God is a Judge. This role takes precedence over all others. His chief concern is with judicious and moral faultlessness. Man's existence is about maintaining a perfect standing in the eyes of God.
But, no, we can't do that. Because we've depraved, blatant sinners. Wallowing in the muck of sin.
This spells bad news for us. For any violation, transgression and even deviation from the holy perfection that is the very being of God, deserves an infinite penalty (entailing infinite-level types of suffering and pain). Sin and evil in his creation and creatures offend and is an affront to His divine holiness. There's gotta be serious payback.
Hence, the first and key item on the agenda of God's earthly pursuits, activities and revelation is to remove sin from existence. Not a spot of it must remain. The cross of Jesus was therefore mainly an act of guilt-transfer. It was about imputing the blamemess perfection of God INTO whomsoever believes in Him. It's Jesus' clean blood flowing into and replacing rejuvenating our contaminated cells.
It's like a judge who takes the place of a guilty defendant. I'll take the chair, not him.
And what are the scott-free former defendants to do?
1. Spread the news of the terrible condition of Man who has merited the terrible wrath of a terrible God, the terrible penalty which awaits and the free offer of pardon to be received.
2. A close second priority (but it's not easy to tell) is ensuring that no other view of God (or His creation, plans, etc.) gets the most votes over this one. Presumable a right standing before God is a function of, among other things, knowing the right things about God. Believing the wrong thing and "unbelief" aren't that far apart.
This court-room model is the dominant one in mainline Christianity. It's been the leading theme for the better part of 2,000 years (notwithstanding the issue of what the earliest church perceived about God, Jesus and the kingdom of God). Contemporary theologians under this banner are many and well-respected, including R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Paul Helm, John Piper, D.A. Carson, Douglas Wilson, etc.
But it's been given a good twist in the form of Christian Hedonism, chiefly propounded chiefly by John Piper. Man's existence is about enjoying the glory of God. And everything He does (and He can do anything He likes, even decide eternally who will or will not be saved) is for His glory. God is a great, powerful, worship-worthy Being. So great that His sheer existence demands our praise and adoration.
The doctrines are largely the same. But in Christian Hedonism triumphant pleasure replaces grim Puritanism (this is just a use of a popular phrase, and not to make a pronouncement of how the Puritans truly lived).
The courtroom model is indispensable in reminding the world of the fallen state of Man and of the seriousness of our missing the mark God set for us. It also encourages careful study of Scripture, the historical creeds and traditional doctrines. You'll find pork sausages in a Jewish synagogue before you get a heretic from this camp. In the best cases, this view of God has promoted strong virtues and resistance to the negative elements in modern culture.
On the flipside, this view is considered by many to be overly rigid with respect to doctrine (it shoots down almost every new idea or innovation to doctrine) and dry in character (when the emphasis is on what's-unBiblical-about-this-book/idea and what's-dangerous-with-the-world-and-culture, you know, it just feels kinda weird and tiresome on at least some people).
At its best, it upholds a noble view of God and prevents doctrinal errors of all kinds (and everybody here is safe from hellfire). At its worst, it chokes off conversation, fellowship and fresh thinking.
(You can probably tell I'm not a big fan of the courtroom model - I'm not. But don't think I don't care about not representing it properly - I do. Talk to me.)
Posted at 07:18 pm by alwynlau
 | Posted by Alwyn @ 08/12/2006 10:49 PM PDT | |
| SK ~ "The judging God may no longer appear to be the judgmental God"...very interesting...and bringing in the Trinity is indeed critical (as I'll try to demonstrate in the Family Model)...thanks for the brilliant pointer! |
|
| Posted by sk @ 08/12/2006 09:20 PM PDT | |
The courtroom model of theology and the doctrine of justification upon which it was based stems from a fundamental neglect of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity was particularly formed during the patristic era by the Cappadocians (representing the Eastern paradigm) and Augustine (representing the Western paradigm). This very crucial understanding on God's self-revelation to the believing communtity was supposed to be established as the basis upon which other conversations about God took place. But it was neglected, if not ignored all together. Even the subsequent development of the doctrine after the Enlightenment was based upon a very nuanced detachment from spirituality.
I know it seems strange that I'm responding with an abrupt consideration of the trinitarian doctrine from out of nowhere. But my point is that when we reinstate the trinitarian perspective of the Christian faith into its rightful place, our reading of justification would sound almost entirely different.
Hence, without wanting to sound too accusatory, I would say that the courtroom rendition of justification stems from having neglected a very significant segment of the Christian story. If we recover that story and base our theology on the trinitarian articulations, the judging God may no longer appear to be the judgemental God.
Of course, we may say that we have never denied the doctrine of the trinity. But to ignore it constitutes practical denial in itself. It is no better having a doctrine we claim to believe in but leave on the shelf than to have a doctrine that we categorically deny.
So, well said, Al. No courtroom model for me too. The human sense of justice may not resonate entirely with a God of justice whose primary concern is a Kingdom based on his trinitarian relational nature. |
|
| Posted by Alwyn @ 08/12/2006 10:02 AM PDT | |
Crazy (a subversive name. right?) ~ I can identify with your struggle, and I know full well the threat of communal exclusion. What I would "reckon" (smile) you do is
i. keep reading/learning/reflecting on BOTH sides, try to decipher the substance from the slurs of the "other" parties (what is their justification for rejecting you as brother? etc.)
ii. remember that there are Christian communities who DON'T reject you, spend more time with them, etc.
iii. PRAY for this group who are threatening to exclude you, continue showing them kindness/compassion, keep asking good questions (and realise that it could be THEM who have the greater anguish)
I hope to post more on the issue of boundaries, but these are my thoughts for now.
Sivin ~ yes, it's sad. IMO it goes AGAINST (not WITH) the flow of Galatians (contra the standard arguments)...more later... |
|
| Posted by Sivin @ 08/12/2006 12:06 AM PDT | |
| "I realised that there are certain quarters who may be hesitant to call me brother if I come clean with this" ... I read this with a sadness. It shows that we have a lot of growing up to do as a community of faith and learning. |
|
| Posted by Crazyfool @ 08/11/2006 07:57 PM PDT | |
Alwyn,
I honestly lean more towards NT Wright's approach to the issue (imputation et al) versus traditional evangelicalism...
It's something I wrestle with daily to the point of intellectual anguish.
And then I realised that there are certain quarters who may be hesitant to call me brother if I come clean with this.
What do you reckon (pun intended) that I could do? |
|
