revisioning transformation: towards a systematic proto-evangelical paradigm of the christian life

334 Pages·2016·1.49 MB·English

REVISIONING TRANSFORMATION:
TOWARDS A SYSTEMATIC
PROTO-EVANGELICAL PARADIGM
OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

DAVID I. C. SCOTT (B.A., M.A.)

FIRST SUPERVISOR: PROF MARTYN PERCY
SECOND SUPERVISOR: PROF PHILIP SHELDRAKE

SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WALES
TRINITY SAINT DAVID IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

2 0 1 6
ABSTRACT

Within the contemporary church, usage of the term transformation has become
commonplace. However, the way it is understood is often misguided. This study
provides an original synthesis that points the church towards the need to express
and live out a full, integrated, effectual and distinctly Christian vision of
transformation.

Self-identified “evangelicals” continue to explore the possibility of authentic
transformation. There is now a proliferation of perspectives on the nature and
process of Christian formation, some of which attempt a revision through
ecumenical “ressourcement” or interdisciplinary methods. These often-conflicting
approaches leave a landscape characterised by pluralism, division, fragmentation,
confusion, relativism, individualism, pragmatism and subjectivism. Although
evangelicalism is seen by some as a restorationist movement that seeks to draw
the church back towards a prototypal faith, self-identified “evangelicals” clearly
exhibit differences in their beliefs and practices. Both the absence of a common,
coherent and integrated vision, and the lack of transformation itself, are often
simply accepted and affirmed.

In this thesis, it is argued that the only way to move towards the possibility a
cohesive, integrated, broad, effectual and distinctly Christian vision of
transformational theology, is through an approach that is grounded in rational-
linguistic truth. Such a method is typified by J. I. Packer. His approach to
integrating the concerns of theology and spirituality is used as the initial basis
towards pursuing a “proto-evangelical” approach to Christian formation. In order
to determine the breadth of Packer’s approach, he is brought into dialogue with
Maximus Confessor. This critical conversation between two “theologians of the
Christian life” allows exploration into the scope and diversity of a distinctly
Christian view of transformation, and the seeking out of common characteristics
in its nature and practice. This all provides a solid basis upon which to be able to
outline an original synthesis.

Word Count: 92,569

-ii-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere thanks and appreciation to my supervisors Dr Martyn Percy and Dr Philip
Sheldrake for their wise guidance and support in the writing of this thesis.

Thanks to Dr Alister E. McGrath and Dr Augustine Casiday for kindly providing
comments on chapters two and three respectively.

Thanks also to Dr Corné J. Bekker, Dr Dewi Hughes and Dr Michael Lloyd.

Soli Deo Gloria

-iv-
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Problem 1
1.2 Aim of Research 10
1.3 Area of Research 12
1.3.1 Transformation and the Christian Life 12
1.3.2 The Meaning of “[Proto-]Evangelical” 17
1.4 Research Methodology 25
1.4.1 Introduction 25
1.4.2 Theology and the Christian Life 26
1.4.3 J. I. Packer and Maximus Confessor: Primary Sources 29
1.5 Literature Review 31
1.5.1 Transformation in Contemporary “Evangelicalism” 31
1.5.2 Secondary Sources on Packer and Maximus 46
1.5.3 Summation 49
1.6 Conclusion 50
1.6.1 Brief Synopsis 50
1.6.2 Delineation of Chapters 51
CHAPTER TWO: THE “SYSTEMATIC SPIRITUALITY” OF J. I. PACKER 54
2.1 Introduction 54
2.2 Prolegomena 57
2.3 The Nature of God 63
2.4 God in Creation 66
2.5 God in Christ 71
2.6 Union with Christ 75
2.7 Living in Christ 79

-v-
2.7.1 Divine Initiation 79
2.7.2 Human Response 83
2.7.3 Growth in Community 92
2.8 Conclusion 102
CHAPTER THREE: THE “SYNTHETIC VISION” OF MAXIMUS CONFESSOR 106
3.1 Introduction 106
3.2 Christology and Integration 108
3.2.1 Introduction 108
3.2.2 Christ and the Trinity 111
3.2.3 The Two Natures of Christ 112
3.2.4 Christ the Mediator 113
3.3 Anthropology and Deification 116
3.3.1 Introduction 116
3.3.2 The Three Modes of Personhood 117
3.3.3 Man and the Cosmos 121
3.4 Bibliology, Ecclesiology and Cosmology 122
3.5 Integrating Knowledge and Praxis 125
3.5.1 Introduction 125
3.5.2 Forms of Divine Knowledge 127
3.5.3 Theoria and Praxis 129
3.6 Conclusion 130
CHAPTER FOUR: DIALOGUE AND ANALYSIS 133
4.1 Introduction 133
4.2 Framing Transformation 135
4.2.1 Propositional Doctrine 135
4.2.2 Lived Experience 138
4.3 Foundational Categories 139
4.3.1 The Triune God 139
4.3.2 The Person of Christ 141

-vi-
4.3.3 Death and Resurrection 145
4.3.4 Holy Scripture 147
4.3.5 Summation 152
4.4 Anthropology and Transformation 153
4.4.1 Transitional Modes 153
4.4.2 Relational Modes 158
4.4.3 Ecclesial Modes 165
4.5 Knowledge and Transformation 171
4.5.1 Introduction 171
4.5.2 Rational Knowledge 174
4.5.3 Knowledge-in-Union 176
4.5.4 Applied Knowledge 181
4.5.5 Summation 183
4.6 Conclusion 186
CHAPTER FIVE: TRANSFORMATIONAL THEOLOGY I – THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK 190
5.1 Introduction 190
5.2 Theological Method and Transformation 192
5.3 The Ground of Transformation 195
5.3.1 Trinitarian Dynamics 195
5.3.2 Anthropological Implications 198
5.3.3 Christology and Transformation 206
5.4 The Context for Transformation 209
5.4.1 Positional Union with Christ 209
5.4.2 The Nature and Position of Scripture 211
5.4.3 Experiential Union with Christ: Living in the Trinity 215
5.4.4 Experiential Union with Christ: Personhood and Community 220
5.5 Conclusion 226

-vii-
CHAPTER SIX: TRANSFORMATIONAL THEOLOGY II – LIVED EXPERIENCE 229
6.1 Introduction 229
6.2 Integral Knowledge 230
6.2.1 Revelation and Transformation 230
6.2.2 The Nature of Divine Knowledge 233
6.2.3 The Means of Divine Knowledge 235
6.3 Formational Worship I: Orientation Towards God 237
6.3.1 The Integrated Response to God 237
6.3.2 The Essence of Divine Engagement 240
6.4 Formational Worship II: Scripture and Physicality 243
6.4.1 Introduction 243
6.4.2 Engaging with Scripture 245
6.4.3 Transformation and Physicality 250
6.5 Formational Worship III: Ecclesial Modes 253
6.5.1 The Gathered-Scattered Dialectic 253
6.5.2 Integrating Revelation and Response 255
6.5.3 Transformation as Witness 261
6.6 Conclusion 263
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION 265
7.1 Introduction 265
7.1.1 Executive Summary 265
7.1.2 Transformation and Christian Distinctiveness 268
7.1.3 The Imperative of Christian Formation 271
7.2 Renewing Christian Perspectives on Transformation 274
7.2.1 The Possibility of a “Proto-Evangelical” Approach 274
7.2.2 The Importance of a Rational-Linguistic Approach 275
7.2.3 The Unity and Diversity of a Rational-Linguistic Approach 277
GLOSSARY 281
BIBLIOGRAPHY 289

-viii-
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Problem
Within the contemporary church, usage of the term transformation has become
commonplace. However, the expressions of what it is, and how it occurs, are
often misguided. The divine call is for the whole church to be continually formed
towards Christlikeness and unity, in accord with the will of God. The ecclesial
focus often shifts towards more human-centred forms of development, which
results in a plurified ecclesial landscape characterised by fragmentation and
relativism. This problem can be seen within evangelicalism. Self-identified
“evangelicals” have continued to explore the possibility of authentic
transformation. This has led to a proliferation of perspectives on the nature and
process of Christian formation, some of which have attempted a revision through
ecumenical “ressourcement” or various interdisciplinary methods. Although
evangelicalism may be seen as a restorationist movement that seeks to draw the
church back towards a prototypal faith, self-identified “evangelicals” clearly
exhibit plurality in their beliefs and practices. This thesis sets out to demonstrate
the need to move towards expressing and living out a full, integrated, effectual
and distinctly Christian vision of transformation. It is argued that the only way this
can be done is through an approach grounded in rational-linguistic truth.

Rather than providing a solution to the aforementioned ecclesial problem, the so-
called “evangelical” landscape appears to affirm it. As a means of denoting a
distinct religious identity, the term evangelical has progressively become more
ambiguous. This “identity crisis” may be due to the fact that so-called
“evangelicalism” appears to be becoming increasingly more fragmented rather
than demonstrating unity. Today, this supposed cross-denominational movement
is believed to be so broad and diverse that it has become increasingly difficult to
1
define the commonalities. The term evangelical has been used to express
anything and everything; consequently, in one sense it has come to mean
nothing. Brian Harris has warned: “Evangelicalism is in danger of becoming a

1
Various perspectives have been expressed in Andrew D. Naselli and Colin Hansen, eds., Four
Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).

-1-
hyphenated movement. Increasingly its adherents find it necessary to qualify what
2
kind of evangelical they are.”

Despite being seen as a wide and diverse movement, it is often assumed that
evangelicalism is united around specific doctrinal tenants, promising a unified
theological understanding, rather than being disjointed and divided. Theologians
such as J. I. Packer have sought to defend the doctrinal unity within the
3
movement. The reason for doing so is clear – without the recognition and
demonstration of a unified expression of belief, the movement stands to express
openness towards conflicting beliefs and practices that stem from the individual
will, rather than divine intention. If there is singular objective truth that God is
willing and able to make known, then by definition it would be illogical for
persons to celebrate, affirm and accept contradictory and irreconcilable
perspectives. A true evangelical approach stands or falls on the possibility of there
being a common and universal narrative that persons are able to continually grow
in the knowledge of.

The well-known quadrilateral put forward by historian David Bebbington (i.e.
“biblicism,” “crucicentrism,” “conversionism” and “activism”) has been thought
4
to define the central characteristics of evangelicalism. In offering a broad
framework that is grounded in phenomenological study and research,
Bebbington’s intention was not to provide criteria that would lead towards
orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Because of its flexibility and ambiguity, his framework
allows space for some form of relativist plurality to be permitted within the
movement, over and above true unity around theological convictions. Today, the
evidence of such plurality is demonstrated by the diverse beliefs seen across the

2
Brian Harris, “Beyond Bebbington: The Quest for Evangelical Identity in a Postmodern Era,”
Churchman 122, no. 3 (2008): 201.
3
This is demonstrated in James I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden, One Faith: The Evangelical
Consensus (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004). Various other attempts have been made to outline
common beliefs among self-identified “evangelicals.” For example, see John Stott, Evangelical
Truth: A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity and Faithfulness (Nottingham, UK: IVP Academic,
2005); Christopher J. H. Wright, ed. The Cape Town Commitment: A Confession of Faith and a
Call to Action (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011).
4
David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s
(London: Routledge, 1988), 2.

-2-
5
so-called “evangelical landscape.” Given that a phenomenological study of self-
identified “evangelicals” is unable to provide any objective criteria for
discernment or orthodoxy, it would appear that so-called “evangelical” identity is
6
becoming increasingly confused. In regard to the presence of pluralism within
the movement, Steve Porter makes an important point:

The problem with pluralism of any kind is that if we do not actually
have knowledge of the reality in question independently of the
plurality of perspectives, then we cannot develop any criteria to
determine which perspectives or which parts of various perspectives
correspond to the reality in question. And if we do not have the means
to discriminate between the various perspectives or their parts, then all
perspectives and each part becomes either equally valid or equally
7
invalid. Relativism or scepticism prevails – take your pick.

As well as there being diversity in beliefs, the lived practices and expressions of
faith demonstrated in the lives of self-identified “evangelicals” appear to be
increasingly diverse. From a phenomenological perspective, it is difficult to
describe a distinctly “evangelical spirituality,” there appears to be so much
fragmentation, complexity and variety. Indeed, it is questionable whether it exists
as a distinct and fresh expression, given that it would have grown out of a wide
variety of traditions that preceded it, traditions both within and outside of

5
For a range of views, see Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum:
Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009).
See also Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical
Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011). Smith suggests that the plurality of
perspectives stems from a lack of biblical clarity. See also Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go
Beyond What is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the Problem of
Doctrinal Development,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, ed. Donald A.
Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 764. Vanhoozer believes that Smith “…fails to
distinguish the naive biblicism characteristic of solo scriptura from the critical biblicism that
characterises sola scriptura.”
6
Within a British context this is demonstrated in Robert Warner, Reinventing English
Evangelicalism, 1966-2001: A Theological and Sociological Study (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2007); Steve Clifford, ed. 21st Century Evangelicals: A Snapshot of the Beliefs and Habits of
Evangelical Christians in the UK (London: Evangelical Alliance, 2011); Stephen R. Holmes,
“Evangelical Theology and Identity,” in 21st Century Evangelicals: Reflections on Research by the
Evangelical Alliance, ed. Greg Smith (Watford, UK: Instant Apostle, 2015). The problem is that a
sociological method will always allow forms of individualism and relativism. Whether something
is right or true (or “evangelical”) becomes subjectively determined by specific individuals/groups
(who are self-identified as “evangelical”), rather than by an objectively revealed Word. A
sociological method cannot lead to any true consensus because there is the observance of beliefs
and practices that (to a greater or lesser extent) will always be distorted by the sinful nature of
humanity.
7
Steve L. Porter, “On the Renewal of Interest in the Doctrine of Sanctification: A Methodological
Reminder,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45, no. 3 (2002): 421.

-3-