The second half of the morning of the final day of EMA featured Vaughan Roberts, who spoke very positively about Francis Schaeffer. He focused on what he called two contents and two realities, the contents being the truth of Scripture and engagement with society, the realities true spirituality and prayer. I didn't catch the beginning of this talk but after I had found my place it was slightly disconcerting to be followed in by Francis Schaeffer himself. It could have just been someone who looked like him, I guess.
During lunch an Anglican society was launched - The Anglican Mission in England. You can read more here. We also sat at different points through video adverts for Christianity Explored (poor) and Cornhill (quite good). At least the band were not there today so there was less singing. I also enjoyed the rap about the conference from Robert Prendergast of Calvary Chapel before the final session of the day. As with most conferences I attend the EMA was overwhelmingly white (and male and with a good sprinkling of double barrelled names, which I don't always see).
After lunch Roberts interviewed the main speakers (Goligher, Wells and Keller). This was okay. We often seem to get back to the question of "how do I get a big church?" and none of them were as foolish as to suppose that they really knew how. I'm not quite sure why it was not opened to the floor or at least an opportunity for written questions given.
Anyway, the final session was with Tim Keller. He began by admitting that much of what he is saying is just good pastoring and there is a danger in his approach of sounding too theoretical, which was good to hear.
Speaking again of "entering" he spoke of beliefs that a culture finds plausible. Their culture predisposes them to find certain biblical doctrines acceptable or more acceptable. On the other hand, there are other doctrines that ones culture predisposes one to reject. The A doctrines we can think of as logs and the B ones as rocks. Keller's idea is that we float the rocks using the logs. He suggests that this can be discerned from Acts.
We therefore need to know which is which. For example, when the average westerner hears that God is a jealous God they are concerned. Of course, when we see it is love that refuses to be extinguished then it makes sense. C S Lewis argues for the wrath of God from the fact that God is love.
He then told a story that Harvie Conn told him about reaching prostitutes in Korea. They all thought they were too bad for God. So he began with predestination! Keller slipped in another nice story here of how R C Sproul answered a young girl's objections to predestination and that led to Keller himself accepting it. A higher person's authority to do what he wishes would be a real A doctrine in Korea.
and saying that it is helpfully the latter that westerners today appreciate most. There was also talk of how westerners commodify sex and make it a salesman vendor situation rather than a covenant one, etc, and mentioning his sin as idolatry argument and finishing with a great summary of the atonement based on Roger Nicole. Keller has said elsewhere in the same vein
"My prof at Gordon-Conwell, Roger Nicole, used to say that there were many perspectives on the atonement, but the one theme that ran through them all was substitution. Christus Victor, for example, means Jesus fought for us, in our place, we didn’t do it, he did it. And so ‘penal’ substitution is the perspective of the law court, and ‘ransom’ substitution is the perspective of the marketplace, and ‘Christus Victor’ substitution is the perspective of the battlefield, and ‘sacrificial’ substitution is the perspective of the temple/tabernacle. They all get at it differently, but the one commonality is substitution. God came and substituted himself for us–so we could be saved from sin. Nicole wrote this up in a little afterword to his festschrift The Glory of the Atonement."
Speaking again of "entering" he spoke of beliefs that a culture finds plausible. Their culture predisposes them to find certain biblical doctrines acceptable or more acceptable. On the other hand, there are other doctrines that ones culture predisposes one to reject. The A doctrines we can think of as logs and the B ones as rocks. Keller's idea is that we float the rocks using the logs. He suggests that this can be discerned from Acts.
We therefore need to know which is which. For example, when the average westerner hears that God is a jealous God they are concerned. Of course, when we see it is love that refuses to be extinguished then it makes sense. C S Lewis argues for the wrath of God from the fact that God is love.
He then told a story that Harvie Conn told him about reaching prostitutes in Korea. They all thought they were too bad for God. So he began with predestination! Keller slipped in another nice story here of how R C Sproul answered a young girl's objections to predestination and that led to Keller himself accepting it. A higher person's authority to do what he wishes would be a real A doctrine in Korea.
and saying that it is helpfully the latter that westerners today appreciate most. There was also talk of how westerners commodify sex and make it a salesman vendor situation rather than a covenant one, etc, and mentioning his sin as idolatry argument and finishing with a great summary of the atonement based on Roger Nicole. Keller has said elsewhere in the same vein
"My prof at Gordon-Conwell, Roger Nicole, used to say that there were many perspectives on the atonement, but the one theme that ran through them all was substitution. Christus Victor, for example, means Jesus fought for us, in our place, we didn’t do it, he did it. And so ‘penal’ substitution is the perspective of the law court, and ‘ransom’ substitution is the perspective of the marketplace, and ‘Christus Victor’ substitution is the perspective of the battlefield, and ‘sacrificial’ substitution is the perspective of the temple/tabernacle. They all get at it differently, but the one commonality is substitution. God came and substituted himself for us–so we could be saved from sin. Nicole wrote this up in a little afterword to his festschrift The Glory of the Atonement."
No comments:
Post a Comment