athanasius: the most important gospel defence ever

The Church Fathers, pt (ii).  From ‘The Story of Christian Theology’ by Olson.  

Athanasius (the “Black Dwarf”) succeeded his teacher Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria.  He was controversial in his time, and Luther’s axiom could be applied to him: “Peace if possible, but truth at any cost!”

The Council of Nicaea in 325 meant to end the Arian controversy, but was a catalyst for more dispute.  The ambiguous language of its Creed led to various sides claiming it a victory for themselves.  In particular, a controversial subject was the use of the word homoousios (meaning ‘cosubstantial’) to describe the relationship and divinity of the Father and Son.  

Constantius (son and successor of Constantine), desiring of peace, seeked a compromise by suggesting replacing the word with homoiousios, meaning ‘of a similar substance’, ie. not identical (to combat Sabellianism) but possibly not the same (to appease the Arians).  This was acceptable to many.  Athanasius, however, refused.  

Despite the difference in the words being only one letter, Athanasius knew that the theological difference was huge; one meant the Son was God, the other meant the Son was like God.  Athanasius saw that, for the sake of salvation, the Son needs to be God and not just be like God.  As a result, Athanasius suffered 5 exiles – 17 years out of his 46 as bishop; but he stood his ground, in possibly the most important defence of the gospel ever.  

arius v. alexander: a fight for the gospel

The Church Fathers, pt (i).  From ‘The Story of Christian Theology’ by Olson (IVP).  

In the 4th century, the dispute between the world’s two major theological schools (Alexandria and Antioch) started to simmer.  The dispute originated over Origen, who was in two minds about the nature of Jesus: on the one hand, he believed Jesus was equal with the Father, but on the other hand subordinate to the Father.  Alexandrians and Antiochenes both claimed to be in true agreement with Origen, but emphasised different sides (equality/divinity and subordination/humanity respectively).  There was, however, agreement over the nature of God’s immutability, which stemmed from Greek philosophical thought.  

Arius, educated in Antioch but teaching in Alexandria, challenged Bishop Alexander on his teaching of the divinity of the Logos (the Son of God, who took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ).  Arius accused Alexander of promoting Sabellianism and denying Jesus’ humanity.  Arius captured the public imagination and the dispute led to public marches (with banners stating ‘There was when the Son was not!’) folk songs and even riots on the street, with mobs on his side who probably didn’t understand the theological issues at stake.  

The two key elements of Arius’ thought about God and the Logos are these: First, God is by nature removed from creatureliness, and if the Logos became human in Jesus Christ, he must be a creature.  Second, salvation is a process of being joined with God by grace and free will, and if Jesus communicates salvation to us, it must be something he accomplished by grace and free will in a manner we can emulate; and if he was God, then salvation would not be something he could accomplish.

Alexander needed to respond, and did so with a Synod in 318 (where 100 bishops condemned Arius’ stance), and in argument.  He argued along the line of immutability, and thus undermined one of the main Arian arguments; he argued that if there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time that the Father was not a father, and so by claiming this you are undermining God’s immutability.  

Arianism was such an issue to Alexander because he saw how important the deity of Christ was to salvation.  Only if Jesus is fully God and fully man are we saved, and Arianism was denying the former.  

The dispute was also, however, an issue to the Emperor Constantine.  He hoped that Christianity would be the glue to hold his shaky Empire together, and yet its leaders were divided.  So he sought to solve it and stepped in, by arranging the first ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325.  Arguably it caused more dispute than it resolved, and resulted in Athanasius making what has been described as the most important defence of the gospel in the history of the world…

how to reach postmodern pluralists: (4) we must proclaim it

From ‘The Gagging of God’ by Don Carson (Apollos), Chapter 12: On Heralding the Gospel in a Pluralistic Culture.  

How do we present the gospel as we face the perils of postmodernism?

4.  We must proclaim this good news.

Is dialogue important?  Many advocate so.  What do we mean by dialogue?  Do we mean dialogue as two people talking together, in contrast to monologue?  If so, then it’s a great and crucial tool for the evangelist.  But often we mean by ‘dialogue’ that the conversation between a Christian and a non-Christian must be so even-handed and open-ended that the Christian does not have the ‘arrogant’ assumption that they have the ‘right’ answer, but instead assumes nothing and gives opposing opinons equal authority as Christian opinions.  “Certainly opposing voices should be accorded the same courtesy.  But if we insist that they be accorded the same authority, we are implicitly adopting philosophical pluralism, at the cost of affirming biblical Christianity.”

Another reason not to abandon proclamation is highlighted by Sue Brown, reflecting on years of working with university students around the world:

“If the image has replaced the word, music has replaced the book.  Young people watch and listen more than they read.  Music appeals primarily to the emotions and does precisely what Routley says, it carries words past the critical faculty into the affections where they may do either good or harm.  Music and the image, then, the two most potent influences on young people today, conspire to bypass the reasoning powers of the mind and to encourage thinking by association rather than analysis.  The relationship between this trend and the emotional orientation of modern young people is too complex a subject to enter into here, but it should give us pause for thought whenever we discern signs of spiritual shallowness (only let us be sure we are judging aright) among student Christians.” – Sue Brown, in ‘Worship: Adoration and Action’ (Grand Rapids).  

It is necessary to insist on gospel proclamation because “a necessary component in conversation and in Christian discipleship is the proper use of the mind.  Pastors committed to the ministry of the Word have often seen new converts become interested in reading, sometimes serious reading, for the first time in their lives.  God is worth thinking about.  God’s thoughts, insofar as he has disclosed them, can become our thoughts.  Evangelism that does not engage people at that level, whatever other levels are touched, is necessarily betraying something vital.”

how to reach postmodern pluralists (3): there must be content

From ‘The Gagging of God’ by Don Carson (Apollos), Chapter 12: On Heralding the Gospel in a Pluralistic Culture.  

How do we present the gospel as we face the perils of postmodernism?

3. We must herald, again and again, the rudiments of the historical gospel

(i) There must be content, and it must be the historical gospel

What is “the gospel”?  Not just a four or five point thing used in personal evangelism.  Biblically the phrase refers to ‘the comprehensive gospel’: the good news of God’s redemption and the coming of his kingdom through Christ, and all it entails for this life and the one to come.  This is the historical gospel, and all our preaching and teaching must revolve around the great central truths of this gospel.  “There is intellectual content in this heralded gospel, content that must be grasped, proclaimed and taught, grasped afresh, proclaimed afresh, in an ongoing cycle.”

 

At times Christianity has been too intellectual – too cerebral and dry – with it, which has caused reaction against “the modernist impact on confessing evangelicalism”, causing many vibrant movements to spring up with an emphasis on tongues, prophecies, strongly emotional corporate worship, and drama and dance.  These are helpful rebukes against “arid unreality”.  But sometimes the pendulum swings too far the other way; and sometimes “the enthusiasts are unwittingly becoming snookered by postmodernist ideology, exactly as their forebears were snookered by modernism”.  

how to reach postmodern pluralists (2): preach the whole Scriptures

From ‘The Gagging of God’ by Don Carson (Apollos), Chapter 12: On Heralding the Gospel in a Pluralistic Culture.  

How do we present the gospel as we face the perils of postmodernism?

2. Preach the whole Scriptures

 

In our evangelism we must start further back and nail down the turning points in redemptive history.

 

(i) The primacy of biblical theology

Many evangelistic tools take a systematic theological approach, eg asking the following questions: What is God like?  What is sin?  What is sin’s solution?  “There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this pattern, as long as most of the people to whom it is presented have already bought into the Judean-Christian heritage”, or have some knowledge of the creation-fall-redemption-glory pattern.  But if we present this pattern to someone who is biblically illiterate, or have been influenced by a form of New-Age, they may hear something completely different.  Take the classic line “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”  This is comforting to hear, but consider the potential confusion: which God do you mean?   What does it mean for him to love me? Why is this a surprise – I’m lovable anyway, aren’t I?  What is this wonderful life – wonderful kids/sex/finance/fun – can I define the terms?

This is evident in communication with the postmodern, biblically illiterate, young generation.  This was the conversation of a Christian trying to communicate with an undergraduate who had come along to a Christian meeting out of mild curiosity to find out what Christianity is:

 

“I told him Jesus was the solution to his problem.  He wondered, ‘What problem?’  I told him Jesus could forgive his sins.  He wondered, ‘Why is that necessary?’  I told him he could escape the fear of death.  He told me that he never really thinks about death.  He wasn’t trying to be difficult.  He was one of the most sincere students I’ve ever met.”

how to reach postmodern pluralism (1): question its value

From ‘The Gagging of God’ by Don Carson (Apollos), Chapter 12: On Heralding the Gospel in a Pluralistic Culture.  

What form should a faithful and wise articulation of the exclusive gospel of Jesus Christ take, as it confronts postmodern perils?

 

1. Question its value.

 

Often it is helpful to critique the intellectual, moral, and existential bankruptcy of the age.

“The problems of privatisation, relativism, philosophical pluralism, scepticism, postmodernity, and ethical ‘openness’ largely control the mental thought processess of most university students, and of a substantial member of others.”

Unsurprising, because “the notion that one particular religious figure and one religious perspective can be universally valid, normative, and binding upon all peoples in all cultures is widely rejected today as arrogant and intellectually untenable in our pluralistic world.” – Netland.  

Recognised or not, acknowledged or not, there is a profound and bitter emptiness at the hearts of many Westerners.  They want to experience transcendence, escape isolation, know God, and experience relationships that are not just trivial and transient.  This means that, rather than shaping the gospel to meet individual emptiness, we must present it as a gracious message which connects fallen humans with their good Creator, and with others who have experienced that Lord’s goodness, then they’ll want to hear more.  Their bankruptcy must be lovingly exposed, and not just on an intellectual level.