Mission as Theological Education in Africa 7: Ten Reflections on Western Christian Missions in Africa in 2017

Africa is very large and very diverse.  So, it is with considerable trepidation that I offer some general reflections on Christian missions in Africa at the present time.  My hope is less to be taken as a last word on any of these points than to stimulate necessary discussion in the right places.  Also, missions in our day is often not from the West; it may be from the East or indigenous missions in Africa.  These points, however, are directed at missionary efforts from the West in Africa.  Over the past 30-50 years, missions from the West has changed considerably, and I would be hard-pressed to say that this change has been good.  Let someone else find where it has been (and we can all celebrate those instances), but here I, at times, cast a more critical eye on the situation.  At other times, I simply want to advocate a particular emphasis that is needed in missions in Africa (always understanding that individual calling is different from missiological analysis).  So, here are my ten reflections in 2017.

1.       Church Growth in Africa Means an Increasing Need for Theological Education.  Those who put out reports on Christian demographics note that the world’s Christian centre is now in Africa.  One statistic has it that, at the current rate, by 2050 40% of the world’s Christians will be in Africa.  This is due to the growth of Christianity in Africa, the population growth, and the decline of population and Christians in many parts of the ‘West’ (i.e., first world countries in Europe or colonized by Europeans).  Can we say that theological education might rise to the top of a list of priorities for mission in such a context?
2.       Missions Minus Church Equals What?  There are many missionaries from the West in Africa.  They often come with non-denominational mission organizations and are sent by non-denominational churches.  Non-denominational churches also exist and even proliferate in parts of Africa.  Would it be fair to say that the question of the ‘Church’ in any sense of the term needs to be asked by non-denominational missions and missionaries?  I’m about as anti-establishment as they come, but we are not simply about the business of mission work to individual believers, are we?  Where are the connections between churches in the West, mission organizations, and churches in Africa?  Where is the Church in the practice of missions?
3.       Missionaries without Training for the Job?  Missionaries are often more poorly trained today than they were in an end-of-the-world theological mission 70 or 80 years ago.  They are sometimes more poorly educated than those in Africa to whom they have come to minister.  This is not always the case, of course, but the dynamics producing under-educated missionaries should be noted.  Non-denominational churches in the West sending missionaries to Africa typically lack standards for theological education and sometimes oppose theological education.  Mega-churches like to train their own with a few classes.  Mission organizations need missionaries to keep the ‘administrative fees’ coming, and they do not want to turn away candidates by requiring too much education before heading to the field.  They may require 6 weeks of varied training—6 weeks!  Seminaries cost so much that nobody in their right mind would go $30,000 into debt in the US and then take on a missionary’s salary.  Missionaries want to get to the field quickly, and after a B.A. degree in, say, psychology, why lay the requirement of an M.A. degree in Bible on the candidate as well?  (Readers in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand may be better trained if their undergraduate degree was focussed on ministry training; Americans often have a liberal arts undergraduate degree with majors in anything other than religion.)  Besides, some will ask, missionaries are often more ‘practical’ than academic—do they really need all that education?  And so go the arguments, mostly unspoken, that support an under-educated missionary force from the West in Africa.  Here’s an idea: why not think of missionaries as the ‘Navy Seals’ of the Church?  Asking that question would both clarify the mission that they need to undertake and the necessary training for the mission.  [If you are somewhere in Africa and skipped the training you should have gotten, don’t leave: get the training you need as you continue your work.]
4.       Western Theological Influences.  All the mainline denominations are declining in the West.  They are all liberal, having given up core Christian beliefs decades ago.  They actually are now part of the mission field in the West, and we should all be discussing rebaptising converts from them should they come to faith.  (And, of course, we can still find many believers in them as their heretical turn is still recent.)  Yet they are wealthy institutions with considerable clout overseas.  Like Western governments, they can inflict their theological transgressions on the African Church—and they do.  How sad it is to watch academics with Western training lay their notions of academic excellence on the African Church—whether it is feminist or queer interpretations of Biblical texts or Western, sexual permissiveness.  African theology needs to resist Western theology not because Africa needs an African theology but because it needs an orthodox theology.  To do so, African churches need to resist the money from these Western, mainline denominations.
5.       Western Academic Influences.  Theological education in the West in the 20th century adopted an academic model.  The Church handed its young people over to academic institutions for training, received them back for vetting (‘ordination exams’), and then placed them in ministry.  This worked surprisingly well for a while, although not without increasingly obvious deficiencies (in theology and preparation for ministry).  In an increasingly post-Christian world, however, this only spells disaster for the Church.  But it is not a good model even if the training is done by an Evangelical or theologically orthodox seminary.  The challenge being faced now—though perhaps not seriously enough—is that the Western academic model for ministerial training still presents itself as the standard for ministerial training.  (A number of scholars in the West are critiquing it, though.)  Africa, however, is still in a position to reevaluate this model and needs to think through what training for the Church really should entail.  It should not just transfer the approach to theological education that the West came to adopt.  To start, why not train people for ministry in ministry, the way Jesus did his disciples, rather than in classrooms?  Core courses in Bible, theology, Church history, and ethics, of course, need to be taught, but many subjects in ministry would surely be better taught in the field.  When those core subjects are taught, they should be taught by committed believers who love God and serve the Church, not by academics who see their role to be to spread doubt, stand proudly above Scripture, and oppose the Church.  Also, why not place a heavier emphasis on spiritual formation?
6.       Africa Needs Biblical Scholars and Historical Theologians.  There are forces at work in Africa that lead to a preference for higher degrees in ministry and missions, not in Bible, theology, and Church history (and I prefer the combination ‘historical theology’).  Africans have more languages under their belts than do most Westerners, and this gives them an edge on studying their own contexts in higher level degrees.  Study that requires more language preparation (Greek, Hebrew, Latin) is something of a luxury, if not also a burden.  Moreover, the felt needs of the Church are largely the felt needs of the context: war, poverty, violence, theft, unstable governments, corruption, education, etc.  Biblical studies and historical theology seem like ivory tower fields of study in the face of so many felt needs.  Yet this is a mistake.  If the Church is to be built on a firm foundation, it needs Biblical scholarship and a connection to the historical Church, not just studies in African realities.
7.       The Church in Africa Faces Four Major Religious Challenges or Threats.  The first major challenge is from Western mainline denominations, spreading their non-Biblical and anti-orthodox theology in Africa and rewarding those who receive them with very attractive monetary sums, if not also flights to conferences in the West, and the prestige of being welcomed in halls of power.  Second, the Church in Africa faces the threat of traditional religion and practices in a post-colonial era.  With the resurgence of African nationalism has come a resurgence in African traditional religion.  Third, the Church in Africa faces the threat of Islam—as always—but increasingly so.  Since the 1970s, Islam has engaged in mission (dawa) using Middle Eastern wealth.  It has asserted itself into the food industry, education, and government in the process of attracting people to its faith and establishing itself as a social force.  It has also, in a number of areas, used violence to conquer others.  It has no concept of the separation of religion and state, and its victory in an area means domination of all people in that area.  (‘Islam’ means ‘submission’.)  Fourth, the Church in Africa faces the threat of the Prosperity Gospel.  Poor people are easily attracted to a theology that holds out the false hope of health and wealth, and they are easily persuaded by some fast talking evangelist who demonstrates in his own life that religion pays well.
8.       The Largest Protestant Denomination in Africa Needs Foreign Missionary Help.  The Anglican Church has grown exponentially in many parts of Africa over the past forty to fifty hears.  Over the same period, the Western wings of Anglicanism have increasingly self-destructed theologically and numerically as unbelievers took control of institutional power (this situation includes Southern Africa).  This has left orthodox Anglicans in the West trying to reestablish themselves, but they are often self-focussed in the process.  That is understandable, but this also means that the concept of a new Anglican network or denomination is being built around ‘orthodox’ theology and liturgy, not foreign missions.  Yet the Church needs to have foreign missions in its DNA else it ossifies rather than continues as an organism.  Moreover, some of the Anglican work from orthodox Anglicans in the West is ill-conceived, such as seed-funding properties to produce income.  This is ‘financial institution building’, and it all too often results in corruption or institutional maintenance, or both.  Of course, such financing does not have to end up this way, but be certain of this: this is not missions.  The Anglican Church in Africa, in many places, is in need of theological educators, but the Anglican Church in the West is not organized properly to fund and send theological educators.
9.       Southern Africa is in Particular Need.  Reports of Islamic attacks in West and East Africa are not in the news in Southern Africa.  Famine tends to be in the news in East Africa.  Yet there are unique problems and needs in Southern Africa.  First and foremost, the end of Apartheid in South Africa did not bring the end of political abuse; it just changed the persons in charge and, frankly, introduced corruption and reverse discrimination.  Some see only doom ahead, others remain hopeful, but almost everyone not in power seems to acknowledge that South Africa has deep-seated problems.  This situation has had its effect on the Church.  To overcome Apartheid, some denominations latched on to liberation and post-colonial theologies.  These lack Biblical and historical depth and are easily led rather by political and economic theories, by ideology not theology proper.  The result is that champions of the case against Apartheid are at times also champions of the newer, perverse teachings that advocate homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, and the like.  On the other hand, mainline Churches that defended Apartheid have, quite simply, lost the argument.  This leaves them adrift as to their theological moorings, and some now seem to reduce theology to political and social activism—‘public’ theology. (Being relevant to the situation is good, but the situation is not what defines theology.)  In consequence, the Church in South Africa is deeply wounded.  Christians wonder when the requirements for ‘forgiveness’ or ‘restitution’ will finally be met to satisfy the new lords of religion and society who want to extract a higher price for contrition.  For mission work, this all means that Southern Africa, especially South Africa, needs missionaries, but they will not necessarily be well received and will struggle to build any Church infrastructure.  The social instability also expresses itself in a lack of Church unity that is needed to build strong programmes, including and especially for orthodox, theological education.  The inter-denomination unity among Evangelicals in the West is simply not to be found, by and large, in South Africa.  Namibia is in a similar situation, Botswana, Swaziland, and Lesotho are small populations not in focus here, and Zimbabwe is a miracle in that it has not completely imploded by now under its self-destructive leadership.  Southern Africa needs help, and it needs missionaries with the highest qualifications.
10.   Mission Work in Africa Does Not Necessarily Need Service Over Long Periods in One Place.  Africa has often been spared the short-term mission phenomenon in some parts of the world, since it is more than a hop away by air and four times more expensive than the trip to Haiti from North America.  Africa has been a place where missionaries came to die, whether within weeks of arrival due to diseases in the 19th century or due to the needs on the field calling them to give their whole lives to missions.  In the 21st century, however, if missions were to be conceived as highly specialized persons coming in to offer what they can in various places, then missionaries would not come with the old notion of bringing the kitchen sink.  Especially if the great need in missions is quality teaching, then teachers will do well to move about to places where their courses may be taught—and the missionary educators need not imbed themselves in committees on local faculties.  There is long-term work to do in Bible translation, but much missionary work can be done with missionaries prepared to be on the move to where they can be most effective.  If this argument is not strong enough to persuade someone, then it may be helpful to know that a number of countries are tightening their visa policies such that missionaries will not have the choice to move on or stay—they will be told to move on!  Any supporters, especially supporting churches, in the West need to understand this: they should encourage missionary expertise and movement, not missionaries doing multiple tasks over a lifetime in one place.

Peace in Our Time?

The United States seems to be getting more and more angry.  [Note: this was written within hours of the latest mass shooting--in Las Vegas.] I would assume that, if South Africans can pick this up by watching world news on their TV sets, so can much of the rest of the world.  But South Africa constantly plays its own, tiring records of wrong to feed its own narrative of injustice, hate, and violence.  We are fed narratives of violence, no matter where we live, on a daily basis.

In America, this cultural anger is undoubtedly nursed and nurtured for quite a number of reasons, not just one.  The polarization of the country itself has to do with an aggressive ‘change’ agenda throughout the Obama presidency, followed up now with an ‘America Great Again’ change policy of the Trump presidency.  Both options for change—radically different—fed the culture with fears, anger, and hatred. Anger is surely also due to the financial crisis in 2008 that was met with socialist policies that did not restore the economy (when has socialism ever fixed economic crises instead of create them?).  The economic and educational challenges in American cities only get worse and are regularly misinterpreted as racial issues—so they become racial issues.  America has a race problem because it chose to see its social problems as racial, rather than the more serious, underlying problems that bring social divisions. One recent expression of anger, illustrating how inane this has all become, is the absurd display of rage at American football games when the national anthem is played.[1]

The daily news feeds anger in the populace.  News, whether the 90% of coverage from a hyper-liberal angle, or the 10% from a hyper-conservative angle, is primarily served as entertainment.  And what could be more entertaining than people cutting each other off, making outlandish statements, and offering ‘facts on the ground’ for the most outrageous challenges to human decency?

The international news is also a source of collective anger.  We watch the rapid Islamization of Europe and the United Kingdom, this religion of political dominance (‘Islam’ means ‘submission’—you can call that ‘peace’ if you wish!) finally getting its prize after its defeats by Charles Martel or twice at the gates of Vienna centuries ago, or in Spain, where it did establish a foothold for centuries before being defeated five hundred or so years ago. 

Europe, frankly, no longer has an answer to Islam or its uncontrolled immigration.[2]  Having opposed the Church for a century, Europeans now only believe one thing: that nothing is believable.  Having lost any sense of innocence in the first half of the 20th century, they have now lost not only their identity but also the wherewithal to form an identity (ask Tony Blair about his ‘multiculturalism’ agenda that has left British society reeling).  Europeans have also lost their sense of purpose, illustrated, no less, in their unwillingness to have children.  This is ripe soil for an invasion of people with a purpose and with an identity who believe in themselves sufficiently to out-breed native Europeans within two generations (native Europeans are not having enough children to replenish their numbers).  Yet the Islamic take-over of financial sectors (call them ‘investments’!), neighbourhoods, schools, the building of mosques with foreign money, the murders, and the raping of Europeans are all factors contributing to an ever increasing sense of social anger.  Of course, Europeans who do not believe in belief struggle to understand a religion with strong beliefs, especially of this sort, and their anemic, impotent version of Christianity (choose any state Church you like as an example) offers them no counter-paradigm.  Frankly, there is no longer a solution to this challenge, and the ‘What if’ that Charles Martel might have asked himself about the possible invasion of Islam into Europe in the 8th century had he not stopped it can finally be answered this century.  Wait a bit and you will see.

Anger.  It is seething in Europe and America, boiling over.  Anger about immigration, anger about a madman in North Korea, anger about American foreign policies that never seem to get anything right for three generations, anger about the killings in the Middle East, anger about the quiet take-over by China and the ever-advancing face of Islam in Africa.  Half the United States is frothing at the mouth in anger at the president, and the president appears to be a man who has vowed to get into a bar brawl on a daily basis.  Even our entertainment and entertainers are serving up anger during any hours of rest we might find.

Christians, too, are angry—or are struggling with anger.  More Christians in our day are being martyred for their faith than ever in the history of Christianity.[3]  They are being persecuted in the West, whether in the United States,[4] the United Kingdom,[5] or Australia.[6]  Of course, Christians have known since Jesus’ last days in Jerusalem before he himself was put to death by both the Jewish and Roman authorities that they would face persecution.  Jesus warned his disciples of this—their entry into the time of tribulation in the last days that began with his own crucifixion (Matthew 24).  And Paul stated flatly that ‘all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived’ (2 Timothy 3.12-13).

Christians are also angry at the take-over of once strong, soundly orthodox, missionally engaged denominations in the West.  Every mainline, Protestant denomination in first-world nations has capitulated or is in the process of capitulating to the post-Christian, even anti-Christian, culture of the West.  Every one of them is declining and has been since, typically, the 1960s.  The ongoing ruination of the Church by its ‘leaders’ is only stemmed by the new, orthodox Christian denominations that are picking up the pieces of orthodoxy and soldiering on in the fight of faith.

So, what are we to do with this anger?  In his letter to his co-worker, Titus, Paul contrasts a life before and a life after coming to Christ:

Titus 3:1-11 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,  2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people.  3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.  4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,  5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,  6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,  7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.  9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.  10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,  11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

In this treasure of a text, we see Paul’s pastoral advice on the somewhat similar issues of his day.  He addresses a Church under variable levels of persecution; he himself would soon be put to death in Rome.  He also addresses living in a culture of hate: ‘hated by others and hating one another’ (v. 3).  He addresses irrelevant divisions in the Church: ‘foolish controversies’ (v. 9).  He addresses more serious divisions in the Church: ‘have nothing more to do with’ the person who ‘stirs up division, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned’ (vv. 10-11). 

Note that Paul does not call for dialogue and unity over heretical teaching, as, e.g., the Archbishop of Canterbury regularly does these days as he undermines both Scripture and the historic Church on issues of homosexuality and transgenderism.  Paul’s solution to false teaching, to the contrary, is not to baptize it into the Christian Church; quite the opposite.  While imagining himself to be the architect of unity for the Church, the Archbishop is actually, in Paul’s words, the one who ‘stirs up division’ by entertaining false teaching in the Church.[7]  Paul, in saying these things, is laying out a pathway to peace for a persecuted Church in an angry world and in the face of false teaching and division.  He is giving practical advice: warn such a person twice, then have nothing to do with him.  This advice is not feeding anger in the Church; it is avoiding an ongoing, festering, gangrene of false teaching that will only spread throughout the rest of the body if not amputated.

Paul also speaks to the deeper issues in a culture of anger and hate: ‘we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another’ (v. 3).  How does he envision moving beyond this situation?  First, he reminds this Church on Crete that they have experienced an immersion in the goodness and loving kindness of God our Saviour (v. 4).  The culture of anger has been penetrated with God’s love, and we are the beachhead for God’s loving kindness and goodness in the world.

Second, Paul reminds the Church that they have experienced God’s grace not because they were better than others or achieved God’s blessings through their works.  Rather, they are the recipients of God’s grace.  Thus, we have no claim of superiority over the culture except in what God has accomplished among us.  The culture of anger and hate that met one of the first missionaries to Fiji was appalling: he began ‘his missionary career by gathering the heads, hands, and feet of eighty victims who had been cooked and eaten.’[8]  The offer of peace to an angry world comes with a confession that we ourselves were once ‘children of wrath’ (cf. Ephesians 2.3)[9] and proceeds with the restoration of compassion and kindness in the face of injustices. Paul says, ‘Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them’ (Romans 12.14).

Third, Paul reminds the Church of the inward working of God, that heart-transforming work of the Holy Spirit which prophets from centuries earlier promised and that was now fulfilled through the outpouring of the Spirit in the days of the Church.  If the prophets (Isaiah 59.20-21; Jeremiah 31.31-34; Ezekiel 36.24-27) had in mind a transformation of the heart that would remove sin and restore righteousness, Paul extends this to a transformation of the heart that removes the poison of hate in society.

Fourth, Paul reminds this Church of the work of Jesus Christ, the central teaching of our faith.  God poured out the Spirit on us richly through Jesus Christ (note the work of the three Persons of the Trinity) (v. 6).  Through Jesus we received divine grace, whereby we were made righteous and were made heirs of eternal life.[10]  We do not offer the world an example of peace without offering them the Gospel: such peace comes only through Jesus Christ our Saviour.  As Paul says in Ephesians, Christ is our peace (Eph. 2.14).  As Peter said, ‘… there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4.12).  As John reports Jesus saying, ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid’ (John 14.27).

Fifth, Paul gives us the very decent word of advice that we need to replace our ‘passing our days in malice and envy’ (v. 3) with devoting ourselves to good works (v. 8).  We have already noted his sixth and seventh pieces of advice: avoid foolish controversies and have nothing to do with a divisive person after warning him twice.

We might add, from Ephesians 2, an eighth point: behind the disobedience, sinful passions of the flesh, and the culture of wrath, stands a spiritual battle for the hearts of humankind (vv. 1-2).  The ‘prince of the power of the air’ is at work in the children of disobedience.  As Christians, we recognise that ‘we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places’ (Ephesians 6.12).  Yet, thanks be to God, Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead and seated at God the Father’s right hand in the heavenly places, ‘far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come’ (Ephesians 1.20-21).  It is, indeed, because Christ reigns now that we can say, ‘He is our peace’ (Ephesians 2.14).

We live in an angry world.  Some—much—of it is justifiable, for the world is full of disobedience, persecution, war, and every variety of sin.  Yet, as believers, we are the bearers of peace—not simply ‘peace’ but God’s peace in Jesus Christ, a peace poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.  An empty West that has lost its desire to believe anything and its own identity and purpose is faced with two options: a peace of Islam through its totalizing politics and enforced submission to its laws and way of life, or a peace through Jesus Christ as God’s outpouring on a hateful world of His own goodness, loving kindness, grace, mercy, and love.

Apart from divine intervention, we know where things are headed.  Yet we also know our, the Church’s, role in the face of the impending doom: to pick up our crosses daily and follow Jesus, being his people in a hateful world.  We should not expect justice, but we can still be the physical representation of divine grace in our day.  Not the kumbaya unity and peace of the Church of England that no longer knows God’s standards, but the kind that witnesses to God’s peace in Jesus.  Jesus was not a divine hippie with flowers on his blue jeans and singing peace songs with his guitar; he went to the cross to suffer and die for the sins of the world and so bring God’s reconciliation and redemption to a hateful world.




[1] Sadly, the reaction to kneeling during football matches only galvinises patriotic groups, thus dividing the country even more and, more ominously, developing a nationalism in the country on the brink of another, possibly horrific war.  None of this is good.
[2] On this, I would say that Douglas Murray nails the problem but also leaves us without hope of a solution in his The Strange Death of Europe—Immigration, Identity, and Islam.
[3] See the reports on www.globalchristiannews.org.
[4] See Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America; online at https://firstliberty.org/undeniable/.
[5] See the ongoing cases in the United Kingdom addressed by Christian Concern at http://www.christianconcern.com/.
[6] See the catalogue of challenges Christians face in Australia: Margaret Colwell, ‘Documenting the tide of bigotry and hatred,’ Mercatornet (22 Sept., 2017); online: https://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/documenting-the-tide-of-bigotry-and-hatred/20446?utm_source=MercatorNet&utm_campaign=0b7cb18fc9-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e581d204e2-0b7cb18fc9-124674403 (accessed 23 Sept. 2017).
[7] In another of the Pastoral Epistles, Paul says that overseers in the Church ‘must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach (Titlus 1.9-11).
[8] Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions, 2nd ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1990), p. 251.
[9] While most commentators and some translations (e.g., the NIV), take this phrase to mean that we were objects of wrath before a righteous God because of our sins, I think that Paul might well have had his theology of Titus 3.3 in mind here as well.  Certainly, both doctrines are true—and taught even in Ephesians 2 itself!
[10] While translations regularly translate dikaien juridically, I think the moral focus of this passage requires a greater emphasis on the moral sense of this word: not ‘to justify’ but ‘to make righteous.’

The Second Week of Advent: Preparing for the peace of God

[An Advent Homily] The second Sunday in Advent carries the theme, ‘preparation for the peace of God’.   That peace comes with the birth of C...

Popular Posts