the mother church desires thatthey not be approached by otherChristian denominations or groups.Cecil Robeck clearly states the prob-lem: ‘one group’s evangelization isstill another group’s proselytism’.6

Biblical and historical overviewof proselytism

Initially, proselytism was an internalaffair. In other words, proselytismoccurred within the confines ofPalestine. Yet, in time, proselytismoutstretched its borders as well-meaning Jews would traverse the seaand land to make proselytes. Prose-lytism appears differently prior toand after the exile.

Pre-exhilic proselytismThe concept of proselytism origi-nates in the Old Testament and istied to the Hebrew word, ger, mean-ing a foreigner or sojourner. InEzekiel 14:7, the New AmericanStandard Bible translates this wordas ‘immigrant’. Such immigrantswould ‘attach themselves to thehouse of Jacob’ (Is. 14:1). This word‘ger’ is translated in the LXX as‘proselyte’.

In the book of Genesis the notion

6 Cecil Robeck, ‘Mission and the Issue of Prose-lytism,’ International Bulletin of MissionaryResearch, 20 (January 1996), p. 2.

of proselytism appears (Gen. 15:13;23:4). Early on, the Lord Goddeclared to Abraham that his descen-dants would be enslaved ‘strangers’or proselytes in the foreign land ofEgypt (Gen. 15:13). In fact, due tothe Israelites’ own personal experi-ence as strangers, they were able toempathize with foreigners in theirown land (Ex. 23:9). Here, the termapplied initially to both Israelites andnon-Israelites. In his intensive studyof the proselyte Richard DeRidderBased explains: ‘The rabbis taughtthat Abraham was the first proselyte,and that he made converts andbrought them under the wings of theShekinah’,7 and that the ‘personswhom Abraham and Sarah had got-ten in Haran (Gen. 12:5) were saidto be people whom they had con-verted from idolatry’.8

Biblically, Israel had specific obli-gations towards the ger. First, Godhad warned it several times to ‘notwrong’ or ‘oppress’ them (Ex.22:21; Deut. 24:14; Jer. 7:6; 22:3;Zech. 7:10) nor to turn them aside(Mal. 3:5). Unfortunately, the rulersof Israel violated this at certain times(Ezek. 22:7, 29). On the contrary,they were to treat them according toLeviticus 19:34: (T)he ‘stranger whoresides with you shall be to you as thenative among you, and you shall lovehim as yourself . . . . ‘ They were toprovide for the proselytes by permit-ting them to glean from the fruits oftheir fields (Lev. 19:10), by givingthem food and clothing (Deut.

7 Richard R. DeRidder, Discipling the Nations(n.p.: J.H. Kok Co., 1971; reprint: Grand Rapids:Baker Book House, 1979), p. 26.

8 Ibid., p. 27.

PROSELYTISM OR EVANGELISM? 339

10:18-19), and even part of theirtithes (Deut. 26:12). Concerningworship, they were not to be hin-dered if they worshipped the trueGod of Israel (Num. 15:14). The gerwere considered to be among theneedy strata of society along withorphans and widows (Deut. 14:29).

Not only were there obligations onthe part of Israel towards the prose-lyte, but stipulations were made forthese converts as well. Regardingworship, they were obligated just aswere the Israelites. For instance, theywere to observe the Feast of theUnleavened Bread (Ex. 12:19), theFeast of Weeks (Deut. 16: 10-11),the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14),and the day of Atonement (Lev.16:29-30). They were to stay clearof false worship by not offering sac-rifices to pagan gods (Lev. 20:2) andwere warned against blasphemyagainst Yahweh (Lev. 24:16; Num.15:30). Because they had attachedthemselves to the house of Jacob (Is.14:1), they were to fulfill their spiri-tual obligations to the Lord just aswere the Jewish faithful.

The ger had many of the samerights as the native Israelites, includ-ing access to the cities of refuge(Num. 35:15) and to a just trial(Deut. 1:16; 24:17; 27:19). Mostimportantly, they were permitted tolearn from and fear the Lord (Deut.31:12) and to enter into thecovenant with him just as were thenaturally born Israelites (Deut.29:11-12).

Beyond the period of the patri-archs and the exodus, the ger areseen participating in the worship ofthe true Lord with the nation of Israel

(Jos. 8:33-35; 2 Chr. 30:25). Inreferring to the building of the Tem-ple, it is implied that foreigners werealso engaged in its construction (1Chr. 22:2).

In general, the expression ger inthe Old Testament identifies thosewho did not actually have Jewishblood. They were outsiders who hadcome on their own initiative into theconfines of Judaism and who hadaligned themselves with Israel and itsfaith in the true living God. In otherwords, there was a type of internalproselytism taking place as outsiderswere coming into the midst of Israel.

The expression ‘proselyte’ hadboth religious and sociological con-notations. It was a term used todescribe the assimilation of the for-eigner into the Semitic community,that is, to identify a resident alienwithin the boundaries of Israel (Ex.12:49; Deut. 5:14; 31:12). Butbecause the foreigner had to worshipthe God of Israel, it is impossible toseparate the political and culturalspheres from the religious.

Israelites were to be the people ofGod. In Exodus 19:15-16, God con-firms to the nation the nature of thelife he would have Israel live in thesewords: ‘And you shall be to me akingdom of priests and a holynation.’ This expression calls atten-tion to the universal priestly status ofIsrael and refers to Israel, as being setapart for God’s possession and serv-ice. ‘It is here that Israel’s missionaryrole became explicit . . . The wholenation was to function on behalf ofthe kingdom of God in a mediatorial

340 CECIL STALNAKER

role in relation to the nations.’9 Israelwas to play a priestly role in the midstof the peoples of the world. Israelwould become the recipient of God’smercy and justice, and in turn, wouldattempt to live as the people of God,demonstrating his grace, mercy, jus-tice, and liberating power. ‘As thepriest is a mediator between God andman, so Israel was called to be thevehicle of the knowledge and salva-tion of God to the nations of theearth.’10 Thus, the reality of being ‘akingdom of priests and a holy nation’would also have its effect on theproselytes, those living within thenation of Israel.

At Sinai the Lord God had laiddown basic legislation regarding theproselyte, which indeed related tothe fulfilment of mission to the world.DeRidder states that ‘when the gerassumed all the group obligations—ethnic, social, and religious – theproselyte became a full-fledgedmember of the congregation of Israeland the descendants were legallyindistinguishable from otherIsraelites. In Joshua 8:33 the ger isdescribed as being ‘part of Israel’.11

Some would say that the transla-tion ‘stranger’ for the Hebrew ger isan unfortunate one because theproselyte ‘was a guest, a residentalien, under the protection of the law

9 Walter G. Kaiser, ‘Israel’s Missionary Call’, inPerspectives on the World Christian Movement,ed. Ralph Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasade-na, CA: William Carey Library and Carlisle, UnitedKingdom: Paternoster, 1999, 3rd edition), p. 13.

10 Keil, C. F. and F. Delitzch, ‘The Pentateuch’,in Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Vol-umes, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p.98.

11 DeRidder, Discipling the Nations, p. 44.

of the land’.12 When foreigners fullyaccepted the true faith of Israel, theybecame in essence Israelites and hadthe same privileges, rights, and com-mitments as native Israelites. Theproselyte was considered to be of thetrue faith, participating in thecovenant promises of the Lord. Thenon-Israelites could share in salva-tion through obedience of faith inGod just as the Israelites did. Becom-ing a proselyte was an act of conver-sion.

Although the term ‘proselyte’ doesnot occur in reference to the MoabiteRuth, it is evident that the notion ofconversion occurs. Ruth returns toJudah with her mother-in-law Naomiand meets Boaz. Taking an interestin her work in the fields and herplight, he said to her: ‘May the Lordreward your work, and your wagesbe full from the Lord, the God ofIsrael, under whose wings you havecome to seek refuge’ (Ruth 2:12).The latter part of the phrase is mostlikely a reference to Ruth when shecommitted herself to Yahweh, aban-doning Chemosh, the god of theMoabites. She sought protection andcomfort from God.13 Not only wasshe looking to the Lord as her pro-tector but in seeking refuge she wasidentifying herself with Israel. Inessence, she was converting toJudaism.

According to 2 Kgs. 5:15-19 Naa-man, a foreigner, was a Syrian con-vert to the worship of Israel’s true

12 DeRidder, Discipling the Nations, p. 46.13 Daniel I. Block, ‘Judges, Ruth’, in The New

American Commentary, E. Ray Clendenen, vol. 6,(Nashville: TN: Broadman and Holman, 1999), p.664.


God. The term ger is used also toexpress the pilgrimage of the faithfulin 1 Chronicles 29:15 and Psalms39:12; 119:19. These proselyteswere not gathered by any missionaryzeal on the part of Israel. Rather,they, themselves, approached Israeland were seeking the one true God.

Earlier in the history of Israel, thou-sands of foreigners came to Israel ontheir own initiative. Prior to the exile,great numbers of aliens joined theirranks. Later on, according to thecensus of Solomon, foreigners inIsrael’s midst numbered 153,600 (2Chr. 2:17). The ger was looked uponas more or less a permanent residentof Israel and basically accepted in thesociety.

Examination of the lives of theprophets leads one to conclude thatthey did not go forth and make pros-elytes. The message of the prophetvaried. Sometimes it was disciplinaryin nature; at other times it concernedthe future. In reality, ‘the central con-cern of the prophets was to commu-nicate to Israel what it meant to beIsrael’.14 It was the ministry of theprophet to remind the nation of herelection, an election that has a testi-mony among the other nations, forher choosing was not for personalprivilege but for service.

When the nation did not heed herresponsibilities the Lord God wouldraise up his prophetic messenger.The prophets attempted to call thenation back to her covenant, back tobeing a ‘kingdom of priests and aholy nation’. Why? Their ministry

14 W. Bruggemann, Tradition for Crisis (Rich-mond: John Knox, 1968), p. 25.

was a witness to and emphisized thefact that Israel’s mission in the worldwas to bring the nations to theknowledge of the true God. Theprophets, for the most part, directedtheir ministries to the nation of Israelitself. However, a few of the primari-ly pre-exilic prophets, Obadiah, Jon-ah, and Nahum, headed toward thenon-Israelite nations to proclaimGod’s message. But on the wholethe prophet focused on the nation ofIsrael.

Israel was not, for the most part,called to cross national boundaries tomake proselytes, but she was to be ablessing to the world of nations. Dr.George Peters states Israel’s respon-sibility in the following manner:‘Israel, by living a life in the presenceand fear of the Lord, was to experi-ence the fullness of the blessings ofGod. In this way they were to startlethe nations to attention, arouse theirinquiry, and draw them like a magnetto Jerusalem and to the Lord.’15 For-eigners would come to Israel andconversion to the faith of Israelwould occur, resulting in proselytes.

Proselytism was a natural conse-quence of Israel’s being a light to thenations. The ger referred to the indi-vidual who would come voluntarily toIsrael, adopt its religion, and becomeYahweh’s worshiper. They were inessence converts to Judaism, havingjoined themselves to the Lord Godfrom other nations. To be complete-ly incorporated into religious unionwith God’s people and become aproselyte, they had to be circum-

15 George Peters, A Biblical Theology of Mis-sons (Chicago: Moody, 1975), p. 21.

342 CECIL STALNAKER

cised. DeRidder comments: ‘A care-ful reading of the Old Testament leg-islation concerning circumcisionleads to the conclusion that this ritewas intended to mean the incorpo-ration of the person into a specialrelationship to God.’16 In essencethis indicated entrance into theredemptive covenant of God. So, ina real sense, a religious meaning wasattached to the Old Testament term‘proselyte.’

The fact that foreigners came intothe fold of Israel is interestingbecause, with the major exception ofa few minor prophets, Jonah beingone, we do not find the mission ofcrossing geographical and culturalbarriers to take the message of Yah-weh to those who know nothingabout the Lord God. However, theOld Testament does not ignore thisissue. The concept of reaching out toother nations is inherent in its reve-lation for the concept of universalityin reference to salvation pervadesthe entire Old Testament. God theFather manifests his missionarynature in the Old Testament.

Dr. George Peters very clearlystates: ‘The Old Testament does notcontain missions; it is itself “mis-sions” in the world. Like a lonelyvoice in the wilderness the Old Tes-tament boldly proclaims revelational,ethical, monotheism in protest toGreek, Egyptian, and early Indianheathenism—the multitudinous sys-tems of surrounding polytheism andincipient philosophical Easternmonism.’17 Johannes Blauw also

16 DeRidder, Discipling the Nations, p. 29.17 Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions, p.

129.

declares that ‘long before the mis-sionary movement as an act of wit-ness of the Christian Church started,Israel itself was engaged in mission-ary work’.18

Post-exilic proselytismThe true sense of the word ‘prose-lyte’ took on the notion of convertlater on, especially during the Baby-lonian exile. It was with the Exile thatthe attitude and outlook of Israelundertook a drastic change. Judaismbegan to take on a more centripetalsense, an aggressive missionary spir-it during the post-exilic period.

With the deportations, Jews couldbe found scattered throughout thePersian empire. After the sixth cen-tury B.C. most of the Israelites livedoutside of Palestine. Assyria, Baby-lonia, and Egypt became homes tomany of the Jews. As time passed, ithas been estimated that one-third ofthe population of Alexandria wasJewish. All commercial centres inAsia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, orthe Aegean area had Jewish resi-dents.19 J. Klausner maintains thatthe major portion of the three millionJews living in the Diaspora wereproselytes.20 Wherever the Jewswent they took with them theirmonotheistic faith. It was during thispostexilic time that many non-Israelites were drawn to the Jewish

18 Johannes Blauw, The Missionary Nature ofthe Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 54.

19 C. L. Feinberg, ‘Proselyte’, in The Zonder-van Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. MerrillC. Tenney, vol. 4, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1977), p. 906.

20 Cited by Frederick W. Danker, ‘Proselyte,Proselytism’, in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology,ed. Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker Book,1975), p. 426.


faith and assimilated into it. In otherwords, proselytism was taking placeoutside of Israel’s geographical bor-ders—an external proselytism wasprominent.

It was really during the Inter-Testa-mental period that the term ‘prose-lyte’ took on a new meaning. Anintensive missionary movementbegan in the Hellenistic Jewish Dias-pora. In time proselytism becamequite common. Many Jews aggres-sively propagated Judaism. The useof the Greek language in the LXXmade it easier to proselytize theGreeks.

The desire to proselytize did notstop with the Greeks, but continuedwell into the Roman world. Beforethe birth of Christ, many of the Jewssettled in Rome and were so intensein their zeal to proselytize that theRoman authorities expelled many oftheir leaders. Some showed their dis-content with this proselytizing spirit.Horace wrote: ‘If you won’t comewillingly, we shall act like the Jewsand force you to.’21 Exposing someof the cruel side of proselytism, theJewish historian, Josephus, main-tains that Ituraeans were forced toconvert to Judaism by Aristobulus22

and that a Roman centurion wasforced to accept circumcision inorder to live.23 Prior to Christianity,Judaism had made abundant prose-

21 Quoted by DeRidder, Discipling theNations, p. 94.

22 Flavius Josephus, The Life and Works ofFlavius Josephus, trans., William Whiston (Philadel-phia: The John C. Winston Co., n.d.), article XIII,pp. 9,3.

23 Cited by John Mclintock and James Strong,eds. , ‘Proselyte’, Cyclopedia Biblical, Theologicaland Ecclesiastical Literature, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids:Baker Book, 1981), p. 659.

lytes. In almost every corner of thebiblical world Jewish customs andmoral virtues were adhered to by itsfollowers, namely, Jewish prose-lytes. In summary, the activity ofdirect proselytism at this time is wellattested. Some have summarized itin the following manner:

With the conquests of Alexander, the warsbetween Egypt and Syria, the struggleunder the Maccabees, the expansion of theRoman empire, the Jews became morewidely known, and their power toproselytize increased. They had sufferedfor their religion in the persecution ofAntiochus, and the spirit of martyrdomwas followed naturally by propagandism.Their monotheism was rigid andunbending. Scattered through the East andWest, a marvel and a portent, wondered atand alternatively, attracting and repelling,they presented, in an age of shatteredcreeds and corroding doubts, the spectacleof faith, not least a dogma, whichremained unshaken.’24

In the New Testament era, there isconsiderable evidence that the activ-ity of proselytism was carried outamong the Gentiles in the early partof the first century. For instance, theJews prepared extensive literature towin over converts to Judaism.

The Greek New Testament usesthe word for proselyte, proselutos,only four times (Mt. 23:15; Acts2:10; 6:5; 13:43). In three of thefour occurrences it maintains a neu-tral or positive connotation.

In the Judaism of Palestine, the geralways referred to the pagan whomade the conversion from paganismto Judaism. Male proselyte candi-dates were required to undergo cir-cumcision, a purifying bath, and anoffering of sacrifice in the Temple at

24 Mclintock and Strong, ‘Proselyte,’ p. 658.

344 CECIL STALNAKER

Jerusalem. Female proselyte candi-dates submitted to the latter tworequirements. Woman proselytesoutnumbered men converts.25

Referring to the one negativeoccurrence in Matthew 23, Jesusmakes reference to Palestinian pros-elytism. He condemns the teachersof the law and the Pharisees by pro-nouncing seven curses or woes onthem (vv. 13-33). The second woeconcerns the subject of proselytism.The scribes and Pharisees were win-ning non-Israelites to their own posi-tion. The New Testament scholar D.A. Carson believes that the ‘convertsin view . . . are not converts toJudaism but to Pharisaism’.26 In anycase, they were scouring the empireto make converts. It is interesting tosee that Jesus did not criticize norcondemn them for making prose-lytes but for making them ‘sons ofhell’. Carson adds that ‘the Phar-isees’ teaching locked them into atheological frame that left no roomfor Jesus the Messiah and thereforeno possibility of entering the mes-sianic kingdom’.27 Jesus did con-demn the fact that their proselytizingefforts were leading people to eter-nal damnation. The word ‘prose-lyte’, and this is important, is neveremployed in reference to a convertto Christ.

Having dealt with the negative usein Matthew, let us look at its employ-ment in the book of Acts as it reveals

25 F.F. Bruce, New Testament History (GardenCity, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972), pp.147, 156.

26 D. A. Carson, ‘Matthew’, in The Expositor’sBible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein, vol. 8(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), p. 478.

27 Carson, ‘Matthew,’ p. 479.

some additional information regard-ing the proselyte. Acts 2:10 showsthat proselytes who had come fromgeographical boundaries beyondJerusalem made up part of the apos-tle Peter’s audience at Pentecost. Inusing the expression ‘Jews and pros-elytes’ Luke is distinguishingbetween the national group of Jewsand non-birth Jews. He called forthem to repent and be baptized inthe name of Jesus Christ. Becausethey continued to go to the Templeand synagogue after their conversion(2:46; 3:1; 14:1; 21:26), Heide-man, says that ‘there is no indicationthat they are expected to changetheir community identity’.28 Howev-er, this is understandable because theneed for the true church to distin-guish itself from Judaism had not yetarisen.

Acts 6:5 speaks of ‘Nicolas, aproselyte from Antioch’. He was notborn a Jew but a pagan. He wasappointed as one of the original dea-cons in the early church. Philip bap-tized an Ethiopian proselyte or God-fearer who was travelling toJerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27-39). Many of the proselytes followedPaul and Barnabas, committing theirlives to the gospel (Acts 13:43).These devout Jewish converts leftJudaism to follow the ways of JesusChrist.

The term ‘proselyte’ does notoccur in the writings of Paul. How-ever, he does desire that his ownJewish brethren experience true sal-vation through the Messiah, Jesus

28 Eugene P. Heideman, ‘Proselytism, Mission,and the Bible,’ The International Bulletin of Mis-sionary Research, 20 (January 1996) p. 11.


Christ. He states, ‘My heart’s desireand my prayer to God for them is fortheir salvation’ (Rom. 10:1).Although proselytism does not occurin the ministry of Paul, converts toChrist do occur. Multitudes of Jewsconverted to Christ during Paul’sministry.

In the New Testament, the term‘proselytism’ never occurs in refer-ence to Christianity. Neither Paulnor the other apostles viewed theirministry of evangelism and churchplanting as proselytism. Their activi-ty in proclaiming the gospel was nev-er done in order to build their ownkingdom. They had no desire toenlarge their borders nor increasetheir numbers for their own sake.Paul says that his ministry did notcome ‘from error or impurity or byway of deceit’ (I Thess. 2:3). Paul didwant to proclaim the gospel and seethe kingdom of God advance. Hismotive was to give to all the worldthe great redemptive truths of thegospel which is rooted in JesusChrist. This was his passion and hisplea, that East and West would beevangelized, not proselytized.

So the new followers of Christwere not considered to be prosely-tized but evangelized, even thoughthey actually changed religious com-mitment from Judaism to Christ.Many of these individuals were actu-ally Jewish proselytes who becamefollowers of Christ. So, religiouschange was quite common in theNew Testament era, from paganismto Judaism, and to Christianity.

In addition, the issue of peoplechanging from one branch of Chris-tianity to another was non-existent.

The call to conversion in the NewTestament is, of course, a call to fol-low Jesus Christ. Some individualswould, therefore, say that it is not acall to change one’s Christian com-munity. However, it is also evidentthat other Christian communities didnot exist at that period of time.

In Judaism, the proselytism ofGentiles continued late into the firstcentury A.D. Some Jewish Chris-tians still attended the Synagoguesuntil as late as 80-90 A.D. when itbecame unbearable for them to doso. Jewish anti-Christian propagan-da attempted to exclude Christianparticipation in worship at the syna-gogue.29

Proselytism was looked upon pos-itively by Judaism. Rabbis were oftenzealous for converts. The very largenumber of favourable references inthe Talmud and Mishnah towards thetrue proselytes shows how eager theJews were to acquire them.30 In fact,some ‘rabbis were provoked whenthey saw a country or province thathad produced few proselytes.’31 Itmay be concluded that many rabbisapproved of proselytizing andencouraged it. They even used thepatriarchs and other great historicalfigures as examples to follow in theirmaking of proselytes.32

Some contend that the proselytiz-ing efforts by the Jews continued

29 DeRidder, Discipling the Nations, 73, citingthe work of James W. Parks, The Conflict of theChurch and Synagogue (London: The SocionoPress, 1961 and Cleveland and New York: WorldPublishing Co., 1961), pp. 61-79.

30 DeRidder, Discipling the Nations, p. 93.31 William G. Braude, Jewish Proselytizing in

the First Five Centuries in the Common Era (Prov-idence: Brown University, 1940), pp. 18-19.


346 CECIL STALNAKER

even after 478 A.D. when the Theo-dosian Code was published, whichthreatened those who were circum-cised with the death penalty.33 Even-tually Roman laws were created toabort the proselytizing efforts ofJews towards Gentiles. Some Jewswere even exiled from Rome forproselytizing activities.34

Distinguishing proselytismfrom evangelism

Some would say that proselytismbasically means the changing fromone religion to another, like movingfrom Buddhism to Christianity. Morerelated to this paper, the concern isfor change of church affiliation, fromone major Christian denominationto another, such as the change fromEastern Orthodoxy or RomanCatholicism to a protestant denomi-nation. Some church leaders evenwithin Protestantism feel that ‘pros-elytism’ occurs when an individualmoves from one Protestant denomi-nation to another or even from onechurch to another within the samedenomination. However, the majorproblem today regarding ‘proselytes’concerns moving from one majorreligion to another or from onemajor Christian religion to anotherChristian religion.

Within Christian circles the label‘proselytism’ generally arises whenone group does not approve of the

33 Marcel Simon, Verus Israel, Etude sur lesrelations entre Chrétiens et juifs dans l’empireromain (135-425 A.D.), (Paris: E. De Boccard,1948), pp. 315-355; Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’Promise to the Nations (London: SCM press,1967), pp. 11-12.


mission activities of another, espe-cially when this group is losing mem-bers or the potential exists for this tooccur. What theologically conserva-tive and evangelical movements con-sider to be legitimate evangelism, thetraditional and established churchesmay consider proselytism. Some reli-gious groups define proselytism insuch a way that practically any legit-imate religious activity assumed byanother religious group is calledproselytism, especially if this group‘puts their hands into the basket ofanother’.

Christian perspectives onproselytism

How do Christian groups anddenominations view proselytism? Afew examples will suffice in order togain an understanding of feelingsand attitudes towards those whoproselytize.

• The World Council of Churches feelsthat proselytism is encouragingChristians who belong to one church tochange to another denominationthrough means that are in opposition toChristian love, which are in violation offreedom and dignity, and whichdecrease trust in the Christian witness ofthe church.35

• The Middle East Council of Churcheswhich is made up of Oriental Orthodox,Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, andProtestant say that proselytism occurswhen an attempt is made to attractchurch members from a particularchurch, which alienates the individualfrom his or her church of origin.36 TheGeneral Secretary of the Holy Synod,

35 World Council of Churches, ‘Towards Com-mon Witness’, p. 468.

36 ‘Proselytism, Sects, and Pastoral Challenges:A Study Document’, Fifth General Assembly, July1989. See paragraphs 6-11.


Ethiopian Orthodox Church, in a letterto the World Council of Churchescomplained of proselytism going onagainst his church. He made theaccusation that there had beeninfiltration into his organization,especially through the Sunday School,that the proselyters had attempted toblur the distinction between theOrthodox Church and other Christiangroups and that they had attempted tobuy converts, giving materialinducements through food assistanceprograms.37

• Vatican II speaks of proselytism when itstates, ‘The Church strictly forbids thatanyone should be forced to accept thefaith, or be induced or enticed byunworthy devices; as it likewise stronglydefends the right that no one should befrightened away from the faith by unjustpersecution.’38

• Evangelical and Roman Catholicstogether identified proselytism duringtheir dialogue between 1977 and 1984by stating that it occurs when the motiveof the witness and the methods areunworthy as well as when there is anunloving image presented of the other’schurch community.39

It is clear that proselytism is under-stood negatively by the above Chris-tian groups and is condemned byalmost everybody. To put it in simpleterms, proselytism is sheep-stealingin which unethical methods are usedto attempt to encourage religiouspeople to change their Christianaffiliation and possibly their religiousconvictions. Proselytism might be

37 Fung, Evangelistically Yours, pp. 189-193.38 Austin P. Flannery, ed., Documents of Vati-

can II, ‘Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity,Ad Gentes Divinitis’, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1975), chapter 2, section 13, p. 828.

39 ‘L’Eglise dans le Monde: Dialogue entrecatholiques et évangélique sur la mission’, La Docu-mentation Catholique, 1932 (18 January 1987), p.119. See also Pneuma: The Journal of the Societyof Pentecostal Studies, 12 (1990), pp. 77-141.

labelled ‘evangelistic malpractice.’40

However, are proselytism and evan-gelism to be considered synonyms?Is proselytism the same as evangel-ism? Is there a distinction betweenthe two?

The DistinctionAlthough the line of demarcationbetween the two may not be evidentto some church leaders, there is aclear distinction between them. Thetable opposite attempts to distin-guish between the two.

To explain briefly, the proselytizerboldly presents his religious institu-tion or organization, whereas theevangelist faithfully presents thegospel as defined by the Word ofGod. Those who carry out activitiesof proselytism carry the message ofthe institutional church, and not nec-essarily of the gospel. Although thechurch is essential and is the body ofChrist, it is not the gospel message.Faith is not to be placed in the churchbut in Christ. The proselytizer desiresto build his own kingdom rather thanthe kingdom of God. It is his desireto expand the religious institution,rather than proclaim the message ofthe death and resurrection of Christ.He, himself is the builder of hischurch, whereas the true builder ofthe church is Jesus Christ. It is hewho said to Peter, ‘I will build mychurch’ (Matt. 16:18) The churchbelongs to Christ, not to man. It is‘his’ church not ours.

40 This is a term employed by Natan Lerner,‘Proselytism, Change of Religion, and InternationalHuman Rights,’ Emory International Law Review12 (Winter 1998) p. 495.

348 CECIL STALNAKER

This notion is an important one.Pastor-teacher John MacArthurstates that ‘no leader in Christ’schurch should have the desire tobuild it himself. Christ declared thatHe alone builds the church, and nomatter how well intentioned he maybe, anyone else who attempts tobuild it is competing with, not serv-ing, the Lord.’41 The power behindthe building of the church is clearlythe Holy Spirit. Man can, of course,build a church through his own clev-erness, but will it be a divine entity?It is certainly possible through perse-verance, persuasivness, zeal and dili-gent effort to make converts andbuild a religious organization, even achurch. However, this does not guar-antee that the result is a divine enti-ty. ‘Human effort can produce onlyhuman results. God alone can pro-duce divine results.’42

41 John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Tes-tament Commentary: Matthew 16-23 (Chicago:Moody, 1988), p. 30.

42 MacArthur, The MacArthur New TestamentCommentary: Matthew 16-23, p. 30.

In authentic evangelism the com-munication of the gospel is entirelyvoid of any coercive methods. MarkElliott, co-editor of the East-WestChurch and Ministry Report, testi-fies to having attended a churchmeeting in Moscow where the par-ticipants, who were elderly women,received meal tickets without costupon their attendance at the meet-ing.43 To avoid proselytism finding agood solution to meeting people’sphysical and spiritual needs withoutbeing manipulative is part of thechallenge of effective and God-hon-ouring gospel communication.

In proselytism, one’s motive isinstitutional and in many ways, per-sonal. Desire to expand a church orreligious organization can be a glori-ous experience, but often it is donefor one’s own glory. The invitationmust be for the glory of God. The


DESCRIPTION

Its authorityIts message

Its kingdomIts builderIts powerIts methodIts motive

Its result

Its languageIts loveIts invitation

PROSELYTISM

nonethe church, religious denomination

or organizationhumanmanhuman effortmanipulative, coerciveego-centred motivation: institutional

or personallarger religious institution

uncharitablefalseto the institution

EVANGELISM

Scripturethe gospel

divineJesus ChristHoly Spiritloving, caring, and concernedGod-centred: honour and glory

of Godauthentic followers of Jesus

Christspeaks the truth in loveauthenticto follow Jesus Christ in

discipleship

43 Mark Elliott, ‘Evangelism and Proselyticism inRussia: Synomyns or Antonyms?’, InternationalBulletin of Missionary Research 25 (April 2001), p.73.

goal is not to build a larger organiza-tion but to make disciples of JesusChrist who will in turn become effec-tive members of the local church.Personal motives have no place intrue biblical evangelism. Proselytism,no. Evangelism, yes.

In proselytism, one’s language isuncharitable. I Peter 3:15 exhorts usto sanctify the Lord in our hearts,always being ready to make adefence to every one who asks us togive an account for the hope that isin us, ‘yet with gentleness and rever-ence’. In evangelism, our speech isto be God glorifying and immersed inlove. But it is to be truth in love.

If the messenger of the gospel tru-ly loves the hearer and they know it,he or she can tell them anything!Sensing a personal spiritual need onthe part of a religiously mindedfriend, yet an unbeliever, I attemptedto share the gospel with him, but sus-picious of my motives—having inmind possible proselytizing motiveson my part—he asked me in an irri-tated manner: ‘Why are you tellingme these things?’ I responded: ‘It isbecause I am concerned for you andyour relationship with God.’ Uponhis request, we continued our con-versation.

Proselytism prohibited butevangelism pursued

Biblically, all Christians have theright to evangelize, but not to prose-lytize. Proselytism is not to be identi-fied with evangelistic activity. Nei-ther Jesus, Paul, nor the apostlesrefer to their missionary efforts asproselytism. Yet, they aggressivelyevangelized by proclaiming the

gospel. Proselytism and evangelismare not the same. Of course, evenevangelism is morally unacceptableto many people, especially in ourtheologically, pluralistic world. It willcontinue to be unacceptable as longas God’s people are trying to be obe-dient to him. Whether accused ofproselytism or not, the Christian isresponsible for evangelizing thosewho do not follow Jesus Christ, eventhose who claim the name Christian,but who are truly non-authentic intheir faith, which is the case for manynominal Christians—no matter whatpart of Christianity they call home.The former as well as the latter mustbe evangelized. Unfortunately, somany in our world today, even thoseprofessing the Christian faith, havelittle sense of what it means to be atrue Christian.

Fortunately, many nominal Chris-tians have become authentic in theirfaith through the witness of othersincere and faithful Christians.Although these marginal believershad believed they were true Chris-tians, they discovered that they weremerely nominal in their beliefs, hav-ing never grasped the implications ofthe gospel in reference to sin and thedeath and resurrection of Christ.Upon their discovery and total com-mitment to follow Jesus Christ asLord and Saviour, some left theirown Christian church denominationto join another, while othersreturned to it with a new vigour anda transformed, yet authentic faith inChrist.

While modern-day proselytism isnever encouraged in Scripture, evan-gelism is. Although proselytism

350 CECIL STALNAKER

should be prohibited, evangelismshould be pursued for several rea-sons.

To follow the Lord JesusChrist in obedience

The Christian church cannot ignorethe commands of the Lord to preachand make disciples of all the nations(Mt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15). Thechurch is missionary by nature and isthe agent of evangelism. It is imper-ative that all Christians and churchesbe in obedience to the Lord. Part ofthat obedience involves evangelism,the proclamation of the gospel. Vat-ican II is in accordance with this.Lumen Gentium states that ‘thechurch has received the solemn com-mand of Christ from the apostles,and she must fulfill it to the very endsof the earth’.44 The active, verbal wit-ness of the church is a ministry oflove towards humanity because it hasthe potential to move people frometernal darkness to eternal light. Thiscertainly also applies to nominalChristians who are not authentic intheir faith.

To follow the ministry of theHoly Spirit

To neglect the evangelization of pro-fessing Christians who truly have noauthentic faith in Christ would, inessence, deny the leading of the Spir-it of God, as it is he who creates andenergizes the church to evangelize. Itwas the Holy Spirit who directed theapostle Paul to do missionary work

(Acts 9:17; 16:6), who led Peter toevangelize the religious Cornelius(Acts 10:45ff), and the Antiochchurch to outreach (Acts 13:2). Thebook of Acts shows that it is the HolySpirit who leads the church beyondits own barriers to reach the Samari-tans (Acts 8), god-fearers (Acts 10),and Gentiles (Acts 13). Because thetrue believer is indwelt by the Spirit ofGod, who has in part a missionarynature, it is normal that Christiansshare their faith with others. TheHoly Spirit produces an inner com-pulsion and desire to share the goodnews of Jesus Christ, regardless ofreligious or church affiliation.

To give full dignity to humanbeings

Because the true witness for JesusChrist respects all of God’s humancreation, who are created in hisimage, it is only natural to give fulldignity to fellow humans and to lovethem. Knowing that there is nothingmore destructive to human dignitythan sin what could be more impor-tant than sharing the gospel withthem? Stephen Neill once said that‘No man is fully human unless he hascome to know God and himself inthe searchlight of Jesus Christ.’ Truehumanization comes only throughpersonal faith in Jesus Christ alonefor salvation.

For such a reason true evangeliza-tion should not be hindered. Addi-tionally, to impede the evangeliza-tion of those non-committed to thefaith, whether, mainline or Evangeli-cal Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox,or Anglican, actually violates severalinternational legal declarations;


44 Flannery, Documents of Vatican II, LumenGentium, chapter 2, section 17, 368.

namely, The Universal Declarationof Human Rights (1948); The Euro-pean Convention for the Protectionof Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms (1950); The InternationalCovenant on Civil and PoliticalRights (1966); and The Declarationon the Elimination of All Forms ofIntolerance and DiscriminationBased on Religion or Belief (1981).45

In particular, article two of the Uni-versal Declaration of Human Rights,which was adopted by the UnitedNations General Assembly Decem-ber 10, 1948, affirms that everyoneis entitled to all the rights and free-doms with respect to religion. Articleeighteen states: ‘Everyone has theright to freedom of thought, con-science and religion; this rightincludes freedom to change his reli-gion or belief and freedom, eitheralone or in community with othersand in public or private, to manifesthis religion or belief in teaching,practice, worship and observance.’46

Freedom of expression is of extremeimportance and is a human right. Ofcourse, these protections requireethical procedures in gospel commu-nications whereby all the hearer’srights and dignity are upheld. Toshare the gospel is the best thing thata believer can do for a non-followerof Jesus Christ.

45 Lerner, ‘Proselytism, Change of Religion,and International Human Rights’, pp. 497-498,500, 519, 542.

46 A copy of the essential elements pertaining toreligious freedom can be viewed in the work ofJames E. Wood, ‘Religious Liberty in Ecumenicaland International Perspective,’ A Journal of Churchand State 10 (Autumn 1968), p. 427.

To provide clear biblical truthEvangelism is necessary for the sakeof the truth. Although many peoplein our modern world tend to be plu-ralistic and postmodern in theirthinking, denying absolute truth,Scripture clearly says that Jesus isthe truth (Jn. 14:6); and Paul had the‘truth of the gospel’ (Gal. 2:5).Humans can be truth seeking beings.Vatican II maintains that people are

impelled by their nature and bound by amoral obligation to seek the truth,especially religious truth. They are alsobound to adhere to the truth once theycome to know it and direct their wholelives in accordance with the demands ofthe truth. . . . everybody has the duty andconsequently the right to seek the truth inreligious matters so that, through the useof appropriate means, he may prudentlyform judgments of conscience which aresincere and true.47

In many cases, the seeker of thetruth will never hear the truth if itwere not for a gospel messenger. Infact, without God-honouring evan-gelism, individuals would be deprivedof hearing the truth, of exchangingtheir errant thoughts for the truth. Ifpersonal religious ideas and thoughtsare not explored and integrated intoone’s personal world-view and life,they often become nothing morethan dead theology. Exchangingideas renews and revitalizes the per-sonal lives of people when based onthe truth. Clear biblical truth, ofcourse, stimulates thought and dis-cussion, keeping professing Christ-ian from an irrelevant spirituality.The benefits are for the hearer and

352 CECIL STALNAKER

47 Flannery, Documents of Vatican II, Digni-tatis Humanae, sections 2 and 3, 801.

not the messenger. Proselytizing isnever advantageous for the hearerbecause it has its roots in egotism,represents deception and denies thetruth principle. On the other hand,evangelism is rooted in the true andeternal gospel.

To purify and renew thechurch

Evangelism often has a purifyingeffect on the church. It is necessary ifdead and unresponsive churches aregoing to be renewed and revitalized.The evangelism of nominal and indif-ferent Christians often causes thesechurches to re-examine themselves,doctrinally, structurally, and method-ologically. The evangelistic zeal ofcommitted Christians plays aprophetic role, often within theirown particular Christian Church.

Summary and conclusionIn reference to nominal Christians,which exist in all Christian denomi-nations, whether Orthodox,Catholic, Anglican, Protestant—mainline and evangelical—heedingthe challenge of evangelism is impor-tant. The evangelism of nominalChristians should be taken seriouslyby all Christian churches. They mustbe challenged and encouraged to ful-ly commit themselves to JesusChrist. The witness of the gospel isvalid not only to non-Christians, butto professing Christians who havenot really grasped the implications ofthe gospel message for themselves.

John Stott declares that ‘evangel-ism must not be defined in terms ofthe recipients of the gospel’.48 In oth-

48 John Stott, Christian Mission in the ModernWorld (London: Falcon, 1975), p. 38.

er words, all who are non-authenticin the Christian faith, having failed toput their faith in the Son of God,Jesus Christ, for salvation are inneed of evangelism and conversion.Whether one is non-religious orbelongs to a Christian denominationis of little consequence.

Thus, evangelism is mandatory forthe church to have any transforma-tiory character. This is especially trueif individuals are not hearing or havenot heard the gospel message and itsimplications within their particularChristian denomination. Due to amessage devoid of the true gospel, itis unfortunate that the evangelism of‘Christians’ is sometimes necessary.

If evangelism is carried out, theaccusation of proselytism will surelyarise, but the command of Christ tomake disciples of all nations musttake precedence. Even if JesusChrist were physically present today,it is quite probable that he too wouldalso be accused of proselytism.


IncarnationIncarnation was required,By the utter inconceivability of

God.And Jesus, the man who

brought God down to earth,Spanned the conceptual chasmIn a baby’s cry.

by Garry Harris, South Australia(used with permission)

ERT (2002) 26:4, 354–372 0144-8153

In-Gyu Hong is Associate Professor of Cheo-nan University, Korea. He obtained his ThD(New Testament) in 1991 at the University ofStellenbosch (South Africa). Among his pub-lications are How to Read Romans (2001)(in Korean), The Law and Gospel in Paul(1996) (in Korean), and The Law in Gala-tians (JSNTS, Sheffield Academic, 1993).This is an edited version of a paper read at the4th Annual Australia Asia Theological SocietyConference held at the University of Queens-land, Brisbane Australia, August 17-18,2001.

bondage of the law was brought toan end (3:25).

Now the question is: what is thenature of the Jewish existence ‘underthe law’? The majority of interpretersnowadays argue that that existencemeans a situation under theguardianship or supervision of thelaw, considering the basic functionsof pedagogue (3:25) and guardianand steward (4:2) in the Graeco-Roman world. For them, the Jewishsituation is a state of spiritual minor-ity before the arrival of spiritual

1 Many interpreters think that the switch from‘we’ in 3:23-25 to ‘you’ in 3:26-29 is a switch fromdiscussion of the Jewish situation to discussion of theGentile situation. L.L. Belleville, ‘“Under Law”:Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Lawin Galatians 3.21-4.11’, JSNT 26 (1986), pp. 69-70; T.L. Donaldson, ‘The “Curse of the Law” andthe Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3.13-14’,NTS 32 (1986), pp. 94-112; J.D.G. Dunn, TheTheology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerd-mans, 1998), pp. 137-43.

Being ‘Under the Law’ inGalatiansIn-Gyu Hong

Keywords: Sin, curse, slavery, salvation history, freedom, redemption,new life,

IntroductionThe phrase ‘under the law’ is of con-siderable importance in Pauline the-ology and especially in the letter tothe Galatians, where it appears fivetimes (3:23; 4:4; 4:5; 4:21; 5:18).Being ‘under the law’ is parallel tobeing ‘under sin’ (3:22), ‘under apedagogue’ (3:25), ‘under guardiansand stewards’ (4:2), and ‘under thestoicheia of the world’ (4:3). Thisphrase primarily refers to the exis-tence of Jews before the coming offaith (3:23-25).1 Paul also relates theexistence under the law to subjectionto the flesh which stands in opposi-tion to the Spirit (5:16-18). Howev-er, with the coming of Christ the

maturity.2 Does this view correctlyrepresent what Paul really intends bythe phrase ‘under the law’ in Gala-tians? In my opinion, it fails to graspPaul’s point correctly.

In setting out a better interpreta-tion in this article, I will first of all dis-cuss the function of the law in the his-tory of redemption in 3:15-22, espe-cially 3:19, then the meaning ofbeing ‘under the law’, and lastly free-dom from the slavery of the law. Ishall argue that in view of the state-ments in 3.10, 13 and 4.4-5 ‘underthe law’ in Galatians means ‘underthe curse of the law’.

The body of Galatians except forthe prescript (1:1-5) and postscript(6:11-18) is divided into four sec-tions: proposition (1:6-10), narra-tion (1:11-2:21), argument (3:1-4:31), and exhortation (5:1-6:10).The phrase ‘under the law’ occursfour times in the second argument(3:23; 4:4, 5, 21) and once in thesecond exhortation (5:18).

The argumentative section con-tains two basic points: no one is jus-tified by the works of the law, but byfaith in Christ (3:1-14); the believers

2 R. Longenecker, ‘The Pedagogical Nature ofthe Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7’, JETS 25 (1982),pp. 53-61; Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp. 59-71; D.J.Lull, ‘“The Law Was Our Pedagogue”: A Study inGalatians 3:19-25’, JBL 105 (1986), pp. 481-98;N.H. Young, ‘Paidago-gos: The Social Setting of aPauline Metaphor’, NovT 29 (1987), pp. 150-76;T.D. Gordon, ‘A Note on paidago-gos in Galatians3.24-25’, NTS 35 (1989), pp. 150-54; R. Longe-necker, Galatians (WBC; Dallas: Word Books,1990), pp. 145-50; M.A. Kruger, ‘Law and Promisein Galatians’, Neotestamentica 26 (1992), pp. 320-21, 324; F.J. Matera, Galatians (SPS; Collegeville:The Liturgical Press, 1992), pp. 136-40; J.D.G.Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC;Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), pp. 196-200; Dunn,The Theology of Paul, pp. 137-43.

are no longer slaves under the lawbut sons of God (3:23-4:7; 4:21-31).The pericope 3:15-22 which treatsthe salvation-historical function ofthe law in relation to the promise isa transitional excursus. The pericope4:8-20 is an appeal, anticipating theexhortative section in 5:1-6:10. Theexhortative section based on theargumentative section also includestwo exhortations: the believersshould not accept circumcision forjustification, but live by faith (5:1-12); the believers should not subjectthemselves to the flesh, but walk bythe Spirit (5:13-6:10).3

1. The Function of the LawAgainst his opponents’ contentionthat the Gentile Galatians shouldreceive circumcision and the law inorder to inherit the promise made toAbraham, Paul argues that Abrahamby faith accepted the promise andthat the Galatians by faith receivedthe Spirit which was the actual fulfil-ment of the promise of Abraham(Gal. 3:1-14).4 He then goes on toassert that the inheritance is notbased on the law (3:18). For Paul thelaw, which came much later, had nopower to invalidate the promise(3:17). The law was not contrary tothe promise (3:21); rather, it pre-pared the way for its fulfilment. Thelaw was originally given as the obli-gation of the Sinai covenant. Yet itwas broken and thus pronounced acurse upon those who transgressed

3 See In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians(JSNTS; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), pp.68-73.

4 See Hong, The Law in Galatians, pp. 125-48.

BEING ‘UNDER THE LAW’ IN GALATIANS 355

it, particularly Israel. From this curseof the law Christ redeemed them sothat the Abrahamic promise was ful-filled (3:13-14). With this fulfilmentthe law as the covenant obligationgave way. Thus it was temporallylimited to the period between thepromise and its fulfilment. This peri-od of the law is something like aparenthesis.

At this point Paul raises a questionabout the purpose of the law in thehistory of redemption. In Gal. 3:19ahe formulates it this way: ‘Why (ti)the law then?’ This question is ellip-tical. The word ti here can be under-stood as ‘why’5 or ‘what’.6 No matterhow we take it, the context clearlysuggests that the question primarilyconcerns the function, purpose andsignificance of the law in the divineplan of salvation, not its nature.

Paul answers the question: ‘It wasadded for the sake of transgressions(to-n parabaseo-n charin prosetethe-)’(3:19b). The verb prosetethe- refersback to the giving of the law 430years later than the promise of Abra-ham (3:17). The prepositionalphrase to-n parabaseo-n charin is notunambiguous, for the charin maydenote either purpose (1 Tim. 5:14;Tit. 1:5, 11; Jude 16) or reason (1Jn. 3:12; cf. Lk. 7:47; Eph. 3:1,14).7 If the former is the case, thephrase may mean ‘for the purpose of

5 E.g. RSV; NASB; F.F. Bruce, The Epistle ofPaul to the Galatians: A Commentary on theGreek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1982), p.175; Longenecker, Galatians, p. 137.

6 E.g. H.D. Betz, Galatians: A Commentary onPaul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), p. 161;Belleville, ‘Under Law’, p. 55.

7 BAGD, p. 877.

transgressions’, namely to producetransgressions or reveal transgres-sions. In the second case, it canmean ‘because of transgressions’,namely to check transgressions.

This latter view agrees with the tra-ditional Jewish understanding of theTorah as a hedge against sin.8 Somethink along this line.9 To my mind,however, it is impossible to interpretto-n parabaseo-n charin to mean‘because of transgressions’ as ifthese transgressions had taken placewithout the law, since parabasis is alegal term, referring to a concreteact of breaking a promulgated law oran explicit command.10 The termparabasis is not something which isantecedent to, but something whichis subsequent to the coming of thelaw. According to Romans 4:15 and5:14, there was hamartia but noparabasis between Adam and Mosesbecause the law had not yet been giv-en.11

The real issue is whether Paulthinks of the law’s function as evok-ing transgression or as revealing sinas transgression. Many interpreterscorrectly regard the first option asrepresenting Paul’s intention here.In doing so, however, they do notprovide sufficient evidence drawn

8 Cf. H.J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of theApostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History(ET; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), pp. 194ff.;T. Laato, Paulus und das Judentum: Anthropolo-gische Erwägungen (Abo: Abo Academy, 1991),pp. 83-94.

9 L. Keck, Paul and his Letters (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1979), p. 74; Lull, ‘The Law Was Our Ped-agogue’, pp. 482ff.; Kruger, ‘Law and Promise inGalatians’, pp. 318-21.

10 J. Schneider, TDNT, V, pp. 739-40; BAGD,pp. 611-12.

11 Cf. Lull, ‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’, p.484.

356 IN-GYU HONG

from Galatians itself, but mainlyappeal to Romans 5:20.12 I certainlyagree that a close parallel existsbetween Galatians 3:19 andRomans 5:20. But in my opinion,Galatians alone, especially theimmediate context of 3:19b,divulges significant indications tosupport the first view.

First of all, 3:8-14 states that thepromise was made to Abraham longbefore the law was promulgated, andwas fulfilled through the cross ofChrist which removed the curse ofthe law imposed upon Israel owing totheir transgressions. This means thatwhen the promise was given, therewas no law; when it was fulfilled,however, the law, especially its trans-gressions, was presupposed. It fol-lows that the law came to help thepromise to find fulfilment throughChrist by producing transgressions.

Secondly, Paul’s forceful denialthat the law is against the promise(3:21a-b) can be understood onlywhen we presuppose a possibleattack by his opponents on hisprovocative view of the law in3:19b.13 Since the opponents firmlybelieve that the law and the promise

12 E.g. C.E.B. Cranfield, ‘St. Paul and the Law’,SJT 17 (1964), p. 46; J. Eckert, Die urchristlicheVerkündigung im Streit zwischen Paulus undseinen Gegnern nach dem Galaterbrief (BU;Regensburg: Pustet, 1971), p. 82; Betz, Galatians,p. 165; Bruce, Galatians, p. 175; G. Ebeling, TheTruth of the Gospel: An Exposition of Galatians(ET; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 193; J.L. Mar-tyn, Galatians (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1997),pp. 354-55.

13 Cf. A.J. Bandstra, The Law and the Ele-ments of the World: An Exegetical Study inAspects of Paul’s Teaching (Kampen: Kok, 1964),p. 128; J. Lambrecht, ‘The line of Thought in Gal.2.14b-21’, NTS 24 (1977-78), p. 492; Betz, Gala-tians, pp. 173-74.

are compatible, they would immedi-ately ask in reaction to the offensivestatement: do you mean, then, thatthe law contradicts the promise?

Thirdly and lastly, we should notethe enslaving function of the law.Galatians 3:23 says: ‘(B)efore faithcame, we were confined under thelaw, being shut up to the faith whichwas later to be revealed.’ Thisbondage under the law is describedas being equivalent to bondage undersin in 3:22 and bondage under theelemental spirits of the world in 4:3,8-9.14 This entirely negative charac-ter of the law denotes the role of thelaw in causing transgressions.

We therefore understand Galatians3:19b to mean that the law wasadded for the purpose of provokingtransgressions. This function of thelaw is more than one of revealing sinas transgression (cf. Rom. 3:20),though it does include it.15

In this connection it is worthwhileto consider Romans 5:20a: ‘And thelaw came in that the trespass ( para-pto-ma) might increase.’ It is not soeasy to determine the precise mean-ing of the term parapto-ma. In 5:15,17 and 18 parapto-ma is used todescribe Adam’s sin (parabasis) in5:14. This leads many scholars to seeparapto-ma as equivalent to paraba-

14 See below.15 Cf. E. Burton, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), p. 188; F. Muss-ner, Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder,1974), p. 245; R.Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to theGalatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1988), p. 160; D.B. Wallace, ‘Galatians 3:19-20: ACrux Interpretum for Paul’s View of the Law’, WTJ52 (1990), p. 238.


sis.16 Yet, in 5:20, parapto-ma is par-allel to hamartia, which was in theworld before the law (5:13). There is,however, no instance in which para-pto-ma shares in the personal use ofhamartia.17

All these observations seem toindicate that parapto-ma has abroader connotation than parabasis(a violation of a commandment or alaw which did not exist betweenAdam and Moses18), but it is not thesame as hamartia. According toCranfield, parapto-ma, being equiva-lent to hamarte-ma (Rom. 3:25),refers to ‘a false step, a going astray(it is cognate with parapiptein), andso a misdeed’ which disruptedhumanity’s relationship with God.19

If this is correct, we can understandRomans 5:20a this way: the lawcame in to increase sinful deedswhich had occurred. This thought isnot an exact parallel to that of Gala-tians 3:19b, but there is no essentialdifference between the two refer-

16 E.g. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on theEpistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: A. & C.Black, 1962), p. 113; J. Murray, The Epistle to theRomans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965),pp. 207-208; O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer(KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966),p. 140; U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (Röm1-5) (EKKNT; Zürich: Benzinger Verlag, 1978), p.322 n. 1070.

17 W. Michaelis, TDNT, VI, p. 172 n. 11; cf. H.Räisänen, Paul and the Law (WUNT; Tübingen:Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1983), p. 144 n. 81; H. Hüb-ner, Law in Paul’s Thought: A Contribution to theDevelopment of Pauline Theology (ET; Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1986), p. 80.

18 J.D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word,1988), p. 279.

19 C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and ExegeticalCommentary on the Epistle to the Romans, I (ICC;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), p. 284; cf.Michaelis, TDNT, VI, p. 172; J.P. Louw and E.A.Nida, et al. (eds.), Greek-English Lexicon of theNew Testament Based on Semantic Domain, I(New York: UBS, 1988), 88.297.

ences. They basically concern thesame thing: the law was given tointensify the seriousness of the exist-ing sin and to radicalize the crisis ofAdamitic human existence (cf. 1 Cor.15:56; 2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 9).20

Returning to Galatians 3:19b, aquestion may be raised: how doesthe law produce transgressions?Unfortunately, in this regard Gala-tians is silent. If, however, we acceptRomans 5:20a as a parallel (notexact but approximate) to Gal.3:19b, we can find an answer to thequestion in Romans, since Romans7:5ff. offers a clarification of theabrupt statement of Romans5:20a.21 Although the assertions ofRomans 5:20a and Galatians 3:19bare slightly different, they share oneand the same explanation. InRomans 7:5 Paul states that throughthe law ‘passions of sins’ werearoused in people who were in theflesh. The ‘passions of sins’ meanspassions which express themselvesin concrete acts of sin rather than infalse striving for self-righteousness,as implied in the plural form of thewords ‘passions’ and ‘sins’.22

20 Thus it is not necessary to assume a theolog-ical development from Galatians to Romans in thisrespect. Cf. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, pp.80-1.

21 Cf. J.C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Tri-umph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1980), p. 239; K. Snodgrass, ‘Spheres ofInfluence: A Possible Solution to the Problem of Pauland the Law’, JSNT 32 (1988), p. 104; D. Moo,The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996), p. 348.

22 Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 364; cf. Bandstra,The Law and Elements of the World, pp. 127-28;G. Bornkamm, Paul (ET; London: Hodder &Stoughton, 1975), p. 126; Hübner, Law in Paul’sThought, pp. 72ff.; T.F. Morris, ‘Law and the Causeof Sin in the Epistle to the Romans’, HeyJ 28(1987), pp. 285-87.

358 IN-GYU HONG

The thought is specifically elabo-rated in Romans 7:8ff. In theabsence of the law sin was ‘dead’,that is, powerless and inactive (atleast relatively). When the com-mandment ‘Thou shall not covet’appeared on the stage, however, sin,through this commandment, tookoccasion to stir up in man covetingof every kind. This account is anobvious allusion to the fall story inGenesis 3, in which the serpent (sin)tempted Adam to eat the forbiddenfruit by means of the commandmentnot to eat it.23 Notice that the expres-sion ‘sin deceived (ekse-pate-sen) me’in Romans 7:11 is reminiscent of thewoman’s complaint ‘the serpentdeceived (e-pate-sen, LXX) me’ inGenesis 3:13.24 It can be said, there-fore, that by providing an opera-tional base for sin to kindle people’ssinful passions, the law served(though not directly) to provoke orstimulate transgressions.25

Hübner ascribes the negative func-tion of the law expressed in Galatians3:19b to its origin from the demonicangels. In order to avoid any cynicalcomment on God’s dealing with peo-

23 Barrett, Romans, p. 143; F.F. Bruce, ‘Pauland the Law of Moses’, BJRL 57 (1975), pp. 268-69; Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, pp. 74-5;Dunn, Romans 1-8, p. 400.

24 I think that Romans 7:7-13 depicts the Chris-tian Paul’s look in hindsight at the plight of Israelunder the law, including himself before his conver-sion. Beker, Paul the Apostle, pp. 238-42; D.J.Moo, ‘Israel and Paul in Romans 7.7-12’, NTS 32(1986), pp. 122-35; cf. Cranfield, Romans, I, pp.342-44; M.W. Karlberg, ‘Israel’s History Personi-fied: Romans 7:7-13 in Relation to Paul’s Teachingon the “Old Man”’, TrinJ 7 (1986), pp. 65-74; S.Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith:Paul and his Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 181-82.

25 Cf. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, pp. 70-8.

ple for salvation, he interprets theparticipial clause diatageis di’ ange-lo-n in 3:19d to mean ‘ordained bythe angels’, taking the dia causative-ly to express source.26 It should benoted, however, that the participlediatageis is subordinate to the mainverb ‘was added’ (prosetethe-). Thisverb is a divine passive, suggestingGod as the giver of the law. More-over, the verb ‘was added’ is qualifiedby the subordinate clause ‘until theseed should come to whom thepromise had been made’ in 3:19c.This temporal clause clearly refers toGod’s design with regard to the law(cf. 3:22).

Thus it becomes obvious that it isGod who added the law to provoketransgressions.27 This does not saythat God is responsible for sin.Rather it seems to mean that the lawstill remained in God’s hands, serv-ing his redemptive plan, though itassumed the negative function inencountering the power of sin.

In any event, the consequence ofthe giving of the law is: ‘The Scrip-ture has shut up all people under sin’(synekleisen he- graphe- ta pantahypo hamartian) (3:22a; cf. Rom.11:32).28 It is remarkable that thesingular graphe- is not accompaniedby any Old Testament quotation, inview of the fact that in Paul (and alsoin the New Testament in general) theterm usually refers to a specific pas-

26 Cf. BAGD, p. 180.27 For further objections to Hübner’s sugges-

tion, see Hong, The Law in Galatians, pp. 154-55.28 Although the alla connects Galatians 3:22

with the preceding hypothetical assumption in v. 21by showing a contrast between them, v. 22 actuallystands in a result-reason relation to 3:19b. SeeHong, The Law in Galatians, pp. 42-5.


sage in the Old Testament (Gal. 3:8;4:30; Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11;11:2). It is also notable that thegraphe- is described in personalterms. These observations suggestthat it refers to the entire Scripturewhich is invested with the authorityof God.29

The synkleio- can be taken in vari-ous senses,30 but is undoubtedly usedhere in the negative sense of ‘to shutup’, ‘to confine’, or ‘to imprison’.The neuter plural ta panta probablyrefers to all people (cf. Jn. 6:37, 39),since the entire argument here is onthe personal level.31 The expressionhypo hamartian means under thebondage of sin, a supreme power ofthe old age, as the synkleio- sug-gests.32 This understanding of sin fitsinto the broad framework of Paul’seschatological understanding of theChrist event in Galatians (1:4; 6:14-15).33 As Witherington argues, beingunder sin is a broader category thanbeing under the curse mentioned in3:10, for it includes all, even theJews.34 Sin is the universal humandilemma, but the curse is the dilem-ma for the people of the law, name-

29 Cf. D. Guthrie, Galatians (NCB; London:Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1973), p. 107; C.H.Cosgrove, ‘The Mosaic Law Preaches Faith: A Studyin Galatians 3’, WTJ 41 (1978-79), p. 160; Ebeling,The Truth of the Gospel, pp. 192-93; Belleville,‘Under Law’, p. 56; Fung, Galatians, p. 164; Mar-tyn, Galatians, pp. 360-61.

30 See O. Michel, TDNT, VII, pp. 744-47.31 Guthrie, Galatians, p. 107; Betz, Galatians,

p. 175 n. 116; Fung, Galatians, p. 164 n. 65; cf.Bruce, Galatians, p. 180; Belleville, ‘Under Law’, p.56.

32 Cf. Burton, Galatians, p. 196; Belleville,‘Under Law’, p. 56.

33 See Hong, The Law in Galatians, pp. 74-96.

34 Cf. Martyn, Galatians, p. 371.

ly the Jews.35 The picture behind thestatement in 3:22a seems to be thatof the jail. The Scripture is repre-sented as the magistrate, all peopleas the prisoners, and sin as the jail-er.36

2. Being ‘Under the Law’After dealing with the law and sin inthe transitional section in 3:15-22,Paul goes on to describe the slaveryof the law in antithesis to the sonshipin Christ in 3:23-4:7. The slavery isexpressed as being ‘under the law’ in3:23 and 4:4-5 (cf. 4:21; 5:18).Then it is compared with being‘under a pedagogue’ (3:25), ‘underguardians and stewards’ (4:2), and‘under the stoicheia of the world’(4:3).

Here it is important to note thatthese ‘under’ (hypo) phrases are par-allel to ‘under sin’ in 3:22. The link-age between being under the law andbeing under sin also appears inRomans 6:14: ‘For sin shall not bemaster over you, for you are notunder law, but under grace.’ 6:14acontains a promise which is valid forevery believer at the present timeand 6:14b offers the reason for it.This suggests that if people are underthe law, sin has dominion over them.For Paul, to be under the law meansto be under the power of sin.37

Before considering the import ofthe diverse analogies of the law weshould first investigate the meaning

35 B. Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Com-mentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Edin-burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998), p. 261.

36 Guthrie, Galatians, p. 107; cf. Fung, Gala-tians, p. 164.

37 Cf. Moo, Romans, pp. 388-89.

360 IN-GYU HONG

of the phrase ‘under the law’ in thecontext of Galatians. This is a legiti-mate order of interpretation. In myopinion, it is wrong to adopt theapproach followed by a number ofinterpreters,38 that is, to considerfirst the role of the metaphors ‘ped-agogue’ (3:24-25) and ‘guardian andsteward’ (4:2) in the Graeco-Romansocial context in order to understandthe phrase ‘under the law’. I regard itas essential to determine the signifi-cance of the metaphors by firstexamining what Paul is trying to sayby ‘under the law’, not vice versa.

The peculiar phrase ‘under thelaw’ first appears in 3:23. It isaccompanied by the verb ‘were held’(ephrouroumetha) and the participle‘being shut up’ (synkleiomenoi),39

and thus refers to the condition ofthe Jews40 before the coming offaith.

A number of interpreters thesedays understand the Jewish situationunder the law in a positive or neutrallight. Gordon regards the function of

38 E.g. Longenecker, ‘The Pedagogical Natureof the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7’, pp. 53-61;Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp. 59ff.; Young,‘Paidag_gos’, pp. 150-76; cf. Lull, ‘The Law WasOur Pedagogue’, pp. 481-98.

39 Lull (‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’, pp.487-88) takes the present participle synkleiomenoias a substitute for an imperfect which indicates acontinued action prior to that of the main verb,mainly in order to justify his mistaken interpretationof 3:19b that the law was added because of thetransgressions that had occurred. But it is more nat-ural to see the present participle as denoting thesame action which is expressed by the principalverb. E.D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tens-es in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1894), §120; Burton, Galatians, p. 199;Young, ‘paidago-gos’, p. 170.

40 See above; cf. L. Gaston, ‘Paul and theTorah’, in A.T. Davies (ed.), Antisemitism and theFoundations of Christianity (New York: PaulistPress, 1979), pp. 62-3.

the law as that of guarding or pro-tecting Israel from the profane idola-try of the Gentiles.41 Similar in somerespects is Young’s view that thelaw’s function was to prevent Israelfrom free association with the Gen-tiles.42 Longenecker thinks Paul’splaces emphasis on the supervisoryrole of the law until Christ.43 Lullargues that the primary purpose ofthe law was to curb the desires of theflesh.44 According to Kruger, the lawfunctioned like walls which protecteduntil the Spirit came.45 Dunn claimsthat the role of the law was a protec-tive and disciplining role.46 Bellevillethinks the function of the law wasthat of a custodian who closely regu-lated and supervised God’s people ina period of spiritual minority.47

At first glance these interpretationsseem to be in harmony with the func-tions of pedagogue (3:25) andguardian and steward (4:2) in theGraeco-Roman society. They, how-ever, fail to take into considerationseriously the parallelism of ‘undersin’ in 3:22 and ‘under the law’ in3:23. In my opinion, if being ‘undersin’ refers to the slavery of the evilpower of sin, as interpreted above,then we are not permitted to see anypositive element in being under thelaw. Further, the negative function ofthe law to provoke transgressions as

41 Gordon, ‘A Note on paidago-gos in Galatians3:24-25’, pp. 150-54.

42 Young, ‘Paidago-gos’, pp. 150-76.43 Longenecker, ‘The Pedagogical Nature of the

Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7’, pp. 53-61.44 Lull, ‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’, pp.

486-98.45 Kruger, ‘Law and Promise in Galatians’, pp.

317-25.46 Dunn, The Theology of Paul, pp. 137-43.47 Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp. 55-70.


expressed in 3:19b48 clearly speaksagainst any attempt to perceive thefunction of the law in 3:23 as a pos-itive one.

What, then, is the exact nature ofexistence under the law? Note againthat being ‘under the law’ in 3:23 isparallel to being ‘under sin’ in v. 22and that the same verb synkleio- isused in connection with both exis-tences. Here we see that the law, likesin, is also depicted as a jailer. It holdsits prisoners in jail with a view to sup-pression, not protection. For thisreason the verb phroureo- usedbesides synkleio- in association withthe phrase ‘under the law’ in v. 23 isto be taken in the sense of a restric-tive confinement, though it is else-where employed in the sense of aprotective guarding (2 Cor. 11:32;Philp. 4:7; 1 Pet. 1:5). Why wereGod’s people confined under thelaw? The simple answer is becauseall people, even God’s people, wereunder the power of the sin alreadyand their transgressions of the lawmade clear to them that they werethe slaves of sin.49

We now turn to the passage in4:4b-5a, where the expression‘under the law’ occurs twice, in orderto give a further clarification of thecharacter of the bondage of the law:‘God sent his Son, born of a woman,born under the law, in order that hemight redeem (eksagorase- ) thosewho were under the law.’ Here, too,being ‘under the law’ is described asa bondage, as suggested by the termeksagorazo- which has a connotation

48 See above.49 Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 266.

of deliverance or liberation.It is common to regard being under

the law here as being under obliga-tion to keep the law.50 To my mind,however, it is absurd to think thatbeing under such an obligation is adesperate (or non-exit) situationfrom which Christ redeemed hispeople. We should not forget whatPaul says in 3:13a: ‘Christ redeemed(ekse-gorasen) us from the curse ofthe law, having become a curse forus.’ Note that the same verb eksago-razo- is employed here as in 4:5. Infact, 3:13a and 4:4b-5a are ‘the onlychristological instances of that verbin the New Testament’,51 forming aparallelism. The first person pluralpronouns in the quotation of 3:13arefer to the Jews only.52 Accordingto 3:10, they were ‘under a curse’(hypo kataran) because of their fail-ure to fulfil the law. We can nowchange the structure (not the mean-ing!) of 3:13a so as to make its cor-respondence to 4:4b-5a more strik-ing: Christ became a curse in orderto redeem his people who wereunder the curse of the law. Note theparallelism between the two state-ments.

This parallelism makes it clear thatthose ‘under the law’ in 4:5a are theJews under the curse of the law.What naturally follows then is thatexistence under the law in 4:4b-5ameans existence under the curse of

50 Fung, Galatians, p. 182 n. 73; Louw andNida, et al., Greek-English Lexicon, I, 37.7.

51 Martyn, Galatians, p. 408.52 E.g. Dunn, Galatians, p. 216; Witherington,

Grace in Galatia, p. 288.

362 IN-GYU HONG

the law.53 This understanding is rein-forced in Galatians 5:16-21. Accord-ing to 5:21b, being captive to thedesires of the flesh will result in eter-nal condemnation (see also 6:8a). Asimplied in the parallel between 5:16and 5:18, this subjection to the fleshis equal to being ‘under the law’. Inthis connection it is noteworthy thatin 2 Corinthians 3 the Mosaiccovenant is described as ‘the ministryof death’ (3:7) and ‘the ministry ofcondemnation’ (3:9).

It is perplexing that Paul employsthe metaphor of pedagogue in Gala-tians 3:24-25 (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15) todescribe the bondage of the law, thatis, existence under the curse of thelaw. The figure of pedagogue waswidely known in Graeco-Romansociety.54 He was not a teacher(didaskalos) but a household-slavewho accompanied the free-born boywherever he went, especially toschool. His task consisted of protec-tion of the boy from all kinds of dan-gers and supervision of his generalconduct which involved reproachand punishment for his bad man-ners. The pedagogue kept the ladunder his control and restricted hisliberty until he reached the age of

53 Cf. H.N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul tothe Churches of Galatia (NICNT; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953), p. 156; Betz, Galatians, p. 176;Bruce, Galatians, p. 196; B.C. Lategan, ‘Formulasin the Language of Paul: A Study of PrepositionalPhrases in Galatians’, Neotestamentica 25 (1991),pp. 82, 85.

54 See Longenecker, ‘The Pedagogical Nature ofthe Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7’, pp. 53-6; Belleville,‘Under Law’, pp. 59-60; Lull, ‘The Law Was OurPedagogue’, pp. 489-94; Young, ‘Paidago-gos’, pp.150-69; cf. A.T. Hanson, ‘The Origin of Paul’s Useof paidago-gos for the Law’, JSNT 34 (1988), pp.71-6.

puberty.55

According to Lull and Young,56

however, there was a big gapbetween the ideal and the actual. Itwas quite common to put old anddecrepit slaves in charge of childrenwhile appointing fit and young slavesto manage more demanding workssuch as financial affairs. Plutarchlamented this practice of using themost useless slaves for the importantearly discipline of the children (Mor.4A-B). The pedagogues were sup-posed to assist their charges to real-ize and achieve virtue, but many, ifnot most of them, were not educat-ed but rough and abusive men. Theyoften failed to advise well or to pro-vide a good example to be followed.What they taught best were ‘pettyand childish duties’ (Plutarch, Mor.439F). Yet this teaching was oftenaccompanied by threats of whip-ping. It is not surprising, then, thatthe pedagogues gained a bad repu-tation for being rude and harsh andwere often depicted with a cane, awhip or a rod. It is true, however, thatthere were some good pedagogueswho attracted respect and affec-tion.57

What, then, is Paul’s point in usingthe pedagogue metaphor for thelaw? To be sure, the primary task ofthe pedagogue was to protect chil-dren from all sorts of harm and toteach them proper manners. Butthere is no indication in the contextof 3:24-25 that the law played such

55 Plato was of the opinion that a child should betreated as a slave during his minority (Leg. 7.810E).

56 Lull, ‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’, p. 493;Young, ‘Paidago-gos’, p. 159.

57 See Lull, ‘The Law Was Our Pedagogue’, p.490; Young, ‘Paidago-gos’, pp. 165-68.


a protective and educative role, asobserved above. The context rathersuggests that the unpleasant restraintof the pedagogue is the force of theanalogy.58 It should be noted that thecomparison of the law with the ped-agogue in v. 24 is motivated by thesituation depicted in v. 23: ‘beforefaith came we were confined underthe law, kept under restraint…sothat (ho-ste) the law has become ourpedagogue…’ This demonstratesthat Paul employs the pedagoguemetaphor in order to describe vividlythe enslavement of the law. For Paul,subjection under the pedagogueamounts to imprisonment, that is,lack of freedom, and thus is compa-rable to slavery under the law, theplight of the Jews before (or outside)Christ.

In this connection some construethe dominion of the law in an exis-tential way. Taking the prepositioneis in the phrase eis Christon (3:24)to express the goal, they think of theenslaving function of the law asoppressing individuals and creating agrowing passion for liberty inChrist.59 However, the eis must betaken in a temporal sense in the lightof many temporal references in3:19-25: ‘until’ (v. 19), ‘before’ (v.

58 F. Thielman, Paul and the Law: A Contex-tual Approach (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), pp.132f.; Young, ‘Paidago-gos’, pp. 170-71; Wither-ington, Grace in Galatia, p. 266; cf. Westerholm,Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith, p. 196.

59 M. Luther, A Commentary on Saint Paul’sEpistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker,[1891] 1979), pp. 340-41; Ridderbos, The Epistleof Paul to the Churches of Galatia, p. 146; R.A.Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: AnIntroduction and Commentary (TNTC; Leicester:IVP, [1965] 1983), p. 108; cf. C.B. Cousar, Gala-tians (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), p.79.

23), ‘until faith should be revealed’(v. 23), ‘now that faith has come’ (v.25), ‘no longer’ (v. 25). This under-standing is further substantiated bythe fact that in 4:1-7 also Paul usesdifferent images to stress the tempo-ral limits of the law’s subjugation (seebelow). Thus it is clear that Paul herespeaks of a non-exit situation of peo-ple under the law before the comingof Christ in terms of salvation his-tory, not in terms of subjective psy-chology.60

In Galatians 4:2 Paul sets forthanother analogy of bondage underthe law: being ‘under guardians andstewards’ (hypo epitropous kaioikonomous).61 There has beenmuch discussion on the precisemeaning of the two titles and thelegal system behind them which Paulhas in mind.62 In general, however,epitropos is a legal term for theguardian, appointed by the father orby the court, who oversaw the per-son and education of a minor and

60 E.g. Burton, Galatians, p. 200; Bultmann,Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 266; Beker,Paul the Apostle, p. 55; Fung, Galatians, p. 169;Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith,p. 196.

61 The basic thought of Galatians 3:23-29, thatis, the antithesis between slavery under the law andfreedom in Christ, is repeated in 4:1-7, though withsome elaboration. This is implied in the openingwords lego- de in 4:1 (cf. 3:17; 5:16; Rom. 15:8; 1Cor. 1:12) which may be rendered as ‘this is what Imean’ (NEB) or ‘let me put it this way’ (Bruce, Gala-tians, p. 192).

62 E.g. W.M. Ramsay, A Historical Commen-tary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London:Hodder & Stoughton, 1900), pp. 391-93; Burton,Galatians, pp. 212-15; J.D. Hester, ‘The “Heir”and Heilsgeschichte: A Study of Galatians 4:1ff.’, inF. Christ (ed.), Oikonomia: Heilsgeschichte als The-ma der Theologie: Festschrift für O. Cullmann(Hamburg: Herbert Reich Evangelischer Verlag,1967), pp. 119-22; Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp. 60-3.

364 IN-GYU HONG

managed the inheritance in his inter-est until he attained his majority. Onthe other hand, oikonomos usuallymeans a steward who administeredthe estate of his master (cf. Lk.12:42; 16:1, 8; Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor.4:1-2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 4:10). Weshould note, however, that there isno clear instance of the use ofoikonomos for one who has chargeof the person or estate of a minorheir.63

It is puzzling that here the adminis-trative term oikonomos occurs inassociation with the legal termepitropos. It is unlikely that in com-bining the two terms Paul has inmind the Roman law which stipu-lates that a minor is to be under atutor (epitropos) until the age of 14,and thereafter under a curator(kourato-r) until the age of 25.64 Forif Paul had been thinking of this law,he could have used the phraseepitropos kai kurato-r instead ofepitropos kai oikonomos.

Moreover, it does not seem thatPaul has a historical succession ofguardians in mind. The single prepo-sition hypo and connective kai (hypoepitropous kai oikonomous)implies that the minor is at the sametime ‘under guardians and stew-ards’.65 It is possible, however, thatthe combination of the two termstakes place because of the referencesto slavery in 4:1 and 3, sinceoikonomos can be the one whosuperintends the slaves of his mas-

63 Burton, Galatians, p. 212.64 Cf. Ramsay, Galatians, pp. 392-93.65 Belleville, ‘Under Law’, p. 62.

ter.66 It is also plausible that Paul inhis use of the two titles is merelyreferring to those who had effectivecontrol of the person and estate of achild. In some cases the epitroposmight delegate some of his responsi-bilities to the oikonomos.67

Whatever the case, the point of theanalogy is clear: as Paul explicitlystates in 4:1, the minor heir does notdiffer at all from a slave as long as heis put under the restricting power ofguardians and stewards. Although heis theoretically the owner and mas-ter, he is in reality without controlover his life and possessions. By thesame token, the Jews under thecurse of the law have no capacity forself-determination and freedom,though they have received the prom-ise to inherit the eschatological land.

Further, Paul equates slavery underthe law with bondage ‘under the sto-icheia of the world’ in 4:3ff. Thephrase under ‘the stoicheia of theworld’ here is simply ‘the stoicheia’in 4:9. This implies that the empha-sis within the phrase is placed on theideas conveyed by ‘the stoicheia’rather than ‘of the world’.68 Theword stoicheion basically means amember or component of a row orseries, probably being derived fromstoichos, ‘a row’, ‘a series’, ‘a line’.In Hellenistic and Classical literaturethe plural, ‘the stoicheia’, is princi-

66 Betz, Galatians, p. 204; cf. Longenecker,‘The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians3:19-4:7’, p. 56.

67 Belleville, ‘Under Law’, p. 63; cf. Burton,Galatians, pp. 213-14; O. Michel, TDNT, V, p.150; Longenecker, ‘The Pedagogical Nature of theLaw in Galatians 3:19-4:7’, p. 56.

68 Burton, Galatians, p. 516; cf. Bandstra, TheLaw and the Elements of the World, pp. 541ff.


pally used in two senses: either (a)elements of knowledge or funda-mental principles (e.g. Plato. Leg.7.790C; Xenophon, Mem. 2.1.1;Plutarch, Lib. Ed. 16.2; Heb. 5:12),or (b) the physical elements of theuniverse such as earth, water, air,and fire (e.g. Plato, Tim. 48B; Dio-genes Laertius 7.134-35; 4 Macc.12:13; Philo, Dec. 31; Op. Mund.146; Hermas, Vis. 3.13; Justin Mar-tyr, Dial. 62.2; 2 Pet. 3:10, 12).

As the references in bracketsshow, however, this second sense ispredominant in Jewish and Christianliterature of the NT period. In thesecond century CE another meaningof stoicheia appears. Justin Martyrin his Second Apol. 5.2 employs theword to refer to heavenly bodies,especially the sun, the moon, andother planets which influence sea-sonal events in nature (see also Dial.23.3; Theophilus of Antioch, Autol.1.6, 2.35). We also find the worddenoting spiritual beings such asdemons and spirits in the T. Sol.(8:1-2; 18:1-2) which may not beearlier than the third or fourth centu-ry CE.69

How, then, does Paul understand‘the stoicheia of the world’ in Gala-tians (cf. Col. 2:8, 20)? Paul’s under-standing of the phrase is one of themost debated issues in Pauline stud-ies. In my opinion, there are fivemajor solutions.

1. Assuming the inclusion of thelaw in the stoicheia, many scholarsinterpret the phrase as elementary

69 For the history of the use of stoicheion, seeBurton, Galatians, pp. 510-14; G. Delling, TDNT,VII, pp. 670-83.

principles or teachings by whichpeople lived prior to Christ.70

2. Howard and Martyn take upthe most frequent meaning of sto-icheia in the first century CE, andpropose that ‘the stoicheia of theworld’ refer to the elements of thecosmos which the Gentiles wor-shipped as gods.71

3. Schlier, appealing to 4:10,understands the stoicheia to refer tostars which were revered as spiritualbeings, in spite of the lack of any pre-Pauline attestation of the usage.72

4. Betz thinks that the stoicheiainclude both the physical elementsand the heavenly bodies which werethought of as exerting their controlover people.73

5. Finally, other interpreters offera somewhat loose understanding ofthe stoicheia. Observing that bothJudaism and paganism are forms ofbondage to the stoicheia, they con-sider the stoicheia as covering all thethings which people serve as their

70 J.B. Lightfoot, St Paul’s Epistle to the Gala-tians (London: Macmillan, 1880), p. 167; Burton,Galatians, pp. 510-18; Ridderbos, The Epistle ofPaul to the Churches of Galatia, p. 154; W. Carr,Angels and Principalities: The Background, Mean-ing and Development of the Pauline Phrase ‘haiarchai kai hai exousiai’ (SNTSMS; Cambridge:CUP, 1981), p. 75; Belleville, ‘Under Law’, pp. 67-9; Longenecker, Galatians, p. 166; Matera, Gala-tians, p. 150; Witherington, Grace in Galatia, pp.284-87.

71 G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia: A Studyin Early Christian Theology (SNTSMS; Cambridge:CUP, 1979), pp. 66-7; Martyn, Galatians, pp.393ff. ; cf. W. Wink, ‘The “Elements of the Uni-verse” in Biblical and Scientific Perspective’, Zygon13 (1978), pp. 225-48.

72 H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater (KEK;Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), p.192.

73 Betz, Galatians, pp. 204-205; cf. Hübner,Law in Paul’s Thought, p. 33.

366 IN-GYU HONG

gods, including the Jewish law.74

In order to decide which one ofthese various solutions is most plau-sible, we should take the followingpoints into consideration. First of all,it is important to note that in 4:3-5bondage under the law is parallel tobondage ‘under the stoicheia of theworld’. This does not necessarilymean that the law is identical to thestoicheia or that the law is includedin the stoicheia. As observed above,in 3:22-23 Paul equates being undersin with being under the law. How-ever, he never asserts that the law issin (see e.g. Rom. 7:7). The samecan be said for his comparison of thelaw to pedagogue in 3:24-25 and toguardian and steward in 4:1-2.

Secondly, the description of theGalatians’ past in 4:8 suggests thatthe stoicheia were regarded bypagans as gods. Verse 8 reads: ‘atthat time, when you did not knowGod, you were enslaved to thosewho in nature are not gods.’ Theexpression, ‘those who in nature arenot gods’ reminds us of a typicalJewish polemic against Gentile poly-theism (Is. 37:19; Jer. 2:11; 5:7;16:20; Epistle of Jeremiah 14, 22,28, 49, 50, 64, 68, 71).75 For Paulas a Christian Jew, pagan gods arenot really ‘gods’ at all. The close con-junction in thought between vv. 8and 9 shows that these counterfeitgods are identical with the stoicheiain v. 9. In this connection it is note-

74 Delling, TNDT, VII, pp. 684-85; H.H. Esser,NIDNTT, II, p. 453; Bruce, Galatians, p. 204;Fung, Galatians, p. 191; Dunn, Galatians, p. 213.

75 Howard, Paul, pp. 67, 98 n. 224; Bruce,Galatians, p. 201; cf. Betz, Galatians, pp. 214-15.

worthy that the stoicheia aredescribed as being ‘weak and beg-garly’.

Thirdly, we should notice the con-nection between the Galatians’attempt to return to the slavery of thestoicheia in 4:9 and the calendarobservances in 4:10 (cf. Gen. 1:14)which were usually associated withstar worship.76 It was not uncommonto regard the stars as living beings inthe ancient world. The problem hereis, however, that the use of stoicheiafor the stars does not appear beforethe second century CE. Neverthe-less, we cannot simply ignore thesuggestion of 4:10. Lastly, it is wellknown that the use of the stoicheiafor the elements of the universe waspredominant in the religious litera-ture of antiquity, and that the ele-ments as well as the stars were con-ceived as divine beings in the Gentileworld of Paul’s time (Wis. 13:1-5;7:17; Philo, Vit. Cont. 3-5).77

All these considerations compel usto adopt Betz’s view that stoicheiainclude both the elements of the uni-verse and the heavenly bodies whichwere worshipped as gods in pagan-ism. For Paul, they representdemonic forces which dominate‘this present evil age’ in view of hiseschatological understanding of theredemptive work of Christ in Gala-tians 1:4 and 6:14,78 and whichenslave not only the Gentiles but also

76 Cf. Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, p. 206.77 See Martyn, Galatians, pp. 398-400.78 Cf. Romans 8:38; 16:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6,

8; 5:5; 7:5; 8:5; 10:19-20; 15:24; 2 Corinthians2:11; 4:4; 11:14; Ephesians 6:12; Col. 1:16; 1Thessalonians 2:18; 3:5.


the Jews before and outside Christ.79

Thus we can understand Paul’s rea-son for equating slavery under thestoicheia with slavery under the law;both the stoicheia and the law areenslaving powers which constituteand dominate this evil world. Beingunder these powers means absenceof freedom and subjection to oppres-sion.

Finally, we should observe thatPaul relates existence under the lawto subjection to the flesh in 5:16-18.Verse 18 reads: ‘If you are led by theSpirit, you are not under the law.’This statement is a reinforcement ofthat in v. 16: ‘Walk by the Spirit, andyou will not carry out the desire ofthe flesh.’ The correspondencebetween these two statementsimplies that submission to the flesh istantamount to being under the law.

This association of the law with theflesh is not new. It has already takenplace in 3:2-3 and 4:21-31. In theformer place the flesh seems to referto the circumcised flesh; in the latterit denotes the basis of natural procre-ation. The flesh in 5:16ff. including5:13 is, however, viewed from quitea different perspective. It is presentedas a personified power which standsin dualistic antithesis to the Spirit, theenabling power of the new era. It‘sets its desires against the Spirit’(5:17) and produces its works againstthe fruit of the Spirit (5:19-21).

79 The ‘we’ who were held in bondage under thestoicheia in Galatians 4:3 primarily refers to theJews, since the first person plural certainly meansthe same as ‘those who were under the law’ in 4:5;on the other hand, the ‘you’ who are about to turnback again to the stoicheia by accepting the Jewishlaw without doubt refers to the Galatian Gentiles.

For Paul the flesh is also an enslav-ing power of the old age, just like thelaw. Subordination to the rule of thispower leads helpless people to trans-gress the law and thereby bringsthem under the curse of the law.80

That is why Paul says that a life cor-rupted by the flesh cannot ‘inheritthe kingdom of God’ (5:21b) andthat the end of the sower who sows‘into his flesh’ will be eternal ‘cor-ruption’ (6:8a).81 Thus it can be saidthat subjection to the flesh is equiva-lent to slavery under the law.

In short, for Paul the law was giv-en in addition to the promise in orderto provoke transgressions. The con-sequence is that the law imprisonedall the transgressors under its curse.Paul compares this imprisonment tobeing under the restrictive supervi-sion of a pedagogue (3:25) andunder the power of guardians andstewards (4:2). Further, he connectsthis confinement with the enslave-ment to other powers in the old age(1:4; 6:14): sin (3:22), the demonicforces (4:3, 9), and flesh (5:13,16ff.).

Bondage under the law is the maincharacterization of the existence ofthe Jews before the coming of

80 Most of interpreters think that being ‘underthe law’ in 5:18 refers to being under the guidanceof the law before the coming of Christ. But this viewis mistaken. We should remember, as argued above,that ‘under the law’ means ‘under the curse of thelaw’. Cf. Fung, Galatians, p. 252; T.R. Schreiner,The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology ofLaw (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), p. 81.

81 Martyn (Galatians, p. 553) states: ‘To sow toone’s own flesh is to be circumcised, under the illu-sion that…circumcision of one’s flesh is the antidoteto the enslaving power called Flesh. To sow to one’sflesh is then also to fall victim to the Flesh, preciselybecause nomistic circumcision of the flesh is impo-tent to curb the Flesh.’

368 IN-GYU HONG

Christ. This particular slavery repre-sents the universal human plightunder sin, demonic powers andflesh.82 It is, however, the prologueto the redemption of Christ.

3. Freedom from the Slaveryof the Law

After comparing being ‘under thelaw’ with being ‘under a pedagogue’,Paul declares in Galatians 3:25 thatwith the coming of Christ, thedominion of the law was brought toan end: ‘But now that faith hascome, we are no longer under a ped-agogue.’ The coming of faith herecorresponds to the coming of Christin 3:19c, 24 and 4:4.

How Christ came is described in4:4b: ‘God sent (eksapesteilen) HisSon.’ This statement probably refersto God’s act of sending his Son outof his previous state into this world.Although the verb eksapesteilendoes not necessarily assume the pre-existence of the Son,83 the idea maywell have been in Paul’s mind in writ-ing the verse. There are several rea-sons for this.

First of all, Paul believed in the idea(1 Cor. 8:6b; 10:4; Phil. 2:6; Col.1:15-17), then pre-existence is allud-ed to in Romans 8:3 which is a par-allel to Galatians 4:4-584 and finally,it seems that Paul here, as in 1Corinthians 1:30 and 10:4, appliedJewish Wisdom ideas to Christincluding ideas of pre-existence (Wis.

82 See Hong, The Law in Galatians, pp. 83-4.83 K.H. Rengstorf, TDNT, I, p. 406.84 E.g. Fitzmyer, Romans, pp. 484-85; Moo,

Romans, pp. 478-79; Witherington, Grace in Gala-tia, p. 288.

9:10-17).85

Some suppose that the statementin 4:4b is part of pre-Pauline materi-al.86 Even if this is so, it is highlyprobable that the notion of the Son’spre-existence was still present whenPaul wrote the verse, in view of thefact that the idea is not unique toPaul but popular in the early Christ-ian community (cf. Jn. 1:1ff.; Heb.1:2; Rev. 3:14).

Verse 4b further describes themanner of the appearance of theSon: ‘born (genomenon) of awoman, born (genomenon) underthe law.’ The former phrase clearlyrefers to his birth out of a woman,since the ginomai in it is used as ‘aquasi-passive of gennao-’ (cf. 1 Esd.4:16; Tob. 8:6; Wis. 7:3; Sir. 44:9;Jn. 8:58).87 The aorist participlegenomenon indicates that theevents of God’s sending his Son andof the Son’s birth from a womanwere coincident (cf. Philp. 2:7).88

Here it is emphasized that Christ wasborn in the normal human mannerand at his birth assumed normalhuman nature and thus became areal human being (cf. Jn. 1:14). Thisindicates ‘the descent to the level ofthose whom he came to redeem’.89

The latter phrase is somewhat per-

85 B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pil-grimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994),pp. 295ff.; cf. E. Schweizer, ‘Zum religions-geschichtlichen Hintergrund der “Sendungsformel”Gal. 4.4f., Rm. 8.3f., Joh. 3.16f., 1 Joh. 4.9’, ZNW57 (1966), pp. 199-210.

86 E. Schweizer, TDNT, VIII, p. 374.87 Bruce, Galatians, p. 195.88 In Philippians 2:7 also the same aorist par-

ticiple (genomenos) has coincidental force.89 Burton, Galatians, p. 217; cf. Ridderbos,

The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, p.155; Longenecker, Galatians, p. 171.


plexing. Burton views it as ‘madesubject to law’ rather than ‘bornunder the law’.90 However, the par-ticiple genomenon here, as in theformer phrase, probably denotes anaction coinciding with that of themain verb eksapesteilen. So it ismore sensible to understand thephrase to mean ‘born under the law’.Many interpreters see it as referringto Christ’s birth in the Jewish peoplewho were subject to all the require-ments of the law.91 However, weshould remember my precedingargument that ‘under the law’ in thegiven context means ‘under thecurse of the law’. If this assumptionis correct, what Paul means here isthat at his birth Christ took uponhimself the curse which the Jews hadincurred because of their non-fulfil-ment of the law.92 To my mind thispoints to the deep condescension ofhis incarnation (cf. Phil. 2:7).

This humiliating incarnation is thefirst significant step of Christ’sredemptive work. It led him to besubject to all human weaknesses, tobe misunderstood, despised, reject-ed, to suffer, and eventually to die onthe cross. On the cross he was com-pletely forsaken by God. In this wayChrist carried the curse of the lawand exhausted it on behalf of his peo-ple. He thereby redeemed his peoplefrom the curse (3:13).93 This particu-

90 Burton, Galatians, p. 218; cf. Schlier, DerBrief an die Galater, p. 196; Betz, Galatians, p.207.

91 Burton, Galatians, p. 218; Cole, Galatians,pp. 115-16; cf. Fung, Galatians, p. 182.

92 Martyn (Galatians, p. 408) states: ‘Christ’sbeing sent by God was his being born under the Law(4:4), specifically the event of his birth under theLaw’s power to prounce its universal curse (3:10).’

93 Cf. Cousar, Galatians, pp. 94-5.

lar redemption of the Jews broughtabout a universal consequence,namely the redemption of all peoplefrom sin, demonic forces and flesh,for the Jewish plight served as therepresentative sample of the univer-sal human plight, as seen above. Infact, in his incarnation, suffering anddeath Christ fully identified himselfwith the Gentiles as well as with theJews.

In the second part of his speech toCephas (2:18-21), which corre-sponds to 3:23-4:7,94 Paul speaksfrom the standpoint of the benefici-ary of the redemptive work of Christ:‘For through the law I died to the law(nomo-), that (hina) I might live toGod (theo-)’ (2:19a; cf. Rom. 7:4).This statement is made againstCephas’s falling back into thebondage of the law by his withdraw-al from table fellowship with theGentile Christians in Antioch(2:11ff.).

The first person singular ‘I’ is notused to refer to Paul himself alone,but primarily to represent the JewishChristians in general. This meansthat what Paul is talking about here isnot so much his own personal expe-rience as something that is true ofany Jewish believer.95 The law in2:19a as in 3:23-4:7 refers to a pow-er of the old age, as the antithesisbetween ‘law’ and ‘God’ indicates. Itis to this law that the Christians died,as they died to sin (Rom. 6:11) anddied to the world (Gal. 6:14). Thismeans their complete separation

94 See Hong, The Law in Galatians, p. 71.95 Cf. Burton, Galatians, p. 132.

370 IN-GYU HONG

from the power of the law.96 Theconsequence is that the law nolonger has any claim on or controlover them.

The death took place ‘through thelaw’. How should we understandthis? We should notice that the mainclause of 2:19a is rephrased in2:19b: ‘I have been crucified withChrist.’ Here we see the close linkbetween the death to the law‘through the law’ and the crucifixionof Christ. As seen above, the lawplayed a role in the death of Christ.The curse of the law caused Christ todescend to this world in a humanform and to die on the cross for hispeople. In this sense it can be saidthat Christ died ‘through the law’.97

By virtue of their participation inthe death of Christ by faith, thebelievers also died ‘through the law’(cf. Rom. 6:6; 7:4).98 Thereby theyhave been freed from the condem-nation of the law and its dominion.For Paul this release from the powerof the law is an eschatological trans-fer from the old aeon to the newaeon (cf. 1:4; 6:14). It follows thatthe release is at the same time therelease from other old powers suchas sin, demonic forces and flesh.

This release opened up a new pos-sibility for all the believers to ‘live toGod’, as the hina clause expresses.Living to God is an eschatologicalreality (cf. Rom. 6:10-11). This newlife to God has been customarily

96 The dative nomo- as theo- is a dative of rela-tion (cf. Rom. 6:10-11).

97 Cf. Burton, Galatians, p. 134.98 Cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 118; T. Zahn,

Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater (KNT; Leipzig:Deichert, 1907), p. 113; Burton, Galatians, pp.132-34.

understood as life in the service ofGod, taking the dative theo- as adative of advantage.99 This sensemay not be entirely excluded here.But I do not believe that it is whatPaul really has in mind. It is to be not-ed that in 2:19a living to God is indirect contrast with dying to the law,an old power. This implies that thenew life means life which is intimate-ly related to the power of God andsurrendered to his sovereign con-trol.100 To put it simply, it is life underthe rule of God, the new Master.2:20a describes this life as life livedand controlled by Christ dwelling inthe believers, the Lord of the newera. In 5:25 the life is further char-acterized as living by the Spirit, theenabling power of God (cf. Rom.8:10). This life by the Spirit ‘shallreap eternal life’ (Gal. 6:8b; cf.5:23b).

ConclusionFor Paul, the law functions as anenslaving power, seen from the per-spective of the history of salvation.The law, in addition to the promise,was given by God in order to pro-duce or provoke transgressions (Gal.3:19; cf. Rom. 5:20) by providing anoperational base for sin to kindleman’s sinful passions (Rom. 7:5ff.).In consequence, all people wereimprisoned under the power of sin(Gal. 3:22). More particularly, all thetransgressors were kept in jail underthe law (3:23). ‘Under the law’ here

99 E.g. Burton, Galatians, p. 134; Ridderbos,The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, p.103; Fung, Galatians, p. 123.

100 Ebeling, The Truth of the Gospel, p. 138;cf. Guthrie, Galatians, pp. 89-90.


means ‘under the curse of the law’ inview of the statements in 3:10, 13and 4:4-5.

Paul compares this bondage of thelaw with being under a pedagogue(3:25), being under guardians andstewards (4:2), and being under theelemental spirits of the world (4:3,9). The point of comparison here islack of freedom, absence of self-determination, and subordination toforeign control. Further, Paul relatesthe existence under the law to sub-jection to the flesh in 5:16-18 whichstands in opposition to the Spirit.

However, with the coming ofChrist the slavery of the law wasbrought to an end (3:25). At his birthChrist took upon himself the curse ofthe law, and carried it during hiswhole life on earth and eventuallyexhausted it on the cross on behalf ofhis people (3:13; 4:4). By virtue oftheir participation in the death ofChrist by faith, the believers died inrelation to the enslaving power of thelaw (2:19). Thereby they were liber-ated from it (5:1, 13) and now liveunder the sovereign rule of God, thenew Master (2:19; cf. 2:20; 5:25).

372 IN-GYU HONG

NEW FROM PATERNOSTER

Rome in the Bible and the Early ChurchEditor: Peter Oakes

Rome has always meant many things to many people. But what about the earliestChristians in the first century after Christ’s ministry – what did it mean for them? Inthis book, articles by six writers pick up on six ways in which this question ought to

be answered.

Rome both dominated the shape of first-century life and became a place ofChristian activity. It was an empire in which Christians lived, an authority underwhich they might suffer and a culture that shaped life in society. Yet Rome was

also the location of a church. It was the church to which Paul wrote, and the placeto which he was taken at the end of his ministry in the Book of Acts.

Rome in the Bible and the Early Church both advances scholarship and providesthose interested in New Testament history with an insight into the fascinating and

vital issues of the life of the early Church under Rome.

Peter Oakes studied for a BA in Theology at London Bible College, graduating in1991. He then moved to Worcester College, Oxford, where he studied for a DPhil

under Tom Wright.

ISBN 1-84227-133-4 / 229x145 / p/b / 184pp / £12.99

Paternoster Press, PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 0QS, UK

0144-8153 ERT (2002) 26:4, 373–285

Reviewed by Rev Prof. Norman T.BarkerHugh Wetmore‘Why Christians Disagree whenthey interpret the Bible’Finding unity in our loyalty toScripture

Reviewed by Rev. Dr Jae Sung KimDonald K. McKimIntroducing the Reformed Faith

Reviewed by Ray LairdRichard J. MouwHe Shines in All that’s Fair:Culture and Common Grace

Reviewed by David ParkerDonald G. BloeschThe Holy Spirit: works and giftsChristian Foundations

Books Reviewed

ERT (2002) 26-4, 373-375 0144-8153

‘Why Christians Disagreewhen they interpret the Bible’Finding unity in our loyalty to

ScriptureHugh Wetmore with participants inNational Hermeneutics Workshops

Cape Town, S. Africa: StruikChristian Books, 2001ISBN 1 86823 444 4P/B 232 pp. No index

Reviewed by Rev Prof. Norman T.Barker, Emmanuel College,University of Queensland

The aim of Wetmore’s book is toclarify issues involved in interpretingScripture with the aim of deepeningunity and understanding amongevangelicals committed to theauthority of the Bible. It originated in

hermeneutics workshops sponsoredby the Evangelical Alliance of SouthAfrica, of which Wetmore has servedas general secretary and nationalcoordinator. Suggested readership islay evangelical. It specificallyembraces Pentecostals, as ‘a vitalpart of the wider evangelical family’.Participants responsible for severalchapters are listed on p. 8, but withsome errors.

Typical areas of disagreement arelisted – some perennial and general,others coloured by the African con-text. Not all are addressed specifical-ly. Wetmore seeks first to distinguishthe solid ground of evangelical agree-ment to determine which are ‘gospel’or ‘kingdom’ issues and which arenot. Not all will agree with relegatingquestions like baptism or women inministry to non-gospel status.

Book Reviews

Common principles of Bible inter-pretation, such as history, context,literary genre, are dealt with. DavidWhitelaw propounds psychologicaldifferences as part explanation fordifferences on interpretation—leftand right sides of the brain: left-brainrational, logic and analysis, suited toliturgical-reformed Christians; right-brain leaning to the spiritual or intu-itive, to imagination and synthesis,suited more to pentecostal/ charis-matic styles of worship and preach-ing. Scripture embraces both aspects– law, history, gospels, doctrinalbooks aligning with the left-brain,poetic and apocryphal with the right-brain. A constant emphasis is on theneed and value, therefore, of groupBible study, for the simple reasonthat it brings together a range of indi-vidual pre-understandings and per-sonalities.

Various ‘gaps’—historical, geo-graphical, cultural and linguistic—between Bible times and ours makeinterpretation more difficult. A philo-sophical gap arises from changingworld-views; the spiritual gap, con-stituted by our human sin, stubborn-ness and self-will, constitutes a barri-er. The book has a healthy emphasison spiritual qualifications for Bibleinterpretation and the need not onlyto understand but also to ‘do theWord’ (Jas. 1:22-25). The ‘ScriptureUnion Method of Bible Reading’ iscommended.

Chris Mngadi, writing on the unityof the Bible, relates how an AfricanChristian queried his carrying a NewTestament alone (for convenience).He acknowledged that his practice(which he changed) was ‘a symbol of

a major problem in evangelical the-ology.’

Historical methods of interpretingthe Bible are outlined—Alexandrianallegorization, grammatical-histori-cal (Antioch) and the Roman devel-opment of a four-fold meaning ofScripture. Not all will agree that‘there is some truth, some value, inmost of the methods,’ and that ‘theallegorical method is useful in dealingwith apocalyptic Scriptures’ (p.150)—we can recall Luther’s desig-nation of allegorizers as ‘clerical jug-glers performing monkey tricks’. Wemay also ask whether the term ‘alle-gorical’ embrace the peculiar aspectsof apocalyptic literature?

The grammatical-historicalmethod resurfaced in the Reformers,who insisted on the plain meaning ofthe text interpreted grammatically inits historical context. The influenceof our ‘pre-understanding’ isstressed, and well illustrated fromChurch-State relationships in SouthAfrica. I should confess my own pre-understanding in holding to the pri-ority of the grammatical-historicalinterpretation as the basis for anysound teaching that claims to havethe authority of Scripture.

The designation of varyingemphases among the Reformers,God-centred (Calvin), Christ-centred(Luther) and Holy Spirit emphasis(Anabaptists), is a bit too tidy. Calvinhas been called the ‘theologian of theHoly Spirit,’ and his concept of the‘inward work of the Holy Spirit, bear-ing witness by and with the word inour hearts’ (West. Conf. 1.5) becamea vital part of Reformed orthodoxy.Luther’s principle of Christ-centred-

374 BOOK REVIEWS

ness is stated to be a key evangelicalapproach to Scripture.

I turned with expectation to Math-ew’s Clark delineation of ‘The Pen-tecostal Way’. Many evangelicalsappreciate the vitality displayed inthis movement and renewed empha-sis on the Holy Spirit. Clark claimsthat for Pentecostals, ‘the Bible isprimarily a witness to the manner inwhich God deals with humankind,rather than a source book of doctrineor conceptual truth’ (p. 153). Is thisa needful correction to certainexpressions of evangelical theology,and a reflection that God has beenpleased to reveal himself primarily inhistory?

He states that the Bible is ‘reliableand adequate for understanding theorigin, nature and implications of ourfaith’ (p. 153). Some will questionwhether the stress placed on presentexperience detracts from the norma-tive nature of Scripture. The sameemphasis is found when he views theBible as ‘a pointer to the Deity whostill works today as he did in biblicaltimes’ (p. 153). Evangelicals stress aliving relationship with a living God,but Clark’s statement raises prob-lems for those who believe that reve-lation is tied integrally to certainonce-for-all events by which God hasbrought us life and salvation. Clarkstates that God continues to revealhimself by such means as dreamsand visions. Given the validity ofsuch experiences, are we speakingof ‘revelation’ in the biblical sense orguidance for the believer?

This is a fine production with aninteresting format, illustrated by box-es dealing with key questions. Given

evangelical concern for truth, wemay find ourselves often disagreeingwith some point of view. Balancingtruth and love (ch.14) we need tolearn to be zealous for truth and atthe same time embrace all who ‘callon the name of our Lord JesusChrist, both their Lord and ours’ (1Cor. 1:2).

ERT (2002) 26-4, 375-377 0144-8153

Introducing the ReformedFaith:

Biblical Revelation, ChristianTradition, Contemporary

SignificanceDonald K. McKim

Louisville: Westminster John KnoxPress, 2001

ISBN 0-664-25644-9Pb., 261 pp, index.

Reviewed by Rev. Dr Jae SungKim, Hapdong Theological

Seminary in Korea.

It is good to see a very concise bookof Reformed theology in a new read-able style, particularly for internation-al researchers of Christian doctrines.Donald K. McKim again shows hisskill in categorization and summariza-tion, as he has done in his otherbooks. His style and explanations areso clear that most sincere Christianscould understand the views ofreformed theologians on difficult top-ics of Christian dogmatics. However,this book seems to be an editor’scompilation of traditional systematictheology rather than a presentationof his new interpretation.

This book consists of nineteen

BOOK REVIEWS 375

chapters which deal with the mostimportant doctrines by theReformed and other contemporarytheologians. Each issue has beencarefully examined from three mainpoints. First, the author guides thereader to what is in the Bible. Thenthere is material dealing with howthe subject has been discussed bymany well known Reformed theolo-gians. I would say that this sectionshows the strong points of theauthor’s work revealing his depth ofknowledge. Finally, a modern con-sideration has been added with care-ful resources in footnotes which isvery helpful to serious readers.

While the book is very useful, Iwould like to point out a couple ofreservations, if one were to introducethis book to the reformed church asa new text. First of all, when theauthor explains the modern theolo-gians’ views, he depends too muchon Karl Barth’s neo-orthodox theol-ogy. Barth’s view is predominant inthe whole book. For example,according to Barth’s view McKimclaims, ‘Not all Reformed Christianstoday subscribe to these five pointsof Calvinism’ (p. 183). Furthermore,most reformed systematic theolo-gians would be critical of Barth’s doc-trine of the Trinity as a modalisticapproach as ‘Revealer, Revelationand Revealedness’ (pp. 28-29). Butthe author never comments on thisvery curious paradigm which wouldnot be acceptable to many Biblestudy classes in reformed churches.

I also would like to point out thatthe doctrine of the Holy Spirit is thesmallest section (pp. 97-106) of thisbook, which would mean that it

could not fully cover the many ques-tions on this topic that are current atthe present time. Although usuallythe weakest aspect of the Reformedtheology is pneumatology,Reformed theologians shouldremember that Calvin has beencalled ‘the theologian of the HolySpirit’ by B. B. Warfield. We cannote that in fact there are many morefine recent studies on the person andwork of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, if one would like to studythe most important characteristics ofthe Reformed faith in a church Biblestudy group, some sections of thisbook should be read with a littlemore consideration. First, the atone-ment of Christ is crucial forReformed faith, and we understandChrist’s death as a penal substitutionin terms of sacrifice, propitiation andreconciliation. However, the authorjust follows the ways of EdwardSchillebeeckx, a Roman Catholictheologian (p. 89) rather than theReformed doctrine of solus Chris-tus. Second, Reformed faith wouldstrongly emphasize the imputationof Christ’s righteousness by faithrather than the infusion of gracewhich is the essential differencebetween the Reformed faith andRoman Catholicism. The doctrinesof sola fide and sola gratia are stillkey issues in the Joint Declarationon the Doctrine of Justification(1999) between the RomanCatholics and the Protestants. Third-ly, the models of the church from aRoman Catholic theologian’s view-point have been largely summarizedby the author without serious criti-cism of this paradigm (pp. 127-8).

376 BOOK REVIEWS

The author, however, just skips overthe Reformed emphasis on churchofficers and disciplines which JohnCalvin considers as the essence ofthe church.

The weakest point of this book asa text of Reformed faith is the omis-sion of modern Reformed theolo-gians’ accomplishments. It seems tome that the author ignores theimportant heritage of Reformed tra-dition from Jonathan Edwards tomajor Reformed theologians inAmerica, such as C. Hodge and OldPrinceton theologians, James HenryThornwell, Robert L. Dabney, andthe Southern School, G. Vos and theDutch school, J. Gresham Machen,John Murray, Cornelius Van Til, andthe Westminster school.

ERT (2002) 26-4, 377 0144-8153

He Shines in All that’s Fair:Culture and Common Grace

Richard J. MouwGrand Rapids: Eerdmans 2001

ISBN 0-8028-4947-4Hardcover, ix + 101 pp

Reviewed by Ray Laird, BibleCollege of South Australia,

Adelaide

As contemporary evangelicalismemerges from its pietistic fortress toengage with the world rather thanignoring it in a distorted understand-ing of separation, it is very helpful tohave some guidance from those whohave trodden the pathway of a ‘the-ology of commonness’. Mouw, inthis book on culture and commongrace, has provided such a guide.

The beauty about Mouw’s book isthat it presents the value of the wayof common grace in the context of alived-out debate among the theolo-gians of the Dutch ReformedChurch. The result for the reader isthat the issues are raised and dis-cussed in a form that reveals theweaknesses of the extremes and thatpoints towards a balanced position.In reading the book I found thatmany of the questions raised in mymind over the years about commongrace were discussed. It was asthough the author had anticipatedmy hesitations in accepting someaspects of classic common grace the-ology. It is always comforting toknow that someone has asked thesame questions previously.

Does God take delight in a TigerWood putt? Was he pleased withBenjamin Franklin’s wit? What aboutthe well-crafted passages of the latestacclaimed writer of novels? Thus theissue of aesthetic approval by God ofthe actions of the unbelieving isaired. Likewise, the problem ofmoral approval of unbelievers’actions is given attention. ThenMouw takes us beyond these areas toa theology of empathy which is vivid-ly and convincingly argued by refer-ence to living examples.

In endorsing the concept of ‘multi-ple divine purposes in the world’Mouw plunges into an examinationof the supralapsarian versus infralap-sarian debate. At first glance thisseems a rather obscure path to treaduntil it is realized that what is at stakeis the Calvinist understanding of theway in which God relates to his cre-ation, especially his purpose for

BOOK REVIEWS 377

bringing it into being. Non-Calvinistreaders may think this debate irrele-vant, but it highlights and clarifies thebasic question which all must face.Our answer to that question will, to alarge degree, determine our stanceand the direction of our ministry.

In summary the book, thoughbrief, is thoughtful and provocative.It deals well with a basic issue that allevangelicals should deeply ponder:should we or should we not activelyseek the shalom of the larger soci-eties in which we spend our sojourn?

ERT (2002) 26-4, 378-382 0144-8153

The Holy Spirit: works andgifts

Christian FoundationsDonald G. Bloesch

Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000ISBN 0-8308-1415-9

Hb 415pp indexes

Reviewed by David Parker, Editor,Evangelical Review of Theology

We welcome the fifth of DonaldBloesch’s seven volume ‘ChristianFoundations’ series. Written in histypical aphoristic and dialogical style,it is the largest so far and tacklesirenically a number of thorny issueson the topic of the work and gifts ofthe Holy Spirit. Many of these aresurveyed in the first main scene-set-ting chapter on the contemporarydebate with extra comment andreflection at many other places in thebook. Some of the most notable ofthese are the person of the Spirit,gifts, baptism, holiness and assur-ance, and (in a lengthy appendix to

the chapter on Pentecostalism),demonism.

As Dr Bloesch is well aware, thiswork is as much (or even more so) abook on spirituality as it is of system-atic theology, and as such, it followsup on several of his earlier works inthe same field. Historical theology isalso a focus of treatment—in fact, sixout of the total of eleven chapters aregiven over to this perspective. As theauthor states, ‘In order to grasp themystery of the working of the Spiritas delineated in the Bible, one alsoneeds to explore the manifestationsof the Spirit in the history of thechurch.’

As well as ancient and classicalauthors, this historical overview cov-ers recent and contemporarythought (orthodox and otherwise).Literally dozens of cameos presentinsights from an extremely widerange of people from every age,many of whom would not make itinto the pages of more narrowlyfocused theological work but areshown to be essential for portrayingthe rich texture of the heritage ofChristian spirituality. This may beone of the greatest strengths of thebook, confirming the author’s viewthat ‘a comprehensive theology ofthe Spirit is formed not only out ofthe testimony of the prophets andapostles of biblical history but alsoout of the thoughts and deeds of thegreat saints in the various traditionsof the church.’ The primary impres-sion one receives upon reading thisvast panorama so skilfully presentedis of the varied splendour andimpressive power of God’s grace.

The topic of this volume gives the

378 BOOK REVIEWS

author a good opportunity to rein-force many of the characteristic fea-tures of his ‘Word and Spirit’ theolo-gy already outlined in this ‘ChristianFoundations’ series. For example, heopens with the warning that the ‘thetwo deadliest enemies of true faithare formalism and spiritualism’ andhe goes on to highlight the dangersof evangelical rationalism emphasiz-ing Scripture as the Word of Godover against a biblicistic approachand affirming a sacramental ratherthan a sacramentalist position.

He is cautious about the tendencyof the holiness and renewal move-ments towards subjectivism, legalismand perfectionism, but endorsesthem for their recovery of ‘the bibli-cal call to holiness’, the priesthood ofall believers and the awareness thatthere are ongoing blessings of theSpirit for the empowering of theChristian life, fellowship and mis-sion. In a lengthy chapter on Pente-costalism, which traces its back-ground to a surprising number ofthese renewal movements, he findsthat it shares many of the same ben-efits as its precursors. However, he iscautious about its superficiality, pro-clivity to sensualism, spiritualism andtriumphalism. However, he wel-comes a sense of self-criticism thathe believes has promise for thefuture, and wants to see Pentecostal-ism regarded by others not as an‘adversary’ but as ‘a challenge toregain the fullness of the gospel.’

Some of the author’s key theolog-ical perspectives take on specialfocus in view of contemporary con-ditions. In fact the book opens with asubstantial introduction outlining a

theology of the Christian life basedon a ‘revelation-pneumatic’ positionin the context of postmodernism.Reopening some topics which havealready been discussed in this series,such as theological method, authori-ty and the relation of the Bible andchurch, this chapter includes a longappendix on ‘evangelical rationalismand propositional revelation’.

Although there is a strong empha-sis on historical and contemporaryperspectives, the biblical material isnot overlooked. It is treated general-ly in a separate chapter – and occa-sionally in discussion in other places– but in a quite unusual move for theauthor, there is direct discussion ofseveral ‘difficult texts’ in a 14 pageExcursus to chapter 10. Theseinclude John 3; Pentecost in Johnand Acts; Acts chapters 2 and 8;Galatians 4; and 1 John 5. Howev-er, they are treated separately as dis-crete texts only and not synthesisedor strongly related to the main argu-ment.

Although the author presents hisevaluation of various movementsand ideas throughout the book, it isnot until the final two chapters thathis own theological views are pre-sented more systematically. Even so,the particular treatment here onlypartly reflects the subtitle of this vol-ume, although the intended focus ofthe whole book on ‘the work of theSpirit in renewing the church andshaping the Christian life rather thanon his person’ is carried througheffectively.

In relating the Spirit to the Trinity,he works from the unity of the God-head and is cautious about the con-

BOOK REVIEWS 379

temporary emphasis on the socialrelations in the Trinity. Therefore, heupholds the filioque clause andopposes trends towards a ‘Spiritchristology’ and those who seek theSpirit in the inner recesses of thehuman self’ awaiting discovery. Asexpected, Bloesch finds a closenexus but not identification betweenSpirit and Word and between Spiritand water; he emphasizes the reveal-ing and regenerating work of theSpirit and the spiritual gifts.

For Bloesch, the Christian life isone of pilgrimage, and ‘themetaphor that most clearlydescribes’ it is ‘battle’ yet in a positiveassured sense because he advocatesa springtime theology, not a wintryone (as in orthodox Calvinism andLutheranism) or a summery one (asin the Holiness movement and Pen-tecostalism). This is perhaps why he

ends the book with a strongly word-ed appendix on ‘A theology of thecross’ which critiques Michael Hor-ton’s In the Face of God for failingto realise that there is both a theolo-gia crucis and a theologia gloriae.

In a closing statement whichreflects the hallmark of Dr Bloesch’sthinking, he sums up his theology ofspirituality:

‘Indeed, the cross without the resurrectionbecomes a pretext for despair just as theresurrection without the cross becomes afantasy that deceives. Our mandate is toherald both the reconciling work of Christon the cross and the redeeming power ofthe Spirit of Christ who seals the truth ofthe gospel within us through theexperience of faith…. The way to glory isthrough the cross, but the cross itselfbrings assurance of glory, for the Spiritsurprises us with joy even in our descentinto the darkness of sacrificial service inthe name of Christ.’

380 BOOK REVIEWS

Living FaithBeyond knowledge, the secret future beckons.With wiser hearts, we grasp the prospect of tomorrow gently...

faithfully.Listening as we step, our pace is moderated by the past,And our destination certain, though the road is yet unseen.

Divine InfluenceTranscendence assumed chronology,Affording humanity time,To rediscover in divine congress,Our essential humanness.Called to embrace self-giving,We now respond with incarnational charity,Becoming more precisely our intended selves,Our lives reflect holy colloquy.


EvangelicalReview ofTheology

Editor: David Parker

Volume 262002

Articles and book reviews original andselected from publications worldwide for

an international readership for the purposeof discerning the obedience of faith

Published byPATERNOSTER PERIODICALS

forWORLD EVANGELICAL

ALLIANCETheological Commission

Paternoster PeriodicalsPO Box 300, Kingstown Broadway, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 0QS, UK

381 INDEX

382 INDEX

ArticlesBHANDARI, LOK M.

Defining Evangelicalism’s Boundaries Biblically, Historically,Theologically, Culturally, and in Ministry in the 21st Century . . . . . 292

COSDEN, DARRELLComing of Age: The Future of a Post-soviet Evangelical Theology . . 319

DANAHER, JAMES P.Relativism and Christian Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

DAVIS, JOHN JEFFERSONEconomic Growth vs. the Environment? The Need for New Paradigms in Economics, Business Ethics, and EvangelicalTheology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

DEKAR, PAUL R.Asking Questions about Technology, with Specific Reference toComputers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

HARPER, GEORGE W.Philippine Tongues of Fire? Latin American Pentecostalism andthe Future of Filipino Christianity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

HILBORN, DAVIDTruth, Collegiality and Consensus: The Dynamics of an EvangelicalTheological Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

HONG, IN-GYUBeing ‘Under the Law’ in Galatians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354

LANG’AT, ROBERTThe Church’s Responsibility within the East African Context . . . . . 136

LORD, ANDREW M.Virtual Communities and Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

NICHOLLS, BRUCEThe History of the WEF Theological Commission 1969-1986. . . . . . 4

ODEN, THOMAS C.On Women and Men Working together in the Church . . . . . . . . . 119

PARKER, DAVIDDynamics and Directions of World Evangelical Theology forthe 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

ROBINSON, BOBWhat Exactly is Meant by the ‘Uniqueness of Christ’? (Part 2) . . . . . 76

SENTER, MARK H. IIINapster, Moody Bible Institute and Christianity Online . . . . . . . . . 223

INDEX 383

STALNAKER, CECILProselytism or Evangelism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

VOLF, MIROSLAVThe Nature of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

WANAK, LEETheological Curriculum Change for the Local 21st CenturyContext . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

YONG, AMOSDivine Omniscience and Future Contingents: Weighing thePresuppositional Issues in the Contemporary Debate . . . . . . . . . . 240

YONG, AMOSThe Marks of the Church: A Pentecostal Re-Reading . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Books ReviewedAlston, Wallace M. Jr. ed.., Theology in the Service of the Church.

Essays in Honor of Thomas W. Gillespie . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

Atkins, Martyn D., Preaching in a Cultural Context . . . . . . . . 184

Bennett, David W., Metaphors of Ministry: Biblical Images forLeaders and Followers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

Bloesch, Donald G., The Holy Spirit: works and gifts. ChristianFoundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

Brueggemann, Walter and Miller, Patrick D. (ed), The CovenantedSelf: Explorations in Law and Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Dorrien, Gary, The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology:Theology Without Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Dundes, Alan, Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore . . . . 186

Glenny, W. Edward and Smallman, William H. (eds), Missions in aNew Millennium: Change and Challenges in World Missions . . 278

Grenz, Stanley J. and Franke, John R., Beyond Foundationalism:Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context . . . . . . . . . . 181

Kool, A. M., God Moves in a Mysterious Way: The HungarianProtestant Foreign Mission Movement (1756-1951) . . . . . . . 95

384 INDEX

Longenecker, Richard N. (ed), Patterns of Discipleship in the NewTestament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

McKim, Donald K., Introducing the Reformed Faith: BiblicalRevelation, Christian Tradition, Contemporary Significance . . 375

Mouw, Richard J., He Shines in All that’s Fair: Culture andCommon Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

Nelson, P.G., God’s Control over the Universe (rev. and enlargededition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286

Randall, Ian, Educating Evangelicalism: the origins, developmentand impact of London Bible College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

Thiselton, Anthony C., The First Epistle to the Corinthians: ACommentary on the Greek Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Volf, Miroslav, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image ofthe Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Wade Rowatt, G. Jr., Adolescents in Crisis. A Guidebook forParents, Teachers, Ministers, and Counselors . . . . . . . . . . 189

Wetmore, Hugh, ‘Why Christians Disagree when they interpretthe Bible’ Finding unity in our loyalty to Scripture . . . . . . . 373


The Case for AngelsPeter Williams

In The Case for Angels Peter William employs the resources of contemporaryphilosophy in defence of a traditional Christian angelology. In discussion with

natural sceptism, New Age belief and Christian doubt, the author highlights theimportance of worldview presuppositions in determining attitudes towards angels,and enlarges upon the ‘culture’ war emerging between theism and metaphysicalnaturalism. Whilst naturalism is culturally powerful, it is, Peter Williams argues, in

intellectual decline. The emergent theological rift is the subject matter of this book.

Peter S. Williams studied philosophy at Cardiff University, Sheffield University andthe University of East Anglia. He is the author of The Case for God.

ISBN: 1-84227-185-7/ 229x145 / p/b / 244pp / £15.99


Digital PublishingA New Venture

It is less than a decade since the first digitally-printed book was produced. AtPaternoster we quickly realised that this new technology presented the worldof evangelical scholarship with a tremendous opportunity, that of makingdoctoral theses available to the academic world at large instead of their beingleft to languish on the shelves of University libraries.

Thus, five years ago, ‘Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs’were born. This ground-breaking series now numbers twenty-three titles pub-lished, with a further fourteen in active production.

One of the happy results of this innovative step was the number of high-quality theses on historical topics that were submitted for our consideration.From this has grown our recently launched specialist historical series ‘Stud-ies in Evangelical History and Thought’, with seven titles in print and a fur-ther eight in course of production. SEHT has been joined by a further series,‘Studies in Baptist History and Thought’ (four titles in print and a furthertwelve currently projected). SBHT is specifically designed to provide the glob-al Baptist community, as well as denominational historians in general, with aunique and wide-ranging resource.

The opportunity has also been taken to widen our publishing brief for thesetwo new series beyond theses, and both series will therefore also include sym-posia and single and multi-authored titles.

Titles for publication in all three series are most carefully selected by rep-resentatives of the highest echelons of global scholarship.

Needless to say, we shall welcome further submissions to all three series!Prices are as follows:

Up to 300 pages £19.99301-400 pages £24.99401+ pages £29.99

All titles are printed on high-quality book wove, measure 229 x 145mm, andare limp bound with matt-laminated covers.

A full list of all titles in all three series, both published and in production,appears on the following pages.

Paternoster Biblical and TheologicalMonographs

Series PrefaceAt the present time we are experiencing a veritable explosion in the field ofbiblical and theological research with more and more academic theses of highquality being produced by younger scholars from all over the world. One ofthe considerations taken into account by the examiners of doctoral theses isthat, if they are to be worthy of the award of a degree, then they should con-tain material that needs to be read by other scholars; if so, it follows that thefacilities must exist for them to be made accessible. In some cases (perhapsmore often than is always realised) it will be most appropriate for the dis-tinctive contribution of the thesis to be harvested in journal articles; in othersthere may be the possibility of a revision that will produce a book of widerappeal than simply to professional scholars. But many theses of outstandingquality can and should be published more or less as they stand for the bene-fit of other scholars and interested persons.

Hitherto it has not been easy for authors to find publishers willing to pub-lish works that, while highly significant as works of scholarship, cannot beexpected to become ‘best-sellers’ with a large circulation. Fortunately thedevelopment of printing technology now makes it relatively easy for publish-ers to produce specialist works without the commercial risks that would haveprevented them doing so in the past.

The Paternoster Press is one of the first publishers to make use of this newtechnology. Its aim is quite simply to assist biblical and theological scholar-ship by the publication of theses and other monographs of high quality ataffordable prices.

Different publishers serve different constituencies. The Paternoster Pressstands in the tradition of evangelical Christianity and exists to serve that con-stituency, though not in any narrow way. What is offered, therefore, in thisseries, is the best of scholarship by evangelical Christians.

Since the inception of this series in 1997 the scope of the works publishedhas broadened considerably. The opportunity is now being taken to initiateparallel series which will cater in a more focused way for the history and the-ology of the evangelical movement and for other interests. Alongside thisseries we now have Studies in Evangelical History and Thought and Studiesin Baptist History and Thought. This development will leave the presentseries with a sufficiently wide field in biblical studies and theology.

PATERNOSTER BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS 387

Joseph AbrahamEve: Accused or Acquitted?

A Reconsideration of Feminist Readings of the Creation NarrativeTexts in Genesis 1–3

Two contrary views dominate contemporary feminist biblical scholarship.One finds in the Bible an unequivocal equality between the sexes from thevery creation of humanity, whilst the other sees the biblical text as irre-deemably patriarchal and androcentric. Dr. Abraham enters into dialoguewith both camps as well as introducing his own method of approach. Aninvaluable tool for any one who is interested in this contemporary debate.

2002/ 0-85364-971-5 /

Emil BartosDeification in Eastern Orthodox Theology

An Evaluation and Critique of the Theology of Dumitru StaniloaeBartos studies a fundamental yet neglected aspect of Orthodox theology: deifi-cation. By examining the doctrines of anthropology, christology, soteriologyand ecclesiology as they relate to deification, he provides an important contri-bution to contemporary dialogue between Eastern and Western theologians.

1999 / 0-85364-956-1 / xi + 370pp

Jonathan F. BayesThe Weakness of the Law

God’s Law and the Christian in New Testament PerspectiveA study of the four New Testament books which refer to the law as weak(Acts, Romans, Galatians, Hebrews) leads to a defence of the third use in theReformed debate about the law in the life of the believer.

2000 / 0-85364-957-X / xi + 243pp

Mark BonningtonThe Antioch Episode of Galatians 2:11–14 in

Historical and Cultural ContextThe Galatians 2 ‘incident’ in Antioch over table-fellowship suggests signifi-cant disagreement between the leading apostles. This book analyses thebackground to the disagreement by locating the incident within the dynam-ics of social interaction between Jews and Gentiles. It proposes a new wayof understanding the relationship between the individuals and issues involved.

2002 / 1-84227-050-8 /

388 PATERNOSTER DIGITAL PUBLISHING

Mark Bredin

Jesus as a Non-Violent RevolutionaryA Study in the Functional Christology of the Book of Revelation

2003 / 1-84227-153-9 /

Colin J. Bulley

The Priesthood of Some BelieversDevelopments in the Christian Literature of the First Three Centuries

The first in-depth treatment of early Christian texts on the priesthood of allbelievers shows that the developing priesthood of the ordained related close-ly to the division between laity and clergy and had deleterious effects on thepractice of the general priesthood.

2000 / 1-84227-034-6 / xii + 336pp

Daniel J-S Chae

Paul as Apostle to the GentilesHis Apostolic Self-awareness and its Influence on the Soteriological

Argument in RomansOpposing ‘the post-Holocaust interpretation of Romans’, Daniel Chae com-petently demonstrates that Paul argues for the equality of Jew and Gentile inRomans. Chae’s fresh exegetical interpretation is academically outstandingand spiritually encouraging.

1997 / 0-85364-829-8 / xiv + 378pp

Luke L. Cheung

The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics ofthe Epistle of James

The present work examines the employment of wisdom genre with a certaincompositional structure and the interpretation of the law through the Jesustradition of the double love command by the author of the Epistle of Jamesto serve his purpose in promoting perfection and warning against doublenessamong the eschatologically renewed people of God in the Diaspora.

2002 / 1-84227-062-1 /


Andrew C. Clark

Parallel LivesThe Relation of Paul to the Apostles in the Lucan Perspective

This study of the Peter–Paul parallels in Acts argues that their purpose wasto emphasize the themes of continuity in salvation history and the unity ofthe Jewish and Gentile missions. New light is shed on Luke’s literary tech-niques, partly through a comparison with Plutarch.

2001 / 1-84227-035-4 / xviii + 384pp

Sylvia I. Collinson

Discipling as an Educational StrategyAn Enquiry into the Congruence of Discipling with the Objectives of

Christian Faith CommunitiesThis study examines the biblical practice of discipling, formulates a definition,and makes comparisons with modern models of education. A recommenda-tion is made for greater attention to its practice today.

2002 / 1-84227-116-4 /

Stephen M. Dunning

The Crisis and the QuestA Kierkegaardian Reading of Charles Williams

Employing Kierkegaardian categories and analysis, this study investigatesboth the central crisis in Charles Williams’s authorship between hermetismand Christianity (Kierkegaard’s Religions A and B), and the quest to resolvethis crisis, a quest that ultimately presses the bounds of orthodoxy.

2000 / 0-85364-985-5 / xxiv + 254pp

Keith Ferdinando

The Triumph of Christ in African PerspectiveA Study of Demonology and Redemption in the African Context

The book explores the implications of the gospel for traditional African fearsof occult aggression. It analyses such traditional approaches to suffering andbiblical responses to fears of demonic evil, concluding with an evaluation ofAfrican beliefs from the perspective of the gospel.

1999 / 0-85364-830-1 / xvii + 450pp


Andrew Goddard

Living the Word, Resisting the World(Provisional title)

The Life and Thought of Jacques EllulThis work offers a definitive study of both the life and thought of the FrenchReformed thinker Jacques Ellul (1912–1994). It will prove an indispensableresource for those interested in this influential theologian and sociologist andfor Christian ethics and political thought generally.

2002 / 1-84227-053-2 /

Scott J. Hafemann

Suffering and Ministry in the SpiritPaul’s Defence of His Ministry in 2 Corinthians 2:14 – 3:3

Shedding new light on the way Paul defended his apostleship, the author offersa careful, detailed study of 2 Corinthians 2:14 – 3:3 linked with other key pas-sages throughout 1 and 2 Corinthians. Demonstrating the unity and coherenceof Paul’s argument in this passage, the author shows that Paul’s suffering servedas the vehicle for revealing God’s power and glory through the Spirit.

2000 / 0-85364-967-7 / xiv + 261pp

John G. Kelly

One God, One PeopleThe Differentiated Unity of the People of God in the Theology of

Jürgen MoltmannThe author expounds and critiques Moltmann’s doctrine of God and highlightsthe systematic connections between it and Moltmann’s influential discussionof Israel. He then proposes a fresh approach to Jewish–Christian relationsbuilding on Moltmann’s work using insights from Habermas and Rawls.

2003 / 0-85346-969-3 /

Mark Lovatt

Confronting the Will-to-PowerA Reconsideration of the Theology of Reinhold Neibuhr

Confronting the Will-to-Power is an analysis of the theology of ReinholdNiebuhr, arguing that his work is an attempt to identify, and provide a prac-tical theological answer to, the existence and nature of human evil.

2001 / 1-84227-054-0 / xvii + 217pp


Neil B. MacDonald

Karl Barth and the Strange New World withinthe Bible

Barth, Wittgenstein, and the Metadilemmas of the EnlightenmentBarth’s discovery of the strange new world within the Bible is examined inthe context of Kant, Hume, Overbeck, and, most importantly, Wittgenstein.MacDonald covers some fundamental issues in theology today; epistemolo-gy, the final form of the text and biblical truth-claims.

2000 / 0-85364-970-7 / xxvi + 373pp

Gillian McCulloch

The Deconstruction of Dualism in TheologyWith Special Reference to Ecofeminist Theology and New Age

SpiritualityThis book challenges eco-theological anti-dualism in Christian theology,arguing that dualism has a twofold function in Christian religious discourse.Firstly, it enables us to express the discontinuities and divisions that are partof the process of reality. Secondly, dualistic language allows us to express themysteries of divine transcendence/immanence and the survival of the soulwithout collapsing into monism and materialism, both of which are prob-lematic for Christian epistemology.

2002 / 1-84227-044-3 / xii + 281pp

Leslie McCurdy

Attributes and AtonementThe Holy Love of God in the Theology of P.T. Forsyth

Attributes and Atonement is an intriguing full-length study of P.T. Forsyth’sdoctrine of the cross as it relates particularly to God’s holy love. It includesan unparalleled bibliography of both primary and secondary material relatingto Forsyth.

1999 / 0-85364-833-6 / xii + 327pp

Nozomu Miyahira

Towards a Theology of the Concord of GodA Japanese Perspective on the Trinity

This book introduces a new Japanese theology and a unique Trinitarian for-mula based on the Japanese intellectual climate: three betweennesses and


one concord. It also presents a new interpretation of the Trinity, a co-subor-dinationism, which is in line with orthodox Trinitarianism; each single personof the Trinity is eternally and equally subordinate (or serviceable) to the oth-er persons, so that they retain the mutual dynamic equality.

2000 / 0-85364-863-8 / xiv + 256pp

Stephen Motyer

Your Father the Devil?A New Approach to John and ‘The Jews’

Who are ‘the Jews’ in John’s Gospel? Defending John against the chargeof antisemitism, Motyer argues that, far from demonising the Jews, theGospel seeks to present Jesus as ‘Good News for Jews’ in a late first-cen-tury setting.

1997 / 0-85364-832-8 / xiii + 260pp

Eddy José Muskus

Origins and Early Development of LiberationTheology in Latin America

With Particular Reference to Gustavo GutiérrezThis work challenges the fundamental premise of Liberation Theology, ‘opt-ing for the poor’, and its claim that Christ is found in them. It also argues thatLiberation Theology emerged as a direct result of the failure of the RomanCatholic Church in Latin America.

2002 / 0-85364-974-X /

Esther Ng

Reconstructing Christian Origins?The Feminist Theology of Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza: An EvaluationIn a detailed evaluation, the author challenges Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’sreconstruction of early Christian origins and her underlying presuppositions.The author also presents her own views on women’s role both then and now.

2002 / 1-84227-055-9 /


Ian Paul

Power to See the World AnewThe Value of Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutic of Metaphor in Interpreting

the Symbolism of Revelation 12 and 13This book is a study of the hermeneutics of metaphor of Paul Ricoeur, oneof the most important writers on hermeneutics and metaphor of the last cen-tury. It sets out the key points of his theory, important criticisms of his work,and how his approach, modified in the light of these criticisms, offers amethodological framework for reading apocalyptic texts.

2002 / 1-84227-056-7 /

David Powys

‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard QuestionThe Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought

This comprehensive treatment seeks to unlock the original meaning of termsand phrases long thought to support the traditional doctrine of hell. It con-cludes that there is an alternative – one which is more biblical, and which canpositively revive the rationale for Christian mission.

1999 / 0-85364-831-X / xxii + 478pp

Ed Rybarczyk

Beyond SalvationAn Analysis of the Doctrine of Christian Transformation Comparing

Eastern Orthodoxy and Classical Pentecostalism2003 / 1-84227-144-X /

Signe Sandsmark

Is World View Neutral Education Possible andDesirable?

A Christian Response to Liberal Arguments(Published jointly with The Stapleford Centre)

This thesis discusses reasons for belief in world view neutrality, and arguesthat ‘neutral’ education will have a hidden, but strong world view influence.It discusses the place for Christian education in the common school.

2000 / 0-85364-973-1 / xiv + 181pp


Andrew Sloane

On Being a Christian in the AcademyNicholas Wolterstorff and the Practice of Christian Scholarship

An exposition and critical appraisal of Nicholas Wolterstorff’s epistemologyin the light of the philosophy of science, and an application of his thought tothe practice of Christian scholarship.

2002 / 1-84227-058-3 /

Daniel Strange

The Possibility of Salvation Among theUnevangelised

An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical TheologyFor evangelical theologians, the ‘fate of the unevangelised’ impinges uponfundamental tenets of evangelical identity. The position known as ‘inclu-sivism’, defined by the belief that the unevangelised can be ontologicallysaved by Christ whilst being epistemologically unaware of him, has beendefended most vigorously by the Canadian evangelical Clark H. Pinnock.Through a detailed analysis and critique of Pinnock’s work, this book exam-ines a cluster of issues surrounding the unevangelised and its implication forChristology, soteriology and the doctrine of revelation.

2001 / 1-84227-047-8 / xviii + 362pp

G. Michael Thomas

The Extent of the AtonementA Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus

A study of the way Reformed theology addressed the question, ‘Did Christdie for all, or for the elect only?’, commencing with John Calvin, and includ-ing debates with Lutheranism, the Synod of Dort and the teaching of MoïseAmyraut.

1997 / 0-85364-828-X / ix + 277pp

Mark Thompson

A Sure Ground on Which to StandThe Relation of Authority and Interpretative Method of Luther’s

Approach to Scripture2003 / 1-84227-145-8 /


Graham Tomlin

The Power of the CrossTheology and the Death of Christ in Paul, Luther and Pascal

This book explores the theology of the cross in St Paul, Luther and Pascal.It offers new perspectives on the theology of each, and some implicationsfor the nature of power, apologetics, theology and church life in a post-modern context.

1999 / 0-85364-984-7 / xiv + 343pp

Kevin Walton

Thou Traveller UnknownThe Presence and Absence of God in the Jacob Narrative

The author offers a fresh reading of the story of Jacob in the book of Gene-sis through the paradox of divine presence and absence. The work also seeksto make a contribution to Pentateuchal studies by bringing together a closereading of the final text with historical-critical insights, doing justice to thetext’s historical depth, final form and canonical status.

2002 / 1-84227-059-1 /

Graham J. Watts

Revelation and the SpiritA Comparative Study of the Relationship between the Doctrine of

Revelation and Pneumatology in the Theology of Eberhard Jüngel andof Wolfhart Pannenberg

The relationship between revelation and pneumatology is relatively unex-plored. This approach offers a fresh angle on two important twentieth-cen-tury theologians and raises pneumatological questions which are theologi-cally crucial and relevant to mission in a post-modern culture.

2002 / 1-84227-104-0 /

Alistair Wilson

Matthew’s Portrait of Jesus the Judge, withSpecial Reference to Matthew 21–25

2003 / 1-84227-146-6 /


Nigel G. Wright

Disavowing ConstantineMission, Church and the Social Order in the Theologies of John

Howard Yoder and Jürgen MoltmannThis book is a timely restatement of a radical theology of church and state inthe Anabaptist and Baptist tradition. Dr. Wright constructs his argument indialogue and debate with Yoder and Moltmann, major contributors to a freechurch perspective.

2000 / 0-85364-978-2 / xv + 251pp

Stephen Wright

The Voice of JesusStudies in the Interpretation of Six Gospel Parables

This literary study considers how the ‘voice’ of Jesus has been heard in dif-ferent periods of parable interpretation, and how the categories of figure andtrope may help us towards a sensitive reading of the parables today.

2000 / 0-85364-975-8 / xiv + 280pp


Church Without Walls: A Global Examination ofCell Church

Editor: Michael Green

The decline of the traditional church in the West has met with the emergence ofnew ways of being the people of God. One of these is the phenomenal growthof cell churches – small groups of committed Christians meeting in homes andspawning new cells with enthusiasm. Whilst the cell church movement is stillsmall in most Western countries, it is likely to become a major factor in the

church of the future. In countries like China, Singapore and Malaysia it is themost popular vehicle for their extraordinary explosion of Christianity. Church

Without Walls: A Global Examination of Cell Church brings together anumber of scholars and church leaders from across the world to examine and

critique the natures, values and growth of the cell church movement.

Contributors include Dr Graham Tomlin, Bishop Moses Tay, Dr Bill Beckham, RobMerchant and Michael Green.

ISBN: 1-84227-139-3 / 198x130 / p/b / 146pp / £7.99


Studies in Baptist History and Thought

Series PrefaceBaptists form one of the largest Christian communities in the world, andwhile they hold the historic faith in common with other mainstream Christ-ian traditions, they nevertheless have important insights which they can offerto the worldwide church. Studies in Baptist History and Thought will be onemeans towards this end. It is an international series of academic studies whichincludes original monographs, revised dissertations, collections of essays andconference papers, and aims to cover any aspect of Baptist history andthought. While not all the authors are themselves Baptists, they neverthelessshare an interest in relating Baptist history and thought to the other branch-es of the Christian church and to the wider life of the world.

The series includes studies in various aspects of Baptist history from theseventeenth century down to the present day, including biographical works,and Baptist thought is understood as covering the subject-matter of theology(including interdisciplinary studies embracing biblical studies, philosophy,sociology, practical theology, liturgy and women’s studies). The diversestreams of Baptist life throughout the world are all within the scope of thesevolumes.

The series editors and consultants believe that the academic disciplines ofhistory and theology are of vital importance to the spiritual vitality of thechurches of the Baptist faith and order. The series sets out to discuss, exam-ine and explore the many dimensions of their tradition and so to contributeto their on-going intellectual vigour.

A brief word of explanation is due for the series identifier on the front cov-er. The fountains, taken from heraldry, represent the Baptist distinctive ofbeliever’s baptism and, at the same time, the source of the water of life. Thereare three of them because they symbolize the Trinitarian basis of Baptist lifeand faith. Those who are redeemed by the Lamb, the book of Revelationreminds us, will be led to ‘fountains of living waters’ (Rev. 7.17).

David Bebbington (ed.)

The Gospel in the WorldInternational Baptist Studies

This volume of essays deals with a range of subjects spanning Britain, NorthAmerica, Europe, Asia and the Antipodes. Topics include studies on religioustolerance, the communion controversy and the development of the interna-tional Baptist community, and concludes with two important essays on thefuture of Baptist life that pay special attention to the United States.

2002 / ISBN 1-84227-118-0 / xiii + 361 pp


Geoffrey R. Breed

Strict CommunionStrict Communion Organisations amongst the Baptists in Victorian

EnglandThis work, which makes considerable use of contemporary records, identi-fies the principal strict communion organisations which, whilst working with-in the framework of the Baptist Union, nevertheless did not compromisewhat they believed to be scriptural principles of church government.

2002 / ISBN 1-84227-140-7

Anthony R. Cross

Baptism and the BaptistsTheology and Practice in Twentieth-Century Britain

At a time of renewed interest in baptism, Baptism and the Baptists is adetailed study of twentieth-century baptismal theology and practice and thefactors which have influenced its development.

2000 / ISBN 0-85364-959-6 / xvii + 530pp

Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (eds.)

Baptist MythsThis collection of essays examines some of the ‘myths’ in Baptist history andtheology: these include the idea of development in Baptist thought, studiesin the church, community, spirituality, soul competency, women and the civ-il rights movement.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-122-9

Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (eds.)

Baptist SacramentalismThis collection of essays includes historical and theological studies in thesacraments from a Baptist perspective. Subjects explored include the physi-cal side of being spiritual, baptism, the Lord’s supper, the church, ordination,preaching, worship and religious freedom.

2002 / ISBN 1-84227-119-9

STUDIES IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND THOUGHT 399

Paul S. Fiddes

Tracks and TracesBaptist Heritage in Church and Theology

This is a comprehensive, yet unusual, book on the faith and life of BaptistChristians. It explores the understanding of the church, ministry, sacramentsand mission from a thoroughly theological perspective. In a series of inter-linked essays, the author relates Baptist identity consistently to a theology ofcovenant and to participation in the triune communion of God.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-120-2

Stanley K. Fowler

More Than a SymbolThe British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism

Fowler surveys the entire scope of British Baptist literature from the seven-teenth-century pioneers onwards. He shows that in the twentieth centuryleading British Baptist pastors and theologians recovered an understandingof baptism that connected experience with soteriology and that in doing sothey were recovering what many of their forebears had taught.

2002 / ISBN 1-84227-052-4 / xvi + 276pp

Brian Haymes, Anthony R. Cross and Ruth Gouldbourne

On Being the ChurchRevisioning Baptist Identity

The aim of the book is to re-examine Baptist theology and practice in thelight of the contemporary biblical, theological, ecumenical and missiologicalcontext drawing on historical and contemporary writings and issues. It is nota study in denominationalism but rather seeks to revision historical insightsfrom the believers’ church tradition for the sake of Baptists and other Chris-tians in the context of the modern–postmodern context.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-121-0

Ken R. Manley

From Woolloomooloo to ‘Eternity’A History of Baptists in Australia

From their beginnings in Australia in 1831 with the first baptisms in Wool-loomoolloo Bay in 1832, this pioneering study describes the quest of Bap-tists in the different colonies (states) to discover their identity as Australians


and Baptists. Although institutional developments are analyzed and the rolesof significant individuals traced, the major focus is on the social and theolog-ical dimensions of the Baptist movement.

2004 / ISBN 1-84227-194-6

Ken R. Manley

‘Redeeming Love Proclaim’: John Rippon andthe Baptists

A leading exponent of the new moderate Calvinism which brought new lifeto many Baptists, John Rippon (1751–1836) helped unite the Baptists at thissignificant time. His many writings expressed the denomination’s growingmaturity and mutual awareness of Baptists in Britain and America, and exert-ed a long-lasting influence on Baptist worship and devotion. In his variousactivities, Rippon helped conserve the heritage of Old Dissent and promot-ed the evangelicalism of the New Dissent

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-193-8

Peter J. Morden

Offering Christ to the WorldAndrew Fuller and the Revival of English Particular Baptist Life

Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) was one of the foremost English Baptist minis-ters of his day. His career as an Evangelical Baptist pastor, theologian, apol-ogist and missionary statesman coincided with the profound revitalization ofthe Particular Baptist denomination to which he belonged. This study exam-ines the key aspects of the life and thought of this hugely significant figure,and gives insights into the revival in which he played such a central part.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-141-5

Peter Naylor

Calvinism, Communion and the BaptistsA Study of English Calvinistic Baptists from the Late 1600s to the

Early 1800sDr Naylor argues that the traditional link between ‘high-Calvinism’ and‘restricted communion’ is in need of revision. He examines Baptist com-munion controversies from the late 1600s to the early 1800s and also thetheologies of John Gill and Andrew Fuller.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-142-3

STUDIES IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND THOUGHT 401

Frank Rinaldi

‘The Tribe of Dan’A Study of the New Connexion of General Baptists 1770–1891

‘The Tribe of Dan’ is a thematic study which explores the theology, organi-sational structure, evangelistic strategy, ministry and leadership of the NewConnexion of General Baptists as it experienced the process of institutionli-sation in the transition from a revival movement to an established denomi-nation.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-143-1

Peter Shepherd

The Making of a Modern DenominationJohn Howard Shakespeare and the English Baptists 1898–1924

John Howard Shakespeare introduced revolutionary change to the Baptistdenomination. The Baptist Union was transformed into a strong central insti-tution and Baptist ministers were brought under its control. Further, Shake-speare’s pursuit of church unity reveals him as one of the pioneering ecu-menists of the twentieth century.

2001 / ISBN 1-84227-046-X / xviii + 220pp

Brian Talbot

The Search for a Common IdentityThe Origins of the Baptist Union of Scotland 1800–1870

In the period 1800 to 1827 there were three streams of Baptists in Scotland:Scotch, Haldaneite and ‘English’ Baptist. A strong commitment to homeevangelisation brought these three bodies closer together, leading to a merg-er of their home missionary societies in 1827. However, the first threeattempts to form a union of churches failed, but by the 1860s a commonunderstanding of their corporate identity was attained leading to the estab-lishment of the Baptist Union of Scotland.

2003 / ISBN 1-84227-123-7

Philip E. Thompson

The Freedom of GodTowards Baptist Theology in Pneumatological Perspsective

This study contends that the range of theological commitments of the earlyBaptists are best understood in relation to their distinctive emphasis on the


freedom of God. Thompson traces how this was recast anthropocentrically,leading to emphasis upon human freedom from the nineteenth centuryonwards. He seeks to recover the dynamism of the early vision via a pneu-matologically oriented ecclesiology defining the church in terms of the mem-ory of God.

2004 / ISBN 1-84227-125-3

Linda Wilson

Marianne FarninghamA Study in Victorian Evangelical Piety

Marianne Farningham, of College Street Baptist Chapel, Northampton, wasa household name in evangelical circles in the later nineteenth century. Forover fifty years she produced comment, poetry, biography and fiction for thepopular Christian press. This investigation uses her writings to explore thebeliefs and behaviour of evangelical Nonconformists, including Baptists, dur-ing these years.

2004 / ISBN –84227-124-5


Postmission: World Mission by a PostmodernGeneration

Editor: Richard Tiplady

The West is experiencing a significant culture change. Estimates of its nature andimportance vary, but it is undeniable that new generations are growing up with a

worldview radically different to that of their parents and grandparents.

If generation ‘Xers’ did world mission their way, what would it look like? Arenew strategies, structures and methodologies needed or can the existing

structures be changed to allow the Xer worldview exist alongside others? Thisbook provides ideas and models for systematic organizational culture change, as

a postmodern generation seeks to do world mission.

Richard Tiplady works as an organizational development consultant, specializing ininnovation, new projects and organizational change. Prior to this, he was Associate

Director of Global Connections, the UK evangelical network for world mission.

ISBN: 1-84227-165-2 / 229x145 / p/b / 152pp / £10.99


Studies in Evangelical History and Thought

Series PrefaceThe Evangelical movement has been marked by its union of four emphases:on the Bible, on the cross of Christ, on conversion as the entry to the Chris-tian life and on the responsibility of the believer to be active. The presentseries is designed to publish scholarly studies of any aspect of this movementin Britain or overseas. Its volumes include social analysis as well as explo-ration of Evangelical ideas. The coverage extends backwards to the Refor-mation, when the term ‘Evangelical’ was first used in roughly (though notexactly) its modern sense, and forwards to the present day, when the move-ment is one of the most prominent features in the religious landscape. Mostbooks in the series, however, consider aspects of the movement shaped bythe Evangelical Revival of the eighteenth century, when the impetus to mis-sion began to turn the popular Protestantism of the British Isles and NorthAmerica into a global phenomenon. The series aims to reap some of the richharvest of academic research about those who, over the centuries, havebelieved that they had a gospel to tell to the nations.

John Brencher

Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981) andTwentieth-Century Evangelicalism

This study critically demonstrates the significance of the life and ministry ofMartyn Lloyd-Jones for post-war British evangelicalism and demonstratesthat his preaching was his greatest influence on twentieth-century Christian-ity. The factors which shaped his view of the church are examined, as is theway his reformed evangelicalism led to a separatist ecclesiology which divid-ed evangelicals.

2002 / 1-84227-051-6 / xvi + 267pp

Neil T.R. Dickson

Brethren in Scotland 1838–2000A Social Study of an Evangelical Movement

The Brethren were remarkably pervasive throughout Scottish society. Thisstudy of the Open Brethren in Scotland places them in their social contextand examines their growth, development and relationship to society.

2002 / 1-84227-113-X /


David Hilborn

The Words of our LipsLanguage-Use in Free Church Worship

Studies of liturgical language have tended to focus on the written canons ofRoman Catholic and Anglican communities. By contrast, David Hilbornanalyses the more extemporary approach of English Nonconformity. Draw-ing on recent developments in linguistic pragmatics, he explores similaritiesand differences between ‘fixed’ and ‘free’ worship, and argues for the inter-dependence of each.

2003 / 0-85364-977-4 /

Mark Hopkins

Baptists, Congregationalists, and TheologicalChange

Some Late Nineteenth-Century Leaders and Controversies2003 / 1-84227-150-4 /

Kenneth S. Jeffrey

When the Lord Walked the LandThe 1858–1862 Revival in the North East of Scotland

Previous studies of revivals have tended to approach religious movementsfrom either a broad, national or a strictly local level. This study of the mul-tifaceted nature of the 1859 revival as it appeared in three distinct socialcontexts within a single region reveals the heterogeneous nature of simul-taneous religious movements in the same vicinity.

2002 / 1-84227-057-5 /

R.T. Kendall

Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649The author’s thesis is that those who formed the Westminster Confession ofFaith, which is regarded as Calvinism, in fact departed from John Calvin ontwo points: (1) the extent of the atonement and (2) the ground of assuranceof salvation.

1997 / 0-85364-827-1 / xii + 263pp

STUDIES IN EVANGELICAL HISTORY AND THOUGHT 405

John Kenneth Lander

Tent Methodism 1814–18322003 / 1-84227-151-2 /

Herbert McGonigle

‘Sufficient Saving Grace’John Wesley’s Evangelical Arminianism

A thorough investigation of the theological roots of John Wesley’s evangeli-cal Arminianism and how these convictions were hammered out in contro-versies on predestination, limited atonement and the perseverance of thesaints.

2001 / 1-84227-045-1 / xvi + 350pp

James I. Packer

Richard Baxter2002 / 1-84227-147-4 /

Ian M Randall

Evangelical ExperiencesA Study in the Spirituality of English Evangelicalism 1918–1939

This book makes a detailed historical examination of evangelical spiritualitybetween the First and Second World Wars. It shows how patterns of devo-tion led to tensions and divisions. In a wide-ranging study, Anglican, Wes-leyan, Reformed and Pentecostal-charismatic spiritualities are analysed.

1999 / 0-85364-919-7 / xii + 309pp

Geoffrey Robson

Dark Satanic Mills?Religion and Irreligion in Birmingham and the Black Country

This book analyses and interprets the nature and extent of popular Christianbelief and practice in Birmingham and the Black Country during the first halfof the nineteenth century, with particular reference to the impact of choleraepidemics and evangelism on church extension programmes.

2002 / 1-84227-102-4 / xvi + 294pp


James H.S. Steven

Worship in the SpiritA Sociological Analysis and Theological Appraisal of Charismatic

Worship in the Church of EnglandThis book explores the nature and function of worship in six Church of Eng-land churches influenced by the Charismatic Movement, focusing on con-gregational singing and public prayer ministry. The theological adequacy ofsuch ritual is discussed in relation to pneumatological and christologicalunderstandings in Christian worship.

2002 / 1-84227-103-2 /

Martin Sutherland

Peace, Toleration and DecayThe Ecclesiology of Later Stuart Dissent

2003 / 1-84227-152-0

Jacob Thomas

Evangelical Social Thought 1975–1990Unscheduled / 1-84227-048-6 /

Martin Wellings

Evangelicals EmbattledResponses of Evangelicals in the Church of England to Ritualism,

Darwinism and Theological Liberalism 1890–1930.In the closing years of the nineteenth century and the first decades of thetwentieth century Anglican Evangelicals faced a series of challenges. Inresponding to Anglo-Catholicism, liberal theology, Darwinism and biblicalcriticism, the unity and identity of the Evangelical school were severely test-ed.

2002 / 1-84227-049-4 /

STUDIES IN EVANGELICAL HISTORY AND THOUGHT 407

James Whisenant

A Fragile UnityAnti-Ritualism and the Division of Evangelicalism in the Nineteenth

CenturyThis book deals with the ritualist controversy (approximately 1850–1900)from the perspective of its evangelical participants and considers the divisiveeffects it had on the party.

2002 / 1-84227-105-9 /

Linda Wilson

Constrained by ZealFemale Spirituality amongst Nonconformists 1825–1875

Constrained by Zeal investigates the neglected area of Nonconformistfemale spirituality. Against the background of separate spheres, it analysesthe experience of women from four denominations, and argues that thechurches provided a ‘third sphere’ in which they could find opportunities forparticipation.

2000 / 0-85364-972-3 / xvi + 293pp

The Paternoster PressP.O. Box 300

Carlisle, Cumbria,CA3 0QS

United KingdomWeb: www.paternoster-publishing.com

SCRIPTURE AND HERMENEUTICS

After Pentecost: Language and BiblicalInterpretation

Editors: Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene and Karl Möller

“There is always some view of language built into biblical interpretation.If we are to read Scripture to hear God’s address it is vital that we attendto current debates about language and become critically conscious in this

respect.”Craig Bartholomew

After Pentecost is the second volume from the Scripture and Hermeneuticsseminar. This annual gathering of Christian scholars from various disciplineswas established in 1998 and aims to reassess the discipline of biblical studies

from the foundations up and forge creative new ways for reopening theBible in our cultures.

“This is an excellent collection on a topic for which interdisciplinaryconversation between biblical scholars, theologians and philosophers isvital. These essays deserve to be widely read and to draw many more of

us into that conversation.”Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies, St Mary’s College,

University of St Andrews

“This is a serious book, a genre in which there are few currentrepresentatives. The book will bear careful, patient study. It cannot be

‘read’, but must be studied. Immense learning is mobilized in the serviceof serious critical reflection on behalf of the church as the church facesan entirely new situation with thew demise of modernist rationality and

its accompanying positivism.”Walter Brueggemann, Professor of Old Testament, Columbia Theological

Seminary

Craig Bartholomew is a research fellow in the School of Theology andReligious Studies, University of Gloucestershire.

Colin Greene is Head of Theology and Public Policy at the British and ForeignBible Society.

Karl Möller is a researcher in the School of Theology and Religious Studies,University of Gloucestershire.

ISBN: 1-84227-066-4 / 235x160 / p/b / 461pp / £24.99

Paternoster Press, PO Box 300, Carlisle,Cumbria CA3 0QS, UK

ABSTRACTS/INDEXINGThis journal is abstracted in Religious and Theological Abstracts, 121 SouthCollege Street (P.O. Box 215), Myerstown, PA 17067, USA, and in theChristian Periodical Index, P.O. Box 4, Cedarville, OH 45314, USA.It is also indexed in the ATLA Religion Database, published by the AmericanTheological Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Flr., Chicago, Illinois60606-5834 USA, E-mail: [email protected], Web: www.atla.com/

MICROFORMThis journal is available on Microform from UMI, 300 North Zeeb Road, P.O.Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346, USA. Phone: (313)761-4700

Subscription rates from January 2002

Photocopying LicensingNo part of the material in this journal may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission ofPaternoster Periodicals, except where a licence is held to make photocopies.Applications for such licences should be made to the Copyright LicensingAgency Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.It is illegal to take multiple copies of copyright material.

Important Note to all Postal SubscribersWhen contacting our Subscription Office in Carlisle for any reason

always quote your Subscription Reference Number.This appears on the address label used to send your copies to you.

Institutions Individuals

Period UK USA & Elsewhere UK USA & Elsewhere Canada Overseas Canada Overseas

One Year £25.60 $67.40 £26.80 £25.60 $43.60 £26.80

Two/Three Years,per year £23.00 $60.70 £24.10 £23.00 $39.20 £24.10

2/3rds world, individuals and institutions:50% discount on the overseas sterling (£) rates listed above.

All subscriptions to:Paternoster Periodicals, PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 0QS, UK

Tel: UK 0800 195 7969; Fax: (01228 51 49 49Tel Overseas: +44(0) 1228 611723; Fax +44(0) 1228 514949

Email [email protected] Site: www.paternoster-publishing.com

A Major Reference Work

Dictionary of Historical TheologyGeneral Editor: Trevor A Hart

Consulting Editors:Richard Bauckham, Jan Milic˘ Lochman,

Paul D. Molnar, Alan P.F. Sell

Until now, there has been no concise and comprehensive manual on thehistory and development of Christian theology. The Dictionary ofHistorical Theology fills this gap. The range and depth of the 314entries (varying in length from 500 to 15,000 words), written by over

170 contributors representing the best of contemporary scholarship fromaround the world, are unequalled. Another key feature of the Dictionary is

its comprehensive index, which enables the reader to track down refer-ences to many more subjects than those actually included in the list of

entries. Deliberately international and interdenominational, theDictionary’s aim is to tell the story of Christian theology – a story that iswider and more complicated than any individual strands of developmentto which Christians today may belong. Entries focus on the key figures,

movements and texts from the early church to the present day andinclude biographical and wider historical material as well as relevant bibli-ography. Each entry treats the intellectual antecedents and descendantsof its subject, as well as its role in shaping the wider development of the

Christian theological tradition. This volume will be of use to students writ-ing essays and dissertations, ministers and priests writing sermons, and

the informed layperson interested in furthering his or her general knowl-edge of the Christian tradition and its development.

1-84227-002-8 / 260x180mm / c/b / 620pp / £39.99

Paternoster Press

PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 0QS, UK