If you’re looking for a text that will set out the Biblical Gospel, a work which won’t blush at explaining God’s wrath, hell, sin, and Salvation in Christ alone – then I’m glad to say that this is it.  Not only that; but it is presented in easy to read and engaging language that means you’ll actually be able to read this one.

Reflecting on a tendency to hold the ‘big picture’ view of Salvation in tension with the ‘personal’ view of Salvation, the authors have divided the book into three parts.  The first, “The Gospel on the Ground” draws out the Gospel as it is first presented to us: as Christ’s work for sinful men such as you, or I.  The second, “The Gospel in the Air” takes things from a more Biblical-Theology type of angle, moving through Creation, Fall, Reconciliation, and Consummation.  The final part discusses the “Implications and Applications”, and is generally helpful, with a number of particularly insightful comments on the realities of Gospel ministry.

Whilst it is tempting to compare this work with a Systematic Theology textbook and fault it for not following the established categories, and not using precise theological definitions, that is to miss the point.  This book is not designed as a Systematic Theology – but as something far more useful – a text which engages the ordinary Christian with the Gospel in a thorough and thoughtful way.  I believe many will gain much from this work, some doubtless trusting in the Gospel for the first time through it.

This review is based upon the audio version provided under the christianaudio reviewers programme.  I am not required to write a positive review, as my past reviews for christianaudio should amply illustrate.

“The ordination of women in Protestant churches has often been carried out in light of the theological doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, which might include women if the expression is taken in a very literal sense.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

It’s entirely true that protestant churches strictly affirm a doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers”; however, applying such a doctrine to this question – or indeed any other question – requires a proper understanding of just what is meant by the term. Can we rightly read or apply such a statement in “a very literal sense”?

First, we must circumscribe the limits of the doctrine: it can have bearing only in so much as it rightly arises from the Bible. This is the principle of sola scriptura, or ‘scripture only’, by which we affirm the primacy of Scripture (rather than extra-Biblical tradition) as our teaching authority.

Second, we must determine what the doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” means by reviewing those passages that support it. This is essential. We are wrong if we treat any summary statement of doctrine in a linguistic sense as bearing authority in its own words; we must always look behind those words to the Biblical support to find the specific import and authority they carry.

Finally, having come to understand the summary statement of doctrine through Scripture, we might apply it to the question at hand. In this way we are protected from generalising something beyond the remit of Scripture, or indeed from teaching as doctrine the precepts of man (Matthew 15:9).

Taking in hand the statement “the priesthood of all believers”, we first must acknowledge that whatever it means, its meaning is only of authority if we find it in Scripture. Thus, we admit that a reading of the statement itself is inadequate to understand in any useful sense.

Next, we are to review the texts used to support the statement. In this case, the primary text is I Peter 2:9, backed up by text such as Exodus 19:6, Revelation 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6. In specific application to the church, the texts are clear that we are all “a chosen race, a royal priesthood” (I Peter 2:9), “a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Revelation 1:6, 5:10), “priests of God and of Christ” (Revelation 20:6). This is the fulfilment of what is said in Moses, that “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 9:6).

Thus far it is clear: we are priests; but if we leave it here then we miss something important. Our English Bible is, in itself, but a translation of Scripture. We need to dive a little deeper to figure out exactly what God means by saying we are “a royal priesthood” and “priests of God”. To do that, we need to review the Greek text for the verses. In doing so, we find that the word for ‘priesthood’ (1 Peter 2:9) is ἱεράτευμα (hierateuma), and ἱερεῖς (hiereus) in the Revelation passages. Exodus 9:6, in the Septuagint, has ἱεράτευμα (as in 1 Peter 2:9), whereas the Hebrew puts כֹּהֵן (kohen).

What do we learn from the underlying words? The Greek ‘hiereus’, or priest, is the term used to denote a specific type of priest. It refers specifically to Gentile or Jewish priests who offer sacrifices, and includes the High Priest who goes to stand before God on behalf of the people and offer for their sins. The Hebrew word ‘kohen’ refers to the same nature of priest.

Why does this matter? In the English language, the word ‘priest’ does not hold a one-to-one correspondence with the term ‘hiereus’ – but also includes the translation of another term, that of πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros).

Glance at the etymology of the English word ‘priest’:

O.E. preost, shortened from the older Germanic form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester “priest,” from L.L. presbyter “presbyter, elder,” from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a translation of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=presbyter

This is the first thing we learn. When we say in English “the priesthood of all believers”, we are to understand by it that all believers are priests (hiereus), but not necessarily priests (presbuteros). The ministers called priest in many protestant churches are not hiereus but presbuteros. This is the basis by which they are ordained priest: and it is actually identical to being ordained presbyter, or interchangeably, pastor.

So; as part of the “priesthood of all believers”, we are right to understand some things, such our priestly service in offering ourselves up as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1), and the fact we – being washed with the blood of Christ – are qualified to approach the throne of grace (Hebrew 4:16); etc. However, all believers are not presbyters.

There are most certainly duties which belong to us to minister to one another (particularly in the family), but that does not make us all presbyters or pastors. Taking a look at Ephesians 4:11-12 should help explain this:

And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ…

The Apostle does not call them who do the work of ministry the pastor or the teacher; but he uses those titles to refer to those who God has given to train the ‘saints’ in this work. Our common “priesthood” is not a “presbyterhood”, even though we are called to the work of ministry. Note that the word for ministry here is διακονίας (diakonias); which denotes service of the nature of a servant.

Can we then make an argument by which the “priesthood of all believers” means that women should be ordained priest? No. The doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” does not bear on this question, because it refers to a different and distinct meaning of the English word priest. When someone calls for the ordination of women as priests, he is actually calling for them to be ordained presbyters – and that requires a careful discussion of the qualifications, duties, and requirements relevant to presbyters, not priests (hiereus).

Both make very important points, showing differing understandings of both marriage and the pastoral office. Between the two, I find greater robustness in Deepak’s treatment; which lists four reasons to consider administering such a service: that marriage is a creation ordinance; that it is a common grace institution; that it is a reminder of God’s covenantal love; and as an evangelistic opportunity. Personally, I think it a matter which requires consideration on a case-by-case basis.

For my part, I have two further points to add which I think develop the discussion in a useful direction.  They are not an answer in themselves, but should be weighed with the other arguments; both answer the question in the affirmative.

First, and reflecting on Deepak’s observation that marriage is a creation ordinance – we might well reflect on the fact that being God’s institution and being given not only to the church, it is actually proper to all persons. A pastor is not just a member of the church, but he is also a member of mankind. Whilst he is, with the rest of the church, not of the world – he remains in the world. It is for this reason he has various obligations such as submission to civil authority and the payment of taxes. Now, given that civil authority has licensed him to administer marriage, and given he takes his due part in civil society, there is no prima facie reason why doing so for non-believers is wrong. In this, he does not necessarily stand in his office as pastor to the flock entrusted him; but he performs that duty entrusted him by the civil government as part of a design for good order. Marriage belongs to all.

Russell Moore makes an argument against administering such a marriage, and rests it in great part on the statement “First of all, a minister of the gospel needs to know that he has no personal authority. Ordination does not mystically confer authority to a preacher or pastor.” In making such a claim, he seems to hint that he understands that God’s authority is specially at work when a marriage is administered by a pastor (at least amongst believers). I am not aware of a Biblical mandate for holding that any greater work of God is exercised in the joining of two believers by a pastor than where a pastor is absent; and so, it follows there is no abuse of such if a pastor administers marriage between unbelievers. Being a creation ordinance, we must confess two atheists just as validly and authoritatively married as two believers: marriage belongs to all.

My second point is this: that marriage is godly. It is entirely true that non-believers will not by any means of their own be saved; and that exhorting them to good works without bringing them the gospel will never cure their souls. However, it is also true that God hates sin in non-believers as well as in believers. God is not pleased by the sin of non-believers, and indeed restrains them in many ways from being as desperately sinful in their actions as their hearts would otherwise cause. Thus, the civil magistrate is vested with the sword to keep some order, both amongst the believers and amongst the non-believers; and again, marriage is created for all – partly as a remedy for lust and for the avoidance of fornication, both amongst the believers and amongst the non-believers.

Because marriage is godly, that means that it is right and proper in God’s sight for two non-believers to marry. It won’t be enough to bring them into the Kingdom of God, but it is still the avoidance of wickedness and sin. God shows throughout Scripture how much he hates sin – bringing warnings and visiting judgment in the Old Testament not only upon his own people, but on many other nations as well. Given that, why would a Christian not want to administer marriage between non-believers? Do we really think God would prefer that they live in sin, one with another? Yes, sin is what divides us from God and makes us subject to his wrath: but it is more than that… sin is, in itself, bad and God hates every occurance of it.  That being said: there is no reason why a pastor has to use a church building and vestments for such a ceremony – unless he is bound by law to do so when administering marriage.

10. Good theology is like good programming: no statement is made without it being both necessary and logical.

9. Good theology is like good programming: whether you ‘like’ it doesn’t actually matter.

8. Good theology is like good programming: you can tell when external sources are being used.

7. Good theology is like good programming: comments are clearly separated from statements.

6. Good theology is like good programming: although the logic may be complex, it is always possible to trace everything back to its source.

5. Good theology is like good programming: if it’s valid then it’s valid today, tomorrow, and in ten centuries time.

4. Good theology is like good programming: it can be tested objectively by running it against the target system.

3. Good theology is like good programming: it always works, even in difficult situations.

2. Good theology is like good programming: words have precisely defined meanings, and they always mean exactly what they say.

1. Good theology is like good programming: nothing can be found which conflicts with the underlying framework.

And yes, the comparison is only limited to certain points!

This merciful work of the Holy Ghost in our lives should be a cause of great comfort; indeed, even as we miserable sinners pray this very litany, we know that He is helping us in our weakness and praying for us in a yet more proper and perfect way (Romans 8:26-27). Therefore; O God the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son: have mercy upon us, miserable sinners.

Biblically, the mercy of the Son is bound up with that of the Father; the Apostle Paul joins them both in his epistles, writing in one place “Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (II Timothy 1:2), and in another praying for Onesiphorus saying “may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day” (II Timothy 1:18).

Why do we ask God for mercy? Chiefly, it is because of what is also added in this petition: that we are miserable sinners. Our need for mercy is rooted in our guilt before God and so we echo the words of King David, who having fallen into the most shameful and grievous sin, called upon God saying “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy, blot out my transgressions” (Psalm 51:1).

Defenders of the RCL will tell you that you just can’t read everything, and hard decisions do need to be made as to what gets left out. Now, if this is really the struggle the compilers had, we’d see them doing their best to cover as much as they could within the parameters of length and reading count they have determined reasonable.

Take a look at this graph:

It’s compiled from the excellent When Will It Be Read page and associated spreadsheet. The slices show you how many times a given reading is read – so, if John 15:18-25 is read three times, then those three readings go under slice ’3′ (in fact, that passage isn’t ever read, so doesn’t figure at all). The figures around the edge show you how many total readings fall into that class.

So, looking at slice ’4′, you see that 308 of the slots over the three years are filled by readings which are heard four times.

What the graph shows is that 40.6% of all lectionary slots are given to readings heard four or more times. An important reading that the compilers think must be heard every year would only score 3 (being a 3 year lectionary) … we see over 40% of slots filled by stuff heard even more frequently!

Now, there are surely ‘reasons’ for many of these, and doubtless there will be minor errors in the source data, yet – even given this – it is clear that the priority was not to cover as much Scripture as possible in the time assigned.

I have no problem with hearing the same reading 4, 5, or even 15 times – but not if it comes at the cost of never hearing other parts of Scripture. Philippians 2:1-13 is an important text; but is it so important that we need to hear it seven times – at the cost of never hearing Philippians 2:14-3:4?

I again submit the suggestion of adopting a seven year lectionary designed to include every word of Scripture. Of course, if we could find a way to bring the majority of Christians together around the Word on a daily basis, we’d cover much much more Scripture through the daily readings (2 year) cycle… but that’s a much harder task than compiling a seven year lectionary!

Your God isn’t the God of the Bible,
if your theology requires your culture.
For God’s word is ever applicable;
to the past, the present, and future.

Be careful about what means you use,
not everything is truly neutral.
Don’t gather for an experience,
but to grow by all that’s truthful.

If it’s used to shape your emotions,
doing so apart from God’s living truth,
it’s replaced God in your devotions,
and become an idol under his roof.

At the end of first John we read just this:
“Little children, keep yourselves from idols;”
Don’t put your brother’s faith at risk;
Seek God, not by style, but by Bible.

Note to those thinking of buying: Sorry, these vehicles are strictly not for sale, they are given only as free and unmerited gifts.