1. Have a Careful Public Discussion of an/the Entire Bible in Church

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:17 (ESV)

Through having a careful discussion of an/the entire Bible in the context of its church services, a Protestant church can, at least under certain circumstances, increase, among other things, the knowledge of God, the understanding of how to live rightly, the breadth of thought, the biblical literacy, the ability to deal with (tough) questions and the credibility of its members.[1]

Now, such discussion need not generally be completed under the leadership of one single pastor or in the period of one year, five years or ten years. Both churches and church members generally last longer than that. Furthermore, such discussion can take another form than a sermon. When it comes to biblical passages which are very controversial within the community, a public dialogue may sometimes be preferable.

Arguably, at least in many cases, the careful discussion of an/the entire Bible should not either wholly or partly relegated to other church activities, since these are generally less central and less well attended than church services. This is, of course, not at all to claim that additional discussion in other contexts (such as family devotions or church Bible studies) is impermissible.

2. Add Additional Readings

The idea here is to have readings in addition to the reading(s) of Scripture in Protestant church services, at least from Christian texts that have stood the test of time. I am thinking here particularly of texts of Church Fathers, but part of the readings could be drawn from texts of medieval Christians, Protestant Reformers and others. This is one of the best ways available to us to quickly steep a lot of Protestants in Christian tradition and it is not even that different from things already happening in some Protestant churches (think here of the reading of creeds or the quoting of Augustine or C.S. Lewis).

3. Refer to Resources

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if during church services people were made aware of helpful Christian resources? That could happen during the sermon, but a church might also have a special moment during the service in which a good book, video or conference is (quickly) recommended or at least brought to the attention of those present.

Referring to resources in church services could help Protestants to more quickly find helpful answers to their questions and strong arguments for their beliefs, while getting them of the back of their overworked pastors.

4. Diversify Your Speakers

A pastor typically has only a fraction of the total amount of the knowledge of a church community and it is at least generally the case that much of the knowledge that the pastor doesn’t have is knowledge which would be useful for many members of the community to have. In light of this, we might conclude that it is a good idea if others beside the pastor give one or more talks within the context of church activities.

Isn’t there something to say for inviting the businessman, doctor or therapist in your church to speak on something on which they are an expert? Perhaps the gardener, factory worker or rubbish man in your church has something to add to the pastor’s ideas about faith and work? Maybe one of the mothers has some helpful things to say about parenting? Perhaps some of the elderly can help us see that things can be done differently than we are doing them now? Maybe some of the younger members can help us understand what challenges young Christians are facing at school, college or university?

5. Make & Establish Contact With Other Churches

If there is a ridiculous number of church denominations and independent churches today, then Protestants are largely to blame for this. Many Protestants have been schismatics or at least promoters of a deep sort of separation, even while many other Protestants have tried (often unsuccessfully) to keep everyone together. Indeed, perhaps the vast losses of Protestant churches in the West are not entirely surprising given how common it has been for Protestants to leave a church, never to return.

Of course, it is not always wrong to distance ourselves from a person or a group of people, but neither is it always wrong to reduce the distance between ourselves and others. One simple way of reducing the distance between a Protestant church and other (local) churches involves making and establishing contact between leaders of the various churches. This could be part of a larger strategy of seeking cooperation or even (re)union with other churches, but need not be. A Protestant church having a good relationship with other (local) churches is already something good (in general).

6. Sing a Mix of Beautiful Old and New Songs

Over the centuries many beautiful Christian songs have been written and many of them were written by Protestants. Let me just mention five older songs and two more recent songs that I find beautiful: Nearer, My God, to Thee; Up From the Grave He Arose; Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing; Hark! The Herald Angles Sing; O Come, O Come, Emmanuel; There is a Redeemer and O Praise The Name.

If the way a Protestant church survives in the West is to be both ancient and modern, then maybe that is also the way it sings.

7. Start a Course on Christian Life

Protestant churches establishing a course on living as a Christian will, at least under certain conditions, lead to more Protestants confidently living in a largely mainstream (or even ‘catholic’) Christian way. That will be more likely if instruction is complemented with argumentation and if the course is partially written or at least reviewed by knowledgeable Christians who are from other parts of the world and from other traditions (think of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

The course could cover a whole host of topics such as study, friendship, marriage, celibacy, sex, procreation, parenting, family life, mission, helping others, church involvement, aging and death. Too be clear, the course materials need not provide people with a flawless description of ‘the Christian life’ to be of great benefit. If participants were merely (and humbly) presented with a vision for Christian living that was informed by a/the Bible, Christian tradition and scientific research, that might already benefit them greatly, especially if they were raised in a non-Christian home.

8. Establish One or More Reading Groups

Reading groups can be great for churchgoers who want to grow in knowledge and understanding and/or wish their pastor would offer more in-depth treatments of certain topics and/or would like to read books by well-known (Christian) scholars, but struggle to do so alone and/or would love to talk, discuss and argue about theological, philosophical and scientific matters with Christian peers.

If not for the sake of these kind of people, then, arguably, such groups should at least be established for the sake of the reputation of Protestant churches, which are now not commonly thought of as communities deeply committed either to serious study or to searching for greater understanding and truth.

9. Ask for Advice from Christians and Non-Christians

The idea here is roughly churches, church leaders or church members actively seeking out advice from people on how the church and/or its activities can be improved. Those at least initially opposed to this do well to consider (1) that church leaders by themselves typically do not know either all that can be improved about a church and its activities or all the ways in which the improvement can be brought about and (2) that asking for advice on how things can be improved is or can be a pretty effective way of getting a better understanding of what can be improved and how that might be accomplished.

10. Strengthen & Equip Those Who Go Where the Non-Christians Are

Perhaps church leaders sometimes spend too much time and energy trying to attract non-Christians to a few weekly, monthly or yearly church activities and too little time and energy strengthening, training and equipping church members who have close contact with non-Christians on an almost daily basis.

Even if such training is ordered towards mission and evangelism, it should perhaps not start at the level of learning useful conversational skills, but at the level of learning to ask God for more confidence that basic Christian claims are, in fact, true (if you haven’t noticed, serious doubt is widespread among at least Protestants in the West) and for a stronger desire to speak to others about core Christian claims and related matters.

Concluding Remarks

Hopefully, at least some of the advice above will seem to be good advice. I realize that an extensive case for the ten suggestions has not been offered here and that (consequently) some readers may have been left unpersuaded. Perhaps a fuller defense can be offered at some later time. Lastly, if there is a Protestant church doing more or less what has been suggested here, I would like to know about it, especially if it is thriving in the tough conditions of the West.

---

[1] Talk of ‘an/the entire Bible’ may be confusing to some readers. It partly reflects an attempt to do justice to the fact that a modern Bible (e.g. an ESV Bible) is not, in one sense, the Bible.

At the end of this series of posts I’m going to present an account of God informed by and evidenced with the ESV text and Greek text (BGT) of Ephesians of BibleWorks 9.

Here is a fifth building block for this account which is based on Ephesians 1:22-23 and 2:1-7:

God subjected all things to Jesus and gave him as head over all things to the ekklesia, which is his body. They were dead in their trespasses and sins, but God being rich in mercy, because of His great love for them, made them and Paul alive together with Christ and raised them and Paul up with Christ and seated them and Paul with Christ in the heavenly places through Christ, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace through kindness to them and Paul through Christ Jesus.[1]

---

[1] When it comes to the seating with Christ this might be explained in terms of being represented by Christ or in terms of the preparation of places that they will occupy in the future or as something yet to be done but spoken of as something that has already happened.

This is the third post in a series of blogposts highlighting some of the similarities between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels. For this post I have made use of the Greek text and the ESV text of BibleWorks 9.

Descending Spirit

“And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.” John 1:32 (ESV). All four Gospels contain indications that the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus in the context of his baptism (see also Mark 1:9-10, Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:21-22).

Will Baptize with the Holy Spirit

All four Gospels contain indications that John believed that the one to come after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit. “I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'” John 1:33 (ESV). See also Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8 and Luke 3:16.

Son of God

All four Gospels contain indications that Jesus is a/the Son of God. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 (ESV). See also Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 and Luke 1:35.

This is the second post in a series of blogposts highlighting some of the similarities between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels. For this post I have made use of, among other things, the Greek text and the ESV text of BibleWorks 9.

Rejection of Jesus

First, all four Gospels indicate that Jewish people rejected Jesus or some aspect of him. According to John’s Gospel, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” (John 1:11 ESV) In the Synoptics there are different versions of the saying or a number of sayings along the lines of a prophet being without honour in his hometown and among his relatives (Mark 6:4, Luke 4:24 and Matthew 13:57). In Luke 9:22 Jesus says that the Son of Man must be rejected by the elders, chief priests and scribes (cf. Mark 8:31). Note also Jesus’s referring to Psalm 118 in the Synoptics (Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10 and Luke 20:17).

Children of God

Second, all four Gospels contain indications that (the historical) Jesus taught and/or ‘invited’ disciples of his to treat YHWH as a father. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,” (John 1:12 ESV). “Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.”” (Mat 6:9 ESV). “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” (Mar 11:25 ESV).

Jesus went to John

In the first post I indicated that in all four Gospels John the Baptist is portrayed as a lesser figure than Jesus and as one who prepared the way for him. But all four Gospels also make clear to readers that Jesus went to John the Baptist. Matthew made it most clear that Jesus went to John to be baptized and Mark made it most clear that Jesus was in fact baptized by him (cf. Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 2:51, 3:3, 7, 21; John 1:29-34).

Introduction

While working on my master’s thesis, “James K.A. Smith and Virtues: An Analysis and Evaluation“, it became clear to me that there had not been much published or even posted on the topic of James K.A. Smith and virtues. In fact, the thesis, for all its faults, at least contains some of the earliest written discussions of particular virtue passages in Smith’s growing corpus. I’m not going to repeat everything here that is in the thesis (which you probably shouldn’t read in its entirety), but I have made some use of it for writing this post.

James K.A. Smith, for those of you who don’t know, is a Christian philosopher and the author of many books and articles, who was born in 1970 in Canada and now teaches at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. His most recent book, On the Road with Saint Augustine: A Real-World Spirituality for Restless Hearts, was published just last month.

Some Influences

Augustine of Hippo has definitely had a major impact on Smith, but when it comes to his thinking about virtues Alasdair MacIntyre and Aristotle may well have been more influential. There is a lot of evidence for this including the naming of Aristotle and/or MacIntyre in the context of virtue passages, frequent references to the 1984 edition of MacIntyre’s After Virtue as well as the following passage in Smith’s Awaiting the King:

“Akin (and indebted) to the work of Stanley Hauerwas, my argument regarding liturgical formation is broadly “MacIntyrean,” inheriting Alasdair MacIntyre’s retrieval and renewal of an Aristotelian and Thomistic emphasis on habit, character, and virtue – and hence narrative, tradition, and community.”[1]

Virtue Passages

There are quite a number of virtue passages spread out over Smith’s writings. Many of them are found in Smith’s Cultural Liturgies trilogy (Desiring the Kingdom, Imagining the Kingdom and Awaiting the King) and at least many if not most of these passages are dealt with in my thesis. But many of the virtue passages are found elsewhere, for example, in Smith’s more popular-level book, You Are What You Love.

Now, it is possible to draw up an account of virtues on the basis of or informed by virtue passages in Smith’s writings and that is something which I have done in the context of my thesis. Based on that Smithian virtue account, I have given a shorter account below. Hopefully, reading this account will give you a pretty good understanding of some claims and beliefs of Smith about virtues.

A Brief Smithian Virtue Account

Human virtues are good bodily dispositions. They are goal-oriented because they are aimed at that particular communal way of life that is the good life (also known as the kingdom of God), of which virtues themselves are a part. In addition to human virtues, there are also human vices, which are bad bodily dispositions. At least a lot of human action is partially the result of virtues or vices.

At least the following dispositions are human virtues: the disposition to love, the disposition to be just, the disposition to be compassionate, the disposition to be kind, the disposition to be humble, the disposition to be meek, the disposition to be patient, the disposition to tolerate, the disposition to be longsuffering, the disposition to be merciful, the disposition to forgive and the disposition to hope.

Human beings can only have virtues through acquiring them and that through repeated (body-shaping) action in the context of participating in virtue-forming practices, such as (proper) Christian prayer, confession and church services. Mere participation in such practices does not guarantee that someone will turn out fully virtuous and fully aimed at the good life. The outcome depends in part on how much one participates in virtue-forming practices and vice-forming practices.

Some Concerns and Questions

Some (including Smith himself) might have concerns and questions about aspects of the virtue account above. You might wonder, for example, whether it is really the case that human virtues can only be acquired through action by a human agent. Couldn’t virtues also be infused or otherwise formed by God in a human being? Couldn’t someone (Jesus perhaps?) be / have been innately or naturally virtuous? Are virtues only formed in the context of Christian practices? What about Jewish or Islamic practices? Do they only form vices?

---

[1] James K.A. Smith, Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 170.

Perhaps. Why is this my answer? Partly because I’m not sure whether or not there is a contradiction between Isaiah 45:5 and John 1:1. If there is, Isaiah 45:5 would be a big problem (or lead to a big problem) for at least many Christians, because at least many Christians believe (1) Isaiah 45:5 is true, (2) John 1:1 is true and (3) Isaiah 45:5 and John 1:1 cannot both be true and also contradict each other.

Let me start by listing Isaiah 45:5 and John 1:1 as they appear in the ESV text of BibleWorks 9:

I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, (Isa 45:5 ESV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Joh 1:1 ESV)

You see no problem at all? Well, look what happens if the Greek versions of Isaiah 45:5 and John 1:1 are listed:

ὅτι ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλὴν ἐμοῦ θεός καὶ οὐκ ᾔδεις με (Isa 45:5 BGT)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (Joh 1:1 BGT)

It is pretty reasonable (but not necessarily right) to conclude that in Isaiah 45:5 it is affirmed that only ὁ θεός is divine and that it is affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος is divine (in the same sense as ὁ θεός is divine), but not is (identical to) ὁ θεός. Of course, if only ὁ θεός is divine (in the sense in which ὁ θεός is divine), then it must be false that ὁ λόγος is divine (in that sense) but is not identical to ὁ θεός, at least if we are talking about the same time and if it cannot simultaneously be the case that only ὁ θεός is divine in that sense and ὁ θεός is not the only one divine in that sense.

You might not be tracking at this point so let me say something more simple: It is pretty reasonable to conclude that Isaiah 45:5 affirms that only one being is divine and to conclude that John 1:1 affirms that two beings are divine. It cannot be the case at the same time that only one being is divine and two beings are divine (unless, of course, that can be the case, but that seems pretty unlikely).

Now, there is no contradiction between Isaiah 45:5 and John 1:1 in at least the following four cases:

(A) It is not affirmed in Isaiah 45:5 that only ὁ θεός is divine in the sense in which ὁ θεός is divine and it is affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος is divine in that sense.

(B) It is affirmed in Isaiah 45:5 that only ὁ θεός is divine in the sense in which ὁ θεός is divine and it is not affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος is divine in that sense.

(C) It is affirmed in Isaiah 45:5 that only ὁ θεός is divine in the sense in which ὁ θεός is divine and it is affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος is divine in that sense, but it is not affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος and ὁ θεός are not identical.

(D) It is affirmed in Isaiah 45:5 that only ὁ θεός is divine in the sense in which ὁ θεός is divine and it is affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος is divine in that sense, but both affirmations involve a different moment of time.

Many Christians would prefer the A state of affairs over the B, C and D states of affairs, believing that ὁ λόγος (the second member of the Trinity) is never identical to ὁ θεός (either the first member of the Trinity or the Trinity as a whole) and that ὁ λόγος is always divine in the same sense as ὁ θεός.

However, the B state of affairs seems much more likely to me. It does look very much like it is affirmed in Isaiah 45:5 that only ὁ θεός is divine in the sense in which ὁ θεός is divine, or something along those lines, and ὁ λόγος and ὁ θεός do seem to differ from each other in John 1:1 and if that is the case then it is not very likely (but admittedly not inconceivable) that it is affirmed in John 1:1 that ὁ λόγος is divine in the same sense as ὁ θεός is divine. That would involve ignorance of Isaiah 45:5, misinterpretation of Isaiah 45:5, rejection of Isaiah 45:5 or something like that.

Would it be a big problem for Christians if the B state of affairs were actual? Maybe not. Perhaps it would not be a big problem if ὁ λόγος and ὁ θεός are both divine but in different senses of the term.

Of course, a Christian could also take the position that A, B, C and D are all false and there is a contradiction between Isaiah 45:5 and John 1:1, but that that is no problem. (Either because Isaiah 45:5 is false, John 1:1 is false or both verses can be true even though they contradict each other). That would be an extreme position to take. Most Christians would want to affirm that Isaiah 45:5 is true, John 1:1 is true and there is no contradiction between them. Would they be right? I’m not sure at this point.

I would like to highlight some of the similarities between John and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke (or at least between modern reconstructions of them) in a series of posts, partly because there is a tendency to emphasize the differing of John’s Gospel from the others. For this post, I have made use of the Greek text and the ESV text of BibleWorks 9.

Jesus & God

First of all, although there is no synoptic version of John 1:1-3, in all four Gospels Jesus is closely associated with and also distinguished from God or, more precisely, the divine being and agent referred to as θεός and ὁ θεός, arguably the very same divine being and agent called אֱלֹהִ֑ים or ὁ θεὸς (LXX) in Genesis 1:1.

Jesus & Light

Second, Jesus is closely associated with light in at least three of the Gospels (John, Matthew and Luke). In John’s Gospel Jesus says that he is the light of the world and that the person who follows him will never walk in darkness (John 8:12). Now, is this sort of thing completely foreign to the synoptics? No, note for example Matthew’s description of Jesus going to live in Capernaum as a fulfilment of prophecy of Galilean people seeing “a great light” (Matthew 4:12-16). Note also Simeon saying in Luke that he has seen God’s salvation which is “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (Luke 2:25-32). And note that in Matthew’s description of the transfiguration Jesus’s face “shone like the sun” and his clothes “became as white as light” (Matthew 17:2). Moreover, in Matthew’s Gospel the-light-of-the-world terminology (which has deep roots in Isaiah) is also used by Jesus but then it is applied to followers of his (Matthew 5:14).

John lesser than Jesus

Third, in all four Gospels John the Baptist is portrayed as a lesser figure than Jesus and as one who prepared the way for Jesus. John “was a man sent from God” but he “was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.” (John 1:6, 7). He preached that someone would come after him who was mightier than him (Mark 1:7) and it was not to him, but to Jesus that it was said from heaven: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:11).