In anticipation of speaking at the AFES NTE in December, I am at the moment up to my neck in some of the debates surrounding issues like “What is the Gospel?” (McKnight versus Piper et al) and Imputation (Gundry versus Horton et al).

My (eccentric?) response to these debates has me reflecting on my own theological inheritance.

I was raised in a Baptist context, shaped in a conservative evangelical environment (AFES) and educated at Moore College. And I’ve discovered that this puts you in an unusual position: namely, often agreeing with both sides of a debate in which the contributors understand themselves to be at loggerheads.

For example, the claims of scholars like McKnight and Wright that the gospel is essentially the message of the way in which the story of Jesus completes and brings to a climax the story of Israel present no crisis: they are simply what I learned from Donald Robinson and others.

That the Gospels are the gospel: well, that’s just C H Dodd, with Donald Robinson and John Dickson’s work developing those themes.

And the idea that we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (a subjective genitive) was an exegetical possibility/probability that I learned from (among others) Torrance, Phillip Jensen and Donald Robinson.

Similarly, the “hear I stand” feel of the debate on imputation is somewhat blunted for me by Broughton Knox’s reserve about imputation as an exegetically grounded account of justification. I’m not sure yet where I land on this one, but if I were to land on a non-double-imputation account, I wouldn’t feel like that was a radical betrayal of my tradition.

And, even something as passionately argued as inerrancy is nuanced in the Australian (and UK?) context by T. C. Hammond’s, D. B. Knox’s and Donald Robinson’s strong affirmation of the inspired and infallible nature of scripture which did not feel the need to include inerrancy.

Conversely, the robust defense of reformed theological emphasis of a Piper or a Carson also feel like the soil in which I was planted.

So, maybe:

1) There is a real, either/or debate here that my tradition does not alert me to.

2) The either/or of these debates are overcooked, and the Aussie inheritance offers a third way.

3) The either/ors are there, but are differently configured from the way they are being played out in the USA due to my background.

Anyway, not sure why I felt like I needed to tell you that, but there you go.

(PS: I haven’t forgotten the promised series on suffering. Back to that soon.)