Got the latest issue of JETS in the mail. I thought things might change w/ a change in editor but it appears we are still on the same trajectory. Maybe that's strategic on the part of the new editor; maybe not. I don't know.
(What I mean is, there may be a backlog of accepted-but-not-yet-published articles, or there may be a directive from the Board to continue in the same vein, OTOH. Or, OTOH, the new editor may share the previous editor's strategic vision for issue contents. Again, I've no idea).
I reached out to the previous editor before he resigned abt my thoughts regarding issue contents, & specifically abt hoping to see more theology in a journal published by the Evangelical *Theological* Society. He did not share my concerns.
I read this piece by @CraigACarter1 at @AmReformer with interest. As with Craig’s other work, there is much I appreciate & agree with here. But I also found some of it, & at crucial points, to be a bit muddled.
It is true that Western democracies, and in particular those in the US & Canada, are facing distinct crises of morality & its relation to governance. It is true that liberal democracy needs a moral foundation in natural law (& ultimately in the Xian worldview) in order to thrive.
Nevertheless, there are crucial points at which I think Carter needs to clarify. First, he is, as usual, incisive wrt the (real) ills of the Enlightenment, & in this case wrt the modern Western state. But he papers over the (real) ills of Ref/post-Ref Christian states.
1. 17th c. Baptists believed the state’s laws & practices ought to reflect God’s law. The idea that an appeal to historical Baptist political theology is an appeal to Lockean individualism or an attempt to baptize the last half century of US legal ruling re: 1A is a straw man.
2. While Baptist thought recognizes the state’s responsibility to reflect God’s law, it also recognizes that the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant brings w/ it a shift from God’s people being metonymically identifiable w/ a geo-political state to the global church.
This shift from God’s-people-as-nationality to God’s-people-as-Jew+Gentile Church means that governance of God’s people changes, from Israel’s theocracy to church polity. It also means, therefore, that Christ’s universal kingship is not identifiable w/ any particular nation-state
Churches can prioritize God's Word in corporate worship *and* include historic elements of corporate worship (e.g. confession/assurance, weekly communion, credal recitation, pastoral prayer/Lord's prayer, Scripture readings, etc.) at the same time. It's not one or the other.
In fact, as @lukestamps has repeatedly noted in a variety of places, historic elements of corporate worship are just more Bible - Scripture readings (obvi) from every part of the Bible, the Lord's Supper that reads the words of institution from 1 Cor. 11 beforehand,
the pastoral prayer that culminates in the corporate recitation of the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6, confession of sin and assurance of pardon that are either summarizing or quoting different passages of Scripture, the benediction that usually Aaron's blessing from Num. 6, etc.
The primary role of seminaries is to equip those called to vocational ministry. The primary role of Christian undergraduate institutions is to equip those called to a variety of vocations (inc. ministry) w/ a foundational Christian worldview in the context of the liberal arts.
These are not the same. We should not pretend that seminaries and Christian undergraduate institutions have exactly the same mission or purpose or student populations, even while in particular denominational contexts they should share the same doctrinal commitments.
We should also not assume that our seminaries are more important to the flourishing of our own denominations than our Christian undergraduate institutions. Yes, the health of a denomination’s seminaries is vital in equipping those called to vocational ministry -
I chose my words very carefully here. The tradition recognizes that the eternal generation of the Son can be spoken of using language like “authority” (wrt the Father) and “submission,” (wrt the Son) but it is *only* with reference to the ERO, …
…not some volitional distinction or difference in attributes btw the persons. There is only one divine will bc there is only one divine essence, the singular divine essence which each divine person equally & fully possesses.
The tradition recognizes that this biblically revealed Trinitarian taxis gives rise to the fitting taxis, or order, of God’s economic acts, and namely that every external act can be said to be from the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit.