Shower Theology

Repenting of repentance

2012-01-31T10:56:00.002Z

So, I've been a Christian a while, through theological college, preaching for a few years. But last week I was brought up short and humbled. My understanding of repentance was seriously skewed, if not outright wrong. I am thankful to a talk I was listening to that highlighted it so clearly.

I had thought that repentance included within it a change of behaviour. I've repented of a sin if I have stopped doing it. As I say that, you will probably immediately see the problem with that understanding. You may get it, but it has taken me until now. If we have a biblical view of our sin, then I will only be free from my sin when I go to be with Christ or he comes back for us. Sin is all pervasive. How can I repent of my pride if repentance means not being proud anymore? I will struggle with pride until I die.

The knock on effects of understanding repentance as I did are major. For instance, in one of our Anglican confessions we say the line

We are heartily sorry, and repent of all our sins

How do I say that? I am not free of my sins. I haven't actually repented of them all.

Likewise, Jesus preaching The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" is strange (Mark 1:15). He must be saying "change your behaviour and believe." That is not a message of salvation by faith alone, but changed-life by your own effort and faith on top of that.

Similarly, John the Baptist says he baptises with water for repentance. But after me will come one... who will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt 3:11). If repentance is about changed behaviour that is likewise odd. If John's baptism is about a changed life, why the need for the Holy Spirit?

Even more odd is that John proclaims a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). Is John saying "change your life and then your sins will be forgiven"? In which case, forgiveness is the fruit of our efforts to change rather than change being the fruit of forgiveness.

And, what do we do with Jesus' words in Luke 17:3-4:

Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (ESV)

If repentance means trying to stop sinning, then in my mind someone who keeps coming back to say "I repent" clearly isn't genuinely repenting.

An understanding of repentance that includes stopping sinning, or trying to stop sinning, in whatever area being "repented of" is fundamentally problematic. If the Christian life can be summarised as "repentance and faith" that must mean trying hard not to sin and believing in Jesus. In short we've made faith in Jesus a top up for a lack of effort or ability in the area of repentance. But really, we've just got to try harder at this repentance thing...

Or not.

This is where going back to the greek word is helpful. The word translated repentance is the greek word metanoeo (occurring, with its cognates, only 56 times in the NT). It literally means "a change of mind." If we take that seriously, it immediately rules out behaviour. This starts to make sense of John the Baptist in Matt 3:8:

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Repentance is not about character or behaviour. No. Character, behaviour, godly thinking; that is all the fruit of repentance. So then, what is repentance? Here is my working definition (and this is work in progress):

Repentance is a change of mind whereby I recognise who God is and who I am, and that he is right and I am not, and that I need help.

A test case for this is Matt 12:41 and Jesus' reference to the preaching of Jonah:

The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.

If you read the story of Jonah, we don't know whether the people of Nineveh actually did behave differently (it is quite likely that they did - Jonah 3:10). However, the emphasis of the text is on them accepting that God is God, and accepting his verdict on them. Consequently they cry out to God (presumably for mercy) and want to turn from their evil ways.

The fascinating thing is that the only use of the greek word for "repent" in the LXX translation of Jonah 3:8-10 is used for God. He "repented" of the disaster he was going to bring on them. That is, he changed his mind.

So, perhaps, in repentance, we need to include the idea of crying out to God and a desire to change.

If all this is correct (and I need to do some more work on this), then this fits very well with Jesus' announcement in Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the good news!. Jesus is saying accept God's verdict and your need for help (repent) and believe the good news (i.e. put our trust in the gospel message).

It fits with John preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is not coming by means of changed behaviour, but by means of recognition of help-needed. John the Baptist is preparing the way for Jesus not by the moral improvement of the nation, but by their recognition of their need for a saviour.

So, repentance is not doing a U-turn so that the direction of our life changes. Repentance is the recognition that I need a U-turn, the desire for the U-turn to happen, and the realisation that I need help in order to do it. I am stuck on the wrong lane of the motorway knowing that I am going in totally the wrong direction and I want someone to pick me up and stick me in the other lane pointing me in the other direction.

The gospel is the news that God has indeed stepped into the world to bring repentance to fruition. Now that is good news.

Perspectives on Luke 22:35-38

2012-01-29T17:03:00.000Z

Jesus' words and the disciples' response in Luke 22:35-38 are confusing. Various theories have been put forward over 2000 years of history. In case you don't have a Bible to hand, here are the verses:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” ESV

Any view that is to be accepted needs to take into account a number of key factors:

1. The contrast between verse 35 and 36. Verse 35 is literally what happened. Luke 9 makes it very clear: Jesus sent his disciples out, giving them his authority to heal and to preach. Verse 36 is in contrast with the provision they received then.

2. The "for" at the start of verse 37. Verse 37 explains why the disciples now need to do what he says in verse 36. The reason is Jesus fulfilling (or bringing to completion) Isaiah 53:12: Jesus being numbered with the transgressors.

3. "It is enough" at the end of verse 38. Most naturally, this means "that number is sufficient." However, a very similar phrase is found in the greek version of the OT meaning "that is enough of that kind talk/behaviour."

4. The extent to which the state of verse 36 continues.

5. What happens in Luke 22:49-50 when Jesus' followers reach for their swords ready to defend their leader.

Combining these together we get various possibilities:

One takes verse 36 as literal and as lasting from Jesus' departure until Jesus returns. Thus, Christian leaders are to bear not only the word, but also the sword. Calvin rightly dismisses this view in his commentary as it does not fit with the rest of the testimony of the NT. For a start, Peter is rebuked for using his sword in vv. 49-50.

A second view takes verse 36 as metaphorical and lasting from Jesus' departure until his return. Jesus is not talking about real swords. He is being numbered with the transgressors and so they too will also. His point is then about the trouble that will face his followers. Consequently, they will need money, food and protection. The disciples, in talking about actual swords have got the wrong end of the stick. Verse 38 is therefore a rebuke. This is a very popular view. However, the problem with it is what you do with the references to swords. Jesus brings it up and makes a point of it. So we can't dismiss swords as insignificant. As a result, some say Jesus is referring to the sword of the Spirit. But the disciples would never have inferred that. Only in Ephesians 6 is the gospel message called "the sword of the Spirit." In which case, Jesus' rebuke in v. 38, for in this view, you have to read it as such, is slightly unfair.

A third view takes verse 36 as literal and symbolic for that moment only. Jesus is making a symbolic gesture. He knows Isaiah 53:12 is coming to its fulfilment. At his arrest he wants it to be seen that he is with a group of armed bandits. The weakness of this view is that it does not do sufficient justice to the contrast between verse 35 and 36.

So, a fourth view, which I preached on Sunday is that a reversal is going on that is necessary for us to understand the cross. In Luke 9 Jesus sends out his disciples on his mission of proclaiming the kingdom and healing the sick. He gives them his authority to be involved in his his mission. When joining with him they lacked nothing. Jesus wants to remind them of that in verse 35 so that they get the contrast with what is about to happen. Because now, as they get to the cross, the disciples are not joining with Jesus in his mission. He has to go this alone. Even more than that, and the point here in these verses, is that he is now being counted as a transgressor. Not only do they need to appear to be a bunch of transgressors (the third view above), but they are no longer under his protection (see verses 31-34). They are sinners on their own. And people without a saviour need money, storage and self-protection. Two swords are sufficient for this. This state of affairs continues until the Resurrection, and perhaps until Pentecost.

The point then, is that Jesus is teaching them that he is now with them in their need and insecurity as transgressors. This is more than just a symbolic act. As his arrest approaches, Jesus makes it clear that he is being arrested as the one who stands with and is numbered with transgressors. Now he is on his own, he is on his own for us all. He leaves the disciples defenseless in order to deal with their biggest problem, the problem that means Satan can demand to sift them - that is that they are transgressors.

Presbutera: More comments on Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women

2012-01-17T12:26:00.001Z

Another problem with the argument in George and Dora Winston's book is their handling of the word for elder: presbuteros.

First of all they look at the 66 instances of presbuteros in the NT. All well and good. And they point out that in most of the instances this refers to some sort of office: either the elders of the Jews, those in Revelation or elders of the church. All well and good. However, they rule out the Septuagint (the greek translation of the OT) as inadmissible evidence arguing that it is the current usage of the word that determines its meaning. The problem is of course, that the NT writers often quote the Septuagint in their writing. In which case, it is not inadmissible evidence at all.

THe word presbutera (the feminine of presbuteros) occurs only once in the NT, in 1 Tim 5:2-3. However, it occurs nine times in the Septuagint:
Genesis 19:31, 33, 34, 37
Genesis 29:26
Zech 8:4
Ezekiel 16:46, 61; 23:4
In each instance it is used as an adjective to describe an older female. It is not an office.

The reality is that the masculine word presbuteros can have a range of meanings of which the most common is an office, but includes "old man." The feminine version by contrast, although the statistical sample is woefully small, always refers to older females and not an office.

It is true that Paul uses different words elsewhere to refer to older men and older women. It is true that Paul could have used this and it would have avoided "considerable confusion" (Winston p. 470). They argue that "it is impossible to believe in the verbal inspiration of scripture and then to take such little account of the discriminating way in which Paul uses words" (Winston p. 470). The problem with this is manifold. First, the statistical sample of the NT is too small. Second, is that it doesn't allow for the fluidity of language and the overlapping semantic range of words (as we saw in my previous post). But also, they have presumed that Paul will not use language in the same way as the LXX.

Therefore, their conclusion that there is "one clear statement of Scripture that there are female elders (presbuteras 1 Tim. 5:2) is enough to make it true - at least for those who believe that "all Scripture is God breathed" (2 Tim 3:16)" is simply false.

I agree that "all Scripture is God breathed." But that doesn't mean we confine our language studies to the text of the New Testament. In fact, for the writers of the NT steeped in the Hebrew OT and the Greek translation of it, we need to refer to both, as well as to how the language is used in the culture around at the time. Scripture is breathed out by God in the human language of the writers, writers who know their OT scriptures very well. So I will refer to all scripture and not miss out evidence that helps me understand how the language is used.

The importance of good translation: Comments on Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women

2012-01-17T11:44:00.003Z

A friend of mine has helpfully lent me a copy of Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women by George and Dora Winston. One of the fundamental planks of the book's argument is that the greek word anthropos means "man: generically, a human being, male or female" (p.11). Indeed, later in the book we are told "the word anthropos... designates a person regardless of sex" (p. 187) and "the Bible makes it clear that the masculine term anthropos explicitly includes women (Rom. 7:1-2)" (p. 471).

The problem with this argument is that it is partly true. The greek word anthropos can, and often does, mean "human being." But the authors of this book are claiming that it only means this. They make a similar a generalisation error when talking about other collective male nouns, such as elder (presbuteros) and disciple (mathetes).

The error is seen when we look at how the translators of the Septuagint use the greek word anthropos. Genesis 2:24 is probably the clearest case in point. In English we translate it therefore a man shall leave his father or his mother and hold fast to his wife. In the Hebrew the word is 'ish meaning "a man: as opposed to a woman." The translators of the LXX saw fit to translate this with the word anthropos. Clearly, the translators think that the semantic range of anthropos includes males in particular as opposed to females. Maybe they wouldn't have thought this if they had read George and Dora Winston's book?!!

The same occurs in many other instances. Genesis 24 is rife with examples: 24:21, 29, 30, 32, 58, 61, 65. Of 'ish being translated with anthropos. That said, on occasion it is also translated with the greek word aner which does mean "an adult human male" e.g. 24:54. Though in that instance it is used to refer to the men with the man.

I have only got as far as Genesis 25 in looking at how the LXX translators use the word anthropos. However, it is sufficient to tell us that the semantic range of anthropos overlaps and includes the semantic range of aner.

George and Dora's thesis that aner was used to signify a "male" as opposed to a female and that anthropos is always collective is simply wrong. Rather, the meaning of the two words overlap. anthropos can mean a "male as opposed to a female" and it can mean "human being."

Does this mean we use a statistical approach to meaning. The argument is that if a word has a range of meanings then there is "usual meaning." This is a fallacy. The meaning of a word is governed by the context not by statistics. It might be true that anthropos has a collective meaning in over 50% of the instances in the NT (I would need to check) but that doesn't mean that it does have in every instance.

In which case, an argument that says that if the Biblical writer wanted to indicate a male he would have used aner rather than anthropos is simply false. anthropos can and does indicate a male. anthropos can also indicate a human being. The context determines its use.

Later, I will post an argument to do George and Dora Winston's argument about the word presbutera.

Confession from Sunday

2011-11-09T21:54:00.001Z

Heavenly Father,
we are sorry
for how we pretend to you
and to others
that we are someone different.

We hide our faults.
We hide our thoughts.
We hide our past.

We think you can’t see.
We think you don’t know.
We think you don’t care.

We try and deal with it ourselves.
We pretend that things are not as bad as they really are.
We think we can cope.
We think we hold the key to solving everything.

Father, we are sorry.
We are sorry for
how foolish,
how proud,
how self-righteous we are.

Thank you that you are a God who loves us.
Thank you that you are a God who wants us back.
Thank you that you are a God who wants our whole hearts.

Thank you that you are a God of overwhelming grace:
you know the depths of our self-centredness...

...and so you sent your Son:

to live for us
to die in our place
to be raised for us.

Thank you that all we need to do is accept him.

Thank you that because of him you accept us fully.
Thank you that because of him you love us totally.
Thank you that because of him you cherish each of us as your treasured possession.

Thank you that because of him nothing can separate us from your love,
your love that is as vast as the ocean,
your as high as the heavens and as deep as the sea.

Make each of us deeply aware of who you are
What you have done
And how much you want us as yours.

Work in us by your Holy Spirit.
Form us.
Mold us.
Change us.

Make us into the people you have created us to be.
Not only have you searched us and know us,
but in Jesus you have rescued us.

Amen.

Repentance thoughts

2011-11-08T10:11:00.004Z

Sometimes I read something that hits the spot. I am currently enjoying Steve Brown's A Scandalous Freedom . Here's a paragraph that really got me:

Sometimes I don't do it right. At times I get tired of being "religious" and don't do it. Other times I get so rebellious that even my mother, if she were still alive, would think about disowning me. But, dear friend, you have never met a man who wants to please God more than I do. The more I experience his love and grace, the more I want to please him.

It has a real feel to Romans 7 to it.

Deep down I want to serve God. I want to love him more than I do. But I keep failing. I keep falling far short. The further I go on in ministry the more I am conscious that I leave in my wake a trail of mistakes, problems, errors, pride and selfishness. As I see my sinfulness affecting everything I do, I find myself loaded with a burden of guilt that is unbearable and stifles the joy of the Christian life.

I keep forgetting that God doesn't use perfect people. Well, actually that is not true. God uses the perfect man, his Son. But because Jesus is perfect, God uses imperfect people like me. In fact he delights to use broken, weak people like me because it shows how great his Son is. For too long I have tried to be perfect. I have tried hard to be the person I think God wants me to be. I've tried hard to be the minister I think God wants me to be. In the words of Steve Brown, "if I am honest, it is killing me." The truth is, I can't do it. The more I try, the more I despair.

You see, here's the irony: perfection does not come by striving for perfection. It comes by grace and grace alone. And so perfection is achieved via a broken spirit, a contrite heart. Does Jesus start the sermon on the Mount "blessed are those who strive for perfection"? No. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

I am learning what that means. I have discovered that it does not mean saying a prayer of confession because I know that is what I ought to do. Grace and poverty of spirit is not about outward conformity. What God requires is honesty. Only when I am honest with myself and honest with God am I actually starting to repent. So often I think that I need first to sort myself, get my thoughts straight before I come to him. But he already knows my thoughts and my heart. The first stage of repentance is admitting to him what he already knows, telling him what he already sees. That will be raw. It will be painful. If I am honest with him I will say things to him that I know are wrong, are offensive. But that's ok. "What?" I hear you say. "Ok?" Yes, that's ok. Our heavenly Father already knows that is what I am thinking and feeling. When his Son died, he knew all my sin, and took it all on him, and paid for it all. By telling my heavenly Father about it I am finally admitting it to him. I am finally being honest. True repentance is now happening.

You see, deep down I want to love God more. He knows that. I know that. He and I just need to talk about everything a bit more.

Encouragement from Psalm 147

2011-07-11T08:08:00.000+01:00

10 His delight is not in the strength of the horse,
nor his pleasure in the legs of a man,
11 but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him,
in those who hope in his steadfast love.

Assisted suicide: some initial thoughts

2011-06-19T15:15:00.002+01:00

The Lord is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love (Ps 103:8). By his Holy Spirit, God is forming his own character in his people. As Christians, how do we respond in compassionate love to the issue of assisted suicide, brought to the fore by the BBC program on Monday 13th June?

Shouldn’t we just condemn assisted suicide?
Assisted suicide is an emotive issue, especially for those facing a long and debilitating terminal condition. Love and compassion motivate people on both sides of the issue. Any response we make needs to be marked by grace. We must rejoice in good motives, recognise we live in a fallen and painful world, and make it clear that we are speaking from the position of sinners saved by grace, not from any moral high ground.

Isn’t assisted suicide just like refusing medical treatment?
Both assisted suicide and refusal of medical treatment involve an act of will on the part of the one wishing to die. Both result in death. Crucially, however, the cause of death is very different. In refusal of medical treatment death will be by natural causes. In assisted suicide the cause of death is the active taking of one’s own life.

Surely its everyone’s own personal choice?
In the end we cannot stop people taking their own life. However, underlying the view that it is a “personal choice” are two major individualistic and atheistic assumptions. First, a “personal choice” assumes that my life is my own. Jesus makes it clear that our lives belong to God. Second, it assumes that it is my choice alone. Again, Jesus makes it clear that our life is in God’s hands. It is God’s prerogative to give and take life, not ours. Furthermore, God did not make us to be individualistic but to be in community. As well as belonging to God, our lives also belong to each other.

Isn’t assisted suicide more compassionate than letting people die a slow drawn out death?
We might think so but we have to ask “for whom is this more compassionate?” We live in a culture in which comfort is an idol. Pain and suffering are to be avoided at all costs. Most people who would take the assisted suicide option are likely to do so out of fear of the future or because they don’t want relatives to be burdened. Again there are some major underlying assumptions. First, it assumes we know how we and others will feel in the situation. Second, it assumes that the situation will be entirely bad. Third, and most importantly, it assumes that God is not working his good purposes through this. Ultimately, there is a question about what is most valuable: avoidance of pain, or Christ-likeness and God’s glory through suffering (see BCP quote in box)?

Aren’t there examples of suicide in the Bible?
Yes, Judas took his own life, as did king Saul. However, these are far from commended. The person in the Bible who perhaps had the strongest case for assisted suicide was Job. In the midst of his agony, Job was honest with God, wishes he had never been born and even prays (Job 3:20-22)…

Why is light given to those in misery,
and life to the bitter of soul,
to those who long for death that does not come,
who search for it more than for hidden treasure,
who are filled with gladness
and rejoice when they hit the grave?

Although Job longs for death, suicide was never an option. At the end of the book, Job learns that God is sovereignly working out his good purposes even through Job’s most horrendous suffering.

Won’t assisted suicide stop me being a burden on my family and society?
Assisted suicide will mean those who take that option won’t require care. Put in terms of physical space, finances and medical resources, assisted suicide will always make good economic sense. And there lies a huge danger of legalising assisted suicide. If it becomes legal, anyone with a terminal condition will face an implicit pressure to take the assisted suicide option.

Surely, this is scare mongering? Assisted suicide will never become the “default” option.
We have to remember that we are looking at assisted suicide from within a culture in which it is still seen as shocking. However, it only takes a generation or two for values to change and for something to become socially acceptable (whether for good or for ill). We only have to look at homosexuality and abortion to see that. So, there is a very real danger that in legalising assisted suicide it will come to be seen as the socially responsible thing to do.

Assisted dying vs suicide
Some are seeking to “rebrand” assisted suicide by replacing the term “suicide” with something like “dying”. However, at the end of the day the person has chosen to take their own life. Although the pastoral effect might be slightly less than a straight suicide, the effect on those left behind will be different from someone dying of natural causes.

So, you’re saying as Christians we can’t support assisted suicide?
That’s right. However, we need to be clear that this is not a sin greater than any other. We have a God who loves us, who is sovereign, who gives and takes life, who protects the vulnerable and needy, and whose concern is that all come into the kingdom of the Son he loves. Ultimately, everyone everywhere needs Jesus.

Where can I find out more?
For more information and for how to be involved in campaigning against this, see Care not killing, The Christian Institute or Christian Concern.

Nick Gowers, June 2011

Some quotes...

2011-06-15T21:21:00.000+01:00

...from Steve Brown's material Grace and the church from RTS on itunes U.

[Unbelievers] don't pray to God because they are scared he might be there. Believers don't pray because they are scared he might not be.

I discovered that to be true this evening. So often I don't pray because deep down I think God won't answer. I think my prayer won't do anything. Combine that with a natural activist streak. The other reason is that I pray about my kingdom and my list rather than actually talking to God. If only we replaced the word "prayer" with "talking with God."

Jesus is not a doctrine.

Spot on. A danger for me is that I turn Christianity into doctrine. Christianity is about knowing Jesus. Yes, we do need to know about him. That's doctrine. Even more than that, we need to know him personally. That's experiential. That's Christianity.

I can know about him perfectly, be the most doctrinally correct person in the world, and yet not know Jesus. More wonderfully, I can know Jesus personally even though my doctrine is skewy in all sorts of places. That's because Christianity is about God's grace - undeserved favour. Praise God!

Unite my heart?

2011-05-31T09:32:00.000+01:00

Every now and then a verse just grabs me. It makes me wonder what does that mean?

Here is one from today:

Teach me your way, O Lord,
that I may walk in your truth;
unite my heart to fear your name.
Psalm 86:11(ESV)

Unite my heart?
The NIV puts it like this:
give me an undivided heart...

I am encouraged that even king David had to pray for a united heart. I look at my heart and there is part of it that loves Jesus. There are other parts that want to go my own way. Lord, unite my heart!

A scary verse

2011-05-26T09:00:00.000+01:00

Numbers 35:33
You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

The two biggest impediments to the growth of God's kingdom...

2011-05-10T08:48:00.000+01:00

...are
1. Hearts that don't have Jesus at the centre

and

2. Hearts that aren't captured by Jesus' love.

That is why Paul prays Eph 3:14-21. Without our hearts changed we won't be passionate for the glory of Jesus and we won't be passionate to live out Jesus' universal and uniting rule in our lives and church life.

We can change external things, we can complain about how things are done, we can beat ourselves up. But what we need most is bigger hearts:

Jesus dwelling in our hearts through faith.

Knowing and experiencing Jesus' love for us.

But we can't change that. Preachers can't change that. The most hardened place in the universe is our hearts. So, Paul prays for God's power to be at work changing our hearts. The great news is, is that God is able to do immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine.

So lets pray that he does change our hearts by his awesome power.

Song of songs...

2011-05-02T09:18:00.000+01:00

As I have been reading through Song of Songs it has struck me (for the first time) how sexual it is. Being married probably helps with this. The writer isn't employing innuendo but symbolism and imagery. No wonder boys were not permitted to read it. Song of Songs may in fact be unhelpful for unmarried (or married) men (and women) struggling with lust.

Don Carson, in For the love of God has a helpful introduction to Song of Songs. See here, and the entries for 27th April and 30th April.

Isn't it great that God has included a book in the Bible that delights in sexual intimacy.

Speaking to our own soul...

2011-04-30T06:59:00.002+01:00

...is something I need to learn to do better. What wonderful words worth learning are the refrain of Psalm 42:

Why are you cast down, O my soul,
and why are you in turmoil within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,
my salvation and my God.

Good Friday Meditation 4 (from Luke 23:44-49)

2011-04-26T11:11:00.001+01:00

They delighted in their work
the boy
and his dad
and their best friend.
Shaping
fashioning
forming
intricate detailing.
The care
the love
the perfection.
The joy
the delight
at the completion.
“It is so very like you,”
said the dad to his boy,
laughter in his voice.
“Like us all,” said the boy.
“with a heart to love”
“a mind to imagine”
“a life to live.”
They sat and looked
marvelling at their creation
joy and love
flowing
from dad to boy,
to friend,
to this new friend.
And the new friend
looked back
and loved
his dad
and his brother
and his friend.

The next day
the new friend had gone.
“Unloving
uncaring
selfish
spoilsports
I will expose you for who you are.
I have found a better family
to receive my love”
are the words written on the note.
The dad
the boy
the friend
tears fill their eyes,
each lying word piercing their heart.
Love that is not jealous
is not love
Love that is not angered
is empty.

The dad
the boy
the friend
filled with compassion
longing
love
want their new friend back,
but their love demands justice.

With each message they send
they receive replies
replies that hurt
replies that sting
replies that anger
replies that fortify the barrier between them and the new friend.
Replies such as:
“I hate you”
“I’m ignoring you.”
“What have you ever done for me?”
“You owe me.”
“I don’t want you, I just want what you can give me.”
“I’m trying my best, ok.”
All replies that
increase the debt of love
increase the anger
increase the demands of justice.
Replies that
increase the barrier between them and the lost friend

They delight in their work
the boy
and his dad
and their best friend.
Shaping
fashioning
forming
intricate detailing.
The care
the love
the perfection.
The joy
the delight
in the plan
to win the lost friend back.

The dad gives his treasure
his boy.
The boy
searches for the lost friend.
“How much do you want me back?
What do I have to do?”
the lost friend asks.
The boy
puts on the lost friend’s shoes
puts on the lost friend’s clothes
stands in his place
stretches out his arms.
All the
hurt
the pain
the anger
at the lost friend’s rejection
of the dad
the boy
and the friend
are taken by the boy.
The boy looks at the lost friend.
“This is how much we want you back.
You don’t have to do anything.
I have just done it all.
We don’t just want
to save you from hell
We don’t just want
to save you from your sin
We don’t just want
to save you from yourself.
We want you.”

On the cross, the barrier is torn in two:
Jesus is the Christ, my reconciliation.

Good Friday Meditation 3 (from Luke 23:26-43)

2011-04-26T11:09:00.000+01:00

The rulers: “He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”

The soldiers: “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”

One criminal: “Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!”

Aren’t they right?

He has raised the dead.
He has calmed the storm.
He has fed thousands with virtually nothing.
He has walked on water.
He has taught with supreme authority.
He has driven out demons.
He has resisted the devil.
He has declared the kingdom of God is near.
He has brought sinners to repentance.
He has cleared the temple.
He has confounded the religious leaders with his wisdom.
The evidence is clear.
He is the Christ, the king, the Son of God,
is he not?

Here he was bringing in the reign of God in which God’s wonderful rule on earth was being established:
disease banished,
harmony restored,
relationships healed,
creation tamed,
fears relieved,
death defeated.

It was looking so good.

But now he hangs
pinned to a roman cross
naked
bloodied
limp
his life ebbing away.

Surely the voice with which he calmed the storm,
the voice at which lives were transformed,
the voice with which he raised the dead,
surely that voice could speak now.
With just a word he could come down from the cross, could he not?
All those watching would know he is the Son of God after all.

Yes, he could speak that word.
He could save himself.

But to save himself would mean he cannot save others.

So the voice with which he calmed the storm,
the voice at which lives were transformed,
the voice with which he raised the dead,
that voice does not speak to save himself.

Instead, he hangs
pinned to a roman cross
naked
bloodied
limp
his life ebbing away.

The Jewish people watch,
knowing that
everyone who hangs on a tree is cursed by God.

And that is the point.

God’s rule, in which he reigns in the hearts and lives of his people, cannot be established
until God’s justice is satisfied,
until sin has been removed.

Here is Jesus the king
standing in the place of his people
so that God’s rule can really be established.
He is dealing with God’s wrath,
he is bearing his people’s sin,
he is taking his people’s place.

Only with sin defeated and judgment exhausted
will people truly enter God’s kingdom,
will disease one day be banished,
will harmony be restored,
will relationships be healed,
will creation be tamed,
will fears be relieved,
will death be defeated once and for all.
Only with sin defeated and judgment exhausted.

that is true salvation.

Yes, he has raised the dead,
He has calmed the storm.
and so many other things that demonstrate he is creation’s king.
But in order to bring us under that rule now
and to guarantee the full enjoyment of his kingship in eternity,
first he had to save us.

On the cross, Jesus is the Christ, my Saviour.

Good Friday Meditation 2 (from Luke 22:66-23:25)

2011-04-26T11:08:00.000+01:00

I am like Jesus.
I like to think that if I were to stand before Pilate, there would be no charge against me.
So often I do my best
to make others think I am like Jesus
that I am perfectly good
that I am perfectly righteous
that I am innocent.
And sometimes I believe it.

But truth be told,
I am more like Barabbas.
If were to stand before Pilate there could be basis for a charge against me.
But thankfully he cannot see
Those secret sins that none but I know.
The sins of my desires.
The sins of my mind.
The sins I have managed to hide.
The sins of omission,
the things I have failed to think, say or do.
But then there are the sins that others see and know,
especially those closest to me.
If I were to stand before Pilate then maybe there would be basis for a charge against me.
I am like Barabbas.

What hope then have I before God,
who does see my heart
who knows me better than I do?
If I were to stand before God there would be basis for a charge against me.
I am like Barabbas.

Condemned.

I am like Barabbas.
I need someone
who can stand with head held high
who has no moral failing
who has no sin
who cannot be found guilty
who has committed no crime.
I need someone against whom the only charge is that
he has achieved where I have failed
he is perfect where I am imperfect
he loves where I hate
he forgives where I cannot.

I need someone who can stand before God and before men without spot or blemish.
Someone who can stand in my place,
who has lived the life I was meant to have lived,
who has heard God’s “well done”
who can receive God’s approval
who can be raised to the eternal life I was made for.

I am like Barabbas.
I need the one who was declared innocent of all crime.
I need the one who took the place of Barabbas.
I need Christ, my righteousness.

Good Friday Meditation 1 (from Luke 22:39-46)

2011-04-26T11:06:00.002+01:00

We’ve never seen him like this before.
We’ve never heard him speak like this before.
For the first time ever, Jesus asks his Father to change what is going to happen.

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me.”

Yet Jesus humbly submits to his Father’s will.
The severity of the ensuing anguish causes the capillaries in his sweat glands to break down. Blood is released into his beads of perspiration.

Here is the one who can sleep in a storm-tossed boat;
the one who can calm the waves with a word;
the one who can heal the sick with a touch;
the one who can raise the dead with a shout;
he sees what is coming and he longs for it to be different.

Why?

Maybe it is the fear of the unknown?
But no, Jesus has repeatedly told his followers what to expect.

Does Jesus think this is the tragic end?
Not at all. Jesus ends his predictions with a great promise:
on the third day he will be raised.

So, is Jesus pained by his impending betrayal and desertion?
To a small extent, yes.
Those who are closest to us can hurt us the most.

Is Jesus fearful of
the mocking,
the flogging,
the iron nails driven through flesh and bone,
the crushing humiliating death;
crucifixion?
Does he fear that?
In part, yes. Who wouldn’t?
But many have gone with greater courage to a death like this.

Is Jesus in turmoil because he is, quite literally, at a cross road. Yes. He has a choice: the cross or not.

But supremely, Jesus’ anguish his prayer centres on two words:

“this cup.”

In the Psalms and the prophets we read of the cup of God's wrath. It's as if God's righteous indignation at sin is squeezed into a cup. Then those who have sinned are made to drink up.

For each of us, there is a cup.
With each failure to love the LORD with all our heart, all our soul and all our strength, more of God’s settled, righteous, dignified jealous anger at our sin is added to that cup.
With each failure to love others wholeheartedly the level in that cup increases.

We deserve to drain our cup to its dregs ourselves.

But now, God the Father is pouring our cups into one cup.
The Father’s will is that Jesus drinks it
for us.

On his knees now,
Jesus can think of nothing worse
nothing worse
than being totally cut off from his Father’s love
and instead feeling the full force of God’s just wrath.

The horror of that hell fills Jesus with terror.

But unless Jesus drinks that cup, we have to.
Jesus is torn. “Take this cup from me.”

Yet, he loves his father.
He loves us.
“Father not my will but yours be done” he says.

At the cross, Jesus drinks the cup I deserve.
He is Christ, my wrath-bearer.

Ecclesiastes...

2011-04-22T10:18:00.001+01:00

...is a description of life in a universe in which redemptive grace is possible but not yet fully revealed.

We would love the world to be so ordered
that if you are good, success always comes;
and if you are bad, bad stuff always happens.
In short we would like a universe that operates on a strict principle of works:
You get what you deserve.
You earn your way.

But,
in such a universe,
mercy is impossible,
forgiveness is impossible,
redemptive grace is impossible.
One man cannot live for another.
One man cannot die for another.
A perfect man would earn the perfect life
and live long and happily.

So,
God has given us a universe
that is messed up
screwed up
that doesn't operate on a strict principle of works
in which justice is not the only factor in play.

The godly suffer
the ungodly prosper
time and chance affect all.
But all this
so that
the greatest scandal
of history
can happen:
one man can live a perfect life
but be rejected by all;
sin prospers
to be exposed and unmasked.
One man can die a death
in place of others:
A death
that is the greatest injustice
but fulfils justice
so that mercy
can triumph over judgment,
and grace overflow.

Such a universe is grossly unfair:
the loveless are shown love
the offenders shown mercy
the unworthy given grace.
We have a God
who is full of
compassion
love and grace.
A God who gives his Son
to make his enemies his friends.

Praise the Lord for a universe in which grace is possible!

Psalm 33:18

2011-04-22T10:03:00.002+01:00

18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him,
on those who hope in his steadfast love,

Learning to trust the Lord for his provision

2011-04-21T08:41:00.000+01:00

The Israelites in the land really did have to take the LORD at his word and trust his provision. Logic and common sense suggests that the seven-yearly "year of jubilee" would impoverish and starve the nation. But the Lord says:

The land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and dwell in it securely. 20 And if you say, ‘What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we may not sow or gather in our crop?’ 21 I will command my blessing on you in the sixth year, so that it will produce a crop sufficient for three years. 22 When you sow in the eighth year, you will be eating some of the old crop; you shall eat the old until the ninth year, when its crop arrives.

The command not to sow in the seventh year means none of those crops are harvested in the eighth year either. Will God's people trust him, or will they think that the provision of food depends on their efforts.

That is surely the point. Sabbath and the year of jubilee is an expression of trust. Life does not ultimately depend on our efforts but on the word of God that made us and sustains us. Will we live by his word, even for those of us in ministry, and so take regular sabbath rest?

Thoughts

2011-04-20T08:49:00.001+01:00

Leviticus 24
I often hear that the "eye for eye" principle in the NT is the LORD limiting vengeance. The context here in Lev 24 does not permit this understanding. Indeed, "eye for eye" sits within the frame of verses 10 - 12 and verse 23.

The flow of thought seems to be from offending against the LORD's life through to human life, animal life and then various injuries. The punishments offered are not limiting but proportionate. Punishment fits the crime. The supreme crime is against the name of the LORD. Within that overall context, the people then bring out the blasphemer and put him to death.

I think we like to read the "eye for eye" principle as limiting so that we can understand why we, as Christians, are not under that principle. However, if we read the Bible covenantally, then we understand that "eye for eye" is a provision for justice within the Mosaic Covenant, i.e. within national Israel. The principle of justice still stands - i.e. every sin receives its just desert. In the overlap of the ages that sin has either been punished on the cross, or will receive its due penalty after the day of judgment.

Ecclesiastes 7
9 Be not quick in your spirit to become angry,
for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.
Oh dear. I am praying for wisdom and a slowness to become angry, especially with my children.

10 Say not, “Why were the former days better than these?”
For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.
Those rose-tinted spectacles we wear when looking at the past. Wisdom sees the negatives as well as the positives from the past. In the now we grumble, then in the future we look at the "now" that is past and think it was better than the new "now".

A chiasm in Psalm 29?

2011-04-18T07:35:00.000+01:00

THis might be a bit contrived, but there might be something in it...

A: 1-2 Strength
B: 3-4 Waters
C: 5 Trees
D: 6 Animals: Calf & Ox
E: 7 Sinai??
D': 8a Animal: Deer
C': 8b Trees
B': 10 Flood
A': 11 Strength

Readings today (Sunday)

2011-04-17T08:09:00.000+01:00

Leviticus 21
The perfection in so many ways required of the chief priests and priests is astonishing. Praise God that Jesus has fulfilled all this for us!

Psalm 26
David loves the presence of the Lord. Do I?
O Lord, I love the habitation of your house
and the place where your glory dwells.

Again, fulfilled in Jesus - the one in whom the LORD's glory fully dwells. We love him.

Psalm 27
The Lord is my light and my salvation;
whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life;
of whom shall I be afraid?

We fear so many things, so many people. With the LORD as our light and salvation, there is no reason to fear. One + God = a majority.

Verses that struck me...

2011-04-16T07:51:00.001+01:00

...from the McCheyne readings today:

Leviticus 20:22-23
You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.

Psalm 25:14
14 The friendship [2] of the Lord is for those who fear him,
and he makes known to them his covenant.

The fear of the Lord - something I don't think about enough. Yet that is the basis of repentance and faith. If I don't fear him I don't need to repent. If I don't fear Him, I will live in fear of other things or people.

Ecclesiastes 3:10
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.

Some thoughts on Pharaoh

2011-02-21T10:12:00.000Z

Just reading Pharaoh v. the LORD in my quiet time.

It is an epic battle. Pharaoh wants to relate to the LORD on his own terms. After each plague Pharaoh moves one step closer to total obedience. But he wants to hang onto the Israelites if at all possible. "Just the men can go!" Ex 10:11. "Leave the flocks and herds!" Ex. 10:24. "Get out of my sight!" Ex 10:28.

Pharaoh also illustrates ungodly remorse rather than godly repentance. Pharaoh is happy to repent of his sin only to alleviate his circumstances. Plague comes, he says he has sinned, asks for forgiveness. Plague is removed. But when things are good again, he hardens his heart. His is not a turning to the LORD, but a remorse based on the seriousness of his situation. Situation is alleviated, Pharaoh is Lord once again. So, is our repentance a God-centred repentance or is it a me-centred situation-dependent repentance? Do we now fear the LORD, or are we simply wanting to get out of jail free?

Two themes I need to make more of in Exodus...

2011-02-21T09:46:00.001Z

First big theme: The word of the LORD.
This is a big theme. Will the Egyptians and God's people fear, trust and live by the word of the Lord? E.g. Ex 9:20:
Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the LORD hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside.
The word of the LORD is something to be feared and obeyed. When God speaks, we must listen and respond immediately. We are to live by his Word and not by anything else.

Second big theme: Remembering.
The LORD repeatedly sets up things in order for God's people to remember what he has done: Passover, Manna in the jar, Altar on a hill. There are also memorials to people's sin, e.g. the place names in Exodus 15-17: Marah, Massah, Meribah.
The Lord has given us the Lord's Supper to remember and rejoice in what he has done for us. The importance of such memorials in Exodus makes me wonder whether we have given the impression that the Lord's Supper is an optional extra to the Christian life, rather than the Lord's provision to keep us remembering.

Additional Exodus material

2011-02-21T09:33:00.000Z

Here's the stuff that got cut out of last night's sermon:

Lets just do a quick review of where we have come so far in Exodus, and how it points to something even greater for us who trust in Jesus.

At the start of Exodus God’s covenant people, the people to whom he has promised and committed himself – are in slavery to a false god – Pharaoh. At Jesus' coming, all people are in slavery to false gods – to sin.

Then we have much about the birth of the covenant mediator: the one God raises up to rescue his people and bring them into a new relationship with himself. Moses and Jesus.

Then we have God calling the covenant mediator: God calling his man to the task he has got for him. For Moses it is at the burning bush. Similarly, Jesus’ baptism.

Then we have the ratification of the covenant mediator: God shows that he is with Moses by the signs God does through Moses. Similarly, we see that Jesus is even greater by the signs he does.

The rejection of the covenant mediator: Moses is rejected by his people. Similarly, Jesus.

Then we have God redeeming his people through judgment. In Exodus we have the Passover and the blood of the lamb. God’s people being saved through God judging Egypt and its gods. Jesus, we have the cross and the resurrection. God’s people being saved through God judging sin.

God brings his people through death into new life. Red sea – they die to the old life under Pharaoh and have a new life with God. That happens to Christians as we put our trust in Jesus, and it is symbolised in baptism. As we die to our old life and have a new life following Jesus.

If God has done all that for his people, what is there to grumble about?

Rejoicing in the humanity of Jesus

2011-01-24T23:17:00.000Z

A danger for me, and probably for others like me is to turn the gospels entirely into narrative theology. We read the gospels just as theological truth taught through the medium of narrative.

Now, what I am about to say does fit under the category of narrative theology. The problem is that as I read the gospels I don't naturally include it in the "narrative theology" bucket and so my reading and preaching of the gospels is impoverished for it.

What is my problem? In short, I am too slow to notice the character of Jesus as a person. By this, I mean more than failing to notice his sinlessness.

If you are in love with someone you notice the little details about their lives: how they pick something up and use it, their turns of phrase, their mannerisms. You love them for it. It is part of their humanity; part of what makes them them.

I am in the process of rediscovering the humanity of Jesus, and in doing so rekindling my love for him as a person, the person who is my king and my saviour, two roles which without the personality can make Jesus seen distant.

So, today, in reading Matthew 14, John the Baptist has just been executed. When Jesus hears, he withdraws to a solitary place. Alone. The news of his relative's death affects him and he wants space.

We are not told why. Perhaps it is shock at how John was so summarily disposed of. Perhaps it is to grieve. Perhaps it is because Jesus sees in John's fate a foretaste of his own. Perhaps it is a mixture of them all. He is fully human after all.

Aren't there times in life when we feel just like he does; needing that space to process, pray and work out what happens next?

It is these details of his humanity that I so easily miss in my reading and in my preaching.

But when we spot them, they cause us to love Jesus more. Jesus the man becomes more three dimensional. The facets of his character shine brighter.

As these aspects of Jesus' humanity are illuminated, greater light is shed on his uniqueness as well. For it is the man who seeks solitary space who also has compassion on the crowd who get there first but fail to bring supper. I see such humanity with which I can identify combined with such love and compassion for me and you in our lostness.

Hallelujah. What a saviour!

The role of prophets

2010-12-26T07:29:00.000Z

Nehemiah 6:7 sheds some interesting perspectives on the role of prophets in the OT.

Nehemiah is accused of being about to make himself king and so appointing "prophets to make this proclamation about you in Jerusalem: 'There is a king in Judah!'"

The significance of this is threefold:

a) These are the accusations of the opponents. Therefore, it is very possible that the role of 'prophet' in this regard is more than just a Jewish thing. Did most kings have such prophets?

b) The role of prophet here is not predictive or foretelling but that of herald.

c) The role of prophet here is not connected to the temple or God but to the king.

That is not to deny other roles also entitled prophet, but to realise the possible breadth of the term.

Igloo trashed

2010-12-24T21:58:00.000Z

I just watched three lads destroy the igloo that had been built at the end of our street.

Two guys from the street and I had built it on Monday. Recycling boxes proved to be the way to make blocks for the construction. Although the minor player, I, with the others, were rather proud of our achievement. The igloo became something of a local attraction, with ten children in it at one point.

Whilst preparing the service for tomorrow just now, i looked out of my study to see three guys destroying the igloo. I was surprised by how angry it made me feel. The destruction was senseless. There was no appreciation of the hard work that had gone into it, no admiration for the fact that two men had spent nearly a whole day making it (that wasn't me by the way); and no grasp that the children of the street (and surrounding streets) loved it. These people rather enjoyed destroying it, before proceeding to attack the various snow men.

I don't think my reaction is just selfish. Rather, here is something that some of us created, being destroyed. Here is something created for others to enjoy, being abused for others' selfish destructive enjoyment.

If it makes me angry, how much more does the living God look at what we do to him and his creation and feel a righteous indignation and anger?

So, sadly the children will wake up Christmas morning to a scene of igloo devastation. It is irreparable. Those who destroyed it can do nothing to remake it.

Sounds familiar?

Proverbs for the riots

2010-12-20T07:28:00.000Z

"If you have played the fool and exalted yourself,
or if you have planned evil,
clap your hand over your mouth!
For as churning the milk produces butter,
and as twisting the nose produces blood,
so stirring up anger produces strife."

Proverbs 30:32-33

Proverbs of the day

2010-12-06T07:54:00.000Z

Proverbs 29:23
A man's pride brings him low,
but a man of lowly spirit gains honour.

Proverbs 29:25
Fear of man will prove to be a snare,
but whoever trusts in the Lord is kept safe.

Some more thoughts on Revelation 22:1-7

2010-12-02T12:40:00.000Z

After you have given a sermon, you always think of more things to include. Here are a few reflections.

1. On seeing God's face (Rev. 22:4) I needed some reference to Moses in Exodus 33:11 and Deut 34:10:

Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. Ex. 33:11 (ESV)

And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face Deut. 34:10 (ESV).

This aspect of "seeing God's face" needs to be tied in with the absence of curse, the presence of the throne of God and no more light. In fact, it ties in well, the point being the intimate friendship with God.

2. Some people have asked why the leaves of the tree of life are for the healing of the nations. The important point is to see that the tree and its fruit and leaves (v. 2) are all connected to the flow of the water of life from the throne (v. 1) and the absence of the curse (v. 3). All this stems from the presence of God and of the lamb on the throne at the heart of the city. So, the mention of the leaves is to show the universal (without distinction, rather than without exception) scope of the blessing of the new Jerusalem. The word used for "healing" is that used for "the use of medical resources in treating the sick" (BDAG). So, the choice of leaves as symbolic could be as simple as follows: Just as water of rivers is used for drinking and the fruit of some trees is used for eating, so the leaves of some trees is used for healing. So the point is more that there is healing for the nations rather than that is is the leaves.

In the end, it comes down to the question of why the tree of life in the garden in Eden?

Widows and words in 1 Timothy 5:1-16

2010-11-22T16:45:00.000Z

1 Timothy 5:1-16 was a challenging passage to preach on. I found a great temptation to make very big generalising applications that were not particularly close to the text.

As it is, I think what Paul is saying boils down to the following: the local church is to honour godly twilight-years Christians who have given their Christian lives in Christian service (in the church and at home). Such honouring takes the form of financial aid where necessary.

So, the verses have a lot to say in a culture in which age, godliness and service (especially in the home) is not valued.

How these verses particularly apply in 21st Century Britain is somewhat harder. State benefits and pensions change the scene a little. But if we start with the principle above then we are going in the right direction.

There is also something here about what churches spend their money on. How many local congregations have a "welfare fund" or daily accommodation and food for the regular support of such worthy recipients? An interesting thought.

This does touch on a subject regarding the use of certain words in verses 1 and 2. The word translated "older man" is the word usually translated "elder." Similarly the feminine equivalent is used as well. So is Paul talking about widowed female elders (which obviously would have a big bearing on whether women can be elders)? Some argue this case, particularly given the similarity in the list of qualifications between 5:10 and 3:2.

However, I am not persuaded that the case is strong. In Acts 2:17 the word (presbuteros) does mean old men. There it is partnered with the word for young man, as it is here in 1 Tim 5. In reply you might say that the opposite is the case in 1 Pet 5:1-5. There the same two words do mean the office of elder and younger man. If anything, the 1 Pet 5 passage shows that age and office were more closely bound in the early church than now, and so a female version of presbuteros does not necessarily imply office, but it would imply that age commands respect. However, all this goes to prove is that the word can be used in (at least) two ways. We don't have sufficient uses either way to be statistically meaningful.

Similarly, the fact that presbuteros most often in the NT refers to the office of elder is no indication of its meaning in this case. The meaning of words is not determined by statistics but by the context. Here, the close partnering of "elder" and "young man" more closely parallels Acts 2:17.

Furthermore, the false teaching in Ephesus seems to be something to do with the nullification of created physicality and so human relationships. Hence, Paul's words in 1 Tim 4:3-4 and his including the incarnation and the Spirit's vindication of the incarnation in 1 Tim 3:16.

So, I am confident that Paul's concern in 1 Tim 5:1-16 is that human relationships are respected in the church so that the gospel is not brought into disrepute.

Father God - I wonder?

2010-11-11T10:00:00.000Z

This is not my thought, but highlighted by a friend.

It is very common to refer to our Heavenly Father as "Father God." It is especially common in our prayers. But is it right?

Graham Kendrick's song makes use of it in the first line. And in English the word "Father" can be used in a variety of ways as well as describing the Father-child relationship: we can talk about "the Father of Jazz" or "Father Christmas" or "Father Thames." In some Christian circles ministers are referred to as Father Fred, for example.

However, none of these uses of "Father" are actually what the Bible means when it talks about God the Father.

The Bible is clear that each of the three persons of the Trinity is fully God. However, what is distinct about each person is their name. Their name is more than just an add on that could be changed by deed poll should they so wish. Their name is also their distinct identity as a fully divine person, found in relation to the other persons of the Trinity.

So, the first person of the Trinity's name is The Father. He is the eternal Father - the source and head of the Trinity, and primarily the Father of the Son (rather than the Father of mankind). The second person of the Trinity is the Son. He is primarily the Son of the Father, the exact eternal representation of the Father, begotten not made, God from God etc. And the third person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit who, in a sense is the fruit of the union of Father and Son.

The point of saying the above (which is rather technical, I know) is that the names of the persons of the Trinity are relational names and identities not titles. So, we don't address Jesus as "Son God" or the Holy Spirit as "Holy Spirit God." Nor do my children address me as "Father Nick" or "Father man."

So, by using the address "Father God" we lose a number of things:

- We lose the distinct identity of the first person of the Trinity. Father is not his title or a role or a post he fills.

- Potentially, and in consequence of the above, we lose the distinctions between the persons, or indeed we lose the whole Trinity. We could think we are talking to God in his role as Father, rather than a distinct person of the Trinity: God the Father. This is the heresy of modalism - that the one God exists in different forms like one actor with different characters or faces.

- We lose the intimacy of our relationship with the Father, through the Son by the Spirit. Through Jesus, he is our heavenly Father. Yes, he is also fully God, but we fundamentally relate to him as our heavenly Father - our divine Father.

However, I wouldn't go to the stake over this, nor burn all copies of hymn books with Kendrick's song in it. And I am not going to shoot people down in flames whenever they use the term Father God. If we understand it to mean "our Father who is fully God, the first person of the Trinity" that is all well and good.

But since it also could represent a subtle but important shift away from our Trinitarian faith, it is better if we don't use the phrase "Father God." I wonder... after all he is the Father, who has become our Father through Jesus his Son.

The poor in Luke's gospel

2010-11-08T17:15:00.000Z

There is a tendency to spiritualise references to the poor or material need in Luke's gospel. However, I think doing so is to read Luke wrongly. That Luke does not mean the "spiritually" poor is seen in Luke 7:22 in Jesus' response to John the Baptist's disciples where all the categories are physical.

By spiritualising we lose the physicality of the good news of the gospel, chiefly the riches of the resurrection and ascension, which of course, is physical and which is big in Luke.

The truth is, the gospel is good news to the materially poor. Chris Sugden helpfully points out that in many ways Jesus defines the gospel message in relation to the materially poor by starting his ministry in the Galilee of the Gentiles - the poor northern regions. It is in relation to the poor that we see the great riches of the gospel: through faith in Christ we are seated with him at the Father's right hand, as heirs and rulers of the new creation. For those who are rulers and wealthy in this life, this does not seem particularly good news. To those who are impoverished with nothing and little influence, the gospel of ruling with Christ in the new creation received entirely by grace, through faith, is wonderful news indeed. It is liberation theology as it is meant to be - the poor liberated at Jesus' return (sadly most of what is called "liberation theology" is a form of over-realised eschatology).

The guaranteed material future reigning with Christ will inspire material discipleship now - having mercy on those in physical need. Such practical mercy has always been a chief fruit of godly living. Its absence was one of the reasons for Israel's exile, and why Luke then includes much about the dangers of being rich in his gospel. True discipleship is always expressed in terms of material mercy to those in need, for example to the man on the Jericho road (Luke 10) and to the beggar at the gate (Luke 16).

Ironically, if we define our neighbour simply as those in spiritual need we are making the same mistake as the teacher of the law who comes to Jesus in Luke 10!

So, to bring it back to the good samaritan parable: Yes, primarily this man is testing Jesus and seeking to justify himself. Jesus says that his summary of the law is spot on and doing so does bring eternal life as the man has asked. We mustn't lose the force of that. Then Jesus exposes the breadth of what being a neighbour is. At this point, I think we are meant to despair of ourselves. Yes, we are meant to go and do likewise. But of ourselves we can't. We need Jesus the one who, we will discover, supremely does this: loving God, and loving neighbours at great personal cost! Then, we must not avoid the physical application in terms of discipleship: go and do likewise!

Confession at 6:30pm

2010-11-07T20:54:00.002Z

The confession prayer which I used this evening came from Whiter than Snow: Meditations on Sin and Mercy by Paul David Tripp (Crossway: Wheaton, 2008).

It is available from here. Let me know by Tuesday, and I could get a bulk order.

The supremacy of Christ in counselling

2010-11-06T22:12:00.002Z

Hurrah for Steven Cole:

How John Calvin Led Me To Repent of Christian Psychology

In the gospel and the Holy Spirit we have all we need for life and godliness. The gospel-centred God-dependent pastor has all he needs to pastor every problem. Why are we so quick to farm people out to human centred psycho-babble that confirms people in their sinfulness? I guess, it is through lack of confidence in the supremacy of Christ.

Great article. Do read it.

Carson quote

2010-11-06T06:47:00.002Z

Ok, probably not quite a quote, but here's the essence of something Don Carson said at the recent PGP day down here early in October.

There's one thing I have learned in almost forty years of teaching: my students have not learned what I thought I taught them. They learned what I am most enthusiastic about.

It's a very good point. I have been pondering it since. What would Jesus get most excited about? What would the Apostle Paul be most passionate about? And then, what do I get most excited and passionate about?

So, I pray that the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone would be my burning passion.

Theo-centric or human-centred prayer life

2010-11-04T07:42:00.002Z

In preparing material for the HGs I have been struck by Paul's prayers in Ephesians. I tend to pray for me and others to have greater love for Christ, greater love for his people and greater love for the lost. All good things. But such prayers are in danger of being me-centred, all about what I do, have and don't have.

Paul's prayers in Ephesians, by contrast, are God-centred. He prays, first for his readers' hearts to be opened to the greatness of the hope to which God has called them. In the second instance he prays for them to grasp the greatness of God's love to them in Christ Jesus. In short, he is praying, in the first instance, for them to know the greatness of God's grace to them. His are truly gospel prayers.

I will only have a greater love for Christ, his people and the lost, if I have a greater grasp and experience of what God has done for me in Christ and all that means.

A prayer

2010-02-11T09:16:00.002Z

I found this great little prayer request (adapted slightly by me) in one of the prayer diaries I use,:

May our weaknesses and frailty cause us to rejoice more in the gospel rather than grumble.
May our sin and struggles drive us
back to the cross and resurrection
and forwards eagerly to the new creation
where there is no sin, tiredness, or broken nights sleep.
In our weakness and struggles
may God's grace prove sufficient
and our joy in the Lord grow.

Amen to that!

More on the prodigal son in Luke 15

2010-01-11T09:24:00.004Z

Want to be more captured by grace after Sunday evening's sermon?

Watch the video again here.

For music, Sovereign Grace Music have produced Sons & Daughters which is based on the prodigal son. It contains excellent, heart warming songs riddled with the theme of prodigal grace. Available here for a tenner.

Tim Keller's book Prodigal God is meant to be excellent (but I have yet to read it). Available here.

My sermon itself will be available here after Wednesday.

An Advent Confession

2009-12-03T09:32:00.000Z

Heavenly Father,

We know that Jesus’ return should delight and thrill us. Please forgive us for our cold hearts towards him.

We know that Jesus is coming as our risen Lord. Please forgive our slowness to obey him.

We know that Jesus is coming as the one who died for us. Please forgive the poverty of our love for him.

We know that Jesus is coming as Emmanuel – God with us. Please forgive our lack of likeness to him.

We know that Jesus is coming as Judge of all. Please forgive our slowness to tell others the good news about him.

We know that Jesus is coming to bring in the new creation. Please forgive us for how, in our struggles, we fail to look forwards to all we have in him.

Heavenly Father, how you love your Son and look forward to all things being brought under his feet.

Please forgive us.

Change our hearts and lives to reflect yours.

Amen.

Songs about the gospel impoverishing my Christian life

2009-09-24T22:24:00.001+01:00

I've come to realise that recorded Christian music has been detrimental; to my joy in the gospel.

This is not because the words are bad. Most of the words are great:
the gospel to music.

It is not because the recording is bad. The recordings are good.

It is not because the tunes are bad. The tunes are in the main great.

And there is precisely the problem. This is what happens:

I buy a new album. The songs are new and exciting. Some of the gospel
truths are put in ways that are encouraging, inspiring and uplifting.
Some songs capture how I am feeling at various times.

However, the more I listen to the music the less I contemplate the
words and the more it becomes just the experience of listening to the
music. The music gives me a lift. I take this lift to be a gospel lift
since the words are gospel words. Indeed, it was a gospel lift at the
start. However, as the tunes become and more familiar the lift
decreases. And I find that what I thought was my joy is decreasing.

You see, the problem is that I will often have the music in the
background when doing other things. It creates an ambience. A mood. An
emotional state, which I have come to take to be the gospel state.

So, here is the shock. Quality (and it is good quality) gospel centred
music is detracting me from the gospel and so my joy in the Lord.
Rather than the truths setting my heart on fire and the music helping
me praise, the music has become the source of my joy. What a shallow
well it is.

So, I need to actually spend the time thoughtfully singing songs and
reflecting on them or not listen to them at all.

For three weeks now I have not listened to a Christian track. And my
joy in the Lord is greater than it has been for a while. I have
resisted the urge to put an album or track on. I need to train myself
to keep the gospel as the source and substance of my Christian life.
That is what needs to drive both my joy and my emotions.

But there is more. Such music is also breeding dissatisfaction with
singing at church. Our church music is not as polished as a CD (funny
that). It is a little rough around the edges. I mean, it is normal, not
played by semi-professional musicians. It is not studio produced or
have 2000 people singing along. And strangely enough, it does not have
the same impact as the volume turned up loud on my headphones with me
singing along loudly but quietly so that the family can't hear.
Consequently, the experience of church doesn't have the same emotional
lift. It is not "me and the Lord" in the same way. And there we have my
heart exposed. It has become about the form, the emotions, the lift.
Subtly church is now about me and my emotional experience, rather than
joining with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and rejoicing
with hearty (if out of tune) joy at all that God has done for us in the
Lord Jesus.

And who needs CD generated joy. Who indeed needs a music group, a sound
system or anything, if our delight is truly in the Lord. Though of
course it helps to have someone who can keep us in tune.

'Be Faithful' Conference

2009-07-07T08:16:00.005+01:00

I had a most encouraging time at the FCA UK launch event yesterday. The call was to stand firm against the drift away from historic orthodox Christianity. FCA provides hope and support to those who want to see the C of E and the Anglican Communion retain the historical Biblical faith once for all delivered to the saints.

At the heart of the issue is the issue of whether and how God has revealed himself. The Christian position is that God has fully and finally revealed himself in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything we need to know about him and the salvation he offers is found in his all sufficient word, the Bible - the Old and New Testament. These are God's own words about his Son and life in him. Two passages from Hebrews were mentioned. Hebrews 1:1-4 highlighted the finality and supremacy of revelation in GOd's Son, the Lord Jesus. We cannot add to him. No earthly committee, following proper institutional procedure, has the right to add or subtract or think that they need to "mop up" what Jesus left unfinished. In referring to Hebrews 2:1-3 we were shown how this is a salvation issue and that there will always be a tendency to drift away. This drift, however, is deadly serious.

So, the heart of the issue is not homosexuality or women bishops. The root issue is the greatness of the Lord Jesus, and his honour. Has God the Father really spoken fully and finally by him, giving us all we need to know him through the testimony of his Apostles and prophets? And is our plight so serious and the salvation Jesus offers so great, that there is no other way?

Less encouraging by far was the reporting of the day in the press. Most of the reports I read bore little resemblance to the conference I attended. Indeed, in a couple of cases I didn't recognise the conference at all. Most upsetting was the Religious Intelligence report. RI publish the Church of England Newspaper which purports to be evangelical. It was ironic that the reporting of the 'Be Faithful' conference was so unfaithful. Toby Cohen made out that the FCA is set to take over if the liberalisation of the C of E continues. We were never told that. That certainly wasn't the tone of the meeting. THe whole point, and what was repeatedly emphasised, was that we are here to stand firm, support one another, and resist the move away from historical Christianity, and not take over! Likewise, this was not the start of a split, as other reporters said. The FCA was set up precisely because we don't want to split, but to stay within, but without compromising our Anglican heritage.

The Telegraph presented a pretty fair report. The most faithful reporting I found online was David Virtue's report at Virtue Online. He reports some of the central portions from the key note address from Archbishop Peter Jenson. Some of it is word for word. It is well worth reading.

Most interesting is reading some of the criticisms of the 'Be Faithful' conference. The critics can be put into various categories:

1. Those who consider faithfulness to the structures of the C of E as more important to faithfulness to what God has said. THis is similar to what Andrew Goddard says in this Guardian Article. The question is whether I should be loyal first to the C of E as an institution, or stand with those who hold to the Apostolic faith. This is a question of what is true Apostolicity, or what it means to be "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." FCA is saying apostolicity centres around being faithful to the Apostolic testimony of the supremacy of Christ in revelation and salvation. Faithfulness to the Apostolic faith trumps faithfulness to an institution.

2. Those who consider the tide of liberalism not to be serious. One of the speakers likened the drift of the Anglican church to slicing Salami. Each slice that is taken away is thin. So, each slice does not seem very important. This is shrewd tactics indeed. Beef stew is turned into lentil soup little by little. At each stage, the change is small and vocal protests will always seem out of proportion with the change just made. However, at some point we need to take a stand and fight. If we don't the slices will continue until orthodoxy no longer has a place. That is the tragedy of the recent vote on women bishops. The traditional position, held in good faith by many for theological reasons is being forced out.

3. Those who say it is all about homophobia and sexual discrimination. See for example Ruth Gledhill in The Time who suggests that the unlikely coalition of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals arises because of the strength of their opposition to same sex marriage and women bishops. This is simply not true and was repeatedly stated at the conference. Indeed, a number of speakers highlighted how there is the full breadth of opinions on women preists and bishops within the FCA (was Ruth actually at the conference??). The heart of the debate is a theological issue regarding the nature of God's revelation in Christ and in Scripture. As Peter Jenson said yesterday, the "yes" of the gospel is only as good as the "no" of the gospel. The gospel calls us to love all people. But it also calls us all to repent and turn away from our sin back to God, whatever that sin and its manifestations, whether it be pride, greed, self-centredness, murder, anger, adultery, unfaithfulness. The nature of the gospel is at stake. The salvation of souls is at stake. That is what is uniting Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals.

So, a great time. And heartening to know that there are many in the C of E who wish to be Faithful! We hope and pray that others will join us. We are not hard-line. Nor are we fundamentalists in the derogatory sense of the word. All we are standing for is historical Anglicanism as affirmed in the 1662 Prayer Book and the 39 articles - the Biblical Apostolic faith! FCA is a call not to move, but be faithful!

Protecting free speech

2009-07-01T13:51:00.001+01:00

We need to sign this petition: here.

Rose tinted spectacles

2009-06-23T09:38:00.001+01:00

Say not, "Why were the former days better than these?"
For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.

Ecclesiastes 7:10

NIDOTTE

2009-06-15T12:17:00.002+01:00

I've just discovered the Topical Dictionary at the back of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. In particular, there is a very good article on Wisdom by the late Gerald H Wilson.

Well worth investing in the NIDOTTE, but shop round for a good price. Here is a good place to start looking.

Acts 6:4 encouragement

2009-06-15T10:33:00.003+01:00

"...but to prayer and the ministry of the word we will devote ourselves."

Sorry, what did you say, Apostles?

"...but to prayer and the ministry of the word we will devote ourselves."

Ah!

Devoted to the ministry of the word. Yes, I know what you are talking about, that is what grows churches.

"...prayer and the ministry of the word..."

Prayer?

"Yes, devoted to it."

Ah.

"...and to the ministry of the word."

Don't some pray and others do the ministry of the word?

"...to prayer and the ministry of the word."

Ah.

"Devoted."

I see.

"To both."

Got you.

Understanding the exception clause in Matthew 19:9

2009-06-08T09:59:00.002+01:00

An analogy which I find helps to understand Matt 19:9:

I tell you that anyone who takes an Apple, except when it is free, and eats it is stealing

FCA Launch, 6th July

2009-06-02T10:53:00.001+01:00

I'd like to encourage you to join me in London on the 6th July at Westminster Central Hall, for "Be Faithful !" which is the UK launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans: here.

"The aim is to encourage and envision Anglicans who are committed to the orthodox teachings of the Anglican Church and who are passionate about global and local mission. It will be the first of regular ‘fellowship’ events both in the UK and across the world."

Given all the divisions within the Anglican Communion and the (unacknowledged) divisions in the C of E this is potentially a fairly historic moment. It is a chance to
- identify with the 70% of the total active membership of the Anglican Communion, represented by GAFCON,
- identify ourselves with historic main-stream Anglicanism

Be there!

Lame excuses for not coming:

1. My baptism is all I need to identify myself as a Christian, I don't need to sign up to anything else.
It is true that our baptism is all we need to identify ourselves as a Christian. However, not all baptised are CHristian, and some baptised are not faithful teachers, but teach error and heresy. Our baptism alone is not sufficient to identify us as a Christian. Faithfulness, worked by the Spirit, is essential. This faithfulness is in terms of who we live for, how we live (lifestyle), and what we believe (doctrine).

2. GAFCON and FCA is divisive
No it is not and yes it is.
No it is not: It is a movement within the Anglican Communion. Nothing it stands for moves from historic Anglicanism. The Jerusalem Declaration affirms orthodox Anglicanism.
Yes it is divisive: What GAFCON and FCA recognise is that there are those within the Anglican communion who have moved away from Biblical, historic and orthodox Christianity. To call people back to our roots inevitably shows up those who have moved away. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

3. Then we don't need it?
Yes we do. There is always a tendency to drift away from orthodoxy. A robust doctrine of sin teaches us that our hearts are inclined away from God not towards. Hence church history is littered with creeds and affirmations calling people back to the Biblical faith. Indeed, Anglican services require us to say a creed each week.
If Athanasius hadn't stood firm against Arianism then we may well all be Arians now.

4. But what about the Windsor Continuation Group and all that?
Yes, we still hope and pray that WCG will sort things out and we can all be friends again. But so far things aren't looking that great: TEC continues to litigate against the orthodox dioceses and parishes that have left; and, understandably, there continues to be "cross-border incursions." We need to put ourselves in the shoes of the global orthodox and join with those who are on the front line. Plus, delaying and delaying the WCG process plays into the hands of TEC and not the orthodox. That is not to say that this is what they are doing, but it seems likely. As long as they can give good reasons for legitimately delaying, then they can carry on as present. This tactic also makes conservatives look impatient and not really concerned for church unity.

5. Going to the FCA divides the C of E
Are we not already in many ways divided? Aren't the issues facing the TEC already bubbling under the surface here in the C of E? The question is where our loyalty lies. Is it first and foremost to the C of E as it is now? Or is it with Anglicanism as expressed in the Jerusalem statement? Put another way, what would the ideal C of E look like in our minds if we could start all over again? Isn't the Jerusalem statement closer to where we want to be than the mess we are in now?
We also need to consider what our orthodox Anglican brothers and sisters world wide think of us. If we agree with them, why are we not willing to stick our heads above the parapet and stand with them? The situation is not ideal. But living in a fallen world nothing is ever ideal. Ideally, we would never have had GAFCON. Likewise, ideally we should never have had the Christological and Trinitarian crises of the first few centuries. But we have, and we need to live in light of these, rather than in denial. GAFCON has happened. FCA exists. Here is a chance to do something positive.

6. I should just keep my head down and focus on my parish
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. If anything, what is going on in the TEC is a foretaste of what could happen here. That said, things are made more complicated in England by Establishment, our much longer history, and how change takes much longer here. However, if we consider the direction of the culture and the direction of liberal theology, then it is not too hard to envisage what might happen. Plus, the consecration of women to the episcopacy debate shows how unstable "two positions of integrity" can be.

7. I am too busy
We are always too busy. That is the nature of our work. But sometimes global issues are more important than local ones and we have to put the local on hold just for a short time. If everyone was too busy all the time then we effectively become autonomous congregations. Plus global issues do come back to haunt us (either positively or negatively) at some point.

8. FCA is unstable
This is a concern I share. The unity of Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals is an uneasy one, especially given our reformation heritage. However, the question at present regards the direction of the Anglican Communion and the C of E, and what offers the best hope for it. I believe FCA does.

So, I hope to see you there. You can sign up from the Anglican Mainstream website. Link is at the top of this page.

Anyway, if you have read this far, you are doing well.

Here's the blurb from the Anglican Mainstream website:

------
THE launch in the UK and Ireland of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA), an orthodox Anglican movement for mission at global and local level, is to take place on July 6 in London.

The Fellowship is the outworking of last year’s GAFCON conference in Jerusalem, at which 1200 delegates signed up to the Jerusalem Statement. Those attending Gafcon 2008 represented some 40 million Anglicans world-wide, 70% of the total active membership of 55 million.

The launch event, entitled ‘Be Faithful! – Confessing Anglicans in Global and Local Mission’ will be held at Westminster Central Hall from 10.30am-5.30pm. The aim is to encourage and envision Anglicans who are committed to the orthodox teachings of the Anglican Church and who are passionate about global and local mission. It will be the first of regular ‘fellowship’ events both in the UK and across the world.

Speakers at the July 6 gathering, where around 2,300 bishops, clergy and laity are expected, will include contributors from across the Anglican Communion, including Bishops Keith Ackerman (President of Forward in Faith North America), Wallace Benn (Bishop of Lewes), John Broadhurst (Chairman of Forward in Faith UK) and Michael Nazir-Ali, Dr Chik Kaw Tan plus Archbishop Peter Jensen (secretary of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans www.fca.net). They, and others yet to be announced, will also lead gatherings in London churches on Sunday July 5th. the day before the launch.

The Revd Paul Perkin, vicar of St Mark’s, Battersea Rise, London, and Chairman of the event planning team, said: “The fellowship is just that, a spiritual movement of brothers and sisters across the nation and the world. It is not a separatist party, nor is it an organisation, but a spiritual fellowship issuing from a concern for truth and unity. It is a renewal of our confessing Anglican roots and convictions, and will be forward-looking in gospel mission locally, and in solidarity globally with Anglicans throughout the world, especially those suffering through poverty or discrimination”.

Pushing on doors

2009-05-29T16:43:00.003+01:00

This is an interesting minor-application from 1 Thess 2:17-3:5 which I am preaching on Sunday.
Paul is desperate to see the Thessalonians whom he misses so much in order to encourage them in their faith. But he is continually frustrated. You get the sense that the more he can't see them, the more he tries to get to them.

This is in stark contrast to the "pushing on doors" method of guidance. Here is a door for Paul that is firmly shut. Wedged shut by Satan in fact. Although we don't doubt Paul's confidence in God's sovereignty, he doesn't here interpret it as God's sovereign guidance, but satan's opposition. And so he bangs on the door harder.

Now, we must remember that this is in the context of gospel ministry - seeking to encourage a group of believers. Paul is passionate about people's faith. This is obviously a matter of supreme importance.

But it does mean that we need to be a little bit wary of a simplistic understanding of the "pushing on doors" method of guidance. Just because a door is shut doesn't mean we shouldn't push it. It maybe that we need to push it harder. Or, that we need to push it in a different way e.g. by sending Timothy!

Rather startled to discover that we [C of E] are far more Roman Catholic than I realised

2009-05-12T21:12:00.007+01:00

The following excerpt from my Diocesan Archdeacon's Visitation News newsletter rather took me by surprise:

The Church we are part of believes in the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion. That's not an optional extra for those who come from a particular tradition - it is fundamental to the theology and doctrine of the Church we belong to through our baptism. It is the reason for the existence of all our church buildings.

Oh, really?!
Article 28 might suggest a more careful understanding of this.

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

The Anglican teaching is that the work of the Spirit is in the believer, enabling them by faith to feed on the body of Christ. There is not a "real presence." In fact, there is no "presence." Rather there is a spiritual and heavenly feeding that is only active in those who "rightly, worthily, and with faith" receive the bread and wine. Hence the crucial words insomuch that in the first paragraph. This feeding, along with the giving and taking, is by the Spirit (hence "spiritual") and takes place not on earth but in "heaven." Hence, it is by faith, and not by virtue of a "real presence."

The next article agrees with this:

The Wicked, and such as be void of lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

If there is "real presence" then this article is a nonsense. If there is a "real presence" then all who partake of the supper partake of Christ. Notice there that he bread and wine are called a "sign," that is, they point to something else elsewhere.

Likewise, the end of Article 25:

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith.

So, coming back to the Archdeacon's Visitation News I am later told:

One other clue which mark's people's attitude to their Lord present with them sacramentally is the state of care for the altar and linen and vessels. ... If we would prepare vigorously for the visit of an earthly monarch, how much more should we for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

Well, yes! But the Lord is not "present" sacramentally either in the elements or on the table. In the Lord's supper I am instructed to "take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for me, and feed on him in my heart by faith" [emphasis added]. When I receive the sign worthily, the Spirit is at work in me feeding my faith in the risen and exalted Lord Jesus. When combined with faith, the sacrament is effectual. Which is why Scripture and the BCP service call me to examine my heart and my life, and not examine the cleanliness of the cup or linen which is being used.

So, I take significant umbridge. The Church we are part of does not believe in the "real presence" of Christ in Holy Communion. It is not even an optional extra for those who come from a particular tradition.

Women in Ministry

2009-05-12T10:43:00.004+01:00

If you want to look into issues relating to women ministry here are a couple of excellent links:

Graham Beynon's very accessible paper

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

The latter is a particularly good resource with input from the likes of Don Carson and Wayne Grudem.

Some comments from me

At the heart of where I sit on this issue is a crucial distinction between status and being under authority, or between who we are (identity) and our human relationships.

Our status is defined in relation to God the Father, by the work of his Son, made effective in us by the Holy Spirit, both in creation and in recreation. The relationship that constitutes and defines our identity as a human being is that of our relationship with our creator.

Our position under human authority does not affect this status. Our human relationships do not ultimately affect who we are.

The crucial nature of this distinction is perhaps best seen with a number of examples. We readily (usually!) accept the authority of the government over us. But we don't say those in government are more human than those not in government, or that we are any less human than the Queen. Similarly, we don't say that an unmarried only child with deceased parents and only one friend is less of a person than a married person with a large family and many friends.

A vital term here is "asymmetry." Asymmetry in human relationships is not an indicator of asymmetry in personal identity.

This is the case in the Trinity. The Father and Son are equally God. However, there is asymmetry in their relationship. In the Bible "Father" and "Son" as names of two of the Trinitarian persons are not just arbitrary names such as "Bob" and "Harry." They are names that indicate the relationship. The Son calls the Father "Father" because the Father is the Son's Father! So, there is absolute equality and asymmetry to the relationship. The Father relates to the Son as Father to Son. The Son relates to the Father as Son to Father. This includes a strong element of authority on behalf of the Father, and a strong element of obedience on behalf of the Son.

Ironically, the distinction between status and authority is precisely what Arianism (Jesus not fully God) in all its guises cannot grasp. If there is asymmetry between the persons then surely one is lesser and so not fully God, say the Arians (inc. the JWs). The egalitarian conception of the Trinity makes the same error but pushes the distinction in the other direction. In an "egalitarian" Trinity there is nothing to distinguish between the persons of the Trinity, "Father" and "Son" are names not relationships. Any one of Father, Son or HS could have been incarnate.

The "equality with asymmetry" in Trinitarian relationships translates into human relationships. The relationship between myself and my boss is asymmetric. He relates to me differently from the way I relate to him. And yet we are both equally human. Similarly, I relate to my children differently from how they relate to me. But they are no less human.

If we lose the distinction between status and authority then any asymmetry in our relationship is an asymmetry in our status as human beings. In this case any authority relationship is ruled out as being one of inequality. Parents lose all authority, government loses all authority. This distinction is fundemantal to the functioning of human society.

Finally it is worth noting how this distinction is vital in understanding Galatians 3:28. If we don't concede this distinction, then Galatians 3:28 is nonsense. Paul is saying our status depends on what has been achieved by Christ and not social, religious or gender issues. If positions of church leadership are about status before God (which must be assumed if they are to be open to men and women on the basis of Galatians 3:28), then the principle of Galatians 3:28 has been undermined since some (church leaders) have a more privileged status before God. But if we have conceded the distinction, then women not being permitted to occupy positions of church leadership is not an issue of equality in God's kingdom, but a question of whether there is a fundamental asymmetry in the husband-wife or even male-female relationship which does not at all undermine the fundamental male-female equality.

The "blinkered orthodoxy" of the same-sex-attraction lobby

2009-04-28T19:55:00.002+01:00

Here's a fascinating article copied from the Anglican Mainstream website. What is extraordinary is how one particular side in the ongoing issues is very happy to suppress the free expression of one person's (entirely legitimate) experience. The fact that this one person's experience echoes that of many others seems to pass them by.

The situation in Italy sounds remarkably similar to the UK. The problem is of course, if there is a significant number of people whose experience mirrors that of Luca in the song, then many of the arguments of one particular side in the debates are seriously undermined.

---------
By Roberto Marchesini, NARTH

Italy’s "Festival di San Remo," the most important musical happening in my country which is seen on T.V. by millions of Italians, became the unlikely platform this year for a powerful ex-gay testimony. The singer, Giuseppe Povia, winner of the festival in 2006, presented a song entitled, "Luca Era Gay" (Luca was once gay) — SEE VIDEO HERE. The title of his song, implying that some gays can change to heterosexuality, was sufficient to destabilize the Italian gay movement. Gay activists threatened to block the festival, and Europarlimentary member Vittorio Agnoletto asked for a European resolution to stop Povia from peforming the song. Povia, himself, received death threats. The gay association "Everyone" denounced Povia to the Procura of the Republic for alleged "homophobia." These efforts failing, gay activists then asked the Festival organizers to "counterbalance" Povia with a song by a gay singer, about "the perfection of homosexual love." That effort too, failed.

Finally, on February 17th., Povia sang his song on the first evening of the Festival. "Luca Era Gay" recounts the transformation of a man named Luca from the gay lifestyle. Without the help of psychologists and psychiatrists, he digs deep within himself to understand the sources of his homosexual attractions. An emotionally disconnected, detached father and a smothering mother, he says, created confusion about his sexual identity: "I looked for men who would be my father, I went with men not to betray my mother." The song also alludes to a superficiality in homosexual relationships. He says, "between love and deceit, often we betrayed each other." The song ends with this verse: "This is my story, only my story. No disease. No healing. Dear dad, I forgive you even if you didn’t come back. Mum, I often think of you, I love you and sometimes I still bear your reflection, but now I am a father and I am in love with the only woman I have ever loved." The music, a soft rap with dramatic tunes, carries a direct and honest text while never judging homosexually oriented people for their own personal lifestyle choices.

Before Povia’s song was aired, the Italian comedian Roberto Benigni presented a twenty-minute show in which he condemned Povia, saying that homosexuality isn’t a sin and that gays have been persecuted historically "because they love someone." He then read an excerpt from Oscar Wilde’s "De Profundis."

After Povia’s song, contrary to all custom, the conductor gave the microphone to Franco Grillini, former parliamentary member and former president of ARCIgay, the foremost gay association in Italy. Grillini said he had received a cellphone message from a friend (although all celphones were supposed to be turned off during the festival…), who had cried when he had just heard Benigni reading "De Profundis," because it brought to mind his partner who had died of AIDS. Grillini concluded by saying that Povia must learn what gay love is.

Then, the unforseeable happened: people in the theater started to hiss at Grillini (in Italy, hissing is like booing)! The crowd’s sympathy was with Povia, not with the gay activist.

Povia’s song went on to the finals and Saturday night, won second place in the San Remo Festival, while outside the theatre, gay activists continued to protest against him. Povia himself said: "I too had a gay phase–it lasted seven months and then I got over it."

The popularity of "Luca Era Gay" has given courage and dignity to the ex-homosexual community in Italy, who, until now, have been thoroughly intimidated by gay activists. The text’s real-life insights regarding the ex-gay experience are undeniable.

Indiscriminate Infant Baptism

2009-04-24T10:28:00.002+01:00

The following clauses of Canon B22 of the C of E canon law are somewhat troublesome:

B 22 Of the baptism of infants
2. If the minister shall refuse or unduly delay to baptize any such infant, the parents or guardians may apply to the bishop of the diocese, who shall, after consultation with the minister, give such directions as he thinks fit.

4. No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed.

Encouragingly, in B22.4 there is the requirement to instruct the parents and godparents. B22.3 makes this clear also:

3. The minister shall instruct the parents or guardians of an infant to be admitted to Holy Baptism that the same responsibilities rest on them as are in the service of Holy Baptism required of the godparents.

However, the inability under Canon law to refuse infant baptism is a problem to some.

Praise the Lord then for a group called Baptismal Integrity. I hadn't really come across them before. The aims of Baptismal Integrity are as follows:

- to bring to an end the indiscriminate administration of infant baptism.

- to demonstrate that baptism is the sacrament instituted by Christ for those becoming members of the visible Church.

- in a spirit of loyalty to the traditions of the Church of England, to seek to clarify the provisions relating to the administration of baptism in the canon law of the Church of England in the light of a true theological understanding of the responsibilities thereby undertaken.

- to promote within the Church of England legitimate debate and review of the biblical, theological, pastoral and evangelistic aspects of Christian initiation.

So, if the above resonates with you, I encourage you to check out their website (a little old in style and hard to find your way round, but lots of content), order a copy of their newsletter (much clearer), and perhaps even join.

More on Mehdi Dibaj

2009-04-19T21:59:00.003+01:00

Follow this link for the complete text of his defence. Stirring stuff.

What I should have included in my sermon for this last Sunday is the following two paragraphs:

This test of faith is a clear example. The good and kind God reproves and punishes all those whom He loves. He tests them in preparation for heaven. The God of Daniel, who protected his friends in the fiery furnace, has protected me for nine years in prison. And all the bad happenings have turned out for our good and gain, so much so that I am filled to overflowing with joy and thankfulness.

The God of Job has tested my faith and commitment in order to increase my patience and faithfulness. During these nine years he has freed me from all my responsibilities so that under the protection of His blessed Name, I would spend my time in prayer and study of His Word, with a searching heart and with brokenness, and grow in the knowledge of my Lord. I praise the lord for this unique opportunity. God gave me space in my confinement, brought healing in my difficult hardships and His kindness revived me. Oh what great blessings God has in store for those who fear Him!

Oh to have refined and tested faith like this! Sadly, I desire the results without the means. How hard hearted I am!

The best bit from the post below...

2009-04-07T21:31:00.003+01:00

Okay, I couldn't resist it. In case you haven't the energy to click that link. Here is a taster...

This is precisely how the church has all but destroyed itself. Instead of asserting its core beliefs against aggressive secularism, it has tried to accommodate its own destroyer.

As a result, it stopped doing God and spirituality and holding the line for Biblical values and mutated instead into a branch of nonjudgmental social work - a kind of Guardian newspaper at prayer. The resulting moral vacuum now threatens not just the church but the nation itself.

Although most people may no longer be churchgoers, Christianity infuses all this country's institutions, traditions and values.

These have been systematically attacked by a secular culture of unlimited self-indulgence and self-destructive behaviour, resulting in the collapse of the married family, rising crime, drug and alcohol abuse and a grievous erosion of the sanctity of human life.

With the church refusing to assert itself, this vacuum has allowed radical Islam to promote itself as an influential force in public life. Indeed it is rubbing its hands at the opportunity. And in the longer term that risks destroying our basic values of individual freedom and equality - and with them the identity of Britain itself."

Is asserting ourselves a Christian thing to do?

Well, what did Jesus do at the start of his ministry? He preached. What was the content? Repent and believe the good news. Sounds fairly assertive to me...

Melanie Philips and the voice of reason

2009-04-07T21:19:00.002+01:00

It is always refreshing to read a newspaper columnist with their head screwed on right. Melanie Philips has a lot of very good things to say in this column. Well worth five minutes to read.

Does the NT teach "replacement theology?"

2009-03-20T09:47:00.003Z

Does the church "replace" Israel? Is it right to speak of the "New Israel?" I am increasingly persuaded that it is not Biblical to talk in those terms.

Rather, the New Testament writers seem to speak more in terms of restored Israel (e.g. Acts 1:6) or true Israel (e.g. Rom 2:28-29). Jesus is not calling out a new Israel in appointing twelve Apostles, but calling out faithful and true Israel. Hence, the appearance of the LORD in person in Jesus divides Israel into the true and faithful who accept him, and the apostate and faithless Israel who reject him. Hence, the purpose of some parables to divide the hearers precisely into those groups (Matt 13:11-17). Hence also John 1:47 and Luke 2:25-32. Nathanael and Simeon are true Israelites. The true Israel is constituted as it always has been, around the Lord, made up of those who have circumcised hearts and so follow in the faith of Abraham. So, when the LORD comes in person, fulfilling his promises (or, better, unconditional covenants) to Abraham and David, true Israel is constituted around him, rather than the typological nature of the conditional Mosaic covenant. The Gentiles are grafted into the restored and faithful Israel (Rom. 11:17). Paul's priority and practice of going to the Jew first and then to the Gentiles is because the LORD's salvation is first to Israel and then to the Gentiles just as the programmatic songs in Luke 1 make clear.

To support our argument, not only is the concept "new Israel" not found in Scripture, neither is the phrase. Indeed, when "new" and "Israel" are in the same verses, it is to talk about a new covenant with Israel (See Ezek. 18:31, Matt 19:28, Heb 8:8). The significance of Matt 19:28 is not a "new Israel" but Israel constituted around Jesus and his twelve Apostles. Hence, the foundation of the church is the prophets and apostles. A true Israelite is he or she who accepts the incarnate LORD and the authority of his chosen Apostles. Hence, the coming of Jesus divides Israel and rejection by them secures the final destruction of Jerusalem (e.g. Mark 13) (at the same time, the judgment on faithless Israel in destroying the temple and Jerusalem is the LORD's means of ending the now fulfilled typological elements of the conditional (in particular the Mosaic) covenants: the land (fulfilled in the resurrection of all creation), the temple (fulfilled in Christ's cross, resurrection and accession) and the city (fulfilled in the people of God, fully realised at Jesus' return)).

The danger of "new Israel"/"old Israel" terminology is it puts a dividing line between the Old and New Testament that is far sharper than the Biblical evidence allows. So, let us drop the language and concept of "new Israel" and rejoice that we Gentiles have been grafted into the kingdom that has been restored to Israel in her Messiah, the crucified and risen Lord Jesus. The true Israel are those who gather in the heavenly Zion around their king. It is what the true Israelites of old were looking forwards to (Heb. 11:39-40).

Some big questions

2009-03-06T10:56:00.003Z

Some questions which are going through my mind at the moment. Of course, there are good answers to many of them.

Who sets the agenda for the theological and pastoral training of church leaders? Is it the theological colleges? Is it the church leaders? Which ones? Is it both? What if a college does not necessarily tow the "party line?"

Why are evangelicals so good at dividing and in-fighting?

Why are evangelicals also seemingly so poor at handling disagreements?

If all our doctrine and practice comes out of Scripture and Scripture is the Word of God, how do we prevent every issue becoming an issue that strikes at the authority of Scripture?

If all doctrine and practice is connected to the gospel, how do we prevent every issue becoming a gospel issue?

If there were great persecution of those who call themselves Christians, which Christians would we stand in solidarity with?

What is the relationship between Biblical studies and doctrine? If biblical study casts a different light on a text than previously understood, ought we to change our doctrine?

Is there a reason that church leaders are called elders in Scripture? Is that why Paul warns the young Timothy about the "evil desires of youth" - not sex and lust, but hotheadedness, argumentativeness and divisiveness? Is that why Paul tells Timothy to pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart?

All worth thinking about, especially at the moment.

Love AND truth

2009-02-24T10:06:00.002Z

Love and truth go hand in hand.

Paul writes in the letter to the Ephesians: "Speakng the truth in love we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ." (Eph 4:15)

In the letter to the Romans he writes: "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love." (Rom. 12:9-10)

Our postmodern culture often wants to have love without truth. Although in some ways appealing, in the end such love is empty. What is love if it is based on lies, half-truths or avoiding the truth? A marriage relationship without truth at the heart quickly breaks down. The challenge of Romans 12:9-10 is that sincere love necessarily involves hating evil and grasping onto what is good. Love that hates nothing is not love but indifference. The danger of liberal Christianity is its tendency towards postmodern relativism. Good and evil are culture bound and so ultimately unobtainable concepts. One cannot hate what one is not certain about. The greater the uncertainty the less the conviction, and so less love, and consequently less hate. Unless of course the only evil is that of being certain!

By contrast, evangelicals are often in danger of speaking the truth without love. I confess that has been true of me. We are sometimes ungracious, angry, vindictive in manner. But it is not just a problem with evangelicals however. It is a problem for all sinful people. Selfishness and pride lurk not at all far below the surface regardless of our theology.

Why evangelicals, and conservative ones especially, are often accused of arrogance or unlovingness is, I think, because of a confusion of the two categories of love and truth.

Truth is, assuming a God who has revealed himself, objective. It is not something we create, but learn.

Love is more subjective and to do with our attitude and manner.

This gives us a range of combinations.
The first combination is truthful and unloving. This is not necessarily arrogance, but will often be interpreted as such. The concern here is a right one; a concern for the truth. It is not arrogant to be correct. But here there is not significant concern for the other person. There is no empathy nor willingness to consider that how we communicate affects the recipients of our communication.

The second combination is loving and lacking truth. This we have mentioned already. There is a concern for the other person. But in the end such love is hollow. We say whatever we think the person needs to hear, or what we think will maintain the relationship. Alternatively, someone might lack truth through sincere error, or lack of enlightenment. Less serious since at least there are good intentions, the key question is what that person does when they find out the truth. If the possibility of objective truth is removed, then this ends up looking remarkably like liberal Christianity. We must love one another as we seek to work out something approximating the truth (if indeed there is such a thing). If there is no objective truth (i.e. revelation which we can know with a degree of certainty), then Paul's words start to appear an impossibility. Perhaps he hadn't really grasped the complicated nature of "truth"??!!

The third combination is unloving and lacking truth. This might be the manipulator who is in it only for themselves. Or it might be the person who is convinced of lies and rams it down someone's throat. This is true arrogance. Notice that the person may indeed be sincere and think that they are right. The difference between this and the first combination presupposes a criteria of objective truth.

The fourth combination is the Christian one. Truth and love. Both held with zeal and passion. Correct, but in a loving way. Holds to the truth and so out of love seeks to correct others. Loving and so out of a concern for the truth loves others. Says as much as someone can take at the time. Knows when to speak and when not to. Knows what to speak and what not to. Knows how to love and how not to.

All this is to draw attention to the following rather worrying issues:
here.

We must be truthful about whatever we talk about, whether that is ourselves or another religion (e.g. Islam). Likewise we must be loving. So, if the Barnabas Fund is telling the truth, that is not unloving. As a recipient of their material, I have not detected that it is done in a vindictive unloving way, but actually out of love and concern for the truth.

There are two debates that need to be had. One about the content (the truth) and the other about the manner (the love). Sadly, there are those in the present debate who are confusing the two.

Finally, after much rambling, we must note that Jesus was very happy to expose the truth of people's hearts in pronouncing woes on various people in the gospels. Was this unloving?

Ecclesia Reformanda

2009-02-23T09:16:00.002Z

After much silence on this blog, it takes something big to get me back to the blogging keyboard. Almost as exciting as reading Scripture is talking about it and seeking to understand every part of Scripture in the light of the rest.

That's why I am rather excited by the launch of a new journal. Ecclesia Reformanda is, to quote one of the editorial board "an exciting new journal for pastors, theological students, and scholars, that seeks to serve the Church in its ongoing reformation according to God's Word."

With them I share the convictions that "historic Reformed theology offers the best expression of the theology of Scripture" and that we need to be constantly reformed by God's word.

Ecclesia Reformanda offers something distinct from the Church Society's Churchman journal. The focus of Ecclesia Reformanda is both tighter and broader. It is tighter in that the focus is Reformed theology; broader in that it is significantly wider than Anglicanism.

So, check out the link (www.ecclesiareformanda.org.uk) and see what you think.

More on the Transfiguration

2009-01-19T13:39:00.003Z

Here are some additional thoughts on the Transfiguration that did not make it into the Luke 9:28-36 sermon on Sunday. In effect it was a whole additional point that would appear between the second and third points and extend the sermon by 7 minutes or so. The material below is not written as would be preached, but as thoughts for the blog.

Peter's mistake
The glory cloud of the Father comes over in response to Peter's comments. Peter's request is not quite as innocent as it seems. Although Luke says Peter "did not know what he was saying," this is less likely to be Peter gibbering and more likely Peter not grasping the significance of what he was saying.

Peter is seeking to extend the experience of Jesus' glory by erecting three shelters. The idea of putting up three shelters is not entirely without foundation. The feast of booths looks very similar to what Peter is suggestion. That said, as an aside, I am not particularly persuaded that Peter wants to celebrate the feast of booths. The issue is more that Peter wants to extend the experience of Jesus' glory. Why is that significant?

In the context, Peter has just confessed Jesus as the Christ. Jesus then teaches the various "musts." He must go to Jerusalem and suffer and die and then be raised. His followers also must deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow Jesus. Luke, especially of the three synoptic gospel writers, explicitly links the Transfiguration back to what Jesus was just saying (Luke 9:28). What is going on then, is that Peter contrary to what Jesus has just been teaching, inadvertently wants to have the glory of Christ without the cross of Christ.

This then adds to the significance of Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus in glory and talking about his Exodus. The path to Jesus' glory is Jerusalem and the cross as the whole of salvation history testifies. This is the case for Jesus, for those who prefigured him and for those who would follow. Hence, Paul says he wants "to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." The Transfiguration is the glorious preview of Jesus' glory which is attainable only via the suffering of Jerusalem.

Hence, the Father's voice in response to Peter's comment is a mild rebuke for Peter to listen particularly to Jesus' words regarding the path to glory.

This helps us also in understanding why the transfiguration occurs when it does. It is an encouraging preview of what lies at the end of the path of the cross.

Re-preaching the sermon
Just thinking about this now makes me think how I could better structure and frame the sermon to include these ideas and preach the transfiguration more in context. The intro needs to be more about whether it is worth giving up our life to the cross for someone, in particular Jesus. The transfiguration answers that. Jesus is supremely worthy.

A Representative Evangelical Body??

2009-01-19T13:19:00.000Z

There is a particular truth of Scripture that haunts me as a Christian and as a Minister. Even though I am sealed and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, my indwelling sinfulness is still a powerful force. I, as we all do, have a tendency to drift away from Christ, both in doctrine and behaviour. At the same time as I am drifting, in my sinfulness I will keep saying that I am faithfully bearing the name of Christ and faithfully bearing the name 'Evangelical.' In 2 Timothy and in his speech to the Ephesian Elders, the Apostle Paul recognises this drift. There will always be a leakage of ministers away from gospel belief and behaviour. Significantly, this "leakage" will claim to be orthodox.

Why do I say this? The reality and deceitfulness of indwelling sin means that "representative" is not the defining category for any Christian body, and not least an evangelical body. A body that seeks to represent all who simply claim to be Christian or Evangelical is in subtle denial of the deceitfulness of indwelling sin. What I need is an Evangelical body which guards against the drift away from gospel belief and behaviour. I need a body that is crystal clear on who is God, what is a Christian and what is an Evangelical. Inevitably, such a body will be unpopular with some, or even many, because it will expose our self-deception and reveal that we can no longer bear the name evangelical or, perhaps, the name Christian.

Of course in saying this, I would like to be found to be represented by such a body. But if I am not, then my first port of call is self-examination of my belief and behaviour. I must ask myself the hard questions before I clamour for something more representative. And of course, if I am drifting, I may not actually want to acknowledge that.

Building and defending

2009-01-15T07:58:00.004Z

I've been greatly encouraged by Nehemiah 4 this morning. God's people are rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. They are threatened by the surrounding peoples. How do they respond? They "prayed to our God and set a guard as a protection against them day and night." Prayer and action. Entrusting themselves to God and doing something about it. God's sovereignty and our action go hand in hand. So, at the end of the chapter we read "in the place where you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us." We fight, God fights for us. Or, in the words of the Apostle, "I struggle with all his energy that he powerfully works in me" (Col. 1:29).

That is one encouragement. There is something even more pertinent to the state of evangelicalism in the UK at the moment. In Nehemiah, God's people are building and ready to fight. With one hand they build, with the other they clutch their sword. All are involved. Not only do we need to build God's church, the new Jerusalem, but we all need to be prepared to fight for it. That, it seems is what Paul did for the early church. He built it, but he also defended it against wrong belief and wrong behaviour coming from both within and without.

So, my role is not just to build Christ's church, but to equip the saints to defend it against the attacks of the devil, our sinfulness and false teaching. We must be building with sword in hand.

I can't just be ignoring what is going on in the Christian world outside the walls of my congregation. In terms of the Church of England which I love, and the Anglican communion as a whole, if I just build and don't defend, we will end up losing this denomination to error.

Now, that of course doesn't mean having a ghetto mentality, and being proud and arrogant. But it does mean recognising there is a fight and engaging in it. And it does mean standing with those who are being attacked. If there really is a crisis in the Anglican Communion and the C of E, then I cannot just put my head down and build. I need to stand with my brothers and sisters, building with one hand and sword in the other. Which is why I am thankful for GAFCon and all it stands for. It is why I encourage all those who agree with the Jerusalem Declaration to sign the appropriate petition here.

Build and defend Do both!

The seriousness of idolatry

2008-12-08T11:19:00.002Z

Reading Zephaniah 1 this morning I was struck by how serious the Lord takes idolatry. The Lord would rather have an empty world than an idolatrous world.
I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth,"
declares the LORD.
"I will sweep away man and beast;
I will sweep away the birds of the heavens
and the fish of the sea,
and the rubble with the wicked.
I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth,"
declares the LORD.
Bowing down to false gods is deadly serious. How little I think of it like this. Put it more starkly, he would rather I were dead than I worship anything other than him.

Lord, please give me such a vision of your glory and majesty that I share your concern for your honour and praise.

Resurrection of Animal Life

2008-11-12T17:25:00.002Z

I've just been thinking about how Genesis 9 seems to suggest that animal life will be raised into the new creation. A further thought is the interesting concern God has for animal life through scripture. For example, the Lord was concerned for the cattle at Nineveh (Jonah 4:11).

In particular, the Lord preserved each species of animal life through the flood. Was this just so Noah's descendants had some meat to eat and to sacrifice? Or does it point to God's concern for all life. As others have pointed out, the Ark is a model of creation floating in a sea of chaos. Typologically, the flood and Ark points to the second coming of Jesus. As we have noticed there are significant dissimilarities between the flood and Jesus' return. But, perhaps the presence of animals on the Ark suggest the resurrection of animal life at Jesus' return. We'll have to wait and see!

Priorities and responsibilities

2008-11-12T16:58:00.003Z

I might have posted on this before. The danger of the second "life boat" option (see previous post) is that it can easily leads to a form of potentially dangerous prioritising. Such a priority goes like this: As Christians, evangelism is our number one priority. However, we don't want to be distracted by other things, so we won't get involved in them. This can quickly lead to the thought that other things are not important. Or, we completely neglect the other things.

I am completely sold on the idea that evangelism is our number one priority. Our greatest and root problem is our sin. All people everywhere desperately and urgently need to hear and respond to the gospel. Repenting and trusting in Jesus is the most important thing in the world for anyone to do. It is a loving thing to do to proclaim the gospel and urge people to respond rightly.

It is our priority for the non-Christian, just as maturity is our priority for the Christian. However, evangelism is not our only responsibility.

This language of responsibilities or duties is very helpful.

All Christians have a number of responsibilities to be fulfilling. This includes loving one another, hospitality, living a godly life, showing mercy, giving to the poor as well as evangelising. All are marks of the genuine disciple. And all of us need to be pulled up short where we are failing in any area of discipleship.

Saying all that, I am pretty confident that I particularly need to be encouraged to evangelise and be intentional in shaping my life and diary around a heart for the lost.

To pick up on the previous parable. Out of love for our fellow crew members we will be doing all we can to call them to recognise the forgiveness and authority of the son. But we won't neglect our responsibilities and duties as loyal crew members, whether those responsibilities are to the son, to other crew members, or to the ship!

Why eschatology matters: A Parable.

2008-11-12T16:11:00.004Z

Imagine a large ship lovingly designed by a master ship builder. This ship builder is also its owner. He carefully builds the ship from the best materials. There is no attention to detail that he misses. On finishing the ship he steps back and declares it to be very good. He appoints a captain and crew to this ship. They are under his authority, subject to his orders, and in possession of his property.

However, on the maiden voyage, the captain and crew take charge of the ship and effectively mutiny against the owner. They reject his authority, ignore his orders and they fail to treat the ship and fellow crew members as the owner intended. The crew are divided and the ship falls into increasing disrepair.

What happens next?

Well, the owner sends various messages to the crew. They ignore them. Then he sends some messengers via helicopter. But the mutinous crew refuse to allow them onto ship. Some they kill. Others they let on only to throw them overboard.

The owner then sends his only son. But the crew tie him to a mast and kill him, thinking that they will inherit the ship if the son is dead.

But, in the strangest of twists, the son rises from the dead, exerting and demonstrating his authority over the ship.

The crucial questions are then what happens next?

Does the son declare his ownership of the ship and call people to come under his authority, or does he get into a life boat and call people to leave the ship and get into a life boat.

This is a crucial question in eschatology at the moment. There are, broadly, two positions.

Option 1:
The ship is going to harbour for a complete refit. The effects of the mutiny will not only be reversed, but the ship completely upgraded. Mutinous crew will be shamefully removed from the ship. At present, as it limps to harbour, the ship is now occupied by those who are mutinous as well those who have turned and now rightly recognise the authority of the owner. Such people are treating their fellow crew members as they ought. They do all they can to call their fellow crew members to return to the owner. They also do all they can to get the ship to harbour in the best condition possible, reversing the effects of the mutiny.

Option 2:
The ship is going to be sunk along with all the mutinous crew. A completely new ship awaits those who return to the rightful owner. So, alongside the ship is a life-boat. The son calls people to get out of the ship and into the life boat. Those who are in the lifeboat treat each other well and care for the lifeboat, but the ship is a lost cause. That said, those in the lifeboat do some occasional work on the ship since they want to preserve it for as long as possible for the sake of getting as many people into the lifeboat as possible.

Analysis
Option 1 is what one could call a high continuity position. This world is renewed and transformed, but not destroyed. Jesus is Lord, not only of a future kingdom, but Lord of this earth now. It is his fully, but many people continue to reject his authority. He is not going to return to destroy it, but he is going to return to finally exert his authority over it, purify and raise it. Social justice, environmental issues, and the ordering of society and the world are just as much the responsibility for Christians as evangelism. Neither evangelism nor ministries of mercy, nor political, social or societal involvement should be neglected.

Option 2 is a low continuity position. This world is effectively destroyed at Jesus' return. Social involvement, social justice and societal and political involvement are "rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic." Christians should prioritise evangelism above all else. Only the fruit of evangelism will last into the new-creation. Social involvement is really only for the sake of creating opportunities to proclaim the gospel.

Genesis 9: Additional material 3: Abortion

2008-11-10T12:25:00.003Z

Discussions on the value of human life inevitably require considering the emotional and thorny issue of abortion. I touched on it very briefly on Sunday. I think we need to note a number of significant points arising from Genesis 9 and other places:

1. The authority of God supercedes the value of human life.
It is God who gives human life value. He sovereignly gives and takes away life (e.g. Matt 10:28-29). Life and death are in his hands. The LORD's authority and sovereignty is the highest authority and supreme value.

2. The value of individual human life exceeds issues of quality of life.
Genesis 9, and the rest of God's word, gives no place for euthenasia or infanticide based on issues of quality of life. Indeed, (assisted) suicide is always a source of shame in the Bible.

3. The value of individual human life exceeds any other's claims to "human rights" other than the right of the Lord God to be God and the necessity for justice.

4. When does human life become a human life?
Defining when an unborn child (or even born child) becomes fully human determines when they have the value of a human being. Is it at birth? But the child is just as dependent as before. Is it at viability? That is reducing gradually as medical technology improves. From where I stand, there is a strong case that human life starts at conception (See e.g. Pss 22:10, 71:6; 139:13). Indeed, the Lord knows us from before conception (See e.g. Ps 139:16; Jer 1:5).

5.It is the Lord's work to knit together new life
Even if we can't define when a life becomes "human," the Bible teaches that in the womb the Lord forms the new life (Ps 139:13-5, Jer 1:5). The LORD is creating new life. We need very strong arguments in order even to consider interrupting his work.

I realise that this is a very sensitive issue. If this is something particularly sensitive for you then please, please, talk to a godly Christian about it. Abortion is also a very emotional issue, especially for women. In all of this, we need humbly to recognise the loving authority of our great God and Father.

Genesis 9: Additional material 2: The Death penalty

2008-11-10T12:08:00.003Z

A controvertial issue raised by Genesis 9 is the issue of the death penalty. We can make a number of observations.

1. It is precisely because of the value of human life that God institutes the death penalty. Therefore, the exercise of the death penalty must be within a context where the issue is the value of human life.

2. This is also a principle of retributive justice. The punishment fits the crime. This is a fundamental principle throughout scripture. Hence, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This is not revenge, but true justice. It is worth noticing also, that it is a principle of retributive justice. Reform of the offender, protecting others, ordering of society are not the primary purposes of justice.

3. From the whole of Scripture it is human governments who are given the sword to exercise justice (Romans 13:1-7). All justice must be on the testimony of two or three witnesses and carried out in accordance with God's word.

4. However, the value of human life is not the highest value. This is clear from the flood story. The Triune God's glory and "rights" exceed that of the human creature. Just as human life has greater value than animal life, God's life has even greater value.

5. Hence, sin, being a rejection of God, at heart is "murdering God." Hence, the principle of retributive justice requires a form of death for treason against the triune God. Therefore, the serpent crusher, the Christ, must die subject to God's wrath in order for justice to be served.

What this means is that the death penalty ought to be exercised in the situation where God's authority is recognised, the value vested in human life by God is properly appreciated, justice is seeking to be served, sufficient reliable witnesses are present, and a government is fulfilling its divine purposes.

Jesus' death fails on all these counts. And yet, it is his death that means that justice has been satisfied for all those who put their trust in him.

Genesis 9: Additional material 1: The world will be raised

2008-11-10T11:19:00.004Z

Further supporting material for why, at Jesus' return, the earth will be raised, transformed and raised.

i. Our bodies are raised and transformed
Just as Jesus' body is resurrected and transformed so also ours will be. This is the language of the New Testament. See e.g. 1 Corinthians 15.

ii. The Biblical model of heaven and earth
The Bible employs a "2d" model of heaven and earth. This is not because the Bible thinks of the world in 2D and that the world is flat. But, as finite humans we need a simple way of understanding how the spiritual world fits with this world. Therefore, the model is as follows:

Highest heaven - in which God dwells
----------------------------------------------
Firmament-heaven - the boundary between God's dwelling place, and this creation.

The "heavens" contain the Sun, Moon and Stars (the "elements" in the language of 2 Peter)
* * *
* ** * * * *** *
O O

Under this is the earth.
------------------------------------
^^^^^^ Surrounding the earth is the sea ^^^^^^^

Under the earth is the abyss or hades.

Theologically, the earth is the centre of the universe. Genesis 1-3 teaches this as a foundation for the rest of Scripture. The earth is more important than the sun. Likewise, light precedes the Sun and stars.

This model helps understand 2 Peter(and Revelation 21-22) and Jesus' return. The boundary between God's dwelling place and earth will be removed; God will come to dwell on earth; the sun, stars and moon destroyed and everything exposed to God's judgment. Sin and its effects will be removed, the forces of chaos - represented by the sea - will be overcome, and the earth resurrected and restored to new life.

iii. The creation looking forwards to the Lord coming
In the psalms, the trees and the rivers look forward to the Lord coming to judge. Likewise, the creation waits in eager expectation for the Sons of God to be revealed (Romans 8). So that creation can be destroyed? No. So that the earth can share in redeemed resurrection life.

Destruction of the ungodly
2 Thess 1 also talks about Jesus' second coming in terms of punishment of the ungodly, rather than cataclysmic destruction.

Some implications
i. The new creation will be recognisably similar
The new creation will look like our present world, but without all the bad bits. However, it will be wonderfully transformed because the dwelling of God will be with man.

ii. New creation is physical
The idea of bodiless "spiritual" existence in the future state is not Biblical. The "hope of heaven" in the NT is the hope of the new resurrected creation. This is physical. Paul's description of resurrection bodies in 1 Cor 15 is not a non-physical:physical dichotomy, but a perishable:imperishable, mortal:immortal distinction. Yes, this new physicality is fundamentally different to the present physicality. It is heavenly, spiritual, imperishable, immortal. But it is not a bodiless existence. Jesus' resurrection body is the supreme example. It is physical and yet transformed to be a spiritual, imperishable, immortal body. And this new physicallity is fundamentally continuous with the present creation as a plant from a seed (1 Cor 15:35-41). There is continuity and transformation.

iii. Eschatology comes from the whole of Scripture
This is a methodological point. It is tempting to construct our eschatology just from the passages which seem to refer to the end. Genesis 9 teaches that we must consider the whole counsel of scripture to build up a picture of what God promises for the future.

iv. Hints at resurrection of animal life
Genesis 9 provides the strongest hint that there will be animal life in the new creation. The covenant is with all of life that was with Noah on the ark.

v. Eternal bodily torment
The covenant of Genesis 9 also has a less pleasant implication. As per John 5:29, all people will be raised. Some raised to eternal life. Others to eternal condemnation. Hell is not just an absence of God but eternal physical subjection to God's active anger.

A verse I have rarely seen in practice...

2008-10-27T09:39:00.003Z

1 Timothy 5:20

As for those [elders] who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

This is not without weight. In the next verse, Paul writes:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

This is a similar charge to that in 2 Tim 4:1.

The Apostle obviously thought this was important.

The question arises as to why I have rarely seen this verse in practice. Is it because elders, or presbyters, in the Church of England rarely persist in sin? I guess the question hinges on what Paul means by "sin." Hmmmm...

There's Probably No God...

2008-10-27T08:31:00.003Z

If you've been following the news you'll know that a new bus campaign has been launched by the British Humanist Society (The Mail covers the story here). The irony is that the campaign shoots itself in the foot. If the statement was "There Is No God," that is an empirically unverifiable article of faith. To be accurate a "probably" must be present. And, of course, "probably" is more politically correct and avoids the back-lash against the new breed of Dawkins-esque militant atheism.

However, while the statement is a "probability," the Humanist Society has conceded the possibility that a God does exist. The logic of the campaign means that the reader should infer the following:

There's A Possibility there is a God. Do worry. Be afraid.

It doesn't take much of a thinking person in the street to figure this out. If the British Humanist Society can't be certain on these things, then maybe it is worth checking out the claims of Jesus!

Maybe the Christianity Explored course can capitalise on this...

The Communion Bee is buzzing...

2008-10-21T21:50:00.002+01:00

I wonder whether the Anglican way of doing communion is a hang-over from the days of transubstantiation. If the bread and wine were literally the body and blood of Jesus, then Holy Communion really was an intimate "Jesus and me" moment. But that is not the Anglican doctrine. Nor is it Biblical. Communion is a fellowship meal that recalls the death of Jesus, looks forward to his return, and is participated in by those united to him by the Spirit. It looks back to that meal in the upper room, forward to the wedding feast of the lamb, around at the gathered company of Jesus' people, and up to the one who unites it all, the beginning and the end, the crucified, risen and enthroned king Jesus.

Our practice in the communion needs to reflect all of that. Yes, there is obviously the personal element - I am united to him by the Spirit. But so too are all those who believe in his name.

This is us together looking back, forward, up and around. So, we do need to look around in the communion service. Make eye contact with our brothers and sisters at the meal table. It is a strange meal indeed where nobody ever looks at one another.

We also need to partake with joy. We don't just look back at the cross. We look back at Jesus' resurrection, and up, and forward. And all those parts of the gospel give us joy and assurance. It is odd that Holy Communion is peculiarly associated with silence. Don't get me wrong. There is a good and necessary place for silence in our corporate and personal Christian lives. But again, it tends to be funeral wakes that are subdued affairs. I expect the wedding banquet in heaven to be filled with great praise and rejoicing.

Part of the problem is that we live in the overlap of the ages. The eschatalogical kingdom breaking in now. And so we don't know whether we have a Lord's Supper that reflects the old order (sin, death etc) or the new (righteousness, new creation etc). I guess the Lord's supper need's to reflect both. That we are no longer in the old, but in the new by the down payment of the Spirit. But we await the redemption of our bodies, our full adoption as Sons. So not just reflective, but rejoicing, not just individual, but corporate. I suppose we will never get it quite right and not everyone will be satisfied. But we can work towards something that reflects the reality of what we are doing.

Some 1 John spin off thoughts

2008-10-21T21:34:00.003+01:00

More material that was editted out of the sermon for Sunday...

John's style
When we read John's gospel or his letters, especially 1 John, it can seem like John is repeating himself. It is true that he keeps returning to the same material. However, he is more like an artist painting an oil painting, than a scratched CD. Each time John comes around to the same theme he adds a bit more colour and detail to what he has said before. The challenge for me as a preacher or Bible study leader is to see what John is adding on this layer, and not to steal from the next layer, as it were.

The Lord's Supper
This one is a slight bee in my bonnet and so it was rightly swatted out of the sermon.
It's such a big bee that I will write a whole new post!...

Genesis 3 spin offs (or the material that didn't make it into the sermon!)

2008-09-30T14:05:00.004+01:00

Here is a whole load of material that did not make it into the Genesis 3 sermon on Sunday evening (available soon here). The material below is in no particular order. In fact the more important meaty stuff is at the end... Enjoy!

The danger of pharisaism
The woman adds to the LORD's words in 3:3. Putting a fence around the LORD's commands is a dangerous endeavour. She touches the fruit and she does not die. In her mind the trustworthiness of the LORD's word is undermined. This is why it is so important to understand exactly what the LORD does and does not say in his word. Original context as well as the exact meaning are vital.

The fruit eaten was like any other fruit
The first two reasons in Gen 3:6 recall 2:9. The tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes. The serpent's crafty ways have persuaded the woman that this tree is just like any other tree. In one sense that is right. But its importance in the woman's mind is reduced to those of the other trees.

Sin always dresses respectably
The woman rationalises her impending act by thinking that the fruit is good "for making one wise." Our rejection of the LORD is so often disguised in something respectable - pursuit of academic respectability, good education for the children, career, experiencing life, not being narrow-minded.

Rapid action
The action in verses 6-7 is very rapid. This contrasts with the dialogue either side of this action. The actual rejection of the LORD's authority happens rapidly with little further thought or deliberation. There is a sense of urgency to cover up their nakedness.

Clothing is a result of sin
Not sure what to make of this point other than that the fashion and marketing industries tap into the dissatisfaction brought about by self-rule.

Contrasted hearing
3:8 - whereas the man and woman are meant to hear and obey the LORD's word. Now they hear the LORD and hide.

The Trial
3:9-19 takes the form of a trial. The LORD is the judge who always re-exerts his authority and restores the creation order.

Adam trusts the LORD's promise in 3:15
His act of faith occurs in 3:20. He names his wife Eve because she will become the mother of all the living.

Clothing grace
The clothing which the man and woman make for themselves is insufficient. They only make loincloths (3:7). The LORD however provides "garments," something much fuller (3:20). These are made from animal skins. The animal death is not a reference to sacrifice. The Bible always highlights when a sacrifice is a sacrifice. The LORD is providing for the Adam and Eve's shame. He also demonstrates his continuing care and provision. In the midst of judgment there is further grace.

They could have eaten from the tree of life
In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:9). The man was only prohibited from eating of the latter tree: "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die" (Gen. 2:1-17. The man therefore could eat of the tree of life. The implication in 3:22 is that Adam has not yet. This suggest also that Adam and his wife had not long been in the garden. It is hugely ironic that they chose the prohibited tree of the knowledge of good and evil over the tree of life (on which more below).

Section of Genesis
Genesis is divided into sections by the writer. Each section is headed up with "These are the generations of..." The NIV translates it "This is the ... account of..." The present section runs from 2:4 to 4:26.

The importance of the man
Often when we preach/teach this passage both the man and woman represent "humanity" in general. But this misses the nuances of the story. In English we cannot distinguish between the singular and plural forms of "you." In 3:9 the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you [singular]?" The man has ultimate responsibility before the LORD for what he and his wife have done. This obviously has problems if the man simply "represents" humanity. Who does the woman represent? The man is not just a representative, but the head of humanity in a unique sense. He is the covenantal head. This brings us on to...

Covenant of Creation
In Hosea 6:7 we read that "Like Adam they have broken the covenant...". There is some debate over this verse. Most likely it refers to Adam in the garden. In the present section of Genesis (2:4-4:26) God's covenant name is used: the LORD. This could be saying "the LORD, the covenant God, is the one who made Adam and Eve." However, the LORD is not used in Genesis 1:1-2:3. It is better to understand "the LORD" being used because a personal covenantal relationship is being established. Reformed theologians variously call this the "covenant of works" or "the covenant of creation." I prefer the latter.

However, "covenant of works" is appropriate. The LORD makes a covenant with Adam who is the head of humanity and head of creation. The covenant has one condition: You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The penalty is made clear: for when you eat of it you will surely die. From 3:22 reformed theologians have inferred the other side of the covenant. As in Deuteronomy 30:12, Adam as head of the human race had the choice of life and death. Two trees lay before him. One conferred eternal life the other death.

The covenant structure is clear. Hence, we can rightly say that Adam was in both a state of innocence and a state of testing. He could choose life or death. One would have brought blessing, the other curse. The head of creation is disobedient and so all creation is cursed. It is worth noting that, of course, it is not just Adam who eats. The woman does also as a result of his failed headship. If we are going to identify with anyone in the story then it is not Adam but Eve. Because of Adam's failed responsibility as covenant head we find ourself also to be sinners under the LORD's curse.

Importance of the Covenant of Creation
The importance of this little known (in our circles) theological concept is in terms of the work of Christ. Christ's obedience brings eternal life in fulfillment of this covenant of creation. Christ, as the obedient second Adam brings in the new creation in two respects. First, through his death and resurrection, and by virtue of his obedience, he reverses the curse brought about by Adam. Second, by his obedience he fulfills the covenant which Adam broke. The life into which Christ is raised is not the life into which Adam was created, but incorruptible eternal life, the life that comes from eating of the tree of life.

In teaching this passage, we do not identify ourselves with Adam. Adam's failure explains why humanity is as it is now. But Adam points us to the Lord Jesus whose achievement brings life to all who are united to him by his Spirit.

If you want to read more on the covenant of creation and covenant theology as a whole then I highly recommend Michael Horton's God of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). It is fairly technical. He is arguing into the USA theologically reformed community and so some of the discussion can seem slightly alien to us. However, it repays a careful read. He is especially clear at explaining how the Mosaic covenant fits with the New Covenant.

The genius story telling of Genesis 2-4
We know that the writer of Genesis is a master story teller from the Joseph story. it is the same here. There are deliberate ambiguities and tensions. The LORD says "on the day you eat of it you will surely die." The serpent disagrees. Who is right? Is the serpent actually correct. Adam and Eve don't literally die on the day they eat of the tree. And they do "become like one of us" (3:22). It is clever story telling. There is tension, ambiguity. We have to read the whole story to understand what is meant by the LORD and by the serpent. Then we want to reread it to clarify what is being said. It is much like The Usual Suspects . Sadly, all these subtleties can't be brought out in one sermon!

Details of Genesis 2:4-3:24

2008-09-23T15:34:00.002+01:00

I am being greatly encouraged by James Jordan's Through New Eyes.

One particular detail of Genesis 2 that I had not noticed before was the distinction between Eden and the Garden. The Lord God plants a garden in Eden. The garden is within the wider region of Eden, in the east of Eden. Eden in turn is within the wider region of the world.

This makes sense of 2:10: "A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden." The river is flowing from Eden into the garden. In the garden it divides into four rivers before leaving the garden.

The Lord God puts the man in the garden of Eden, not in Eden generally. This is very important in terms of preaching Genesis 2. The garden in Eden is neither Eden, nor the whole world.

Was Calvin for six day creation?

2008-08-18T16:39:00.007+01:00

Did Calvin go for a six day creation? See the following excerpts from his commentary on Genesis (available here).

On let there be light

It did not, however, happen from inconsideration or by accident, that the light preceded the sun and the moon. To nothing are we more prone than to tie down the power of God to those instruments the agency of which he employs. The sun an moon supply us with light: And, according to our notions we so include this power to give light in them, that if they were taken away from the world, it would seem impossible for any light to remain. Therefore the Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon. Further, it is certain from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known.

On and God called the light Calvin writes:

That is, God willed that there should be a regular vicissitude of days and nights; which also followed immediately when the first day was ended. For God removed the light from view, that night might be the commencement of another day. What Moses says however, admits a double interpretation; either that this was the evening and morning belonging to the first day, or that the first day consisted of the evening and the morning. Whichever interpretation be chosen, it makes no difference in the sense, for he simply understands the day to have been made up of two parts. Further, he begins the day, according to the custom of his nation, with the evening. It is to no purpose to dispute whether this be the best and the legitimate order or not. We know that darkness preceded time itself; when God withdrew the light, he closed the day. I do not doubt that the most ancient fathers, to whom the coming night was the end of one day and the beginning of another, followed this mode of reckoning. Although Moses did not intend here to prescribe a rule which it would be criminal to violate; yet (as we have now said) he accommodated his discourse to the received custom.

Note: Moses only says the order of night to day is God accommodating himself to the customs of the time, not the six days.

On the first day Calvin writes:

Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men.

Note that Calvin refutes Augustine's position that God created only in a moment and that the Genesis account is for the purpose of instruction. Rather, Calvin teaches that God created in six days, not because he had to, but so that we would understand his creation. Note also, that the act of creation is accommodated, and not the account of it. This distribution of creation into six days is for our benefit, because humankind too easily passes over the infinite glory of God. Calvin explains:

We slightingly pass over the infinite glory of God, which here shines forth; whence arises this but from our excessive dullness in considering his greatness? In the meantime, the vanity of our minds carries us away elsewhere. For the correction of this fault, God applied the most suitable remedy when he distributed the creation of the world into successive portions, that he might fix our attention, and compel us, as if he had laid his hand upon us, to pause and to reflect.

That said, on verse 6 Let there be a firmament Calvin says:

For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses.

Now, this is interesting, because it highlights a conundrum arising from this methodology. Calvin goes with six days, with light before the sun. But, here because he knows that clouds carry the rain, he rejects the idea of water beyond the heavens. This means that both the "six dayers" and those holding to a non-cosmological interpretation can both claim Calvin! The latter methodologically and the former interpretatively!

When it comes to verse 9 and Let the waters... be gathered together he is able to combine the two:

This also is an illustrious miracle, that the waters by their departure have given a dwelling-place to men. For even philosophers allow that the natural position of the waters was to cover the whole earth, as Moses declares they did in the beginning; first, because being an element, it must be circular, and because this element is heavier than the air, and lighter than the earth, it ought cover the latter in its whole circumference.

And then in verse 11 on Let the earth bring forth grass he defers to the order in Genesis 1:

Moreover, it did not happen fortuitously, that herbs and trees were created before the sun and moon. We now see, indeed, that the earth is quickened by the sun to cause it to bring forth its fruits; nor was God ignorant of this law of nature, which he has since ordained: but in order that we might learn to refer all things to him he did not then make use of the sun or moon.

Again, this order in creation (not just in the account) is for our instruction:

He permits us to perceive the efficacy which he infuses into [the sun and moon], so far as he uses their instrumentality; but because we are wont to regard as part of their nature properties which they derive elsewhere, it was necessary that the vigor which they now seem to impart to the earth should be manifest before they were created. We acknowledge, it is true, in words, that the First Cause is self-sufficient, and that intermediate and secondary causes have only what they borrow from this First Cause; but, in reality, we picture God to ourselves as poor or imperfect, unless he is assisted by second causes. How few, indeed, are there who ascend higher than the sun when they treat of the fecundity of the earth? What therefore we declare God to have done designedly, was indispensably necessary; that we may learn from the order of the creation itself, that God acts through the creatures, not as if he needed external help, but because it was his pleasure.

When it comes to verse 14 and Let there be lights Calvin is clear:

Moses passes onwards to the fourth day, on which the stars were made. God had before created the light, but he now institutes a new order in nature, that the sun should be the dispenser of diurnal light, and the moon and stars should shine by night. And He assigns them this office, to teach us that all creatures are subject to his will, and execute what he enjoins upon them. For Moses relates nothing else than that God ordained certain instruments to diffuse through the earth, by reciprocal changes, that light which had been previously created. The only difference is this, that the light was before dispersed, but now proceeds from lucid bodies; which in serving this purpose, obey the command of God.

When it comes to verses 14 and 15, Calvin reasserts that Moses is not presenting things with "philosophical exactness." Rather, Moses uses the language of appearances. However, we must note that Calvin applies this only to his discussion on Let them be for signs and Let them be for lights. He does not apply this method to the entirety of Genesis 1. It is on these points alone that Calvin writes:

For Moses here addresses himself to our senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method (as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness.

Calvin considered that Moses understood that at this point he was talking in the language of appearance:

For as it became a theologian, [Moses] had respect to us rather than to the stars. Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us.

This is significant, for it means that Calvin is expounding Genesis 1 as he considered Moses to understand it. Some of it, which Calvin highlights, is in the language of appearances. But the rest is to be read as it is, e.g. the six days and the order of what is created.

On verse 16 The greater light, Calvin again defers to science:

I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.

To be continued...

Genetics and Morality

2008-08-15T11:23:00.006+01:00

As a spin-off from my Psalm 19 sermon on Sunday the issue of what is our ultimate authority is raised.

At the heart of the current problems within the Anglican Communion is the place of science in the formation of ethics and morality. I spent a week with a Liberal-Anglo-Catholic minister. He justified faithful same-sex partnerships on a genetic basis. The claim was that in many instances homosexuality has a genetic basis. Therefore, so the argument goes, we cannot say that for such folk homosexual behaviour is wrong.

Without getting bogged down in the homosexual debate I want to raise the underlying issue of ultimate authority. The logic in Psalm 19 is as follows:

In verses 1-6 David teaches that the glory of God is proclaimed by the sky and sun.
This leads him to rejoice in his covenant relationship with God (verses 7-11). The word of the LORD, within this relationship, is more valuable than anything else. It supremely gives wisdom, light, life, joy and eternal life.
This leads David to humility before the LORD and his word (verses 12-14). It the LORD's word which shows David what true life looks like. As a result, David sees how he falls short of that, how he is a sinner.

The middle section is crucial for our purposes here. If God exists, as the Bible consistently declares, then it must be his Word which determines morality and ethics. It must be his Word which interprets all other possible ethical and moral frameworks.

Therefore, genetics is always subordinate to God's word. Even if we were to discover a genetic basis for certain behaviours, that would never make them permissible, unless God's word allows it.

One of the reasons why genetics can never be the basis of morality is that a Biblical view of the world recognises that every aspect of our nature has been corrupted by sin. Not only that, but God has subjected this world to frustration in hope of the return of Jesus. The effects of the fall and the frustration of the world necessarily affects our genetics. Therefore, in a fallen world, genetics cannot and must not be the basis of our ethics and morality. What we need is someone from outside our fallen world to tell us how to live. Praise God, that in his Word, incarnate and then written, we have exactly that.

Review of Pullman's Dark Materials Trilogy

2008-08-15T11:05:00.005+01:00

"That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."1

"He showed me that to rebel was right and just, when you considered what the agents of the Authority did in his name... he showed me things I never had seen, cruelties and horrors committed in the name of the Authority, all designed to destroy the joys and truthfulness of life."2

With three pages of glowing accolade prefacing each of the three books and having sold over twelve million copies world-wide, Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials (HDM) trilogy has become a classic of our time.3 Un-put-downable action, engaging characters, imaginative worlds, fast paced easy-to-read narrative all combined with some intellectually stimulating material, make these books an exciting read. Rather than summarising the books this review looks at some of the tools that Pullman uses to proclaim his message.

The first tool to notice is that Pullman’s coming of age narrative functions at three different levels.4 At the individual level we follow Will and Lyra as they quest for the people they love. In the process they move from “innocence” to “experience”, realising their love for one another.5 At the corporate level we observe a para-world truth-loving movement of science-minded people discovering that the Church has been keeping humanity in the dark and preventing people from knowing what is the true nature of humanity and the universe. These people move ever forward towards greater wisdom and knowledge. Pullman then grounds this metaphysically at the third, global, level of his narrative. Here, he offers a materialist universe that contains both inherent value and inherent consciousness (at the level of elementary particles), and so does not need the totalitarian lies offered by the Church.6 These three levels are a heady mix for a post-Christian culture, obsessed with love and sex, but which wants inherent meaning.

The second, and key tool to Pullman’s project are his parallel worlds. Pullman neglects the obvious problems with this physical construct.7 Rather he uses it to weave the three levels of narrative together in such a way to enable the reader to make various insinuations without Pullman saying anything explicit about our world. The main focus of this is his portrayal of what he calls “the Church.”

In Lyra’s world the Roman Catholic and the Protestant church are subtly and cleverly conflated into one.8 Its influence is all pervasive and its enthusiasm to stamp out anything contravening the Church’s orthodoxy is pursued with a ruthless zeal regardless of truth or morality.9 Pullman gives no positive portrayal of the Church or its officers. Mrs Coulter offers to be the most attractive of the Church’s servants. However, she has zero moral constraint.10 This, mixed with her charm, means that she comes across as the most evil of all.11 Indeed, Mrs Coulter and her Oblation Board program are the paradigm and illustration of the Church’s evil.12 The Church robs children of their humanity for the sake of its doctrine.13 With paedophilia being the current unforgivable sin in the UK, such a paradigm of the church is clever indeed.14

This portrayal in Lyra’s world is in stark contrast with how Pullman avoids presenting or describing the church in our world. In talking about our world Pullman uses language of Christianity and Jesus and calls it a mistake, none of which he uses referring to Lyra’s world.15 Similarly, he doesn’t use “church” in our world. Instead, we solely have Mary Malone (a scientist) providing a personal (and fairly measured) narrative of her drift from faith.16 However, Pullman’s work is done because the connections are made in the reader’s mind. He has shown us what he really thinks. The church and Christianity are not a mistake, but a lie, and a powerful, corrupting one at that.17

If Lyra’s world presents a world in which the Church has overall power, the parallel world of the Mulefa presents Pullman’s Edenic paradise - a world evolved without the Church or Christianity. This world is painted as the perfectly symbiotic world, untainted by human greed. The sun is brighter, the air is fresher and inter-species relationships function well. When Mary, a scientist, enters the world, she is able to use her science beneficently for the Mulefa. After Will and Lyra - the new Adam and Eve - stumble into the world a race is on as to whether Mary will help them, and so help this Eden (and all worlds) continue to grow to maturity, or whether the Church, embodied in the person of Father Gomez, will corrupt and destroy it, removing the inherent consciousness from the world. With the parallel world tool, Pullman draws the reader into his ideal world and announces what threatens that world - the Church - and what will save it - love, sex and knowledge.

This brings us to another of Pullman’s clever tools. This is within Lyra’s world and consists of the contrast between inside and outside the Church. Outside, life is presented as diverse, democratic, wise and richly vibrant. Although some of the people have a hierarchical structure, it is the committees of the witches, gyptians and Mulefa which receive narrative space. Each society or people group has an equally valid and true connection with the reality of the universe. Furthermore, these people are concerned for, and converse about, truth, wisdom and the nature of that reality.18 It is the very nature of this wisdom and knowledge to rebel against the Authority, since the Authority is as much part of the materialistic universe as all atoms.19 Hence, those who value truth unite against the Authority. By contrast, the Church is presented as hierarchical, totalitarian, and going against the nature of being and reality, perpetuating the lie which the Authority instituted by claiming to be God.20

This highlights how Pullman subtly weaves the importance of acting according to nature into HDM. By the time we reach the climax of HDM when Will and Lyra can join with Mary in “doing something with all of my nature and not only part of it,” we are, subconsciously not surprised.21 We have already experienced the bears returning to their nature, and the witches acting according to theirs.22 This is the heart of Pullman’s polemic against Christianity - it denies them their full nature.

Another tool Pullman uses (or abuses) to his advantage is the medium of fiction. His agenda is not fully set out until book three, by which time we are hooked by the story and its innocuous beginnings. He also capitalises on his reader’s ignorance of the Bible and the methodology of his parallel worlds. By placing his misquote in Lyra’s world he can say that the Bible evolved differently there while at the same time kidding the reader into thinking that his quotation of Scripture is accurate.23 This problem is heightened by the fact that these are children's books and the concepts he is dealing with (e.g. church history, Christianity, quantum physics) are, most likely, beyond the knowledge, or at least, the evaluation, of most teenagers. One might think such manipulation was a form of abuse!

This highlights how Pullman uses his characters to teach his version of morality. It does not matter how you behave as long as the ends are good. Lyra and Mrs Coulter similarly manipulate and deceive, and yet Pullman encourages the reader to cheer for Lyra because she acts not out of self-interest but out of concern for those she loves. However, even Mrs Coulter is, by the end, redeemed by her love for her daughter and her willingness to join with Lord Asriel in sacrificing herself to destroy the Authority. Ultimately, her moral unrestraint is permitted, because the end was good!24

The choice of main characters (i.e. those whom the narrative follows) and their involvement in the metanarrative of HDM is the final tool we note here. The two children are innocently caught up in the metadrama. The climax of the books is not the destruction of the Authority, but Lyra and Will discovering (or consummating) their love for each other. In the process, Will and Lyra accidentally expose the Authority’s evil schemes to trap the dead, destroy his power, restore cosmic harmony, and continue the human endeavour of growing in knowledge.25 As we identify with Will and Lyra we, also, are the innocent players in this cosmic drama. We weep with Lyra and Will and as they part we, like Mary and like them, want the whole of our nature to be fulfilled and so build the republic of heaven on earth.

Nietzsche’s Madman proclaims “We have killed [God] - you and I. All of us are his murderers.”26 Pullman, however, absolves the reader of any such responsibility. God is dead. It is not our fault. And you don’t need him. Just live out your whole nature as reality requires. In doing so, Pullman reverses the values of the fall and Psalm 2:1-3. And he does it powerfully, deceptively and subtly with his tools.27

Endnotes:
1 Ruta Skadi, Witch, in Philip Pullman, The Subtle Knife (Scholastic: London, 1998), 52.
2 Ruta Skadi, Witch, in Philip Pullman, The Subtle Knife, 283.
3 Michelle Pauli, “Pullman wins ‘Carnegie of Carnegies’,” n.p. [cited 2 November 2007]. Online: http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2108541,00.html.
4 Pullman himself says that HDM is a “coming of age” story. Philip Pullman, “About the Writing,” n.p. [Cited 2 November 2007]. Online: http://www.philippullman.com/about_the_writing.asp.
5 There is a debate as to whether Pullman is talking about sex. Although he does not explicitly say that Will and Lyra have sexual intercourse, the weight of evidence and the evocative language strongly intimates in that direction. See Pullman, Northern Lights (Scholastic: London, 1998), 373: “innocence changed into experience,” and The Amber Spyglass (Scholastic: London, 2001), 492, 509.
6 Dust is “only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter loves matter. It seeks to know more about itself, and Dust is formed.” Pullman, The Amber Spyglass, 33. See also Pullman, The Subtle Knife, 93, 249.
7 By his own definition each universe represents a different possibility and so there ought to be an almost infinite number of said universes representing every possibility since the first universe began. This would make it virtually impossible for Will to distinguish between some worlds with the knife. Furthermore, in the world of the dead there ought to be millions of each of the same person, each representing the outworking of that person for different choices that were made. Practically then, Will never accidentally cuts into an infinitesimally different and bumps into himself. Pullman nods to the number of parallel universes, but doesn’t really give full credence to the number that there would need to be for his idea to work. See Pullman, Northern Lights, 376.
8 The papacy has been abolished by John Calvin and power distributed in the various courts centred at Geneva. Pullman, Northern Lights, 31. Significantly, it is Lyra’s world that is the focus of the books with the beginning and ending is set there. Furthermore, Pullman’s forthcoming book features Lyra in her world. See Philip Pullman, “About the Books: Lyra’s Oxford,” n.p. [Cited 2 November 2007]. Online: http://www.philip-pullman.com/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=61.
9 Pullman uses “Church” as a proper noun. This again is clever, since he can divorce his specific instance from any one particular institution. However, Ruta Skadi’s line in the first quote makes it clear what Pullman really wants to say.
10 Pullman, “About the Writing,” n.p.
11 Pullman, “About the Writing,” n.p.
12 Pullman, The Subtle Knife, 283.
13 This program involves enticing children from their homes with false warmth and promise, deporting them to the bleak Arctic and then separating them from their dæmons, which in Pullman’s metanarrative means from their consciousness.
14 It would not have been nearly so powerful if it was adults who were being experimented upon.
15 Pullman, The Amber Spyglass, 464.
16 This maybe because Pullman knows that the description of the Church in Lyra’s world is simplistic if transferred to ours. Pullman himself says, “Actually, if [God] is keeping out of sight, it's because he's ashamed of his followers and all the cruelty and ignorance they're responsible for promoting in his name.” Philip Pullman, “About the Writing” n.p.
17 Interestingly, when presenting our world, it is not the church who opposes the work of Mary Malone. However, her work is frustrated because those financing science don’t see the point/value of it, rather than being opposed to it. However, this receives little narrative space. See Pullman, The Subtle Knife, 93.
18 These are the characters who have the interesting conversations about truth, the nature of reality, morality etc.
19 Pullman, The Subtle Knife, 52.
20 Pullman, The Amber Spyglass, 33.
21 Pullman, The Amber Spyglass, 470.
22 Pullman, Northern Lights, 309, 349.
23 This he does by Lord Asriel asking Lyra if she remembers the story of Adam and Eve. As we follow her recollections of the story of Adam and Eve, we, the reader, also recall it. Her recollections match ours. Then Lord Asriel tells her to get a Bible from the shelf before he reads Genesis 3 to her. As he reads the misquote, we are still identifying with Lyra’s recollection of Adam and Eve and so, if unaware of the text of Genesis 3, assume it is accurate. After reading Northern Lights one of my wife’s friends asked whether Genesis 3 really said what Pullman said it did. Perhaps most damaging is Lord Asriel’s aside: “..the text is corrupt.” Pullman, Northern Lights, 373.
24 Pullman describes her as “completely free of any moral constraint.” Pullman, “About the Writing,” n.p.
25 Even Lord Asriel, the leader of the drive for the republic of heaven is not an aggressor. Pullman, The Amber Spyglass, 222.
26 Nietzsche, The Gay Science , (Translated by Walter Kaufmann) n.p. [Cited 5th November 2007]. Online: http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/diefrohl7d.htm. Author’s italics.
27 And the the One enthroned in heaven laughs; the LORD scoffs at Philip Pullman. Psalm 2:4. (adapted).

23 years!

2008-07-30T07:31:00.003+01:00

That was the length of time which Jeremiah preached the word of the LORD to the people of Judah. Persistently he called them to repent and believe. Persistently they stubbornly refused.

I am hugely challenged by that. I am not sure I could cope for that long without fruit from my ministry. The temptation to change the message or give up would be huge. But Jeremiah persevered. The true test of a ministry is faithfulness to the word of the LORD not numbers of converts. For some of us, we will have a Jeremiah ministry. I pray that the LORD will both keep me faithful and sustain me.

(Jeremiah 25:1-7)

Next charismatic wave

2008-07-28T20:16:00.003+01:00

For those interested in Charismatic issues it is well worth checking out the issues surrounding Todd Bentley. I stumbled across this very balanced scripturally based assessment of what is going on at Lakeland, Florida, here. It represents a good starting point, managing to avoid various falacious or legalistic arguments either for or against.

British evangelicals need to be weighing this carefully. The ripples from this are already spreading to the UK. Like the Toronto blessing it is likely to cause both division and distress. I fear it may also destroy the faith of some in the long term.

Some words from Jeremiah

2008-07-28T08:56:00.004+01:00

I was reading Jeremiah 23 yesterday. They are a challenge to all in church leadership.

In the prophets of Samaria
I saw an unsavoury thing:
they prophesied by Baal
and led my people Israel astray.
But in the prophets of Jerusalem
I have seen a horrible thing;
they commit adultery and walk in lies;
they strengthen the hand of evildoers,
so that no one turns from his evil;
all of them have become like Sodom to me,
and its inhabitants like Gomorrah."

Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets:
"Behold, I will feed them with bitter food
and give them poisoned water to drink,
for from the prophets of Jerusalem
ungodliness has gone out into all the land."

Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, 'It shall be well with you'; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, 'No disaster shall come upon you.'

Jeremiah 23:13-17.

The shock to me is that the LORD's strongest words are reserved for those who are prophesying in his name but do not call sin as it is. These prophets are in Jerusalem. They are within God's people.

Things haven't changed:
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you..." 2 Peter 2:1.

Food for thought.

Burdening folk unnecessarily

2008-07-22T16:43:00.003+01:00

When leading Bible studies or preaching it is very easy to make people feel guilty, often unnecessarily. This is especially the case as a preacher. It does not take a lot of effort to make people feel guilty about what they do or don't do, compared perhaps to what is said in any given passage.

I have been very struck by Jesus' words in Matthew 11:

Jesus said,
"Come to me,
all who labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you,
and learn from me,
for
I am gentle and lowly in heart,
and you will find rest for your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

My role as a preacher and pastor is not to add to people's burden's. I must be Christ like in preaching, application and practice. I must point people to Christ.

I find it very easy to preach or teach a passage (especially one concerned with Christian behaviour) in a legalistic manner. "As a Christian this is how you should live. Let us look at all the ways we fail to do this. How can we be better at doing what this says." I am then tempted to add on a few sentences at the end about how great it is that Jesus has died to forgive us for how we fail. The danger is that what I have done is teach legalism with Jesus being the perpetual top-up for my failed legalism.

But Jesus didn't just die for our failure. He died so that the whole curse of the law is exhausted. He rose and ascended so that we are justified. He gave us his Spirit to empower us as we meditate on his cross and resurrection. Jesus isn't the patch for the failure but the only cause of our vindicated status and the motivation for our obedience. The second flows from the first. Obedience comes from our position as justified, sanctified, indwellers of Christ.

Does that mean we don't expose sinfulness? Of course not! But we must expose it in such a way that our people do not leave thinking "I must try harder in my Christian life." Instead, as we see our sinfulness we once again fall on our knees before the lamb who was slain, rejoicing in his mercy and looking to him to change us. We don't leave the service or Bible study burdened by extra things to do to sort out our Christian life, but rejoicing in the one whose yoke is easy and burden is light.

In short, for those in our care, living a Christ-like life must only be hard when it conflicts with sin. It must be sin alone which, regretably, marrs the glorious freedom of the children of God.

The Martyr Complex

2008-06-09T16:04:00.003+01:00

My wife and I heard an excellent sermon last night. One of the things mentioned was the danger of a martyr complex. A "martyr complex" is where we think that in order to serve God or others we must not get anything from it ourselves. The problem is, that this denies our createdness and in doing so has significant implications for the incarnation of the Son of God.

Jesus delights in his Father's will. It is a joy for him to do what his Father wants. Although the cross is not "enjoyable" the benefits of the cross for Jesus are great - he cleanses a people for himself who are eager to do what is good, he brings glory to the Father, and in doing so brings joy to himself. This is in contrast to those without the Spirit of God indwelling them. For all such folk outside of Christ following and serving Jesus seems like slavery (cf. Psalm 2). However, with the Spirit of Christ in someone the story is much more similar to Jesus. The Spirit molds such people to become like Jesus and so there will be a genuine and increasing delight in living for Jesus. What does such a life look like? Of course, like Jesus' life it is a life of self-sacrificial love for Jesus, his people, and the lost. And, like Jesus' life, the path of the cross will, of necessity, involve suffering. But it is a joyful path. As we bring glory to our heavenly Father and follow Jesus we will get an awful lot out of living the Christian life.

This means it is not wrong to enjoy Bible studies or fellowship with Christians. Or, in my case, it is not wrong for me to enjoy writing and giving sermons. In fact, with the Spirit of Christ in us it would be a cause for concern if serving Christ did not bring us great joy. After all, Jesus' yoke is easy and his burden is light. No one else's is. And living for Jesus is what we were made for.

Trinity Confusion (Part 1)

2008-05-28T11:42:00.002+01:00

Because Trinitarian theology is much neglected, partly because we don't recognise the central place of it and the nuances of it in John's Gospel, there is a tendency towards a misunderstanding of the word "Trinity."

"Trinity" is not a synonym for "trio." If it were, then Christianity is guilty of polytheism: three gods, each with a divine nature. This is the danger of illustrations of the Trinity such as the marriage illustration: in marriage, the man and woman are still two human beings, albeit united by the covenant of marriage. Likewise, a family of three is still three separate individuals. Three siblings are not a trinity. They are a trio.

"Trinity" talks about the Tri-unity of God. God is three and God is one. Both are equally ultimate in God. Three persons, one being. Neither must be neglected. Neither must be exalted over the other. If we lose the oneness or we lose the threeness then we lose both the three and the one. This is not the case for marriage. In marriage, the two are logically and temporally prior to the marriage. Marriage is something "added" to the persons. If we lose the unity we do not lose the two persons. This is not the case with the Trinity. Neither oneness nor threeness are "added." If we lose "one" or we lose "three" then the Trinity is destroyed.

God is not a trio. Neither is God a monad. God is the one and only Trinity.

1 Tim 1:17 and 6:16 and the visibility of the Son

2008-05-27T20:41:00.003+01:00

In response to Pieman's comments on the Augustine and Jesus in the Old Testament post.
Re. 1 Tim 1:17 and 6:16 - Augustine's point still stands:

1 Tim 1:17:
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Tim 6:16:
who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honour and eternal dominion. Amen.

Are these verses said only of the Father? If so, then are we to understand the Son and Holy Spirit as not immortal? Or not as God?
If we apply these verses to say that the Son is visible, then we must also apply them to say that the Son is mortal and not God.
This, of course, is what the Arians were saying: these verses prove that the Son is not true God.

Or is it that these verses are also true of the Son and Spirit according to their divine nature. But because these verses are spoken post-incarnation and in a context different from the christological and trinitarian controversies of later centuries that is not the primary function of the verses. I.e. they can't be used to prove that the Father alone is God, or that the Father alone is immortal etc. In which case neither do they prove that the Father alone is invisible.

Rather, in Trinitarian terms, surely these verses teach the monarchy of the Father in the Trinity. In one sense he is most properly God, in that the Son is the Son of God perfectly eternally born of God the Father. He takes his nature from the Father. Likewise the Spirit, except not born but spirated of Father and Son.

Unless we wish to become Arians (or JWs), or suggest that 1 Timothy is not Trinitarian, then this has to be the best way of synthesising the data.

The Misuse of John 1:18, or, Why the Son is not inherently visible.

2008-05-27T19:30:00.003+01:00

John 1:18 is often used to support the claim that the Father is invisible, and the Son is invisible. This, however, does not stand up to the use of the greek.

At the start of 1:18 we have: theon oudeis eoraken popote. theon is without the article. This is significant. John usually uses the arthrous theos, often dropping the article when theos follows a preposition. Only in John 1:12, 6:45, 10:33, 19:7 and 20:17 are there significant anarthrous instances. John 6:45 is a quote from the OT. John 10:33 is on the lips of Jesus' opponents. John 19:7 likewise is on the lips of the opponents but made definite by "Son of." John 20:17 is clear that it is talking about the Father because it is Jesus speaking. In the prologue John has been careful to distinguish the Father from the Son. He does this by putting the article before theos e.g. John 1:1. John 1:12 is, perhaps, the contrary case. It talks about children of God, again without the article. The context does not push us either way. Taking a narrative-critical approach, theos has been used indefinitely of the Word, and definitely to talk, as the reader finds out in 1:18 of the Father. But at this stage of the narrative, it is ambiguous. The Word has come into the world. To those who received him he gave the right to become children of God. Whether that is God in a general sense or God the Father is not explicit. It is not until 1:14 that we discover that the glory of the Word is like that of a one and only son of a father. That the Word is a true Son is not made explicit until 1:18.

So, if John wanted to say that "no one has ever seen the Father," he could well have done so by including the definite article, both in 1:12 and 1:18. This would tie 1:12 and 1:18 neatly back to 1:1-2. But as it is, he has left ambiguity within the prologue. The lack of the article means we are not entirely sure whether to tie theos to "the God" of 1:1-2 or the Word who is God of 1:1-2. This ambiguity may very well be deliberate. When we get to the climax of 1:18 we realise that John has presented the Father as the one who in some sense is properly God with a definite article. The Word is also properly God, but by being what the Father is such that he is not God with a definite article. In simple terms, there is a priority of the Father even though there is an equality of "Godness."

If this is correct, and I am convinced it is, then in 1:18, John is not teaching the invisibility of the Father and the visibility of the Son. Rather, the ambiguity means that we are to see God as invisible. This is the case for both Father and Son. Visibility only comes to the Son at his incarnation. In doing so he makes both Father and Son visible. This is the argument of the prologue. John 1:14: The word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory. Seeing his glory is tied to the incarnation, not an inherent property of visibility.

So, the Incarnation brings visibility to the Son. However, the Sonship of the Son means that the Son is the image and exact representation of the Father. Both incarnation and genuine Sonship are needed for revelation of the Father.

Anglicans should fulfill all their responsibilities

2008-05-27T10:42:00.004+01:00

"Anglicans should tackle poverty rather than focus on sexuality."
That is the headline in the Summer edition of Transmission , the quarterly newspaper of USPG: Anglicans in World Mission.

The issue is that "Anglican Church leaders are neglecting critical mission issues - such as tackling poverty and disease - because they are devoting too much time and energy to less important matters, such as debating the ordination of women and human sexuality" (emphasis added).

The problem here is one which is a repeated problem in many different scenarios. It is that Christians are called to fulfill all their gospel responsibilities. This includes their family, giving to the poor, evangelising to name but a few. It is easy to portray the various responsibilites as being somehow at odds with one another. But this is not the case. Of course, all are shaped, motivated and empowered by the gospel, but they all flow from it and are not competing.

So, when one aspect of the various responsibilities is threatened, we necessarily neeed to defend it. In this case, the nature of gospel repentance is under threat. Now, for those who stand up and defend this aspect of the gospel, of course we are not saying that this is more important than all other aspects of the gospel and the responsibilities which flow from it. We are not "focussing" on it in that we think it is more important than the other aspects. If there were parts of the Anglican church which were denying that Christians should give to the poor or help the needy, then similarly we would need to defend that aspect of Biblical Christianity. It is wrong to neglect any area or aspect of the gospel message.

There is a "focus" on sexuality at present because in the present circumstance those who say poverty is more important than sexuality do not consider calling people to repent from homosexuality part of gospel preaching and responsibility. Inevitably, then, it is "less important" and, in their eyes, can be subordinated to all the other calls of the gospel.

The headline in Transmission and the lead paragraph highlights how strong this argument can then seem. Those who are getting hung up about sexuality are guilty of neglect and, as the article goes on to say, "crucifying Jesus all over again and hurting the church." Those are strong and serious claims to be making and should not be made lightly. Of course such claims logically flow from the fact that in that world-view, calling people to repent of a particular sin is not one of the responsibilies that needs to be fulfilled as a Christian. Inevitably then, in that view, adding sexual repentance into the list of responsibilities is to detract from the others.

For, orthodox folk like me, it is very easy implicitly to cave into this argument. We don't want to appear to be heartless neglectful ungenerous people. But we need to refuse the dilemma. Christ does not call us to set his words against themselves. Christians should tackle poverty. Yes! Christians should proclaim the gospel. Yes! Christians should evangelise those of other faiths. Yes! Christians should be kind, generous, compassionate and loving to all. Yes, yes. yes! Christians should be humble, recognising that it is by God's grace alone that we are in a relationship with him, and so we are no better than anybody else. Of course! Christians should uphold our Lord's teaching on sexuality. Yes, and in a way that does not conflict with all our other responsibilities.

So, lets fulfill all our responsibilities in a loving, compassionate, gentle way, not neglecting the poor in the process. But also, not failing to stand up for the truth in a gentle, gracious way as well.

Augustine and Jesus in the OT, Part 1 addendum

2008-04-30T13:59:00.002+01:00

In response to pieman's excellent response to part 1 of this particular thread, it is worth saying a number of things:

1. Augustine has more to say, but that is subject to me completing a number of major deadlines.

2. Reading Hilary of Poitiers and others I am increasingly persuaded that there may be an appropriateness to the OT theophanies being that of the second person of the Trinity, i.e. the eternal Son. However, we must notice, that this is not because he is by nature visible whereas the Father is not. Rather, as the Son, the eternal image of the Father, there is a divine appropriateness to the Son taking on a created form. As the one who is eternally born of his Father, he is the one who is sent into the world. These old testament appearances of the Son prefigure the incarnation but are not the Son becoming human or, in the language of Chalcedonian Christology, taking to himself a human nature. Neither are they a Christophany in the sense that they are an appearance of the incarnate Christ. However, they are a temporal, physical and spatial manifestation of the eternal Son.

To this end, I think Augustine steps a bit too far, as I will show, once I have time to post at length. Of great use is Augustine's careful distinction between the nature of God and the nature of a theophany.

In Augustine's defence we need to pay careful heed to passages such as Heb 1:1-2:16; Acts 7:30 and Gal 1:8.

On which more later...

A theology of running away!

2008-03-13T20:39:00.001Z

;He that dies, ceases to suffer; but he that flies, while he expects
daily the assaults of his enemies, esteems death lighter.

Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga, 18.

Athanasius makes some interesting points in defence of his flight.

1. Fleeing is not wrong. The prophets fled, David fled, the Apostles
fled, the early disciples fled Jerusalem and supremely Jesus fled.

2. One flees in order to preserve life - one's own. But it is not done
in order to avoid the time of death.

3. Fleeing is done in submission to God's sovereignty, knowing that one
day our time to die will come. E.g. Jesus - his time not being yet.

4. One flees in order to preserve the persecutors from blood-guilt. It
is an act of love.

5. Fleeing is evidence of unjust persecution. People do not flee from
humane and just judges.

6. Fleeing is not cowardice. Rather it is a "conflict and war against
death."

7. Fleeing results in far greater sufferings than dying.

8. The examples in Scripture of those who fled show that it was not
because they were timid.

9. Flight can result in blessing: 'Blessed are they which are
persecuted for righteousness sake.'"

10. Persecution, the cause of flight, finds its source in the devil.

Matthew 10:23 is a favourite verse of Athanasius'. It is Jesus speaking
to the twelve:

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next..." What is the
reason Jesus gives for this: "for truly, I say to you, you will not
have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

The simple truth is that, in general, it is better for the cause of the
gospel if gospel preachers are alive!

Praise the Lord that Athanasius understood this. Through Athanasius,
the Lord preserved the church from Arianism.

The last words go to Athanasius:

The flight of the saints therefore was neither blameable nor
unprofitable. If they had not avoided their persecutors, how would it
have come to pass that the Lord should spring from the seed of David?
Or who would have preached the glad tidings of the word of truth? It
was for this that the persecutors sought after the saints, that there
might be no one to teach, as the Jews charged the Apostles; but for
this cause they endured all things, that the Gospel might be preached.
Behold, therefore, in that they were thus engaged in conflict with
their enemies, they passed not the time of their flight unprofitably,
nor while they were persecuted, did they forget the welfare of others:
but as being ministers of the good word, they grudged not to
communicate it to all men; so that even while they fled, they preached
the Gospel, and gave warning of the wickedness of those who conspired
against them, and confirmed the faithful by their exhortations.
Apologia de Fuga, 21.

Augustine and Jesus in the Old Testament. Part I.

2008-02-19T10:47:00.005Z

I am greatly enjoying Edmund Hill's eminently readable translation of Augustine's de Trinitate. Augustine deals, at some length, with those who say that all Old Testament theophanies are appearances of the Son.

First, Augustine argues against those who suggest that the Son is the visible member of the Trinity. Augustine's sparring partners consider the Son to be both changeable and visible. Augustine responds (dT II.14):

With more effrontery than piety they have brought much crudeness of mind to bear on divine things. Even the human soul, a spiritual substance, something made and made through none other than him "through whom all things were made and without whom was made nothing (Jn 1:3), though unchangeable is not also visible. Yet these people have thought this about the very Word and Wisdom of God, through whom the soul was made; whereas this divine Wisdom is not only invisible, which the soul is too, but unchangeable which the soul is not.

Augustine then undermines those who would appeal to Scripture to support their position. If 1 Tim 1:17 and 6:16 are used to say only the Father is invisible, then only the Father is immortal also. Therefore, the Son must be both visible in himself and mortal in himself. However, "if you agree that what made the Son mortal was the flesh he took, then you must also allow that was what made him visible." Augustine points out that "in their view he was previously mortal just as he was previously visible." What then of the Holy Spirit? If it is the Father alone who has immortality (from 1 Tim) then the Holy Spirit is not immortal either. Therefore, contrary to orthodox doctrine, the Son and Spirit are mortal in themselves, not that the Son is both mortal and visible by virtue of taking to himself a human nature. This bring us back to the soul. The soul cannot die. Therefore, Augustine's opponents, have to redefine mortality as changeable, in order for both the Son and the soul to be mortal (Mt 10:28). ( dT II.15)

Augustine concludes:

So we leave these people on one side, people who have not even been able to conceive that the substance of the soul is invisible, and therefore are miles away from forming even the remotest idea that the substance of the one and only God, that is of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, remains not only invisible but also unchangeable, and therefore abides in true and genuine immortality. As for us, we say that God has never shown himself to bodily eyes, neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Spirit, except through some created bodily substance at the service of his power . (tD II.16 Emphasis added.)

That last bit in bold is of vital importance. Augustine doesn't address the issue directly here, but it highlights the seriousness of the issue. Visibility is a created category. Seeing is a physical act - rays of light from a physical source hit our retina resulting in images conveyed to our brain. For a member of the Trinity to be visible requires physicality, which requires a created form. So, for the Son to be essentially, i.e. by nature, visible, means that he belongs to this creation. If the Son is by nature visible whereas the Father is not, then the Son is a creature and not the creator of all things, whether visible or invisible (see Col 1:16). To put it bluntly, making the Son by nature visible is a denial of his divinity.

Augustine will deal later with how the invisible God manifests himself. It may be that there is an appropriateness to the Son appearing in OT theophanies. Although Augustine does not deal with this directly next, he does turn to investigate which or all of the persons appear in the OT theophanies.

We look at that in the next post.

Wariness of "modelling"

2008-02-12T15:21:00.000Z

I'm not quite sure what my issue is here. I have noticed a fair amount of use of the term "model" in conservative evangelical speak. Examples include things like "as pastor-teachers we need to model the Christian life," "as parents we need to model forgiveness to our children." Somewhere the term "to model" strikes a note which makes me slightly wary.

Having looked at "model" in my dictionary, there is not actually much to quibble with. So what is my problem?

I think my problem is that it could have (and notice I say "could have") a hypocritical tendency. The hypocrite is concerned with outward appearance over and above the heart. If my motivation for godly living is primarily to "model" the Christian life to others then I am perilously close to that.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with being an example to others. Paul commands Timothy to set an example in 1 Tim 4:12. With spiritual responsibility comes responsibility to set an example. People will be looking at the life of their pastors. This might not be conscious. But they will see. So, yes, set an example.

But it is not just pastors who are responsible for their behaviour towards others. All Christians are responsible, not only to Jesus, but to their brothers and sisters in Christ. Each Christian has a responsibility towards God to live out the life that is theirs in Christ. They also have a responsibility towards one another to live out our shared life.

So, yes, I am to be a model Christian. Not in order for people to look at me. Not in order to be placed on a pedestal. Not in order for me to be great. Not because I am great. But because as they see me they see Christ and his work in me. And that will bring great praise and glory to Jesus.

So, by the work of Christ's Spirit in us, let us be models of what Jesus wants of us.

Some issues flagged up by Joshua 5-7

2008-02-05T13:50:00.000Z

Joshua 5-7 raises some interesting questions.

Were the non-Israelite cities and folk given an opportunity to repent?
In God's mercy, some were. Nineveh (in Jonah, not Joshua) is a prime but unique example, although it is not the normal case, if we assume that scripture gives us sufficient information. The question, however, presupposes the nature of an opportunity to repent. God is the creator and sustainer of the world. His creation is saturated with hallmarks which point to him, proclaiming his glory. Every day is an opportunity to repent.

What we probably think is that a warning of coming judgment ought to have been given.
But there is no necessity for God to offer that. In his mercy he often does so, especially for his covenant people. This is where the testimony of e.g. Ephesians 2:1-4; 4:17-19 and Romans 1:18-32 is so enlightening. God's revelation in creation, although marred by frustration, is self-evident. When God is rejected then the centre of the universe, and so thought, is rejected. Thinking necessarily becomes futile. By rejecting God, people have willfully locked themselves into a cell, with no way out. But we are not held there against our will. We want to be there, and have no desire to get out. If we have willfully shut God out of our life and thinking and don't want anything to do with him then does God have any obligation to warn us of judgment? Not at all.

Why did Achan have to be killed?
- God commanded it.
- The magnitude of his sin.
- To disinherit him, and put him outside of Israel. At heart he is not an Israelite, but as one of the idolatrous nations.
- To ensure Israel did enter the promised land.
- To show that being a true Israelite is not by circumcision, but a matter of the heart.
- To show the seriousness of sin.

Why did his family have to be killed?
- God commanded it.
- Achan is the head of his household. Should he have been obedient, the consequent blessings would pass down to his children: a place in the land and a relationship with the Lord would be theirs. Likewise, the curse of disobedience is passed down.
- The family are likely to be complicit. Especially so if Achan had told them about Joshua's initial command. It seems extraordinary to think that his family did not notice Achan burying things underneath the tent! Why would you bury something taken legally?
- To disinherit Achan
- To show that the sins of the Father are very serious.

Reconciling a so called physical-spiritual dichotomy between the OT and the NT.

2008-02-05T13:47:00.001Z

I had one of those eye-opening "ahh, so that is how it works" moments.
It occurred through a very good youth group session at church on Joshua
7. This followed, in God's providence, with a youth group weekend away
I was speaking at on Ephesians.

It concerns how judgment in the OT seems always to be physical and,
relatively speaking, immediate. How does does this reconcile with the
New Testament? And why is the total destruction, e.g. of Jericho, in
any way just.

The temptation is to confine God's judgment on the likes of Jericho,
Sodom and Gomorrah to their physical desolation. It is true that their
destruction is God's judgment on them. In one sense their destruction
is their judgment. But "simply" being dispossessed and killed is not
the entirety of the story. Judgment is far more than that.

This is where the NT helps us see just how devastating such judgments
are. "The sting of death is sin" (1 Cor. 15:56) we are told. The
disaster of the tower of Siloam and the evil schemes of Pilate are
meant to call those who are left to repentance. God is also patient (2
Pet. 3:15).

So, when God destroys cities and nations, consigning many to death,
this is not the sum of their judgment. No, the opportunity to turn to
the God who made them, and who sets the times and places where they are
to live in order for them to seek and find him, has run out of
patience. The day of repentance is over for such folk. Such Old
Testament rebels are consigned to Sheol to await the day they stand
before the just judge of all men. That is a terrible judgment indeed.

It remains such in the New Testament. The Lord still holds all things
in his hands, every atom and second. Death is still a terrible judgment
for those outside of Christ. When we experience the death of others
Jesus' call to respond in personal repentance to Jesus still stands.

Turning the hearts of the fathers to their children

2008-01-31T09:18:00.000Z

It has often bemused me why the first mentioned fruit of John the Baptist's ministry is to "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children." (Lk. 1:17).

But, given the Biblical importance of fathers as head of the household and the ones with ultimate responsibility for bringing up their children in the fear and knowledge of the Lord it makes a whole load more sense. Sin manifests itself by corrupting the good. In fathers that results in an abrogation of responsibilities. In particular, and crucially, teaching and training children in the way of the Lord. This we see in the likes of Deut 6 and all through proverbs "hear, my son, your father's instruction." And centrally, we see it in the first commandment with a promise. Length days of in the land is predicated on honouring ones father and mother. Why? Because honouring father and mother result in faithfulness to the Lord, and so staying within God's covenant blessing (see Exodus 20:12 and how Paul picks this up in Eph 6:1-4). One of the chief problems with Israel is that when they turned from the Lord the fathers then failed to teach the children the ways of the lord.

What light does this shed on JtB's ministry. As a result of JtB's ministry, fathers will realise their responsibility to their children. Their hearts will be turned towards them. Instead of neglecting to bring their children up in the way of the Lord, they will now teach their children diligently. And, under God's providence, such children will become like Timothy. They will know the holy scriptures, preparing them for the arrival of the Lord in Jesus. Hallelujah.

Models of church

2008-01-09T09:47:00.000Z

I am torn between two models of church, which I am wrongly tempted to see as opposite.

There is the missional model of the likes of Tim Keller and Mark Driscoll. And then there is the view that Sunday church is primarily for the believer.

The significance of the question is in terms of what we do and don't include in the church service. From what Keller seems to be advocating here this includes removal of any Christian jargon. What then does that do to creeds, confessions, theology and the singing of psalms? Do we omit them? Or do we adapt the way do them to the contemporary culture? If so, which contemporary culture, especially if we live in an area with many local cultures?

How do we reconcile missional church and church-for-the-believer?

Church is the gathering of the people of God. But the people of God do not exist for their own sake. They exist for and because of Jesus. The Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are on a mission to seek and to save the lost and disciple them. That therefore is our mission. So, we gather to be encouraged in that mission, and to be sent out in that mission. So, the church exists in order to grow in number and in maturity. Both of these bring great praise to God. The key is not to sacrifice one for the sake of the other.

Christian culture is counter-cultural. As such it is outward looking because we love our neighbour and practice generous hospitality. However, our gatherings are to be open to all and distinctively Christian. We must lose neither. What does this mean?

Our gatherings are to be welcoming and excluding: Welcoming because we love and welcome all people in self-sacrificial love. Excluding because the non-Christian is not a part of this community, and cannot join us in our fellowship meal.

Our gatherings are to be comforting and discomforting. Comforting because we love and care for whoever Jesus brings to us. Comforting because we speak the truth in love. Discomforting, because our love for the Lord, each other and the lost, shows up the unbeliever's sin. And discomforting because we speak the truth in love.

Our gatherings will make non-Christians feel at home and feel alien. They'll feel at home, because redeemed restored humanity will be before their eyes. The culture they see will be true culture. This is what they and the world were made for. It will be alien, because it is not their experience, and it is not their culture.

Both elements must be maintained: open and distinctively Christian. We must sell out on neither.

In fact the two are closely related. Our mission is seriously weakened if we are not distinctively Christian. And we are not distinctively Christian if we are not missional. In that context we can say our creeds, confessions and our psalms etc. We don't say them in smug satisfaction and in order to erect barriers between us and non-Christians "this is what we believe and you don't!" Rather we say them to build up those around us and proclaim the truth to outsiders. We might want to consider how we use such elements of our service in a more contemporary and open way. But being open and welcoming does not necessarily mean cutting these elements from our services.

Anyway, back to my dissertation.