The Coffee Bible Club Blog.

End of the road

2010-07-15T05:21:00.002Z

well, dear friends, all good things must come to a close. It’s time to draw this blog to a end.
We’re not meeting/posting regularly and what posts there are, are now being flooded with unsavoury spam links.
We’ve had fun, discussed important stuff, made new friends and challenged one another a great deal. Thanks for all you’ve contributed.
I’ll leave it open to the beginning of next week (NZ time: Sun eve UK/Sun morning US) for any last comments (savoury please!)

********************************************************************************
OK - only blog members can now comment/add.
Not sure how to close the blog without deleting. Essentially I think the global conversation around this blog is at an end but agree with James that the archives could be useful to others.

Church and Kingdom - same or different?

2010-02-10T22:36:00.013Z

So I thought it was about time I did actually post something on this blog. Anyone still reading it?

Here’s a question I have been musing on for a while: What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Church Universal? Are they the same or are they different? Do they overlap? How would you define them?

Some prefer to talk about 'kingdom' rather than 'church' at the moment, and in part that may be a reaction against the perceived institutionalism of the church. However, it is true that the Lord often spoke of the Kingdom, much more than we tend to. To what degree are church and kingdom different? And in what way? On the other hand, if the Kingdom is the place where God rules, then is that not the same as the Church – a la, ‘God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule…’? Or is the church is part of the Kingdom, but the Kingdom is a bigger concept? What does the bible teach?

I have done a little reading on this, but why don't you grab a coffee, let me know what you think and we'll see where the discussion goes.

Were the OT saints Unitarians or Trinitarians?

2009-10-29T12:05:00.004Z

What do you think?

Take Isaiah 63:9-10 (actually you can keep reading on in that chapter for more about the Spirit and the Father):

In all their distress he too was distressed, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and mercy he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them.

Lots of us would be happy with an approach that says that for the doctrine of the Trinity to be established it would need to be shown from Scripture that:

1. There is only one God
2. There are three persons in the Godhead
3. Each person is fully God

And not that every text bears the load of proving all three propositions at the same time.

One or two caveats to add to this.

If, as it is sometimes suggested, the Trinity could not have been known and understood before the incarnation because of the rampant idolatry of the times how do webest account for the fact that an unschooled people (the Med was full of idolatrous Gentiles) converted to Trinitarianism lock, stock and barrel without much of a fuss?

If we are tempted to suggest that the OT saints could not have understood this truth how do we know this? Is that warranted by the texts (explicitly or implicitly) or is it an attempt to psychologize about the OT saints?

Is the anti-trinitarianism of the Judaism of the first and 21st centuries best accounted for not by a lack of biblical warrant but on other grounds (2 Cor. 3 and John 5, and John 10, come to mind)?

Does it really matter? We are all clear that Christian faith is Trinitarian. Does it matter if, for a time, pre-Christian faith was actually unitarian?

Do engage with the issues with an open Bible, a charitable spirit, and a desire to honour the Triune God.

Any opportunistic comments from anti-trinitarians, they always appear when I post something about the Trinity, will be deleted. If we want to read anti-trinitarian literature we can find it ourselves. You have been warned.

The Sabbath

2009-07-07T10:05:00.003Z

So, another question to the table. It is about the sabbath and what the sabbath really is.

I was reading in Hebrews the other day about the Sabbath, about entering into Gods rest - Hebrews 4. It appears to be a lot about entering into Gods Grace and resting from our works - because Christ has done everything.

But what does the sabbath mean for us after the Cross? Some Christians won't spend money on a sabbath, won't go out or do anything that isn't church or "christian". It is good to rest and to have days off but is that what a sabbath means - to not spend money or go out or spend time with non christian friends? Or is this a Godly attitude to have for the sabbath?

This is a really open question, but one I have been thinking about a lot and wondered what you thought. Whats the biblical response to the Sabbath for those that are in Christ?

Whatever happened to the angel of the Lord?

2009-05-13T13:47:00.005Z

I know that some of you will be thinking "whatever happened to this blog?" But, putting that question aside, I would like to raise some questions about the identity of the angel of the Lord, and the neglect of emphasis on his role in the OT.

He is present in the Pentateuch; known to the patriachs, and the protector and deliverer of the Israelites from their captivity in Egypt. He is distinguished from the LORD, and yet identified with the LORD.

He speaks to Hagar (Genesis 16:6-13), to Abraham (Genesis 22:2, 11-12), wrestles with Jacob (Genesis 32:30), identifies himself to Jacob as the "God of Bethel" (Genesis 31:11-13), redeems Jacob (Genesis 48:15-16), speaks to Moses (Exodus 3:1-6), testifies to Israel that he brought them out of Egypt and into Canaan (Judges 2:1-4, which God said that he had done in Joshua 24:2-8). The angel of the Lord identifies himself as God, speaks as God, and does the works of God.

And yet the angel of the Lord is also sent by God:

"But now go, lead the people to the place about which I have spoken to you; behold, my angel shall go before you." (Exodus 32:34)

"Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him." (Exodus 23:20-21)

Doug Kelly has an interesting appendix on this in his Systematic Theology (vol. 1). He writes:

Most Old Testament scholars for the last century (even conservative ones) have been considerably...restrained in definitely identifying all appearances of the angel of the Lord as the pre-incarnate Christ.

He makes the point that this was not so among the church fathers, medieval scholastics, and sixteenth-century Reformers. I have to say that when I trace out the influences upon my own understanding of the Old Testament they have been muted on this point, and more insistent on the lack of conscious faith in Jesus as the mediator in the OT.

Why has this happened?

Is it as a result of the books we read? Are our Bible overviews, which have helped so much in stressing the importance of the OT, not been detailed enough? We've seen the big picture but missed some important details perhaps?

Does this really matter?

Rightly interpreting Scripture always matters. The person and work of Christ always, always matters.

How do these passages mesh with your understanding of Christ in the OT? And your doctrine of God?

Let's make this an on-topic-stick-to-the-text type of discussion.

Election

2009-02-08T20:17:00.005Z

A theological, biographical, doxological nearly-rhyming poem for brokenhearted Calvinists.

My heart burned for you
You fed my faltering flame
Dry wood and tinder
I leapt for joy at the sound of your voice.
“Deepest love, wide as the ocean”
That filled my heart
With praise and adoration
You my God, my heart’s desire
The world the stage
Your task my part

Learning, growing, compromising
Wiser, stronger, weaker, falling
Your truth inspired a revolution
Hard facts drove out soft allusions
The word of God is true and sure
My heart sin-sick without a cure
“Work out your calling and election”
Seemed to mock my heart’s defection
Is there any hope for those
Whose hearts despise the God who chose?

Still, ahead, the man from Nazareth
Calling all the weary soldiers
Propping up the injured saints
Listens to the same complaints

God the perfect, God omniscient
Damns the world in his “great patience”
This sounds like a terrible movie
18+, pure horror, gory.
Is this what I’m supposed to think -
That all my friends will burn and sink?
“Praise be to God the innocent
Who might just rescue two percent
Of people who believe like “us”
If that sounds strange, then simply trust.”

Of course the preachers were much milder
But the cartoon-God was louder
Stuck inside theology
The system showing signs of strain
Stuck inside my sinful body
Causing Holy Spirit pain

Running hard in the wrong direction
The living God saw my intention
He let me walk away from home
He let me fail and end in squalor
“I curse you God!” I think I uttered
Ashamed now after resolution
I must recount my dissipation
It really was the purest sin
It should have sealed my bitter end

But in the midst of my rebellion
The living God arranged a banquet
Seeing I would not come home
He clothed himself with sin and dirt
And finding me in my own vomit
Pitying self and quite despondent
He stood me up and washed me down
Gave me bread and spoke quite softly:

I am the shepherd you desire
I loved you long before your fire
I loved you in your mother’s womb
You’ve never been a moment hidden
My Spirit searches deepest caverns
You are mine, you are forgiven

Dumbfounded, moved to tears, repentant
The arm of God worked my salvation
God the crucified, the broken
Saves the world and seeks the lost

Not the purest logic puzzle
Not philosophy’s perfection
But a living God took action
Saved me from my own abstractions

Sovereign God with great affections
Far beyond our speculations
You are Lord of all the nations
All will come before your throne
Confrontation, praise and glory
You reveal our secret stories
You will do the righteous thing
All will love you, truest King!

I want to tell my tale, be open
For those who still remain heartbroken
For those who still prefer a system
I fear it might do others harm
And even if the Lord’s right arm
Is strong enough to save the wounded
We shouldn’t snuff out smouldering wicks
But lead them to the blazing centre
Jesus Christ, the God who bought us.

Right of the child in school assemblies

2009-01-21T10:42:00.002Z

Conducting school assemblies means I sometimes have to take the rough with the smooth. For example, one school gives me three half hour slots at Easter to do the crucifixion, the resurrection and the ascension. Great!

But the same junior school also gives me (this week) the topic of the UN Rights of the Child. Aaagh! How do you go about that?

This is my thinking. Help (very) welcome:

I'm going to go back to the character of God. Where do we get our ideas about goodness, kindness, justice, lack of discrimination from? Ultimately we get them from God. They are not universal. Nor are they particularly logical. So, I will use the assembly to talk about God's character (possibly using Exodus 34:6 or maybe Isaiah 58:6).

I've got to be careful, of course, of mixing up common grace with saving grace and I'm not sure how to do this at the moment - other than to end up with the ultimate sign of compassion and love and justice - i.e. the cross.

Getting ready for marriage

2008-11-18T08:06:00.003Z

2009 will give me the privilege of marrying couples in our church (being a little rural non-conformist this is not something that occurs very often). What a joy and delight! Mrs R and I are just thinking through resources we might use for marriage preparation. Having been given none ourselves, and growing together into an ever more-exalted view of marriage, we are very keen to give these engaged couples a good start. We have already set ourselves some principles for prep:

even if we have more than one couple getting married near to each other, we are going to deal with each couple individually. Marriage is so important, we do not want couples to be intimidated, especially by some of the frank discussion necessary. If marriages are to be long lasting and successful we must invest the time beforehand in each couple.
we are going to be firmly Scriptural. Duh! Yet, many marriage prep resources seem to miss out some key ideas and concepts
we are going to take the classes together

There are plenty of good books around on marriage - some of the ones we have greatly enjoyed reading together and which provide good source material are:

Married for God by Chris Ash (a simpler version of his larger Marriage)
Don't they make a lovely couple by John and Ann Benton
One Flesh by Amelia and Greg Clarke
This momentary marriage by John Piper
Lasting Love by Alistair Begg
Contraceptives: a pro-life guide published by Christian Institute
God, Sex and Marriage by John Richardson

To be honest, we were hoping to find a good course we could plug into, adapt and creatively use to deliver the teaching. But we have struggled

There is the ubiquitous marriage course from HTB. It's got some good practical stuff in it, but reading the accompanying book makes us think that it is short on linking this with Scripture and especially on starting with the Atonement as the model for marriage and all that implies
The Good Book Company produce a short course (4 weeks) but this is aimed at both believers and non believers with a strong evangelistic emphasis (it is good for that). We felt, however, that it is not deep enough for believers getting married.

So,

are there are other resources you can recommend: courses, material etc?
or, as we are beginning to think, do we invest the time to write our own?

A Reformation Day Challenge

2008-10-31T09:55:00.004Z

This is a duplicate post from my own blog. I'm trying to ease my guilt for having been invited to join this blog and so far having failed to write a single post...

Let me encourage you to make a resolution this Reformation Day. Take up the challenge to read three key books on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Before I say a little about each book let me underscore a few reasons why we ought to know the truth of justification as well as we can. Feel free to chip in with some recommendations of good books that you have read.

1. We cannot afford to lose this truth. And truth can be lost sight of, and that not merely for a generation but even for centuries. When justification by faith alone is lost sight of not only are we left in darkness but we will grope around to find in ourselves and our works the ground of our acceptance with God. In a day when this truth is being questioned, attacked, denied, and revised thank God that he has raised up men who are able to teach it clearly from the Scriptures, able to refute opponents, and for publishers who are making new and old volumes on this truth available.

2. We cannot afford to live without this truth. We dare not approach God without the obedience and blood of Christ, and we cannot benefit from the work of Christ except by faith alone. We deliberately need to turn away from ourselves and toward Christ, resting and relying on him alone in order to be declared righteous before God.

3. We cannot afford to die without this truth. Once we learn that we have already passed from death to life, that for us looking to Christ alone by faith alone the judicial verdict of God has been passed and we are declared righteous in his sight, we may then approach death without fear of future condemnation. Iain Murray tells an encouraging story that illustrates this:

About a hundred years ago Alexander Whyte, as a pastor in Edinburgh, visited one of his elders who was dying. A book was close to the man's hand and, recognizing that it was not the Bible, Whyte looked on the open page to see what it might be. There his eyes fell on the words, "Chapter 11--Of Justification":
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Murray adds "We too will die, and when that day comes there will be no truth we shall value more than the doctrine thus stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith."

The first book that I would encourage you to read is John V. Fesko's recently published Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine (available here). It is a substantial volume weighing in at 480 pages. This work seeks to set justification clearly in the framework of the history of salvation and the order of salvation. It also has an eye to recent controversies over justification by faith alone and seeks to understand and respond to challenges to the classic Reformed doctrine.

The second book takes us back to the 19th Century, where again the doctrine was under attack. Let me encourage you to read James Buchanan's classic work on The Doctrine of Justification (available here if you live in the US or here if you live in the UK). Buchanan deals with the OT and NT teaching on justification, justification in church history and various aspects of the doctrine.

Joel Beeke says:

Buchanan expounds the doctrine itself by covering the scriptural meaning of the term, its relation to the law and justice of God, its relation to the mediatorial work of Christ, its relation to grace and works, and more. The chapter on justification in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit is alone worth the price of the book.

Again it is a substantial volume at 540 pages.

The final book was written by the greatest theologian the British Isles has ever produced, John Owen. Owen's work The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ explained, confirmed, and vindicated) is available here (US) or here (UK). At 448 pages it is the shortest of the three! You will find that Owen's work, although written in the seventeenth century, has a contemporary feel to it. It is proof positive that the same debates are played out again and again in church history. This work will enrich your soul as well as inform your mind.

Reading, like running, requires commitment and development. If you want to run a marathon you have to train and build up your stamina over long distances. We should all aim to read so that we can move onto to more substantial literature.

Take time to work through these volumes carefully. Meditate on them, summarize their points and arguments, digest their teaching, speak to others about what the Lord has taught you. And on your knees thank him for having mercy upon you a sinner by not counting your sins against you, but instead counting, as if it were yours, the obedience of your Lord and Saviour, your representative and substitute, the only mediator Jesus Christ.

Twelve years ago I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on Hans Kung's teaching on justification in relation to official Roman Catholic and classic Protestant views on the doctrine. I well remember at times spending twelve or thirteen hours a day working on it. I still remember the joy of laying my head on the pillow in the certain knowledge that it wasn't my works but Christ and his perfect work that was my righteousness before God. I thank God the same is true today and I can sing in the words of the old hymn:

A debtor to mercy alone, of covenant mercy I sing;
Nor fear, with Thy righteousness on, my person and off’ring to bring.
The terrors of law and of God with me can have nothing to do;
My Savior’s obedience and blood hide all my transgressions from view

Happy Reformation day!

Happy Birthday (Next Year) Jean-Boy

2008-10-16T09:28:00.003Z

Next year is the 500th anniversary of Jean Calvin's birth (10 July 1509 if you're interested). How can a church celebrate the faithfulness of God in giving us this significant chap? Should we? How? Can it even be evangelistic? Ideas on a postcard please. Or just post comments.

[Picture shows statue of the man holding his Sony Book Reader on which he put his Institutes, Collected Sermons and Commentary set - French and Latin - without the need for a further Memory Stick Duo upgrade: result, or resultat. Note also proximity of beer tent.]

Doubt and mission

2008-10-01T15:58:00.003Z

Next week I'm doing a session with some CU students about mission and doubt. The description is as follows:

Tea and cake, sun and sand, Laurel and Hardy. They belong together. But doubt and mission??

In the workshop we'll think about:

Are there different sorts of doubt and how should we view them?
How should we handle doubts?
What is the nature of Christian assurance?
What role do doubting people have in a CU?

What does the Coffee Bible Club think about the relationship between doubt and mission?

Is the Gospel always the answer?

2008-09-25T11:09:00.004Z

So as we are sitting around our virtual table, drinking our hot steaming coffee...I am going to brings to the table a question that has been brewing for the last week. The question is the title: "Is the Gospel always the answer"?

So, what do I mean by this? Well...at Relay 1, we were given great teaching that had the foundations of - The Gospel is the answer to everything, keep pointing to the Cross, to Jesus and to Grace. Hopefully all of us will be nodding in agreement! But how do we do that in a way that is relevant to our culture today? How do you say that to your best friend whos mum is dying of cancer or when someone you know is deeply depressed?

Should the Gospel be the answer we give straight away?

It's really easy for us to say, the Gospel is the answer...but not so easy when your looking into the eyes of someone that is experiencing deep pain.

Please discuss this, I would love to read your replies and thoughts! I think this is quite an important issue in today's culture where we dress up as beautiful, successful people and yet very broken inside.

Never mention politics, ethics or anything controversial?

2008-08-17T22:33:00.003Z

Unlike the US presidential contest the upcoming NZ general election isn't receiving much international press, in fact, it's not getting much NZ press either!

Well done to Saddleback for making a distinct and unique (even exclusive) contribution to the US (and therefore global) context, but it's got me wondering what we have to offer as God's people into an election process.

I was a bit dismayed that in the Saddleback context there was some tubthumping and riotous response to McCain's use of the right rhetoric, particularly around the issue of abortion, but little positive feedback to Obama's explicit commitment to finding ways to reduce the number of abortions in the US whilst explaining that he is pro-choice as well as pro-life.

Are we, as Christians, unwilling to listen? Are we unable to give a fair hearing to those that we disagree with? I've often felt that we don't listen well - not only to one another on issues of theological diffence, disagreement and division - but generally we don't listen well, especially where controversy might rear it's head. I'm no less guilty, I'm throwing no stones.

Even here in the Coffee Bible Club we've sometimes resulted to invective rather than inquiry, throwing stones rather than asking questions. I'm dissatisfied with that. I'm tired of it. I liked what Paul had to say and Dave and Scott have just posted the teaser interview with Driscoll on using strong language. I wish I could get to that seminar and anyone who knows me knows that I don't shy away from strong words, sometimes even when they are not called for. I'm not against controversy, uncovering error, ridiculing religion or even berrating political leaders when their actions do not match their words and vice versa. As His Church we must live in this world and speak loudly and prophetically His Word with all the energy He gives us.

But can we discuss issues like abortion, the politics of US foreign intervention, the economic impact of globalisation, interventionist and free market economics, the impact of Israeli politics on the stability of the middle east, the rights of the individual and the obligations of society, the ethics of policy and politics in any given nation with a keen gospel ear and a clearly tender heart? Can we do all of this without ignoring that we really may disagree on those things and all have to hear gospel challenges to our position? Can we really do that in a way that doesn't make us charicature one another, so that we attack an image of who we think we're talking about rather than challenge who we are actually talking to?

If it is possible, how do we do it? What questions do we ask? What things do we put in place that build mutual respect and provide for changes of heart that aren't framed in terms of 'winning' or 'losing' the argument? How do we do these things in the fields of theology, ethics and politics?

How do I ask you who you would vote for without you (or I) feeling like it is a shibboleth to determine whether you are on my side or not? How do I think through my political bias, and how do you help me to do that, without ignoring that as citizens of a city to come our greatest allegience is the Christ rather than a political position or leader? How do I address my own conscience and the political realities in the coming months and deciding who I will vote for in NZ and who I hope people vote for in the US?

Hypothetical ethics...

2008-06-27T14:06:00.003Z

Christians are called to obey governments (Romans 13.1-7): "let everyone be subject to governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." However, most Christian ethicists recognise that this obedience only goes so far - if it clashes with our obedience to God, then we have to rethink (e.g. Daniel).

E.g., when Anglican ministers are licensed they swear obedience to their Lord Bishop in all things lawful. I.e. they recognise that their Lord Bishop has no hold over them should he stray outside the law.

But this is all a bit vague. How do you decide where to draw the line? If the authorities tell you that you cannot pray to God but must pray to a false God, you reject their authority, like Daniel. Most Christians would agree ethically (but would they be able to prove?) that someone like Corrie Ten Boom was right to hide Jews from the Nazi government because she knew they would be killed. Consider then this modern example:

Suppose I know a hypothetical Zimbabwean. He/She is awaiting a court verdict for deportation because of a failed asylum application. The delay has been caused because HM Government has appealed against a court ruling on Zimbabwean deportation. Suppose they win. Suppose he/she has lost all his/her family in Zimbabwe and returning would mean almost certain death (all hypothetical, you understand).

Could it ever be right for a Christian in the UK to hide such a person from the Immigration Authorities knowing that to give them up would send them to die?

Why or why not? Is it any different to Corrie Ten Boom? Why or why not? I'm interested in your views - hypothetically, of course.....!

Discuss.

Come on, everybody!

2008-06-19T11:34:00.002Z

Boys and girls. Coffee machines wot are not used are liable to rust up. Let us not give up the habit of meeting together over an espresso whilst rustling the pages of our Bibles (v. loose paraphrase.....).

unity or disunity......you decide.

2008-05-13T06:30:00.002Z

Numbers 32 describes the events that led up to Reuben and Gad inheriting east of the Jordan rather than in the promised land. I’ve been chewing the cud over this passage and would like some help from fellow coffee drinkers!

Here’s my take. Moses is livid that the request comes (v1-13) because it is essentially a repeat of their forefathers rejection of the land. They lack the vision to go into the Promised Land and will be in great danger of splitting apart the unity of the nation which has just ensured them a decisive victory over the Midianites. The verb “discourage” literally translates “restraining the heart.”

The two tribes propose a compromise (v16-18) which includes sending in their “shock” troops (probably an elite – phrase not translated in NIV). Moses adapts this compromise (presumably with YHWH’s approval?) to be all the men must go over and fight. He reinforces this by repetition: “ALL of you armed, ALL go over the Jordan” – an adaptation which the two tribes apparently accept (v27). The rest of the chapter describes how this is accepted by the remaining tribes and the initial success Gad and Reuben have in settling their lands.

All the commentaries I have draw the line here (perhaps with some reference to Joshua 22 where the tribes are released from their obligation because they have fulfilled all Moses asked of them). Therefore this chapter becomes a chapter on UNITY and how successful it is to fight together. End of story.

But I can’t help feeling there is something deeper going on. Numbers 33 deliberately breaks up this section from the next which describes the inheritance – and in Numbers 34.12 the land that Gad and Reuben receive is deliberately omitted from the Promised Land; it appears they have placed themselves outside of God's plans. By the time the kingdom had reached its largest point (at the division of the two kingdoms), Gad and Reuben had all but disappeared, subsumed into Ammon and Moab, two key enemies of Israel.

Taking a longer term view, then, could it be argued that this chapter is about DISUNITY, not UNITY? Moses does all he can to minimise the impact of a split, and in the short term this appears to paper over the cracks. But essentially you can’t ignore the fact that these two tribes have rejected God’s goodness and gone their own way. Sure, God’s grace treats them with blessings way beyond what they deserve – but ultimately it will only end in tears.

When Christians are disunited, it is possible that in the short term it can be papered over, even be a benefit in some perverse way (e.g. troublemakers leaving a church, phew!). But, in the longer term it is always disastrous for the gospel.

Quite a different message! Your expertise amongst the coffee grounds very welcome….. Am I quite mad? I am always nervous when I see something that no commentators pick up on - it nearly always means I'm wrong. Is that the case here?

God is not English speaking, Western and Affluent...

2008-04-29T21:44:00.009Z

A few years ago I was speaking at All Souls (Langham Place, London), student weekend away. I was, at one point in a talk, speaking of heaven and said, "we will be one... our skin colours will fade, our languages will be united..." as I said it I became deeply convicted that I believed heaven was going to be white, middle class and English speaking. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't COMMITTED to that belief, but it was a functioning, core conviction that arose out of my cultural assumptions and inner worldview.

This is remarkable, not only in that one whole side of my family is German and I'm the grandson of Gaelic speaking Irish grandparents (who were far from middle class) but also that I would have, at that point, asserted that I thought all cultures were of equal standing before God and his gospel. However, so moved and convicted was I that I repented immediately, publicly and verbally during the talk. Not to have done so would have been damaging to the gospel in that widely international group, dishonouring to God and a flagrant act of spiritual imperialism.

I've often pondered on it since and especially since moving to the South Pacific. Today I came across a comment on Dave's blog which brought it all to the fore again. Feeling 'provoked' I'm finally come back to the CBCB table, coffee in hand and bee in bonnet. It's good to be talking.

For the record - this is not about attacking the poster of the comment on Dave's blog, rather it's looking at the context within which the sentiment arises. I'm feeling fairly excercised about it - so if it comes out stronger than it's meant to, I'm opening a conversation - come back with equal strength.

The belief that God speaks English, is western in his understanding of the world and is 'well off' (in the sense of comfort and ease afforded by endless riches) is very deep seated in the British Christian world. It is also seems fairly deeply rooted in the rest of the Caucasian English speaking world. We must tread very carefully on this ground, for it is perilously fragile and hovers above the slope of imperialism and racism.

There will be some, undoubtedly, who read this and think I've 'gone native' and THAT is precisely the issue.

The Bible is recorded in the common languages of the what is now called the Middle East [that is, in relation to the west and specifically England but would be better called the Eastern Mediterranean (sic. Middle Earth!) ] of over two thousand years ago. This 'inconvenience' was not a hiatus prior to it being translated into English but rather the deliberate and fascinatingly complex but cunningly simple plan of God for its dissemination around the world.

The framework of Scripture is not Western and Jesus, the ultimate self-revelation of God, was ethnically Jewish, culturally Galilean and physically immersed in a world without internet, mass communication, mobile phones, cars, international travel, immediate news, fast food, synthetic clothing, haute cuisine and pilates. He was not concerned about celebrities love lives, had no access to Facebook status and could not have written an email, or a blog post, if he had wanted to. When we [or any one individual or culture] consider that we are somehow at the peak and pinnacle of history we displace Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God. Western culture(s) is (are) NOT the point of history -Jesus is. And he is not Western.

Jesus WENT native - to reach the natives of this world. He came as one of us. He came speaking human words as the Divine Word. He humbled Himself, even to the point of dying as though a criminal, though not guilty in any way, so that we who are guilty in every way possible might have eternal life that we do not deserve in any way. He forsook all that was of glory in the Godhead in order to achieve this.

Jesus, as the Humbled God, so wounds the human aspiration to have pride in one's ethnicity, upbringing and cultural/religious background and/or personal achievements that Scripture tells us that all of these things are filth in comparison to what He has done in and for us and therefore have no place in our confidence in His service. So, where there is strength in the church in the west - it is of God's doing. Where there is fruitfulness because of a good heritage - it is God's doing. Where English has been well utilised in communicating the gospel - it is God's doing. Where there is anything good in any church or Christian community anywhere around the world it is God's doing. It is not because our culture, nation, ethnicity or religious background is of intrinsic worth in and of itself.

I once had the honour of showing a Christian brother from Uganda around Leicester, UK. He was staying with us a few days and had been talking of the hardships that reaching Muslims in Uganda brings. He'd spoken of much that moved me and my family and made us aware of the privileges of the lives we live.

As we walked through the city centre he looked at me and with deep compassion, pity and love he asked me how we lived with so much poverty around us. I looked around and saw high-end fashion retailers, jewellery shops, computer game and music shops, opticians, mobile phone shops, pharmacies and a myriad of food outlets and every other sort of retail and leisure outlet that inhabit every British city these days. I thought I'm misheard him and asked what he meant.

"The spiritual poverty, look there are young women dressed in their underwear in the streets, there are young men who do not know what life is for and who clearly do not respect themselves. There are buildings which used to be churches that are now shops AND EVEN MOSQUES! I used to think that Britain was a rich place but now I see that it is extremely poor. I used to think it would be so easy to live here but now I see that it is a very hard place to live and be a Christian. I will pray for you and the Church here."

Now, let me be blunt - British, American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand (and other 'anglophile') Christians: beware. We have much to be thankful for but we must not let our gratitude become idolatrous, prideful and arrogant - thinking that because of what we have enjoyed that we have more to teach than to learn in a world context because we would be mistaken.

Now, I'll take a deep breath, sip my coffee and wait for the conversation to go on from here...

Christians at University

2008-04-25T10:17:00.003Z

Regular readers might like to know that I've just written a piece about the worrying Love your uni movement in some of our universities. It's relevant to coffee Bible club readers because it shows the trend in some parts of evangelical culture away from proclaiming the gospel.

Read the article and various responses here.

Comments welcome on my blog!

Evanjellybeans?

2008-03-11T14:57:00.005Z

The genesis of the Evanjellybean... "As we sat in our seats, twitching, a few people came round with baskets of jellybeans. We were all allowed one, and the person leading the service explained that this was an illustration of Grace. We didn't do anything to earn the sweeties, they were just a really nice gift. It hit me - Jellybean Grace - I couldn't think of a better illustration of the shallow, trite, cheap, unsatisfying version of The Faith offered by the post-modern, emergent, purpose-driven church. Grace as a nice gift in a fairly neutral setting, not Grace as phenomenal, extravagant mercy to those who are wicked God-haters. And so, the Evanjellybean was born."

I guess this just got me wondering whether our Christianity is big enough for the Biblical gospel. Thomas Bilney wrote of the word of God detonating his heart (in A Passion that Shapes Nations, Charlie Cleverley). That's the sort of clarity and conviction that Paul concludes Galatians with, as Luther paraphrases it: “God forbid,” says the Apostle, “that I should glory in anything as dangerous as the false apostles glory in because what they glory in is a poison that destroys many souls, and I wish it were buried in hell. Let them glory in the flesh if they wish and let them perish in their glory. As for me I glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Big, cross-exalting grace.

Dear Lord, save us from Christian Education

2008-02-27T17:03:00.000Z

Over a year ago I received a questionnaire designed to be part of a feasibility study for a new Christian high school. The school would be private; the money would come from a conglomeration of Christian parents and donors.

An article by a North American having visited England made several suggestions about how British evangelicalism could be helped. One of them was to increase the amount of Christian schooling.

What I’m going to say is going to be offensive to those like the chap who wrote the above-mentioned article, and to Christian parents who’ve made financial sacrifices to be able to send their children to a Christian high school, year after year, but here’s my hypothesis:

Christian schooling doesn’t (often) square up with the gospel.

Perhaps the best way to start my diatribe is to give some BAD reasons to send your child to a Christian school:

1. Middle-class Maximillian needs to be protected from evil badly-behaved heathen.
2. Maximillian needs to be protected from evil secular ways of thinking and learn about Christian values.
3. Christians need to build up an impressive “elite” who can (metaphorically) beat up theological and philosophical opponents with a (primarily intellectual) baseball bat.
4. Christians need to mainly live in an exclusive social network with as little contact with the world as possible: Christian education, Christian workplace, Christian soft rock, and Christian cornflakes until the rapture.

I’m not saying every Christian schooling fan has all of this in mind, but I can’t discern any other reasons. Sure, if your little kid is getting beaten up at school (1) then you’d do everything to try and protect him, perhaps even change schools. On the other hand, how far do you go? The world is full of “enemies” and “masters” (to talk in New Testament terms) who we can’t always avoid, and who we must learn to love, respect, pray for, forgive.

That secular thinking sets itself up as an authority over and against God (2) is quite accurate. However, to think that children need to be fundamentally protected from it is wrong-headed and creates more problems than it solves. A sort of “thought police” attitude to the humanities creates Christians who can function well in a closed social network but end up either aggressive towards or unable to converse with people of other opinions. Christian values are great, but children will learn far more from the way their parents love, forgive and ask for forgiveness, than from the way their teachers rip secular thought apart (3). “Not many of you were wise…”.

Thoughts about gospel-flavoured Christian Education:

1. By all means open Christian schools. Open them in the poorest, most socially disadvantaged areas to bless people who have absolutely no interest in coming to my middle-class easy-listening church.
2. Organise a cost-free homework club for children whose parents are: either not interested in or can only financially dream of helping their kids / sending them to homework tutors. Get some college students involved.
3. Read about how God used Christians to improve education in history (G. Müller; A.H. Francke; J.H. Wichern) and how they never set out to “protect little Christian Jonnysocks” but to bless and convert the poorest and roughest children.
4. Think about God our Saviour, who seemed to be much more interested in people who “did not seek” and were lost and abandoned than in making sure the 99 sheep had had their wool coats properly cut, washed and blow-dried.
5. Think about whether gospel convictions become more rooted in:
a) a person who has studied the principle “love your neighbour” in a Christian setting or
b) a person who has learned to love the most aggressive, abusive people our society knows.

If I’m wrong then we’ve all been taught to think things through more clearly, but at the moment I'm struggling to see reasons why we should have private Christian schools. What do you think?

Homosexuality and obscurity?

2008-02-20T09:47:00.003Z

There are few churches in the western world where issues of human sexuality and what Christians believe about the unique rightness of sexual expression within heterosexual, monogamous marriage are not difficult. In many churches that is simply because people find this issues very personal and hence very emotive.

But in the Church of England (and most other traditional denominational churches) there is the additional problem that many people and leaders in the church simply do not accept the Bible's teaching on this issue and want Christian ethics and practice in this area to be different from what they have been throughout the histroy of the Church.

Into this maelstrom has stepped the Bishop of my home town, Liverpool, Dr James Jones. Bishop James has generally been considered to be a "traditionalist" in matters of human sexuality (I think this is Anglican shorthand for believing the Bible). He publicly opposed the ordination of Dr Jeffrey John (a gay man with a partner in a celibate relationship but who considers that active homosexual relationships may be compatible with living as a Christian) as Dean of St Alban's.

Bishop James' latest contribution to the debate seems to have taken him quite a long way from this position. I say "seems" because the nature of his comments makes it very difficult to ascertain what he actually thinks about this issue now. Bishop James is a highly intelligent man so I take it that his ambiguity (and downright obscurity) at some points is a deliberate attempt to make it impossible to tell if he has changed his mind or not. I am sure that this is something the Bishop has done to try and encourage openess and debate about this issue in Liverpool and more widely in the Church of England and the nation. But it seems to me that he is profoundly wrong for a number of reasons...

If you want to read the article before following my response you'll find it here.

1 Bishop James talks about the working group he has set up to look at issues around the area of homosexuality and which was tasked to arrive at a "Theology of Friendship". Whilst dialogue with people holding all sorts of view that differ from you if usually a good and valuable thing, he fails to consider that our theology must be arrived at not from conversations with others but from what God has revealed of himself in his word. Others may help us to understand what God has written. But you cannot well develop theology in conversation with people who hold a radically different view of the Bible - because the source of their theology will always be something other than God's word.

2 Bishop James uses the physical intimacy between David and Jonathan to show us that "here are two men with the capacity to love fully, both women and men." It is surely right to realise that our culture is not necessarilty any more (or less!) "biblical" than cultures where men's affections for each other are more demonstrative. But nobody is questionning whether or not we should love others "fully" whatever their sex. Rather the issue is whether homosexual relationships are, in fact, a failure to love fully; which they must be if they go against the commands of a loving God. In any case even if David and Jonathan had been involved in a homosexual relationship (which the Bible gives us no reason to believe) that would not have made it right - any more than David's adulterty with Bathsheeba was right.

3 The Bishop's essay makes reference to the incident in John 8 where Jesus says to the woman caught in adultery "Neither do I condemn you; go and from now on sin no more." he points out that the words of comfort come first and that "the pastor speaks before the prophet." This is, frankly, a very silly reading of the text! The ESV (and some other translations) has all this as one sentence. Jesus spoke the two parts of it more or less instantaneously. So it is ridiculous to use this text to suggest that we should create some sort of gap between listening to the views of others and coming to Bible driven conclusions.

Obviously we should listen politely and respectfully to the views of others on all sorts of issues. But where the Bible has been believed by Christians of all sorts to speak clearly on an issue for 2,000 years we should not put our proclamation of that view on pause simply to listen to the opinions of a group of people who, largely, do not hold to anything like an historic Christian view of the Scriptures.

4 The bishop repents in his article of opposing the ordination of Dr John at St Alban's and of causing pain and distress to Dr John and his partner. I find this totally astonishing. Obviously it is a matter of great sadness that this man and his partner should have been caused distress, as doubtless they were, by the media circus that surrounded his appointment. But it was not Biship James or anyone else who put him in that position. Rather Dr John accepted the post knowing full well that his appointment would disturb millions of Anglicans and other Christians around the world who believe that his position on homosexual practice contradicts the teachings of God and the doctrines of the church he is meant to uphold.

Bishop James says that the controversy over the appointment "narrowed rather than enlarged the space ofr healthy debate within the church.". Does this mean that the best way to achieve debate would be for people who disagreed profpundly with Dr John to have stayed silent? That hardly sounds like a recipe for debate!

Fundamentally it seems that Bishop James is trying to have his cake and eat it. He wants "healthy debate" but not for anybody to feel hurt or disappointed or excluded. But, precisely because this issue is one that, for all of us, goes to the heart of some of our deepest emotions, fear and insecurities, this is simply not possible.

If you are a person in an active homosexual relationship and describing yourself as a follower of Jesus Christ I cannot possible hold and express a view that you should not be in that relationship without causing you pain and distress. I do not wish to do so. But, as a pastor, I am called to explain what God says as clearly as I am able. I long to do it with gentleness and compassion but, rightly understood, these are never at the expense of clarity.

Bishop James is in a very difficult place. But the solution to the sensitivity of the Church of England on this issue is not to create more "space for debate" by promoting to positions of power those who hold a different view of Christian Scripture and Christian Ethics - because that is the cause of the problem!

boring, boring church...?

2008-02-14T07:22:00.003Z

Is church boring?

Y: a survey of Australian non-churchgoers found that the most common response to why they did not go to church was because it was boring.
N: according to Operation World, 140 million (get that!) more people go to an Evangelical church in 2000 than they did in 1990. Presumably, for them, it is not boring!

Been reflecting on this in order to prepare a talk for this Sunday evening entitled "Enjoying church." What is our problem? I wonder (engage, please), whether it is primarily (I am not saying this is the whole picture) because of what we believe and teach (i.e. questions of faith) rather than primarily questions of what we experience (i.e. questions of emotion). Here are three things that would help us enjoy church more if we believed them, and believed them more.

There is a difference between enjoyment and entertainment
Society today mixes these two up. We think we are enjoying ourselves when we are being entertained. But enjoyment is a deep biblical issue that, though it probably captures some of the emotion of entertainment some of the time, is wider and broader. For example, Paul can write that he is "overcome with joy in all his afflictions" (2 Cor 7.4). Presumably these afflictions are not a barrel of laughs. When we blur the reality of joy in Christ with entertainment, we set ourselves up to make church boring.

Jesus is present in his church
Although Matthew 18.20 is written about church discipline, it nevertheless is built on a certain doctrine of the church, which is that Jesus is present in the church in some indescribable way. So, the picture of the temple is used by Paul to describe the individual where the Spirit dwells (1 Cor 6.19), but also to describe the entirety of the church (1 Cor 3.16, note the plural you). First and foremost this is a question of faith - i.e. whether we believe it or not. This raises an interesting question - whether church is, spiritually, always boring for an unbeliever?

The church family has a special significance
Matthew 18.20 hints at this too - where "two or three come together..." indicates the importance of gathering together. A theme reflected in Acts 2.42-47 and in the language of the church in the New Testament (body, field, building, temple, nation, priesthood etc). When we attend church rather than participate in it, we lessen its glorious nature and the one who is head, Jesus himself.

What do you think? Of course, there are practical reasons too beyond these, and there is much merit in thinking through what these might be (do help me out!). But is part of our problem that in a desire to fix what is perhaps broken (given the mismatch between western attitudes and what is happening worldwide) we go straight to the practical without sorting out the theological?

The Gravity of ministry...

2008-01-31T10:55:00.000Z

Here is a talk from the 2006 Reform and Resurge conference by Matt Chandler called Gravity : The weight of pastoring and the knowledge of Christ.

Video
Audio

Do we read the Bible too much?

2008-01-23T06:54:00.001Z

Newbie here.

A going-grey dad, husband, pastor, frustrated musician, and coffee/bible lover.

Favourite tipple: espresso from my faithful, if battered, Krups machine
Favourite bible: equally battered but more faithful Holman CSB (ask me about it another time)

These are my two great tools, coffee and bible.

Or are they?

Not talking about the mocha of course. But I’ve been much exercised recently, pastorally, whether Evangelicals stress personal Bible reading/study too much?

To be honest, it’s a particular situation that has given rise to this thinking. Two great, enthusiastic, young Christians who want to grow and deepen. But can’t read. At least, they can read the words on the page (barely) but cannot translate them into a coherent understanding. Suddenly, my Evangelical heritage is rocked to the core. Hey! This is how God will teach them, isn’t it? This is how they will grow!

Dyslexia (see here) affects nearly 6 million people in the UK, a huge number. Many of us tertiary educated middle class guys and gals find it hard to comprehend that people cannot, well…comprehend what they read.

So, I wonder if we over-emphasise Bible reading? Of course, if we can, we surely should read and study. Once heard a well known speaker (think white, crumbly rock type) say that he didn’t bother with his own study unless he had time to spare. That’s laziness. But what about people who can’t?

Our Bibles don’t help.

I didn’t act-
ually appre-
ciate how diff-
icult it is to read
lines that are
constantly hyph-
enated and in
narrow columns.

The folks at the International Bible Society have sponsored a project (called Books of the Bible) to remove the barriers to reading a Bible that many people find (including columns, verse and chapter numbers and dreaded red text – see here for the project and here for the explanation). But even this my friends struggled with.

Of course, when we put our historical superiority aside we discover that for most of history, most of the world has not had access to personal Scriptures, either through lack of ability to read, availability (certainly before the printing press), language or cost. And many believers still don't.

I’m not sure about the answer. All help welcome (in this case I resorted to Bibles on CD). I desperately want these young Christians to grow and deepen. For what it’s worth, I think the answer lies in the church and what church is and should be. If the community and family of faith is working properly then I am not so sure that daily Bible reading is such an essential – after all, we have faith by hearing and the early Christians devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching. In other words, our learning is a communal experience rather than an individual one.

Do Evangelicals stress personal bible study/reading too much?

follow my leader

2008-01-10T13:48:00.000Z

This week I watched two films about leaders, and in a week I've got a modern church history exam. This combination got me thinking: time for a coffee...

This is England tells the story of 12-year-old misfit Shaun who finally finds acceptance from a skinhead gang in the north of England, at the beginning of the 80s. Apart from a trip down memory-lane (80s games, music, sweets, fashion) the story is about how the gang takes a turn for the worse when a charismatic ex-convict Combo turns up again after his stint in jail. Under his leadership, the young kids get mixed up in the National Front scene.

Combo isn't just nasty. He's jealous, disappointed, heart-broken, fatherless - in one sense, you can see straight through him. Yet through his bullying tirades he gains the support of some young kids who don't know much better, and they end up on the brink of a world of racist violence.

Bobby came to me highly recommended, and I pass the recommendation on. A ridiculously star-studded cast play 22 characters entwined in events surrounding the day Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, all staying in the same grand hotel. The characters are well-developed in a short space of time, each character giving insight into the different milieus and culture at the end of the sixties in America. Robert F. Kennedy plays himself in TV speeches and press coverage of the election campaign. What makes the story so tragic, is that you get the impression that he was a great man. In a day and age of vitriolic cynicism, this must sound incredibly naive, but the things he was saying, and the way he was saying them just seemed incredibly right. "America should be a country known for its selflessness." That, I thought to myself, is leadership. And then this man gets gunned down.

Part of my modern church history module has included an analysis of “das Dritte Reich” and the way my college reacted. Sometimes in Christian circles a picture is painted that the “bad liberal” people follow the crowd, whereas the “faithful conservative” people swim against the current of the trends in society. However, the truth is far more complex. The front page of a “good, conservative” Christian Alcoholics Anonymous journal from the 1930s carried a full-size photograph of Hitler with the headline: “He doesn’t drink, he doesn’t smoke…” and goes on to talk about why Christians should support the “Führer” who reads the bible and prays. Hitler talked privately with his close circle of supporters about his plans to eradicate the church… but he played the part and so most Christians thought, “Here is finally someone who stands up for traditional morals,” not recognising the direction of his home and foreign policy. "Here's a leader with Christian values - we should vote for him."

Choosing a leader is more complex than the headlines make it out to be. "One-issue" voting is temptingly simple, but is it wise? It makes you think: What does the bible say? What will historians say about our society in 100 years time? Where are our blind spots? What do we casually ignore?

In this regard: God bless America!

Church history rocks the party

2007-06-23T08:41:00.000Z

A new day, a new topic - grab a cuppa, let's talk...

I don’t know about you, but the phrase “church history” used to conjur up images of eternal boredom. My neighbour recently shared the anecdote of how his younger brother, having just received a Christmas present from his grandmother, leafed through a “full-colour” hardback picture book of “gothic church architecture” with feigned gasps of interest – “oh thanks, Gran, that’s really great.”

Church history seemed like an endless lists of dates and councils and creeds, on a par with dreary pictures of empty buildings. Why check out church history, when you can get on with doing church now?

Over the last year I had the task of revising for church history exams, so the first rather less than pious answer to my question was: check out church history, or you’ll flunk bible college. However, in the process of learning about popes, princes and debates about transubstantiation, my eyes have been opened to the hordes of treasure waiting to be discovered in the more unexplored corners of the library. So here are some reasons why church history should most certainly begin to rock your party, if it hasn’t already been providing a rich soundtrack for many years of your life:

1. Church history is about lived-out faith

Spirituality is a word bandied about all over the place, be it in the church or your local yoga group. When I use the word I guess I mean “relationship and contemplative life with and under God”. The New Testament is not in the first instance a guide to spirituality. In Acts there’s a quick news bulletin: “the apostles met and broke bread”; “they sung a hymn”; “they devoted themselves to prayer and the word” - you get an idea of what sort of things went on, but you don’t get much insight into what this really looked like – there’s no MP3 recording.

I assume that the reason for this is that “spirituality” in the NT is Old Testament spirituality. The few prayers in the Gospels and Acts (Maria, Zechariah, Acts 4) are saturated in the Old Testament. The “word” that demanded devoted study was the Old Testament word – the Psalms, proverbs and other wisdom literature. “New Testament spirituality” is surely interpreted through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it remains a “Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes” spirituality.

I find myself wanting to listen to what it means to interpret this OT spirituality through the lens of Christ. You get awesome statements from Paul, like: “I live no longer, rather Christ lives in me.” But I find myself saying – wow, great, awesome, but Paul, tell me more – what does this look like? Tell me about how you live that out!

Church history is great because it’s about people following Jesus and working out what it means to live under God in Christ. Once you get past the dates and names (which is helpful to get a grip of the scenery), the way is clear to dip into the books behind the names and soak up all the wisdom and years of experience they recorded for our benefit. You get a sense of what it could mean to continue to grow and become mature in Christ.

2. Church history means you’re surrounded by witnesses

One of the things that has struck me is that even when in every age there are Christians who get the wrong end of the stick and are unbalanced in some area of their theology (of course, we here at the coffee bible club are all perfectly “balanced” theologians, all the time…), in amidst all the fuzz, in every age, God’s Spirit is at work. There’s a sort of unspoken assumption in evangelical circles that all theologians before the reformation were apostate, apart from Augustine - he’s ok because Calvin was a fan. That is certainly unfair to some, but judging by the quotations I hear in evangelical sermons, God’s Spirit only taught truth worth hearing to Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Packer and Stott. Or if you live in Germany like me then it was only Zinzendorf, Luther, Luther, Luther, Luther and Bonhoeffer.

I’ve been discovering through my church history classes that Luther stood in a long line of theologians who had worthwhile things to say about the sinfulness and weakness of man, the wisdom, glory and grace of God, and the need for reform in the church. “All over the world, God’s Spirit is moving” was a song we used to sing in the church of my childhood. “In all generations,” I might add.

This amazing work of God in all ages in the universal church has been a great comfort to me recently. In all generations there have been believers who - saturated in the culture of their day, challenged by temptations, surrounded with philosophical challenges to their faith - have “fought the good fight” of faith and worked hard at giving an account of their faith in Christ to the world around them.

Many mourn the move towards individualism in our Christianity. I’ve noticed that I am very reluctant to learn from others “since they are only human”. Part of this may be good Christology, but another regretfully large part of it is self-sufficiency on my part. Reading about people like Augustine has shown me how “me and my generation” are not the first to have the tricky double-task of translating the gospel into the philosophical air of the age and defending the faith from the attacks of the age. Every generation of Christians has faced this challenge. And that is encouraging.

So many of the questions that these old guys were dealing with are the same questions we encounter today. It’s mostly just the same, rehashed and repackaged. We can learn from the arguments and struggles of others throughout history and it equips us for the battles we face.

I’m currently listening to….

William Placher (Editor): “Callings. Twenty Centuries of Christian Wisdom on Vocation” is an anthology of writers on the topic of vocation, but it serves as an all-round selection of “tasters” from some of the most famous figures. Augustine’s Confessions is an autobiography with a theological end-part. It’s written in the form of a prayer to God. Henry Chadwick’s theological biography, Augustine, is quite philosophical/hard reading but remains inspiring. I followed Alister McGrath’s tip in his book about doubt to check out Thomas à Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ – there is a lot of challenging wisdom – it is questioning my motives a lot. The IVP Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals is full of great short articles and shows how people from the evangelical tradition dealt with the challenges of the day – and it helps me understand more of where I come from.

Anyone else had any good cups of coffee with dead people alive in Christ that we should know about?

How Amiable!

2007-06-21T15:34:00.000Z

"Those who in recent debates have questioned the doctrine of substitutionary atonement must surely be those who are not deeply-convicted and not alive to the guilt of a broken law. But the blood-drenched floor and blood-spattered walls of tabernacle and temple testify to the depth of our sin and the need for a life to be poured out in exchange for atonement... to the heart of a deeply-convicted sinner ‘how amiable’ for we see in the blood God’s love, God’s justice, God’s holiness, God’s grace, and God’s welcome."
Tim Chester reflecting on Andrew Bonar on Leviticus 7

The Cross and Criticism

2007-05-21T13:09:00.001Z

Alfred Poirer - The Cross and Criticsm from the Journal of Biblical Counselling, 1999.

"In light of God's judgment and justification of the sinner in the cross of Christ, we can begin to discover how to deal with any and all criticism. By agreeing with God's criticism of me in Christ's cross, I can face any criticism man may lay against me. In other words, no one can criticize me more than the cross has. And the most devastating criticism turns out to be the finest mercy. If you thus know yourself as having been crucified with Christ, then you can respond to any criticism, even mistaken or hostile criticism, without bitterness, defensiveness, or blameshifting. Such responses typically exacerbate and intensify conflict, and lead to the rupture of relationships. You can learn to hear criticism as constructive and not condemnatory because God has justified you."

The PS debate, things to reflect on:

2007-05-14T16:29:00.000Z

I guess it's always been my experience in life that when someone criticises you, you want to defend yourself.

So you do.

But after a little time, you can see that, even if they were being very unfair there was maybe a grain of truth in what they said. And maybe it's like that with what people say about penal substitution.

To say that we believe in cosmic child abuse is a cruel, nasty unpleasant and vitriolic thing to say. We need to defend ourselves against that accusation. We don't believe in that.

But Chalkey and lots of other people I have come across who don't like PSA, the reason for their criticism of the doctrine is (they say) because of the people who teach PSA. Those people don't love well, according to the criticism. They don't love each other or the world well. They don't seek the good of those around them. And that's because, according to the critics, they believe that God hates the world; God feels violently towards the world, and it's only sweet little innocent Jesus who stands in the way of us being smashed by God's uncontrollable violent feelings towards us.

Well, we've managed to (or at least some people have like these peopledefend the doctrine theologically) to show that we do believe God loves the world, and that's why PS is so important.

But has the Chalkemeister got a point about our actions? I think he might do. Most of the Christians I know spend most of their time with...Christians. Me included. Which doesn't model brilliantly that God loves the world. Most of them, and by them I mean us, spend the time we are with Christians complaining about each other and allowing the way they do things to wind us up. When they, and really I mean we, engage with the world, maybe we often are all about winning converts, rather than loving the world like God does. Maybe we do, as I was challenged about in church yesterday, think the world is going to hell in a handbasket, rather than thinking that the point of the cross and PS is so that God can start reinvading the world with his glory, recreating it through the church. Through me. Through us.

Steve Chalke and your friends, wrong diagnosis, but good one for spotting the symptoms.

Thing is, it's a deep belief in PS that makes me think this stuff is important, if I really let it sink in to me. There is my God taking on himself the result of my sin, the result of the world's sin. How he must love the world. There he is humbling himself to the weakest and lowliest place for our sake. How he must care about the weak and lowly. There he is making a statement that justice must be done, that sin must be identified as sin, that the victoms of sin, caught up in it by their own guilt should be shown compassion. How he must love justice and long to see compassion.

You know, I can't speak for anyone else. But when I think about me, I think that maybe those PSA critics, wrong as they are about theology, might be right that there is some sickness in my spiritual life. Even after PS is, rightly, defended to the hilt, maybe there's still some things to think about.

PS - if you'll excuse the pun, but I actually meant to post this on my own blog! (I'll do that too) I'll leave it here in case you want to talk about it, but sorry it isn't up tp the usual high standard of blogs on this site!

Atonement for Dummies?

2007-05-10T14:36:00.001Z

Andii asks:

"I have to ask whether in our cultural situation we can actually do 'right use' on a popularly-accessible version of PSA which can be grasped in essence by, eg an intelligent 9 year old, and convey the important points in such a way as not to easily lead astray (in our cultural situation, I emphasise). I'm coming to the conclusion that we cannot."

The first question for our message isn't whether it can be understood, but is it true. Is our message what the scriptures teach. If it isn't we need to go and sort that out. If it is, then we come to communication.

Peter Bolt, in The Cross from a Distance (p128):

“It is the temptation of the teacher to clarify what seems difficult. Interpreters have often sought to this by inventing illustrations of proposing analogies for Christ's work on the cross. This is a temptation, however, that should be resisted at all costs. The track record of these manufactured illustrations has nmot been a happy one; they have been sometimes obscure, often bizarre or inhumane, and usually just plain heretical. Any illustration can get into trouble simply by virtue of the fact that it requires saying God's Word in other words, entalining an automatic shift away from God's Word. Although the preacher needs to 'illustrate' the world to which the Word is addressed, the Word itself should probably be permitted to speak for itself. In addition there are some thing that should never be illustrated. As with the Trinity, given the unique nature of the cross, analogies simply do not exist. We understand the cross, not by finding soem contemporary illustration that clinches the deal, but by listening carefully to the biblical context in which it makes sense. This may leave us with some unexplained mysteries, but, even so, we shall be closer to the truth when we live with the rough edges of God's Word that when we try to impose the smooth lines of our own fancy illustrations."

I don't have to try and twist the cross to be understandable - but to explain it with care. We're sharply warned against twisting it to make it easier to hear. Doing it carefully will take time. But, with all due urgency we do have time. We can afford to lay out the story. Jesus was incarnate into the world he created and the community he created (both by his word). God spent 1800+ years (or indeed all of history before Jesus!) setting the framework in history to give us all the categories we need to understand the cross perfectly well - and indeed everything else about God. (Try the tabernacle to understand aspects of the trinity for another example.)

The problem is that we often buy into a quick decisionism which needs to clinch the deal in a few soundbites. That doesn't lend itself well to telling the story of God in detail. I find Don Carson's 10 part telling of the gospel story (as outlined in his The Gagging of God) to be a compelling approach - laying out the gospel story at length rather than jumping straight to the centre of it. Paul speaks to the Galatians about how he only preached the Cross but writes like he expects they'll remember vast things about God's promises to Abraham, how and why the law was given and other subjects that the average Christian today may never learn. We need the big story.

We simply don't need to twist the cross to make it easy to understand. It isn't that difficult. And even if it were we simply need to teach the categories to understand it. And it doesn't seem to just be that 9 year old's can't get their head around it - many who are much older and better educated can't either. My experience, and I think scripture's testimony, is that it's rarely the head that struggles with the meaning of the cross. It's the heart that can't understand it. We must argue and prove the meaning of the cross (and we can), but it will take a re-creation miracle to open the heart's eyes to adore the cross. And after all, the cross is God's wisdom to shame our wisdom - it's designed to make us look stupid by giving us something so 'primitive' and simple that we can never boast our intelligence for having figured it out.

Mark my words

2007-05-07T21:30:00.000Z

All scripture is God-breathed, which means it wouldn't actually matter if 62 books taught the meaning of cross, but the gospel accounts didn't particularly - a doctrine doesn't have to appear in every book. Furthermore, it was Jesus' disciples who wrote the Gospels, and his disciples also wrote the rest of the New Testament - so unless we start pitting them against one another - and particularly giving John multiple personalities it's ok for one thing to be emphasised in one book, and another in another.

That said, I'm convinced from reading them that the gospels tell us vast amounts about the meaning of Jesus' death. These are stories that are full of explicit meaning and implicit allusions. All four are thoroughly rooted in the Old Testament scriptures.

Matthew does this upfront by his genealogy of Jesus.
Mark portrays Jesus from the outset as the fulfiller of the prophecy of Isaiah-Malachi, and laces his story with references to the history of Israel.
Luke considers not just the eyewitness evidence but also it's fulfillment of prior expectation.
John likewise has the Old Testament in view - from his opening 'in the beginning' which makes Genesis inescapable, and at every turn he drops in references to Moses, Israel and many of the prophets.

Thus, it would be enough to show that the Old Testament teaches penal substitution to say that the gospel writers affirm it. I think we can go further than that...

I love the gospels and it's been an absolute pleasure every autumn over the last four years to teach through each of them to the 'cell group leaders' of Reading University Christian Union. We did Mark in 2006 so I'll start there. No space in one post to cover everything, so this will just be a starter...

Mark begins, as said previously, by positioning Jesus as the one who fulfills the words of Isaiah and Malachi (and probably everything in between?). By citing Isaiah 40 Jesus brings comfort for those exiled under wrath - travelling on John's desert highway to bring us face to face with our God with promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. After his baptism the Holy Spirit leads him into the wilderness. The place where Old Israel had spent 40 years wandering under God's wrath, now Jesus sinlessly walks in their footsteps.

By Mark 4 we see the people turning on Jesus and he explains his ministry by the Sower parable. His words are words of life and judgement. His ministry is one of giving life, and of judging. Thus far getting life is based on 'repenting', 'believing' and being declared forgiven by Jesus. Those who don't accept Jesus' message are described as being deaf and blind - subjected to God's judgement under the same terms as Isaiah's ministry. Even Jesus' disciples fail to grasp his ministry along the way - Peter is appalled by the very thought of Jesus dying - even before we get too much explicitly about what that death would mean. We begin to learn that his predicted death will be through crucifixion. This at the very least makes it a death under God's curse (by hanging on a tree). Some have called him demonic, insane and a lawbreaker but it's clear that Mark doesn't consider him to be any of those things. Nonetheless, Jesus repeats several times that his death is necessary. He must die on a cross.

The story unfolds and we find that his death is 'as a ransom for many' (10v45). Not only a curse bearing death, but now substitutionary. He will give himself as a ransom for many. Jesus enters Jerusalem and pronounces the end of the temple. The sacrificial system God had established for Israel has notice declared against it. It's time is almost over. His predicted death draws ever closer and he celebrates Passover with his disciples. Once more we need the story of Israel to see that the lamb bore wrath in the place of the households of Israel. If this is contested then so will penal substitution be - but Exodus is pretty clear about what's going on there! At the meal Jesus declares the meaning of the cross - for this meal is about the cross. His death will be blood poured out to seal God's new covenant, and it will be 'for many' - a clear allusion to his earlier words about his death being a ransom for many - a substitution. Still at the table we hear that The Shepherd Jesus will be struck - another reference to God's wrath - with scattering effect on his disciples.

The volume is being turned up in Mark 14-15. In Gethsemane we meet a different cup. This time a cup that almost overwhelms Jesus. Is this not the cup of God's wrath that Jesus himself will drink? A recurring motif in the Old Testament? From his trial Jesus is handed over to the Gentiles (OT: judgement?) and mocked by God's people. A mockery that represents divine judgement upon Jesus. As Mark notes the details we see again that his death is necessary - he can save others but only if he doesn't save himself. Furthermore the clouds of judgement gather over him in his death, God's curse upon him.

Both of the core components of penal substitution run through Mark's thinking - Jesus dies in our place, and that is in the place of wrath. Neither concept is alien to us really. We might not like the idea of a wrathful God but like has got nothing to do with it. His wrath is good. The Bible never presents God as indifferent to sin and the cross proves it. As Jesus forgives sin early in Mark's Passion story we wonder if really cares for God's name - sin can't just be let go. But at the cross the defaming ends - it is the glorious moment where The King takes to his throne. The temple is closed, the curtain torn and the way open. No longer does wrath awaits us, now in Jesus only his full favour as we share in Jesus' resurrection life.

Peter Bolt, The Cross from a Distance is a good read on the meaning of the cross in Mark's gospel.

in my place...

2007-05-07T20:49:00.000Z

[I've been absent for too long - sorry]

Propitiation IS the heart of the matter. The doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement hangs on, centres around and anchors in a Biblical understanding of of propitiation.

For convenience I quote in full the IVP New Bible Dictionary:

"PROPITIATION. Propitiation properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift. In the OT it is expressed by the verb kipper (Atonement). In the NT the hilaskomai word group is the important one. In modern times the whole idea of propitiation has been strongly criticized as savouring of unworthy ideas of God. Many suggest that the term 'propitiation' should be abandoned in favour of expiation, and this is done, for example, in RSV.

The objection to propitiation arises largely from an objection to the whole idea of the wrath of God, which many exponents of this view relegate to the status of an archaism. They feel that modern men cannot hold such an idea. But the men of the OT had no such inhibitions. For them 'God is angry with the wicked every day' (Ps. 7:11, AV). They had no doubt that sin inevitably arouses the strongest reaction from God. God is not to be accused of moral flabbiness. He is vigorously opposed to evil in every shape and form. While he may be 'slow to anger' (Ne. 9:17, etc.), his anger is yet certain in the face of sin. We may even read 'The Lord is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty' (Nu. 14:18). Even in a passage dealing with the longsuffering of God his refusal to condone guilt finds mention. The thought that God is slow to anger is to men of the OT far from being a truism. It is something wonderful and surprising. It is awe–inspiring and totally unexpected.

But if they were sure of the wrath of God against all sin, they were equally sure that this wrath might be put away, usually by the offering of the appropriate sacrifice. This was ultimately due, not to any efficacy in the sacrifice, but to God himself. God says, 'I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls' (Lv. 17:11). Pardon is not something wrung from an unwilling deity. It is the gracious gift of a God who is eager to forgive. So the psalmist can say, 'He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them; he restrained his anger often, and did not stir up all his wrath' (Ps. 78:38). The averting of the wrath of God is not something which men bring about. It is due to none less than God himself, who 'turned his anger away' (AV).

In the NT there are several passages where the expression 'the wrath of God' occurs, but the relevant evidence is not limited to these alone. Everywhere in the NT there is the thought that God is vigorously opposed to evil. The sinner is in no good case. He has put himself in the wrong with God. He can look for nothing other than the severity of the divine judgment. Whether we choose to call this 'the wrath of God' or not, it is there. And, while wrath is a term to which some objections may legitimately be raised, it is the biblical term and no satisfactory substitute has been suggested.

We see the force of the NT idea of propitiation from the occurrence of the term in Rom. 3:24f. We are 'justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood' (AV). The force of Paul's argument up to this point is that all, Jew and Gentile alike, are under the condemnation of God. 'The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men' (Rom. 1:18). Paul shows first that the Gentile world stands under God's condemnation and then that the Jewish world is in the same plight. It is against this background that he sees the work of Christ. Christ did not save men from nothing at all. He delivered them from a very real peril. The sentence of judgment had been passed against them. The wrath of God hung over them. Paul has strongly emphasized the wrath of God throughout these opening chapters, and therefore Christ's saving work must include deliverance from this wrath. This deliverance is described by the word 'propitiation'. There is nothing else to express this thought in the critical passage Rom. 3:21ff., which sets out the way in which God has dealt with this aspect of man's plight. hilast rion must be held here to signify something very like 'propitiation'. (See further NTS 2, 1955–6, pp. 33–43.)

In 1 Jn. 2:2 Jesus is described as 'the propitiation for our sins'. In the previous verse he is our 'advocate with the Father'. If we need an advocate with God, then our position is indeed a dangerous one. We are in dire peril. All this helps us to see that 'propitiation' is to be taken here in its usual sense. Jesus' activity for men is described as turning away the divine wrath.
But the Bible view of propitiation does not depend on this or that specific passage. It is a reflection of the general import of its teaching. 'Propitiation' is a reminder that God is implacably opposed to everything that is evil, that his opposition may properly be described as 'wrath', and that this wrath is put away only by the atoning work of Christ."

The cross is clearly to be understood in the context of propitiatory, substitutionary, penal atonement. Why do I say that?

Jesus died at Passover. The Passover (Ex 11.1-13.22) was when God destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, through the loosing of the angel of death [an act of just punishment, a sign of his power and a miracle which wrought the release of an imprisoned people to live under His rule and within His promise] but to all who daubed the blood of a lamb on their doorposts in response to God's declaration of coming judgement and the provision of His means of escaping judgement - received mercy; not that the act of daubing blood made the households deserving of mercy but simply meant they trusted God's Word to be truth and acted accordingly. A lamb is substituted for the first born son in response to God's command because of God's comming judgement: the lamb dies, the son lives OR the son dies.

Matthew is clear (26.17, 27.19-26 & 50-51) Jesus death occurs at the celebration of the Passover - the parallel of the sacrifice, the language of substitution, the act of substitution: Jesus of Nazareth dying on the cross of Jesus Barabbas - whose name incidentally is Jesus 'son of man' [Mth 27.17] - an innocent Jesus dying under the full weight of the law, whilst a guilty Jesus goes free only because it is Passover and someone else takes his place! Further to that the undoing of the temple at the precise moment of Jesus' death and thus the abrogation of the efficasy of OT atonement because it has been superceded (the Temple did not fall down but the barrier to the Holy of Holies is removed!) by a better atonement.

Mark is equally as clear as is Luke. They each specifically choose points of contact with Passover to communicate the essential framework by which we understand the cross. God is active in condemning sin through the just substitution of a sacrifice for those deserving death. Jesus is no animal going without will, he is the Supreme Son of God who goes at His own behest, quiet, determined, sure and in control.

John, in his finely honed account, declares subsitutionary penal atonement (sic. proptiation) on every page of his writing. Jesus is in the first chapter declared, in OT categories, the Son of God and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (the latter designation underlinging that there is no expiation without propitiation - for they are seen to be different things). John talks of the wrath and love of God with ease in Chapter 3, framing the self giving sacrifice of the Son of God in terms of OT judgement and faith. John's account of the cross (Ch18-19) is confrontationally (for modern sensibilities) expounding substitutionary atonement: Jesus dies at the same time as the slaughter of the lambs in the temple, his bones are not broken and he cries out 'it is finished'. A legal statement of completing a judgement.

The four gospels teach and proclaim that propitiation is the heart of the cross because Jesus did. And so, let's say it boldy, respectfully and truthfully. When we say that we believe that the doctrine of PSA acurately captures the heart of the Bible's teaching because we read Scripture we are actually saying to read it in any other way is sub-biblical; leading to and from a decifient understanding of God's character, nature and thus faith, salvation and Christian confidence.

This is offensive, sure, but is it true? I believe it is. But, for the record, I also believe it to be possible for a warm hearted believer to be genuinely saved, passionately adhering to what they believe to be true - yet remaining Christian though believing sub-biblical things. I believe this to be true because I lived it (and truth be known, we all live it to some degree - for else we would be no longer in need of Scripture itself!!!) for a number of years. If you are reading this and are grossly offended by what I've just written, I want you to understand that I don't say this dismissively or naively, I understand that it is offensive.

But, what else can I say with integrity? The Bible teaches that Jesus died in my place, the innocent becoming sin for the sinful, under the wrath of God as one undeserving instead of the one who should rightly be condemned.

Barabbas walked free. Jesus walked to the cross.

In that act - and the subsequent vindication of the resurrection - we are freed, saved, cleansed, redeemed, sanctified, glorified, healed, ransomed, confident of grace and joyfully anticipating the return of our King.

He died in my place that I might live in Him.

No cross in the gospels?

2007-05-07T15:12:00.000Z

We've been charged:

"...reading the bible while ignoring the four gospels or the Christian tradition of reading scriptures in the light of Christ." -
42 Blog: Dave Warnock

Fellow Coffee-bloggers, as we consider the questions posed, do take up the challenge of showing that we do indeed derive our doctrine from The Gospels as well as the other 62 books, and indeed that this is a Christological reading of the Bible.

And, Thanks to Adrian Warnock for drawing attention to what we're doing here.

atonement delight

2007-05-06T14:27:00.000Z

One of Bish's questions was 'how does it (penal substitutionary atonement) delight you?' As an unapologetic Piperan, whose dialogue is sprinkled with words like 'delight', 'joy' and 'treasure' i thought i'd think about what it is about PSA that makes me delighted. What is it that makes me want to defend this doctrine and makes me want other people to believe it as well?

You can't read very much of the Bible very well without seeing that God is a God who does not like sin. He hates sin. He hates it because of His jealousy for His own name, because it is legally and morally wrong. It's legally wrong because God Word is law and to rebel against His Word is to break that law. It's morally wrong because we were made to worship God, designed to worship God, and God is the highest moral reality there is. God is worthy of all the glory the world can offer Him...more in fact. So not to worship Him and not to give the glory in your life to Him is morally wrong. And God does not like that. And because God is perfectly just He can't simply 'forgive' sin. That would compromise His character in a way that would make Him no longer God. So God hates sin, His wrath against sin must be satisfied.

So does this make me delighted? Yes and no. Yes, because what good news it is. What God news that the King of the universe is good. And not just a bit good, not just that he has good days, but that He is morally perfect. Jesus is so pure and so perfect that when John saw Him in His glory he fell down as if dead. That's some serious holiness. How good to know, how reassuring to know that the King, the Judge is perfect, and has a perfect standard that no one will be just let off. With a flow of injustice in the world that is seemingly unstoppable, it is good news, great news, to know that the One in charge of it all is sovereign and good and just.

But there's a big problem here. And the bad news is the same as the good news. That God is perfect and just and holy. That Jesus sits on His throne judging with perfect righteousness. I've spent time reading Numbers and Isaiah recently, and it's impossible to read those books in particular without noticing the penalty for sin. The generation that The LORD rescued from Egypt with such power and glory will none of them, with a couple of notable exceptions, see the promised land. The vast majority of them suffer God's punishment of wandering in the wilderness with a (un)healthy dose of plague mixed in. God's judgement on their sin, their idolatry and murmuring was not pleasant. But it was deserved. The inhabitants of the political Israel will be judged by occupation and exile. We know for how long, but they didn't. Was this the end of God's promises to Israel? The end of His commitment to Himself and His people? Chapter forty answers those questions to a large extent, but they must have weighed heavy on the minds of the exiles as the judged away from their homes.

We're not like them though are we? We're safe from God's judgement. The Jesus of the 21st century is far more cuddly and inoffensive than the God of the old testament isn't He? Well no, that's incorrect. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. He still views sin with the same seriousness. I'm not directly mentioned in the Bible, obviously, but i am there by implication. I was by nature and object of wrath, fully deserving of eternal punishment for my eternally offensive sins, fully deserving of all that Israel suffered and more. And apart from the power and grace of God, fully deserving of it. Not much delight here so far is there. The good thing of God's holiness and justice leads to the bad thing of my eternal suffering away from the goodness and grace of the Lord, away from any relationship, away from any happiness. In Hell.

So where does Penal Substitutionary Atonement come into this? I believe that it upholds both God's holiness and justice, and His goodness and love, and yet means i can know Him and enjoy Him and be in relationship with Him. How? How can God possibly be true to both His holiness and justice, but at the same time love sinners and work everything together for their good? I believe the answers lies in penal subsitutionary atonement.

The doctrine that holds that on the cross Christ was made to be sin, and that God poured out hour after hour of holy, righteous, pure wrath, what we deserved onto Him. And that He eventually died under the weight of the Father's wrath. And that this was no error, that this was the plan from the beginning. That is was Christ who was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, and that this chastisement brings us peace (Is 53). What wonderful news. Christ became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God. Isn't that good news? And what are you left with if you take away Penal substitutionary Atonement? If the cross just says 'God loves you' (and in part it certainly does) then we are left wondering where the punishment for sins has gone. The same as if the cross just tells us that Christ sympathises with us in our pain (and in part it certainly does) then we are left with the same questions. I don't believe there is any other doctrine that relates to atonement that secures both God's holiness and justice and hatred of sin, as well as His great love for us, in having His Son die under the weight of it. There is nothing else out there that so secures both those truths.

That's why i delight in propitiation...it tells me great, great, great things about the God i worship and about my security in Him. Why would you want anything else?

no room for despair

2007-05-04T14:53:00.000Z

I've been observing the debates on the island from a safe distance, so to speak, and have been considering what it might mean for the situation in Germany. Brian McLaren's books are beginning to be translated into German and are being plugged by one of the biggest Christian publishers. The Gulf Stream brings all sorts of "floaters" our way ;) ... but less moaning now... Dave asked several positive questions:

Why does penal substitution have to be central for us? How does believing this doctrine effect other areas of life and doctrine? How does it delight us?

Penal substitution has to be "central" for me because I read my bible. That may sound like a ridiculously blank statement, so I'll explain what I mean. When I read my bible, I am presented with a God who gets angry. This is not all of who God is, or necessarily the main thing, but it's there in black and white. Sure, he's slow to anger, compassionate and gracious, but he gets angry. Recently I read through Jeremiah - the first main point is: Jerusalem's going under because the people are sinful; God (in his sovereignty over the nations) is going to send an army to carry out his judgement. He's like a potter who's going to dash his vessel Judah on the ground. Do I think that's great? Do I get a sort of masochistic pleasure from this? Does this make God attractive to a 21st century student? No. Welcome to the bible: God gets angry.

I submit that the whole argument about penal substitution stems from a problem with the idea that God gets angry and kills people when they sin. At the end of the day it's God's anger and retributive justice that offends the human heart above all.

Penal substitution, that God in Christ bore the penalty for our sin, is a perfectly natural and consistent development of the story and theology of the Old Testament, perfectly in line with God's character revealed in the Hebrew scriptures.

Following from my bible reading, the realisation that I am a sinner who deserves to be put to death would only lead to despair if it were not for the demonstration of God's justice and love at the cross. With OT verses about God's burning hatred of all that is impure ringing in my ears, there is no hope and no assurance if I am merely left looking at an example of selfless non-violence or seeing evil powers being defeated. The cross means the defeat of evil - the cross and resurrection are the first glimpse of the new creation breaking through - but where does that leave sinners who are "filled with every kind of evil?" If the cross only means the defeat of evil, then it means I'm going down with the devil and his angels.

However, the breathtaking mercy of God means that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us - God's justice fell on Good Friday - the Word became flesh and suffered death on a cross, so that God's enemies could be reconciled to him. For this reason I glory in the cross. The cross means that God's righteous anger against me, who should be shut out from his presence, was spent, poured out in full. In short, the doctrine of penal substitution means that there is no reason for sinners to ultimately despair, because there is another place where wrath fell. Access to this state of grace comes through being in Christ, and he gives sinners no reason to despair, because he came especially to seek and save the lost, and says, "no-one who comes to me will I turn away".

Dave also asked: What are the shudder-worthy consequences of pushing it out of the picture? What does it look like when that happens?

I don't think that penal substitution normally gets pushed out of the picture on its own. What normally happens is that parts of God's character get pushed out of the picture. This particularly happens when the story of the Old Testament gets sidelined (apart from a couple of Psalms). As a result, churches have a view of God's character which is perhaps easier to swallow in the 21st century but basically completely modelled upon the ideals of the 21st century. Therefore if, when reading the New Testament, something comes along which involves God's wrath or retributive justice then it's reinterpreted as being fatherly discipline ("you wouldn't let your toddler cross the road alone, would you..."); all offence is removed, and God is once again cuddly. Don't get me wrong - I love hugs, and I love the pictures of God's warm tender compassion in the bible! But access to this grace is by God's mercy, and God's mercy in all generations flows from the cross, which is a demonstration of God's justice (Romans 3:25-26).

The consequences of pushing God's character out of the picture? Well, sooner or later, idolatry. That's bad. Equally, a fine-tuned penal substitutionary doctrine of the atonement without faith in Christ, or without love for others is also very bad. In the NT it says "be merciful to those who doubt". I view books which deny God's wrath and retribution as being erroneous, and they should be countered. Nevertheless I think that struggling with aspects of God's character is something from which no believer is spared, and we also need to think about how to be merciful to those experiencing acute struggles, and consider the tone with which we confront them. Or am I being too cuddly again?

The true Christian delights in the cross

2007-04-29T22:00:00.000Z

We seem to have run a little dry here recently... There are lots of things floating around at the moment, and if this one doesn't do it for you grab something else. It strikes me that people are discussing books and caricatures and divisions and press releases, people and organisations... but less time is being spend actually glorying in the cross itself...

Revd. Charles Simeon is quoted by John Piper as writing that:

"a nominal Christian is happy to prove the importance of the crucified redeemer.... but the true Christian delights in the cross, rejoices in it, glories in it and shudders at the thought of glorying in anything else"

Why does penal substitution have to be central for us? How does believing this doctrine effect other areas of life and doctrine? How does it delight us? What are the shudder-worthy consequences of pushing it out of the picture? What does it look like when that happens?

Baptism into Jesus

2007-01-24T21:39:00.000Z

I'm not normally one for re-using tea bags... but a few posts ago Kenny brought up the subject of baptism...

I was fascinated recently by D. Broughton Knox' survey of baptism in the New Testament (New Testament Baptism, in D. Broughton Knox Selected Works, Volume II). He comes to quite a unique conclusion (especially for an Anglican) - that water baptism is largely a matter of indifference, and most uses of the word 'baptism' in the NT letters are metaphorical. I'll try to sketch a summary of his book here; apologies for the length! I'd be interested in the CBCB's response...

John's Baptism
John the Baptist's proclamation was God's coming kingdom, and the need to prepare for the Messiah's arrival as judge. He called on his hearers to repent and change their lives in light of the day of judgement, and to signify this by baptism - "and he came into all the region around about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance with a view to the remission of sins" (Luke 3:1-3) John's baptism seems to originate primarily from repentance imagery in the Old Testament, e.g. Isaiah 1:16 "Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight!" and Jeremiah 4:14, "Wash the evil from your heart and be saved." The New Testament also speaks of repentance using washing imagery, or identifies it with the act of baptism.

James 4:8 -"Cleanse your hands you sinners, and purify your hearts you double-minded."
1 Cor 6:11 -"such were some of you, but you washed..." (that is you repented).
Acts 22:16 - Ananias' words to Paul shortly after his conversion. "Why are you waiting, get up and baptize yourself, and wash away your sins, calling on his name"
Acts 2:38 - The Jerusalem crowd ask what they should do after hearing Peter's Pentecost sermon, and he says "Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, with a view to the forgiveness of your sins" ('repent' and 'be baptised' being a parallel of the same idea)

From the primary meaning of expressing repentance in readiness for the day of judgement, baptism came to have a second significance of being a disciple of the teacher of this message. Those who believed John's message and were baptised by him were considered his disciples (John 3:25). In Acts 19:1-3, Paul encounters some of these disciples who were part of the messianic movement John had started, which Jesus and the apostles continued (Acts 19:1-3).

"When the gospel was preached from the day of Pentecost onwards, the apostles, many if not most of whom had been actively associated with John, continued baptism as a sign of repentance and of believing the messianic message and of being members of the messianic group awaiting the manifesting of the kingdom or rule of God." (p266).

Examples of this secondary meaning of baptism as discipleship:

John 4:1 - "Jesus was making and baptising more disciples than John" - people were joining the group and accepting Jesus' leadership (although we read that Jesus did not baptize, his disciples did).
1 Cor 10:2 - The Israelites, on leaving Egypt, had been "baptized into Moses", or accepted his leadership. Baptism here is semi-metaphorical.
Acts 19 - Paul asks "Into what were you baptised?", i.e. into what body of teaching, into what group, were you baptised?
1 Cor 1:13 - Paul rebukes the Corinthians for party-spirit by asking "were you baptised in the name of Paul?" i.e. is Paul your leader?
Acts 10 - Peter welcomes Cornelius and his household as true members of the messianic movement by baptising them, and sharing a meal with them.

The baptism of Jesus by John
It seems that Jesus chose to undergo John's baptism as a recognition of his ministry, and to identify himself with the messianic movement he had begun. It was right for Jesus to accept John as the leader God had sent, at that time. It seems that when Jesus took over the leadership of this movement, he dropped the rite of water baptism, though his disciples revived it on the day of Pentecost.

Water baptism by the apostles
The nature of baptism administered by the apostles was essentially the same as that of John, for the fundamental message was the same: repent in order to be forgiven, in view of the judgement. (Matt 3:7, Luke 13:2,5, Acts 2:38, 40)

"The denouement was closer, the kingdom of God had begun with the exaltation of the Messiah, the Christ, to the throne, but the predicament of the hearers was identical with that of the hearers of John and of Jesus....
"Paul's himself administered water baptism to some of his converts, although he did not regard this action as part of his apostolic ministry, for which Christ had commissioned him. (1 Cor 1:15-16)." (p271)

The baptism of the Great Commission
Paul's use of the word 'baptism' when talking about the Israelites leadership under Moses (1 Cor 10:2) is semi-metaphorical. The idea of cleansing is giving way to the secondary meaning of accepting a body of teaching and submitting to a leader.

"A fully metaphorical use of the concept of baptising as discipling is in Jesus' last words to his apostles in Matthew 28. He is sending them to bring the nations of the world into the knowledge of the triune God. They are to disciple the nations, and to convey to them the teaching of their new Lord... Jesus calls this 'baptising the nations'. He commanded the eleven disciples
Go and make all the nations disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all whatever I commanded you (Matt 28:19-20).
This 'great commission' of Jesus contains no reference to administering water baptism... is entirely metaphorical... It is a command... to immerse the nations into the revealed character of God so that their whole way of life is changed and their cultures sanctified." (p278)

Support for this conclusion:

Jesus used the words 'baptism' and 'baptise' in purely metaphorical ways; e.g. he spoke of his death as baptism (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38), and predicted the disciples would experience the (metaphorical) baptism of the Spirit, "John indeed baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5, c.f. Matt 3:11-12, 1 Cor 12:13)
None of the references to water baptism in Acts or 1 Corinthians 1 mention baptism being done in the name of the Trinity, but simply the name of Jesus.
The reporting of the commission in other Gospels' is consistent with an absence of the command to water baptise (Luke 24:47, Acts 1:8, John 20:21)
Paul said "The Lord did not send me to baptise" (1 Cor 1:17), which would be inconceivable if Jesus' last words to his apostles included the command to administer water baptism.

The baptism of the Spirit
John baptised with water, but he predicted that the Christ would baptise with the Holy Spirit. The coming of the Spirit to believers means that Jesus dwells in them and they in him, in spiritual fellowship (John 17:21, 14:17-20). The Spirit's work in a Christian is to "create a fellowship between him and his Lord, and between him and his fellow Christian, and so to forward his growth into the image of Christ" (p285), and also to enable witness to Jesus. (Knox discusses the Spirit's work in depth here, which I've omitted for brevity).
1 Corinthians 12:13 uses the water metaphor of baptism to speak of the unifying presence of the Spirit (c.f. Titus 3:5, John 3:5). The Spirit's presence is also for judgement, because the gospel convicts the world of sin (John 5:22, Acts 10:42, 17:31, John 16:7-8).

The real baptism of Jesus and his disciples
Jesus referred to his death as a 'baptism' on two occasions. "Are you able to be baptised with the baptism I am baptised with?" (Mark 10:38). "I have a baptism to be baptised with and how am I straitened till it is accomplished" (Luke 12:50). This metaphorical usage may be related to the root Greek word which means to 'submerge in' or 'overwhelm with'. Psalm 69 uses many water metaphors to describe a terrible ordeal which threatens ones life (c.f Jonah 2:3).

Christians are saved by union with Christ, being united with him in his death on the cross. "We share his cup and are united with him in his baptism, that is in his death and burial." (p293) "I have been crucified with Christ ... Christ now lives in me" (Gal 2:19-20, also 5:24, 6:14). Other places in scripture which refer to this union are:

Colossians 2:11-15 - Refers to union with Christ in his death and resurrection, not water baptism. Both circumcision and baptism are metaphors for Jesus' death, (translation should read "we were buried with him in his baptism" i.e. his death).
Romans 6:1-14 - "entering into Christ by faith is entering into his death (v. 3). Paul refers to this as "baptised into Christ, baptised into his death"" (p295), and is probably entirely metaphorical, in line with Mark 10:39. We have been united with Christ in his death, and shared his baptism.

The baptism of the Christian life
We also share the baptism of suffering in the Christian life. We "share the sufferings of Christ" (1 Peter 4:13, c.f. Mark 10:38-39). 1 Peter contains the most sustained treatment in the NT of suffering in the Christian life. In this context of persecution, Peter refers to suffering as a baptism through which God is saving his people, similar to the waters of the flood through which God saved Noah (1 Peter 3:20-22). Although they share Christ's cup, they can have confidence because of God's power which raised Christ from the dead and who will raise us also.

One baptism
Hebrews 6:1-2 mentions 'teaching about baptisms' as part of the foundational truths of Christian teaching. "There are in fact six different baptisms referred to in the New Testament as associated with Jesus."

"There is one passage in Paul's letters where it is difficult to determine of what baptism Paul is speaking, whether water baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Cor 1:16), Spirit and judgement baptism (Matt 4:11; John 16:7-8; 1 Peter 3:21), Calvary baptism (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50), incorporation into Christ and his death baptism (Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3), suffering baptism (Mark 10:39; 1 Peter 3:21) or indeed preaching the gospel baptism (Matt 28:19).
The passage is Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism"." (p302)

This most likely refers to the Christian baptism of being incorporated into Jesus in his death and resurrection. Water baptism would be out of place in a list of unifying concepts such as body, Spirit, hope, Lord, faith, God. "It is probable that references to water baptism are confined to John's baptism and baptism administered by the disciples in the early ministry of Jesus, in the early chapters of Acts and in 1 Corinthians 1." (p304).

The rite of baptism in the Christian church today

"Water baptism was and is a suitable symbol for a convert to show his repentance as he accepts for the first time the truth of the imminence of the judgement day, the day of the son of man to whom all judgement has been delivered." (p304)

However, for those who have grown up in Christian homes, baptism may be inappropriate as it is a symbol of repentance and will be meaningless if conversion occurred a long time in the past.

"If the significance of the rite is changed to a confession of Christ, confession of Christ is better made by the mouth (Rom 10:10) within the congregation, but better still in the outside world at work or at school. To confess Christ by being immersed under water is only practised because it is believed that Jesus sent us to baptise with water. But, as Paul makes clear, this is not the case."

"Water baptism was an apostolic custom and there is no reason that those who wish to continue it should not do so, so long as they do not impose on the rite a meaning inimical to the gospel. Its New Testament meaning is [primarily] applicable in countries where the gospel is news. But it might be thought that in many heathen cultures today the better way to indicate repentance is by the changed life itself. There may be some heathen countries where water baptism for new converts is unwise, because of the angry hostility provoked. But the changed life and the meek and reverent answer to any query about the reason for the obvious hope that the Christian now has (1 Peter 3:15) may lead to further conversions." (p308-309)

So in summary, Knox' thesis is

John's baptism and that of the apostles was of essentially the same nature - repentance in view of God's coming kingdom and judgement through the Messiah.
Baptism came to have the secondary meaning of becoming a disciple and accepting a body of teaching
The great commission doesn't refer to water baptism but immersion into the teaching about the triune God
Jesus didn't come to baptise with water but with the Spirit
Jesus' true baptism is his death, and we are saved by being united to him in this baptism.
Many passages commonly interpreted as referring to water baptism are actually using baptism as a metaphor
Water baptism is largely a matter of indifference today, but may be useful in some circumstances

Yikes! Comments?

Will the real Jesus please stand up?

2006-12-09T12:18:00.000Z

What do you do when two worthy exegetes disagree on an issue? A lot speaks for the line in 1 Corinthians 3:4-9 - less focus on theological heroes. This is spot on, but can be misused as an excuse for not thinking. As my last non-CBC-post demonstrated, John Piper and I agree most heartily on some issues. At the same time, I've been helped by N.T. Wright's books about Jesus (I confess to having read only Wright's summary articles on the "New Perspective on Paul", NPP, and not yet having had time to cut my teeth on his Paul books).

Neither Wright nor Piper disagree on the means of our being right with God - it's grace. The issue is about what Judaism was like in the first century. That may seem like a rather meaningless detail. However, it's a key issue in understanding Paul's letters. Paul criticises 1st century Judaism which doesn't follow Jesus as the Messiah. However his criticism is not limited to just "you don't follow Jesus", rather he talks a lot about the Law, and that the non-Jesus-following-Jews are "under the Law" instead of "under grace".

The NPP and historical study:
The NPP says that the non-Christian Jews were basically just too nationalist, and not that they were anti-grace. The NPP has its roots in historical study, and claims to show (amongst other things) that Jews believed in grace. The problem Paul had was that they were making everyone do Jewish things like circumcision before they could become Christians.

The traditional reformed position has its roots in bible study, and claims to show that the picture of the Pharisees in the NT is that they were relying upon works - on being good - to be right with God. As such, the NT authors present them to be no longer following their God. See Piper's article for a list of such verses.

So what does the NPP do with lists of verses like Piper's? Well, for a start, it would probably discount John, because it's so distinct in comparison to the synoptic gospels. And the verses in Matthew (most of them come from there) ascribed to a particular historical interpretation of Jesus for the Matthean context (for example a Christian-mocking synagogue across the street from a Christian meeting place in a Syrian town somewhere).

It's at this point that I feel the very real tensions involved in theological study. I believe that God has revealed himself historically - in history, Luke's gospel being a prime example of someone who has made effort to place Jesus in the concrete history of Palestine. Since this is God's world, and God has revealed himself in history, I believe that historical study will be fruitful for biblical studies.

Historical study of the gospels:
Early in the church's history (and later), harmonies of the four gospels were written. However, it seems to be the case that God wanted four gospels to be honoured and accepted in the church, four gospels which set different theological accents; if you like, they have painted slightly nuanced portraits of Jesus.

Post-enlightenment study of the gospels, rather than standing in awe of the masterpiece, has had a tendency to start scratching off layers of oil-paint to try and see how the painter worked. Now there is a justification for some of this, you might say... why not work out why some parables are told by Jesus in a different way in Luke and Matthew - why are some aspects more sharply in focus in a particular gospel? It helps us understand the meaning of the whole.

Yet there comes a point where the historical study begins to have so many explanations for different aspects of the portrait which have nothing to do with the model who had to stand still for so many hours, that you begin to wonder whether it might have been better if the painting had been left to hang in the national gallery, to be admired and meditated upon.

Reading Piper's article this morning made me realise that the NPP gang have drunk deep at the wells of historical criticism of the gospels, such that bringing verses from Matthew and John about the Pharisees is scoffed upon, because these verses are seen as simply "colouring", unique to the particular portrait and distant from the historical reality.

Conclusions:
1. There is something incredibly rich and right about historical study of the gospels, and that it helps us understand Jesus better. (Tom Wright is at pains to show that the gospel portrait refers to the person who was painted - like a sort of apostle to academic theologians).
2. Yet at the same time I think that a critical stance towards the gospels is deadly for faith (how can I tremble at God's word and sit under it when I am hovering over it and discussing it like a newspaper article?).
3. I'd like to hear some other people's voices on this.

Coffee and bible lovers from all corners of the world, come to my rescue!

New Members in New Nations

2006-10-18T16:10:00.000Z

A warm welcome to our new arrivals in the conversation this week, Martin in Wales and Kenny in Cornwall. Grab a coffee and get stuck into the conversation guys...

"I love the Bible and I love coffee,
but in different ways."
--Martin

scottish insight, and baptism

2006-10-17T14:10:00.000Z

Morning campers!

Thanks Dave for the invitation to the coffee bible club. I look forward to contributing some scottish highland psalm-singing presbyterian wisdom. Here's an example of my profound theological discussion - a conversation with my pastor Charles last week:

Charles: Kenny, you're a Calvinist, right?
Kenny: Absolutely!!
C: I'd be interested to hear your comments about my sermon on Sunday; I'll be touching on the subject of whether a Christian can lose their salvation.
K: Great! Er... can you remind me what the calvinist viewpoint on that is, so I can defend it to the hilt?
C: Perseverance of the saints. Once saved, always saved.
K: Ah yes that's right. (Moment's silence) I'm not sure I agree with that.

You guys are in for a treat!

The reason Dave invited me to join is because I posted a question about baptism on my blog:

"I've been thinking about baptism lately, and I've reached a stalemate. Below is my dilemma.
What I find confusing about the subject of baptism is not who should get baptised – I’m pretty confident that is open to believing adults and their children – nor what is it – it’s a covenantal sacrament, and at the very least I know it’s a good thing, with power attributed to it. The big question for me is, what happens at baptism? After pondering this question for the best part of a year I am still no clearer what the answer is. It is certainly not just a public witness of faith. That is what it’s been reduced to in some circles, but the Scriptures attribute more power to it than that. When someone is baptised, something spiritual happens. It has spiritual power. Which concludes that a baptised believer is more blessed than an unbaptised believer. That makes sense, because the Scriptures encourage us to do it. Is it not then a work? This brings us back to probably the most simple question asked of baptism today: if I am saved by grace, why do I need to get baptised?"

I'd be interested to hear your comments. I've been thinking about it over the last week and think I've reached an answer but let's hear your thoughts first!

How do you take your coffee?

2006-10-13T07:30:00.000Z

Our law chat seems to have stalled a little (anyone to resume it or change topic?)
Perhaps we're all out of coffee... so, fellow-coffee-bible-bloggers: how do you take your coffee?

The one who does them shall live by them...

2006-10-10T21:13:00.000Z

Jim Hamilton on Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12

“The central problem with the Galatians…
is that they do not sufficiently understand
the law’s role in salvation history...
...Now that the Messiah has come,
the law has served its salvation-historical
purpose””

How do you teach the cross-centred life?

2006-10-05T06:50:00.000Z

Still in Galatians, Paul takes Peter back to the Cross at the end of chapter 2, the antidote to his return to the law. Imposing law on hiself or the Gentiles is a subtle way of strapping TNT to the Cross and shattering it into a million pieces. Taking the Cross of Christ implicitly crying in a loud voice: meaningless. Its a tragedy and it curses those who do it.

Paul turns the Gentile Galatians back to the Cross also (3v1). That was what he preached to them. As Gresham Machen notes in this reminds us that we need to preach "doctrine to the unconverted", at least doctrine of the Cross!

But, here's what struck me and my Relay yesterday... to return them to the Cross he reminds them about Abraham. He takes them further back. And appears to assume they'll know what he's talking about... and that it will show them why they should return to the blessed life that belongs to those who "hear by faith" (v2,5). This comes with:

the gospel according to Abraham - (v8) - "in you all nations shall be blessed" (shockingly deficient by most of our gospel-presentation standards!)

So simple and so far from our individualistic good news... God's blessing for all peoples (ethnos)! But... that still begs the question - why look at the Cross? (3v1)

And that is answered in v10-14 where he argues against relying on the law, from the law. The Gentiles expected to be fluent in the law. Expected to know that it tells you not to rely on it. We see that the law only brings curse (v10), and we need the Cross because that is God's remedy to curse - as Jesus takes the curse in our place. That's why we should look to the cross! We're set free and become united to Christ by the promised Holy Spirit - (v2,14) - who is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

"Those who hear with faith receive righteousness & the Holy Spirit because Jesus died. So love the Cross. Trust only in the cross! Enjoy God's blessing!"

So, Paul instructs the Galatians to live a Cross-Centred life by remembering his preaching - and he spells that out from their experience (v2), from Abraham (v6) and from the law (v10-12). All of which he presumably taught them when he preached the Cross to them (3v1). Openly, gladly teaching the full-story of Abraham and law to the Gentiles (ethnos) to explain the meaning of the historical event of the Cross. Biblical Theology Evangelism all the way!

Paul takes them back to the Cross, because as Mark Driscoll says "...if you lose the cross you get 'a new kind of Christian', a non-Christian.".

6 feet under

2006-10-03T13:43:00.000Z

"The Galatian Christians were never subject to it previously and yet are being duped into trading their freedom for slavery. ... Its rules weren't for saving them..."

In other words, off the back of what Dave has said, the point is not that some (Jews) were subject to the law and others (gentiles) not. Rather, all were subject to death through Adam. The Jews were shown this by the substitutionary deaths built into the covenant (/law), showing them their (law-breaking) idolatrous nature - the law and its cult showed them the death inherent in them. The pagans' subjection to death exhibited itself in idol-worship irrespective of the law - their pagan lives and cult exhibited the death inherent in them.

Now, we are not subject to death through Adam because we're in Christ, who died and rose.

But we often seem to give the impression that faith in Jesus is an escape from the law, rather than an escape from God's judgement on our deathly selves which was clear to Jews through the law. As Dave said, we were never under law. But we mustn't make it sound as if that's cause for celebration in and of itself - the law wasn't a problem; it showed up death, which was! But of course law didn't only point out the problem, but foreshadowed the solution. God wasn't different then, only giving something to point out people's sin. He gave the covenant of Sinai in grace, as a shadow of Christ. Now the shadow isn't as good as the real thing which fulfils it and so makes it obsolete, so it'd be deadly to go back to the shadow, even for those to whom it was given (Hebrews). But neither is the shadow a completely different thing from what it anticipates - the Jew was at an advantage in every way, Paul says!

Why do I mention this? Because as Dave implied, we witness to those who aren't under the Mosaic law. But they are subject to death. And we're often in danger of sounding like we're saying, "Woohoo! No law!" rather than "Woohoo! No death! because of the gracious covenant instituted by God through the death and resurrection of his Son, testified to by the law and the prophets!" Of course, we rejoice that the shadow has given way to fulfillment, but let's make sure our main call to rejoice is in Jesus and his work of redemption from sin, death and hell, not in his replacing the shadow which pointed to him.

This rule wasn't for you

2006-09-30T20:56:00.000Z

In Galatians 1 Paul says that through the gospel we're set free from this present evil age (1v4). What does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean leaving this present evil age. Both Paul and those he wrote to still lived in the same world they'd occupied before.

During Galatians Paul describes his former life as one of religious zeal for the traditions of his fathers (1v14) and living under the law which proved him sinful (2v18). The law helped him die to the law (2v19). The Galatians however appear to have been differently enslaved. Enslaved to idols (4v8). In this present evil age they were no more free than the Paul the Jew under the law.

Neither Paul nor they should exercise their freedom to return to slavery (5v1) nor use it for unbridled sin (5v21), instead living in step with the Spirit (5v16,25) - a life of Christian freedom.

The law appears then to play some part in this for Paul - it was his slave master. Useful to Paul before he came to Christ - but a dangerous slavemaster for any Messianic Jew like Paul, or a Gentile Christian.

Imagine a group of foreign exchange students in matching clothes and bags following rules. Someone who doesn't belong to the exchange group - like a resident of the town they're visiting would be a fool to want to wear the same sweatshirt, cap and bag. Likewise none of the children will want to submit to the same rules when their trip is over.

Jewish Christians find justification by faith not law, so are free from its demands. The Galatian Christians were never subject to it previously and yet are being duped into trading their freedom for slavery. Its folly.

They can then learn from the law however. They see how the law led Jews to Christ (3v24). The law in the story of Israel points to Jesus. And surely we learn from their story. Seeing the freedom promised to them we'll learn of our freedom in Christ! Free, justified by grace through faith not works! We're no longer enslaved, rather as justified people we're free! Justified on the basis of a promise that preceded the giving of the law (3v18). A promise concerning Jesus Christ.

What's the purpose of the law, according to Galatians - to lead Jews to Jesus before he came. Its rules weren't for saving them, nor for them to live by once free, nor for non-Jews to obey. Its good and useful not "fit for purpose" to tell us how to live the justified life. The justified life is lived on the basis of God's promise, the meaningful cross (2v21) and in union with Christ (2v20) who is our life!

The Trueman Test

2006-09-30T20:44:00.000Z

A thought from Theology for All today:

Carl Trueman suggest that the test issue for any pastor, and if a pastor is preaching-with-a-view, is that they must be able to preach the Old Testament as Christian scripture. Can a preacher show us how the Old Testament tells us the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus? Trueman observes that anyone can preach the New Testament, but to preach Christ from the Old is much tougher.

He also said he'll be speaking at Duke Street Church on October 1st, on Elijah - not The Law, but that'll at least show something of OT preaching. This argument was developed by Trueman from Luke 24 and so includes Moses and the Prophets.

Update: Carl Trueman on 2 Kings 4v8-37

What Jesus demands from the world

2006-09-21T14:44:00.000Z

I will be interested to see what line the Pipester will take on Jesus use of imperatives when his new book is released. Judging from the interview he gave about it, he looks at what Jesus commands - the imperatives, but does use something of a "filter" (his person and work) to put them in the right context.

The Law helps us listen to Jesus

2006-09-21T07:11:00.000Z

Last night we began to study Hebrews at our homegroup. A light-bulb came on about the use of the law. See Hebrews 1v1-2v4.

When a parent disciplines a child it helps to prepare them for a teachers authority. When a teacher disciplines a child it helps to prepare them for the authority of employers, the law of the land etc. We see the consequences of infringing the authority of those with limited power to punish... and it helps us to listen to those who have greater power.

This lesser to greater argument seems to lie behind the seemingly bizarre argument of Hebrews 1v1-2v4. The writer initially seems to have a major Angels hang-up. He tells us how God has spoken definitively through his Son Jesus. The Son who holds all things together by his word, and who sits enthroned in heaven.

He could then simply conclude, therefore listen to Jesus. He's the boss. Wouldn't that be enough?

But, he then goes off on a seven quote excursus about how Jesus is better than angels before drawing his conclusion in 2v1-4.

1Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, 3how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, 4while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

This angel argument is supposed to make us "pay closer attention to what we have heard". That hearing is God speaking through Jesus (1v2). Why pay closer attention? Because "the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience recieved a just retributinon.". What is the message the angels delivered? The Law. (Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19).

So we should look at The Law, and see what happened to Israel when they disobeyed it. The consequences were tragic for Israel. Now God has spoken again. But this definitive message was not delivered by an Angel. This message was delivered by God's Son. And Son is far, far greater than the angels. How much more should we listen to the word of Jesus?

In terms of how this helps us understand, apply (and even preach) from The Law perhaps it means we need to preach bigger sections. We need to beware of isolating the words the angels delivered from their consequences. We need to hear the story of how God spoke to Israel (through angels) and how they failed to pay attention, and so were judged. Their story serves as an example that points us to Jesus, turning up the volume on what he says - showing us the deadly results of failing to consider what God speaks through Jesus.

The Final Word on the Law

2006-09-20T21:58:00.000Z

"In the places I go there are things that I see that I never could spell if I stopped with the Z. I'm telling you this cause you're one of my friends. My alphabet starts where your alphabet ends!"
Dr Seuss "On Beyond Zebra"

Dr Seuss gives a witty flight of the imagination about and impossible and attractive alphabet "on Beyond Zebra"; the only limitations are the imaginations of the child who writes on and on and on...

This is not so with the Law. The Law - both Torah in the Pentateuch and the whole "Law and the Prophets" have their "Z" in Jesus: and there is no "on beyond J". It leads to and aims for him chronologically: it is His antecedent (in days of earth terms). Jesus proves this in that he speaks of Himself from it, rebuking the slow witted to see it's aim and point in him, on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25-26 - how easy is that reference to remember?) and then amongst the gathered disciples we see a post resurrection expository preach from Jesus (Luke 24: 44-49) on the same subject. Jesus IS the point, aim, focus and height of the Law (in it's entirety and it's detail).

Jesus is also the finality of the Law. The apostle of Hebrews, writes:

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." (Heb 1.1-3)

Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God in His own flesh: he is literally the embodiment of the Law. ANYTHING which would denigrate or relegate this in our thinking is to be recognised, repented of and expelled from our understanding.

Hebrews addresses a group of believers from a Jewish background and assaults the temptation to return to relating to God as though the Law were still effective in enabling confidence before God. Christ is exalted: He is the Apostle of the Gospel, the High Priest of Eternity who did what the priests of the Temple could not do, He is the Sacrifice that is pure and perfect, He is the one who knew every temptation but was without sin. He is the FINAL WORD with regard to the Law and God's self revelation in saving those who would come to God through faith (and there is no other way to come to God). To look to the past is to neglect, reject and dismiss 'so great a salvation' and if we do that, the writer warns, there can be little hope of comfort. For those who so acted toward the lesser covenant (Moses!) were judged, those who do so to Jesus (regardless on what grounds) will not escape either.

Paul is ferocious on this matter - the Law is so fulfilled in Christ, so done with and so set aside that he wishes hell on any (including himself) who would hint or push in any other direction in their teaching (Gal 1.8). Peter insists that it is in Christ that the requirements of the Law have been fulfilled (1 Peter 1.2) in Jesus alone.

The question that Dave asked was how do Christians relate to the Law. The answer is not to look at the Law but to look to Christ (Col 3.1-4), to gaze on His glory (2 Cor 4.4-6) and to ponder his splendour. The Law illuminates the face of Christ, for it shows the power and majesty and might of the God who is perfect in splendour, faithful, just, merciful and powerful. It shows us His greatness and demonstrates His Sovereign beauty. But we do not look to IT to see that beauty, we look to Jesus: the Law is the light which illuminates His face. But we must not forget that it was Him who gave the Law in order that his face might be illuminated: He is not only the "z" of the Law he is also the "a" of it too.

The Christian in reading the Law is to look to Christ. But how does this work it's way out today? How do I read laws regarding to food, sexuality, building regulations, cultic observance, the dealing with sin and the purification of the body after birth or sexual intercourse? They are all obsolete! All and everyone. Does this mean we are anti-nomian? Don't be stupid. The very Law we read makes the beauty, majesty and detail of the glory of the embodied, crucified and risen ruling Christ Jesus all the more clear. We are Law affirming, Law loving and Law exalting men and women. But we are not Law Abiding men and women.

We are Jesus Abiding people. We abide in Him. Him in whom there is no darkness, in whom sin can not abide and in Him who knew no sin but became sin that we might become the righteousness of God. In Christ we know NO law but are conformed to Him, as we are changed from one degree of glory to the next in the beholding of the Glory that The Law illuminates. This is why the Law is our school-master, our nursemaid. The Law teaches us to look, to see, to comprehend but NOW in Christ, the Law is obsolete. An engagement ring is superseded by the wedding ring. We are wedded to Christ, through His death and resurrection and our obedience in faith to His Sovereign work in our lives: the engagement ring is kept because it teaches us much of the past but it's worth is not intrinsic it is retrospective.

Why do I not sleep around? it is not because of Law! Why do I eat seafood? It is not because I am a Law breaker! Why do I see the Church as the New Israel? It is not because of the Law! Why do I live carefully in a world where sin abounds? It is nothing to do with legal codes!

Sam helpfully turns our eyes to the Sermon on the Mount - a great example of Law and Grace at work together. Sam talks about how he used to read Mth 5-7. He recognised that by reading it with a filter he obscured the text. True and a helpful thing to see. BUT (you knew that was coming) we DO need to read it with a filter. Not to obscure the text but to make it clear. The cross and resurrection had not happened, the ascension and the coming of the Spirit were not yet in place. Jesus spoke of the Law to a people under the Law. The Sermon on the Mount HAS to be read with the same filter we would apply to the Law and the context of Matthew needs to be taken seriously. The excellencies of the glory of moral perfection required (greater than that of the Pharisses) makes us see the excellencies of Him who has saved us and in whom we are being transformed by the power of the Spirit because of his perfect saving work of the cross and the vindicating power of the resurrection.

Sam, don't obscure texts: but don't forget the all-encompassing filter of God's first and final word and work in Jesus - unobscured text is unobscured Jesus.

Jesus is all and in all - He is the A and the Z of God's self revelation. There is nothing before or beyond Him as we relate to God and understand this universe. The Law is a sub-category of God's self revelation: Jesus is the context for the Law not the other way around. We forget and neglect or reject this as our peril.

a new law: living Jesus' way by the Spirit

2006-09-17T15:49:00.000Z

In Dave’s first post he opened up the discussion with the question: ‘How should Christians understand the Law?’ The background is the specific question of ‘should Christians tithe?’ as a case-study of the larger question. The invitation to take this question “wherever you want” is one I’ve taken to heart in this post – in this post I ask a related question: how should Christians understand the Sermon on the Mount (and with it all of Jesus ethical teaching)? Then I have talked about the idea that although “the law” is generally seen as something negative, Christians also have a sort of new law – this sounds dodgy (sola fide!) but I see it in the NT. Then I give an example of how I think Jesus' challenge to do good works fits together with the message that trusting him means that we are justified.

However before wading in, I’ll just make an initial comment regarding the relevance of the law for us in the example of tithing. I have always been taught that the thumb-rule is that the law does not apply to us, but that those things underlined in the NT are still relevant to us. This seems a very sensible way forward, since much of the NT tells people off for hanging onto old laws when we are now “in Christ” and free from the law. I still think this is accurate. Nevertheless, I think a full answer should also take account of passages like 2 Tim 3 which tells me that the OT still rebukes and corrects me and trains me in righteousness. My rough opinion is that the question about tithing should be replaced with the question: what does Jesus want me to do with the money he gives me?

The message of the Sermon on the Mount
But now I’ll get to work. How should we understand the Sermon on the Mount? First a bit of biography: I used to read the Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5-7 like this: “Jesus says our righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees (5:17ff). Since we have been declared righteous, that is true of us. The law brings us awareness of our sin. Therefore the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is to show us our sinfulness.”

The reason I used to read it like this was because I had discovered the wonderful gospel-truth that God justifies the ungodly, and that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 4:6, 5:8). Because grace is free and undeserved, the thought that something could be demanded of me – and that somehow my works should have anything to do with my salvation, was unthinkable. So I went about reading things into the text which just aren’t there. I obscured the text awfully and turned an imperative (challenge) into a statement about justification. But the Sermon on the Mount was not there to be explained away; Jesus expected people to hear his teaching and put it into practice (Mt 7:24ff).

A new way of living
The way I understand the continuity between the OT Law and the NT challenge to do good works is that both Jesus and Paul see the OT law as having been fulfilled and replaced – yes superceded – by a new type of law. This sounds awfully heretical – after all we’re “not under law” (Gal 5:18). Yet the NT is brave enough to say things like this:

Bear one anothers burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ (Gal 6:2)

[God sent his Son]… in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:3-4)

But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does. (Ja 1:25).

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. (Ja 2:8).

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom (Ja 2:12).

There is a new “law”, a new way of living. Wherever the “law” is criticised in the NT, the concept of having a rule for life is not being criticised – but rather the Mosaic law. The break is with the Mosaic law, but there is a continuity between the OT law and the NT “royal law” / “law of Christ” – there is still a right way to live.

However this “right way to live” is a law of liberty, rather than death. And it is not so much a “right way to live” as a Spirit-led new life empowered and directed by God. It is a fulfillment of Jer 31 - the law is written on our hearts and God’s Spirit lives in us, enabling us to keep the royal law, love God and love our neighbour. It seems it's in this context that the Sermon on the Mount fits: this ethical teaching is not out of reach of the people hearing it - Jesus is calling them to repent and join his way of being a holy nation ushering in the kingdom - and it's these people who trust Jesus (their trust having been wrought by the Spirit) who will be vindicated at judgement day and declared to be righteous – followers of Jesus are necessarily sheep, and not goats (cf. Mt 25). Good works flow from faith.

It seems to me that the difference between OT and NT is not that there was a law and now there’s none, but that before, the law was written, very specific, and provoked to sin, but that now the law is the royal law, and it’s applied to our hearts by the Spirit of Jesus.

This for me makes best sense of passages like Romans 8:2-4:

through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

The passage seems to be saying that the new way of the Spirit set me free from the old way of Moses' Law. Jesus’ death was God condemning sin in the flesh, and God did it so that (the curse of the law having been lifted) we might truly fulfill the law in this new way. This is not much different to saying: God redeemed us, that we might be transformed into Christ’s likeness. It’s an emphasis I don’t hear that often in churches, even though it was God’s purpose to create a people “eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14).

In a very important sense, the law has nothing to do with us – we’re not under law – but in another profound way we have a new law – “a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you” – yet this law is does not provoke to sin and cause death, rather is a new way of living and serving, empowered by the Spirit:

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Rom 7:6)

"You must live in a new way" is not legalism
For Paul and Jesus, talking this way about our “Christian lives” is not contradictory to the message of grace – the kingdom of God and forgiveness of sins must be preached to all nations. The message is still: “the price is paid” and “come, buy and eat, you who have no money!” The NT does not teach perfectionism: (cf. 1 John 1:8f; Phil 3:12ff). “Tis music in the sinners ears”.

But the NT still challenges and calls for repentance – a change of mind – a change of behaviour – a new allegiance – and expects that this is possible – and doesn’t think that this is “legalistic”.

So what does this mean for our preaching and teaching? I don’t think it means we are to say: “grace ain’t for free, you gotta prove yourself.” Rather, it means that we are calling people to allegiance to Jesus, which necessarily involves living his new way. When I were, for example, a young black man in the USA in 1960s called by Dr. Martin Luther King to join his non-violent resistance movement, it would have meant that I am committed to putting off the anger and thoughts of revenge which well up inside me and instead walk in the new way. Allegiance to the movement – trust in the validity of the principles mean I necessarily live in a new way. With Jesus, it is different (!) but there are similarities. Allegiance to Jesus – trust in his message and identity – that he really is the “new temple” – the new source of God’s presence to bless – that he is the logos, the wisdom of God incarnate – etc. – this trust means that I necessarily live in a new way – I want to stand with him and be part of his “resistance movement” which will one day be vindicated by God when all evil is defeated.

“Trusting in Jesus” is in this sense not to be separated from “living like him” – to trust in him is to decide to live his way – to be united with him and receive his Spirit so that we do his work of building God’s good kingdom. We who thus trust Jesus will one day be vindicated by God and stand before him in white robes – all our sins forgiven because of the cross – and meanwhile because we are united with Jesus, God’s future verdict of “righteous!” at the judgement day is pulled forward into the present, and so we can say that even now, we are already justified. And this is all of grace – for why do we find Jesus’ call so irresistible?

There are some thoughts - how should we talk about "living the new way" and challenge people? When is this talking like Jesus and when is it legalistic? Do you generally agree with what I've said?

The effects of the Book of the Law

2006-09-12T09:44:00.000Z

This doesn't exactly answer the question I'd like to get to, which is how does the law do this?, but does point a bit towards what the law does....

""Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you." - Deuteronomy 31:26, the law testifies against Israel. This fits with Deuteronomy 27:26, confirming (as quoted in Galatians 3) that those who don't obey all of the Book of the Law are cursed.

"Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful." - Joshua 1:8. So the Book of the Law should give Joshua prosperity if he meditates on it.

"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night." - Psalm 1:1-2. The Book of the Law brings blessing to the man who meditates upon it.

"Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD. Neither before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the LORD as he did—with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in accordance with all the Law of Moses." - 2 Chronicles 23:24-25, The Book of the Law turned Josiah, and God's people, to the LORD.

Not to mention that its supposed to lead the Pharisees to believe in Jesus (John 5:46 - "you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me") and Moses was supposed to show that the Christ has to suffer and enter his glory (Luke 24:26).

Understanding The Law

2006-09-11T20:12:00.000Z

Today a nice new Starbucks opened in Reading, it will I think be my new favourite establishment in the town. In celebration of that I thought I'd ask a big and fairly open question...

...I ask it for two reasons... one is that I've been asked to do some training on it in 2007, and the other is because I think it probably lies behind the answer to the question I'm trying to figure out for the next chapter of my book project, namely - should Christians tithe / what should giving look like for Christians...

Take it wherever you want to.... the question is: how should Christians understand The Law?

Francis and Fraudulant Claims

2006-08-28T01:15:00.000Z

I've just been doing some work in prep for a weekend teaching on 1 Peter. I particularly want to engage with the necessary matter of preaching the word of truth (the gospel) which has been hamstrung by a 'quote' from Franics of Assisi.

"Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary use words"

I'd previously done some work on this and thought that this quote was being used out of context (that Francis was actually arguing FOR verbal proclamation as words are ALWAYS necessary). It seems I was wrong. I'm sorry if I've mistakenly taught you an untruth.

The truth is that although this may well be in line with something of a Franciscan spirituality since Francis walked the hills of Assisi calling people to repentance in the light of pursuing religion above faith in Jesus; it is NOT a quote from Francis himself!

The source of this claim - Fransiscan authorities !

So it is an interesting (if erroneous) quote but it has the authority of the anonymous man or woman who put the words together rather than some 'saintly' figure from the past.

It should be a warning to us all - not to take quotes at face value when they are not rooted and sourced correctly; not to take the voices of the past with any authority when they seek to 'complement' Scripture without Scriptural authority AND to take creat care in engaging in passing on the truth of the gospel of the Lord Jesus.

A smile in the midst of a heavy discussion and heavier reality!

2006-08-01T22:21:00.000Z

I'm using the Beta of IE7 and the new tabbed browser showed a funny heading. All's I can say is AS IF!

Piper pipes up...

2006-08-01T03:38:00.000Z

Though not a member of the club, John Piper has influenced many of us who are - so we hereby dub him an honorary member. He's contributed to the discussion very helpfully here: the full text is below.

Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East

Romans 11:25-32
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob"; 27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Today I would like to address the issue of Israel's relation to the “Promised Land” in the Middle East. This is not primarily an expository message from Romans 11, but an effort to draw out implications of Romans 11 and the rest of Scripture for a very vexing problem in the world today. The existence of Israel in the Middle East and the extent of her borders and her sovereignty are perhaps the most explosive factors in world terrorism and the most volatile factors in Arab-Western relations.

The Arab roots and the Jewish roots in this land go back for thousands of years. Both lay claim to the land not merely because of historical presence, but also because of divine right. I won't try to lay out a detailed peace plan. But I will try to lay out some biblical truths that could guide all of us in thinking about peace and justice in that part of the world. What we think about this, and what we say, does matter, since politicians are influenced by their constituents in these religiously super-charged situations. And we need to know how to pray. And we need to know how to talk to others in a way that honors the truth. So for all those reasons, and for the reason that God is very much involved in this situation, we should talk about it in the context of Romans 11.

What we've seen in Romans 11 is that Israel as a whole—that is, as an ethnic, corporate people enduring from generation to generation—has a root in the covenant promises made to Abraham and his descendants. Verse 16b: “If the root is holy so are the branches.” We interpreted that picture in the light of verse 28: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your [Gentile] sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.” The “forefathers” here correspond to the root in verse 16. So the promises to the forefathers imply that some day the whole tree, with all its branches, will be saved.

Some day. Because verse 28 says, for now “they are enemies.” Verse 28a: “As regards the gospel, they [Israel] are enemies of God for your sake.” In other words, they are rejecting their Messiah and thus putting themselves against God. This is what Jesus said to Israel in John 8:42: “If God were your father you would love me.” Jesus is the litmus test whether anybody's religion is worship of the true God. But Israel does not love Jesus as God's son and her Messiah. So they are, for now, “enemies of God.”

So when verse 16 says, “If the root is holy so are the branches,” we take it to mean: “If God chose the forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for himself, and set them apart and made to them covenant promises, then someday (after this present time of enmity and hardening are over) their descendants are going to return to God through Jesus Christ, and become God's set-apart, holy people. Unbelief and ungodliness will be banished from Jacob forever (v. 26).
So now we ask, is the so-called “Promised Land” part of the inheritance and salvation that “all Israel” (v. 26) will receive? And if so, what does that say about the rights of Israel today to the Land?

In developing the answer to this question I would like to maintain seven truths which are based on Scripture.

1. God chose Israel from all the peoples of the world to be his own possession.
Deuteronomy 7:6, “ The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”

2. The Land was part of the inheritance he promised to Abraham and his descendants forever.
Genesis 15:18, “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.'”
Then in Genesis 17:7-8 God says to Abraham, “I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

Then God confirmed the promise to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, in Genesis 28:13, “And behold, the Lord . . . said, ‘I am the Lord , the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.” And when Jacob was dying he called Joseph to him and said (in Genesis 48:3), “God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, 4 and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you and . . . will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession.'”

This, of course, creates a huge cleavage between the Islamic view of God's covenant and the Jewish and Christian view of God's covenant. But we believe that this is God's word, confirmed by the Lord Jesus, and so we say, The land is destined to be Israel's land.
But it's not that simple. This is not an issue that can be dealt with in soundbites.

3. The promises made to Abraham, including the promise of the Land, will be inherited as an everlasting gift only by true, spiritual Israel, not disobedient, unbelieving Israel.
This was the point of Romans 9. When Paul grieved over the lostness of so many Jews who were rejecting Jesus and were perishing, he said in verses 6-7, “It is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring.” In other words, the promises cannot be demanded by anyone just because he is Jewish. Jewish ethnicity has a place in God's plan, but it is not enough to secure anything. It does not in itself qualify a person to be an heir of the promise to Abraham and his offspring. Romans 9:8 says it clearly: “It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Being born Jewish does not make one an heir of the promise—neither the promise of the Land nor any other promise.

This was plain in the Old Testament, and it was plain the teachings of Jesus (which we will see under truth #4). For example, in the terrible list of curses that God promised to bring on the people if they broke his covenant and forsook him was this: “ And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it” (Deuteronomy 28:63). Throughout the history of Israel, covenant breaking and disobedience and idolatry disqualified Israel from the present divine right to the Land. (See also Daniel 9:4-7; Psalm 78:54-61.)

Be careful not to infer from this that Gentile nations (like Arabs) have the right to molest Israel. God's judgments on Israel do not sanction human sin against Israel. Israel still has human rights among nations even when she forfeits her present divine right to the Land. Remember that nations which gloated over her divine discipline were punished by God (Isaiah 10:5-13; Joel 3:2).

So the promise to Abraham that his descendants will inherit the Land does not mean that all Jews inherit that promise. It will come finally to the true Israel, the Israel that keeps covenant and obeys her God.

4. Jesus Christ has come into the world as the Jewish Messiah, and his own people rejected him and broke covenant with their God.
When Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ [that is, the Jewish Messiah], the Son of the living God.” And Jesus responded to him, “ Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:16-17). And when the high priest asked Jesus, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus answered, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:61-62).
But even though Jesus was the Messiah and did many mighty works and taught with great authority and fulfilled Old Testament promises, nevertheless the people of Israel as a whole rejected him. This was the most serious covenant-breaking disobedience that Israel had ever committed in all her history.

This is why Jesus told the parable of the tenants who killed the Landlord's son when he came for his harvest, and ended that parable with these words to Israel in Matthew 21:43, “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” And it's why he said in Matthew 8:11-12, after seeing the faith of a Gentile centurion and the unbelief of Israel, “Many [Gentiles] will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Israel has broken covenant with her God and is living today in disobedience and unbelief in his Son and her Messiah. That is why Paul says in Romans 11:28, “As regards the gospel [the good news of the Messiah] they are enemies of God.”

5. Therefore, the secular state of Israel today may not claim a present divine right to the Land, but they and we should seek a peaceful settlement not based on present divine rights, but on international principles of justice, mercy, and practical feasibility.
This follows from all we have said so far, and the implication it has for those of us who believe the Bible and trust Christ as our Savior and as the Lord of history, is that we should not give blanket approval to Jewish or to Palestinian actions. We should approve or denounce according to Biblical standards of justice and mercy among peoples. We should encourage our representatives to seek a just settlement that takes the historical and social claims of both peoples into account. Neither should be allowed to sway the judgments of justice by a present divine claim to the land. If you believe this, it would be helpful for your representatives to know it.

We are not whitewashing terrorism and we are not whitewashing Jewish force. Nor is there any attempt on my part to assess measures of blame or moral equivalence. That's not my aim. My aim is to put the debate on a balanced footing in this sense: neither side should preempt the claims of international justice by the claim of present divine rights. Working out what that justice will look like is still a huge and daunting task. I have not solved that problem. But I think we will make better progress if we do not yield to the claim of either side to be ethnically or nationally sanctioned by God in their present conflict.

6. By faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, Gentiles become heirs of the promise of Abraham, including the promise of the Land.
In the words of Romans 11:17, “You [Gentile], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree”—that is, they become part of the redeemed covenant people who share the faith of Abraham. The reason, as Paul put in Romans 4:13, is that “the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.” So all who are united to Christ, Abraham's Offspring, by faith are part of the covenant made with him and his offspring.

Here's the most sweeping statement of this truth— Ephesians 2:12, “Remember that you [Gentiles] were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

Therefore Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile believers will inherit the Land. And the easiest way to see this is to see that we will inherit the world which includes the Land. Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians will not quibble over the real estate of the Promised Land because the entire new heavens and the new earth will be ours. 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, “All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.” All followers of Christ, and only followers of Christ, will inherit the earth, including the Land.

7. Finally, this inheritance of Christ's people will happen at the second coming of Christ to establish his kingdom, not before; and till then, we Christians must not take up arms to claim our inheritance; but rather lay down our lives to share our inheritance with as many as we can.

You recall that all-important word that Jesus spoke to Pilate in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Christians do not take up the sword to advance the kingdom of Christ. We wait for a king from heaven who will deliver us by his mighty power. And in that great day Jew and Gentile who have treasured Christ will receive what was promised. There will be a great reversal: the last will be first, and the meek—in fellowship with the Lamb of God—will inherit the Land.

Therefore, come to the meek and lowly Christ while there is time, and receive forgiveness of sins, and the hope of glory.

why christians are not "pro-Israel"

2006-07-26T08:52:00.000Z

In several of the comments, I've heard zionistic undertones. The story of the Christian hanging an Israel flag outside his window made me very queasy. Now rather than wading into the politics of this issue (e.g. is killing innocent civilians in Lebanon going to bring long-term peace etc.), I want to address a very important theological point. And as you can see, my conclusion is going to rub some people up the wrong way. However, I'm going to try and show how my position comes from the Scriptures in a very clear way.

1. Israels election and the promise of the Land
Surely, we might argue, the bible talks emphatically about Israel's election as God's special people. Among so many promises, one of the foundational promises to Abraham is that he would become a great nation. Again and again, God promises his people: I'm going to give you a Land, and it's going to be big and beautiful; you'll have peace, everything you need - trust me!

The specific promise of the Land in Josh 1,3-4 is breathtaking in its scope:
"Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you, just as I promised to Moses. From the wolderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites to the Great Sea towards the going down of the sun shall be your territory."
According to God, not only Lebanon belongs to his people, but also (at least parts of) modern Syria, Jordan and Iraq! Surely God honours his promises - God does not lie!

These arguments are clear and powerful.

But my post says: why Christians are not "pro-Israel". Stood against these clear promises of God in the bible, perhaps this sounds like a weird liberal idea, as if you could bet your bottom dollar that this "false teaching" comes from a bunch of theologians who aren't all that keen on clear biblical teaching.

But here's my main point: a pro-Israel stance denies the ministry of Jesus.

2. Israel's transformed worldview
In the first centrury A.D., in Israel, the Jewish worldview was transformed over a remarkably short period of time. It is difficult to express just how fundamental and shocking this change was. Judaism at that time was under pressure. Every few years a charismatic figure would lead a small revolt against the Romans. God had graciously called them back from exile, and the temple had been rebuilt, yet there was a sense in which the Jews felt that they were still in exile. They had still experienced horrific persecutions after the exile (e.g. under Antioches IV Epiphanes ca. 164 B.C.), and the Romans were really in charge - Herod was just a puppet-King - Israel is not "at peace".

Godly Jews recognised that it was important to protect the identity of the people - and in a sense, because they felt under pressure, they were encouraged to be more faithful, and their identity became more clear.

Into this situation of hope for God's freeing of Israel - and the sense that Jews should do something about it, and that keeping the faith and keeping the identity were important, spoke Jesus. The New Testament is filled with the language and symbols of 1st century Judaism. Yet - and this is very key - the language and symbols were used in a totally different way. The worldview of 1st century Jews, when they put their faith in Jesus, was transformed:

2.1 Temple
The temple was the focal point of Jewish religious and national identity. The temple was "God's house", the place where God dwelt. God's "Shekinah" glory/presence was in the holy of holies. Here was the place of atonement for sin, where sacrifices could be brought, as God's gracious means of sustaining the covenant with people who are not sin-free. The temple symbolised: God is with us.

But Christians filled the language of the temple with new meaning: Jesus said that worship would no longer be in the temple, but "in spirit and truth" (Jn 4:21); the fellowship of believers are the temple of the living God (2 Cor 6:16; 1 Cor 6:19). Jew and Gentile Christians have been joined together (Eph 2:14) to become a holy temple where God's Spirit lives (Eph 2:21-22). God is with us, in us by his Spirit.

2.2 Torah
The Torah (law) was central to Jewish religious life. Although there were differences of opinion about the exact interpretations, that a Jew should faithfully keep Torah was universally agreed. After all, the man who keeps Torah is like a tree planted by streams of water (Ps 1:3).

Jesus spoke into this situation with wonderful clarity. He says that we should keep Torah (Mt 5:17-20), but that it's not about ceremonial washings and fussy rule-keeping which in fact is often a cover-up for hypocrisy (Mk 7:1-23). Rather, keeping Torah is about wanting to please God from the heart (Sermon on the Mount - Mt 5-7!), and Torah is actually about loving God and your neighbour (Mt 22:36-40; Ja 2:8). Christians have now been set free from the Torah of sin and death (which only provokes to sin), so that we, with God's Spirit in us, keep the Torah of liberty (Ja 1:25; 2:12) - a fulfillment of God's promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31, where his law is written on our hearts, and his Spirit enables its keeping.

2.3 Land
The Land was the place which God had promised his people to live. Combined with the promise of a large geographical land, was the promise of peace and prosperity in the land, which of course included freedom from enemy oppression. Many Jews believed that the way to realise this freedom was not to "let go and let God" (a rather presumptious faith), but that they were to act as God's agents of change (in the knowledge that the battle belongs to the Lord). The kingdom of God would come - the new era where God would rule Israel, and there would be peace and prosperity under his King.

Jesus came with a message which subverted this national hope. The kingdom of God would not be big and brassy, but rather like a mustard seed which grows quietly (Mt 13:31f). It would come through the death of the King, rather than his might, an example which should be followed by those who belong to his kingdom (1 Peter 2:21f).

Rather than commanding his (jewish) disciples to renew the nation and free it from the oppression of the Romans, he commands them to make disciples of all nations. The "go and take the land" has become "go and take the world!"

The hope of the Christians is not for a restored Israel, but for a heavenly dwelling (2 Cor 5:2). The author of Hebrews makes this transformed understanding of the Land explicit: the promised land is what Joshua knew and hoped for; we now hope for "his rest" (Heb 3:18-4:1)

2.4 Religious identity
Briefly, the Temple, Torah and Land all define Jewish identity, and more specifically, important markers of this in practice were circumcision as a sign of belonging to the covenant people, and animal sacrifice as a way of atonement.

The new covenant people required neither circumcision or sacrifice. Baptism became a marker of belonging to the people, and the sacrifice motif was applied in two very clear ways: Jesus the High Priest has sacrificed himself for us, once for all (Heb 10:10). And we, offer ourselves (strictly metaphorically) as living sacrifices in his service (Rom 12:1f)

To summarise:
Jerusalem temple >> we are his temple
Torah >> we are dead to Torah and keep the royal Torah, from our hearts
take the Land - hope for the Land >> evangelise the world - wait for his rest
circumcision >> baptism
many sacrifices >> Jesus' sacrifice

3. Christians are not pro-Israel
There may be some Jews who still have not believed in Jesus, and who want to promote their nation. But this is not a tenable position for Christians. To say that Israel has a right to the land and that we should support a military solution is to live as though the New Testament was not written; yes: to live as though Jesus did not come.

4. Christians are not anti-Israel
It's important at this point to say that Christians are not anti-Israel. It doesn't mean I am pro-Lebanon, pro-Hisbollah or even pro-British or US. Although we are to honour our God-given leaders (Rom 13), our citizenship is in heaven (Phil 3:20). We should not cheer when bombs fall on Haifa, or when they fall on Beirut. Cheering for bombs has satanic origins.

5. A short word concerning the political situation
It seems to me that the current bombardment of civilians in Lebanon is an atrocity which will only lead to the swelling of Hizbollah's ranks and popularity. Christians should pray for the peace of Jerusalem, Haifa, Beirut, Baghdad, London, New York etc etc without prejudice. We should also (peacefully) do all we (politically) can. Israel should disarm and repent and believe the Messaiah, Jesus. Hizbollah should disarm and repent and believe the Messiah, Jesus. This conflict makes me sad and angry. Christians are certainly not pro-Hizbollah, but they are certainly not pro-Israel. If I see a Christian with an Israel flag, I think I'll be sick, right there, on the street. It's sub-Christian, it denies the gospel, and it glorifies war.

Making the news

2006-07-25T19:45:00.000Z

I thought this was rather tangential, but you asked for development. I'll take off from Mike's comment:

Media bias is interesting. I think people assume that facts speak for themselves but outside of any kind of context they can be pretty meaningless. I suppose our job is to throw them into a Biblical context.

Mass media is modern technology, and assumes modern philosophy - that we are presented with the plain facts, without bias (especially on the Good Ol' BBC eh?). But the News is not The Plain Facts. It is
1) chosen information: the News by its nature reports only novelty, oddity, and minority. Like Chesterton said, 'Journalism largely consists of saying "Lord Jones is Dead" to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.'
2) out of context information: as Mike said. Or more to the point, the presenter/editor/crew select which context in which to place it. "Israel's offensive in Lebanon... Politician gilted lover for wife... Liverpool 2-0 to..."
3) tantilising information: "On tonight's programme, we'll report on the scandal of illegal immigrants stealing YOUR jobs!"
4) 30 second information: Don't even THINK about trying to think about it - just take it all in, and go have a drink.
5) personally unverifiable information: GKC,

Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers.

So to what extent do the mass media make the news? Quite largely. Journalists and editors are artistic creators - not usually ex nihilo, but creators nonetheless.

To get back to the wars and rumours of war, the sub-creators do bring the conflicts to our senses. The general effect this seems to have (unsurprising given the nature of TV) is that of entertainment. Horrific, but entertainment - something to keep us interested before dinner's ready, or in the lunchbreak. The side effect is some world involvement.

I don't know a lot about Israel & Lebanon. But I know that in the NI "Troubles" (from the '80s - wasn't aware of much before then!), if one looked at news reports, you thought the whole of Northern Ireland was a bombsite with gunmen shooting around every corner. Yet some of us living there never heard a shooting or saw a bomb, and lived perfectly safe and calm lives. It was more scarey watching the news than walking down the street. The media has always made news.

On which note, I don't doubt that the current number of/level of wars and rumours of war are just the same as they ever have been. We just hear more of them through the media. So our problem is not escalating violence but incapacity to cope with escalating knowlege of the violence. In which case a big part of our Christian response must be holding out the word of life and hope to our neighbours who are dazed or worse, numbed by this violence. We can do so, because as Dave pointed out, it doesn't surprise us.

Wars and rumours of wars...

2006-07-20T14:48:00.000Z

I wonder if part of our response should be that we are not surprised when things happen like the current conflict. Perhaps also evidence that absolute power corrupts absolutely so when sinful people have weapons and missiles this sort of thing ends up happening. None of that is meant as a resigned apathy but as a matter for much sadness and the evils of the human heart. Only God rules perfectly and forever.

I suppose history should teach us to not favour one side above another too quickly. That its not immediately obvious who, if anyone, is right. And even then should we interfere with other peoples conflicts? Its interesting the way that the media brings these conflicts to us, involving in them.

Watched Good night and Good luck last night which was interesting, seeing how the media started making news, not just reporting it.

Speculation, Journalism, History and Theology

2006-07-19T03:40:00.000Z

This last week I've been invited to pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps122) I've also been instructed that Israel is justified in bombing who and when it likes because of the Biblical accounts of the post-exodus taking of Canaan.

As I type this I'm also thinking that this could all go a bit pear shaped, it seems that talking about politics with Christians can become incredibly tense. I note the tension. I want to think clearly and for me that means thinking openly - I also want to understand better how theology relates to our understanding what is happening before our eyes.

The caveats here are:
1. What is happening before our eyes is reportage: journalism and sometimes speculation. We are told what people want us to be told. So in engaging with news we engage with humble caution - we might not know the details but we can comment on what we do know.

2. We are not those who are making the decisions - we live in a world where political power and authority is apportioned to some, we are not those people (unless we have some suprising readers!). We are however, morally accountable, and those we have elected to government bear responsibility to rule by the consent of the people, on behalf of the people for the good of the people. They are also morally responsible for the choices they make before God (as are we).

3. History is God's field of expertise - not ours. He raises up leaders and puts them down, cultures, natioins, kings, rulers and even tyrants are tools of his fashioning.

4. The Bible's moral authority imposes on those in power a duty to hold that which has been given to them in trust (they are stewards of resources and authority rather than owners/masters of it). Circumstances do not limit the application of moral authority.

So as we witness and examine what is happening in the Middle East how are Bible believing Christians to respond? What are our conclusions and responses?

Israel takes into custody leaders and terrorists from the Gaza strip - Hamas and Hezbollah respond in taking into custody Israeli soldiers on border control, seeking leverage in a war of words and trying to force engagement: escalation occurs. There is a refusal to engage in negotiations, rockets are fired by both sides, people are killed; citizens in Israel are killed by non-governmental armed forces in Lebanon, citizens in Lebanon are killed by Israel because of the acts of a resident terrorist group.

How does all of this relate to the unfolding of history? How does the current state of Israel relate to the Biblical people of God? How do the accounts of the taking of the land post Exodus relate to the geographical aspirations of the nation/state of Israel today? How does that latter dynamic influence how we think about the political realities of the middle east?

Personally I'm appalled that any nation state would attack another nation state for the actions of a non-governmental armed/terrorist group. I'm grieved that there seems no remorse or recognition on either side that bombing civilians is wrong. I'm ashamed that more Christians are not engaging with this in a meaningful way.

As I said History is God's area of expertise - so let's conduct any discussion on this in a way that honours Him.

the blogdom of God

2006-07-05T13:50:00.000Z

In my first ever blog post, I wrote, rather whimsically:

"I think blog-writing is a good form of therapy. In a world where we talk more about the weather rather than our feelings, blogging has become a more socially acceptable way of talking to people. It also gives us the permission to be more creative and expressive without being viewed as eccentric, since everyone who blogs is eccentric, and we're ok with that. It also gives us the feeling that we, the proles, contribute something to society other than our tax."

I stand by my sentiments. I think blogs are ok. Like everything else, they can become sin-laden and abused, or upbuilding and godly, or a mixture of both.

Theologically, if blogging is like an additional coffee-time after the church service, where we communicate well with others and build each other up, then it has its justification as a culturally relevant way of performing some of the functions of "church". I experience it in this way - I love "talking" with people via blogs; it enriches my life. However, it is not church, and we should work at making our churches places where one can talk as openly and frankly as in blogdom. I want to have a blog-experience at church too.

I notice in my case, that I need to change the way I live in this respect. Writing a blog article is 100 times easier than having a conversation with others about an issue of faith. When I blog, they have to listen for five whole minutes while I reel off my monologue. And I've (usually) checked out the grammar and fine-tuned the argument. It's safe - not so "messy". In a real conversation, you start out by talking about the football, but it's hard to get beyond it. Therefore, I don't try to get beyond it - there's a cultural barrier here ("no religion, no politics") - and I'm too lazy to:
a) break it
b) break it in a way which respects the fact that people experience it as a barrier.

There must be a culturally relevant way of starting real, natural conversations about faith with people at church or at my place afterwards. In fact I know there is - I have experienced it in the past. Blogs are great, but let's not let them replace hospitality and good offline conversation!

Lets talk about it in the morning

2006-07-05T07:29:00.000Z

A couple of things to think about:

Adrian Warncok's Principles for God-bloggers

Conversational Terrorism: How not to talk

Blogging and Blagging - the ethics of self engagement!

2006-07-01T12:58:00.000Z

OK so again something which started off as a noun has moved into verb - a blog (lest we forget: web log) has become 'to blog'.

But what are we doing? Why are we doing it? Are there clear Biblical guidelines for what we do in putting thoughts, reflections and musings 'out there'? How has something we make become something we do, something that even identifies what you ARE! - "are you a blogger?"

A little navel gazing on gazing at your navel is required for this: sorry - this could go all ontological (ontoblogical?!?)

My motivations in blogging

To communicate with people in a way that gives them choice - I don't want to clog up people's email inboxes with endless circulars addressed to no one in particular: I do not want to produce SPAM email.
To encourage and celebrate the good and to make sure I see it!
To share my thoughts
To keep myself accountable
To make people laugh
To tell the truth about the joys & sorrows of moving to the other side of the world for the sake of the gospel.

My rules for blogging

Be God centred & Christ focussed
Be truthful about things and people
Be honest about how it is living life in Jesus
Be kind to all - don't portray things simply to make me look good
Be careful - critique ideas, behaviours and trends not people and groups
Be humble - sin has impact even on my conviction I am right
Be pure - constrain language to within Biblical and God honouring boundaries
Be encouraging - point others to solid truth
Be myself - try to communicate more than impress

Like in all things I've not lived up to the rules all of the time.

But my questions stand - what do YOU blog for? what confines do you blog within?

Money doesn't grow on trees

2006-06-01T20:51:00.000Z

So here's the thing... Partly because I need to do some more study, partly because I think this is an area of need I'm pursuing some study in the area of finance. My experience in student work and working for a bank makes this quite pertinent to me.

The current idea is to try and get to something like a money version of Pure. At the moment its just an outline of thoughts and topics. I have three weeks marked out in July to progress with this... so ahead of that... so I'm posting my brief notes to spark your thinking...

Pick up on any of it, and lets take it whereever it goes...

1. THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S (CREATION)
Doctrine of creation - everything that exists is made by God.
Its not that God only owns a "tithe" and that everything else is ours.
Things are to be enjoyed to the glory of God.
Money doesn't grow on trees - the world is all made by God - if God provides it comes from a bank account.

2. THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL (SIN)
Sin. The problem is the love of idols where we should love God.
The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.
The rich and the poor can be idolators.

3. THE RICH GET RICHER (PROSPERITY)
Ecclesiates - sometimes the wicked are richer than the Godly.
Physical blessings for Israel... but not a promise of prosperity for the Godly.

4. SOMETHINGS MONEY CAN'T BUY (SALVATION)
"Somethings money can't buy, for everything else there is Mastercard."
You were bought at a price - the language of money and the gospel
The gospel for mammon-worshippers. The gospel that Jesus' preached.

5. ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND (LIVING HERE)
Contentment in all circumstances.
Investing in heaven without becoming a gnostic.
Sanctification as turning from idols.

6. STREETS OF GOLD (NEW CREATION)
The new creation. Real treasure.

Historic Accusations

2006-03-28T04:17:00.000Z

the following post is not really part of the flow of the discussion that Dave started. I started typing the clarification that Rosemary asked for as a comment - but it got out of hand, so is here as a full post. Hope this is not too confusing.

The history thing - well: the heart of the sin of Hubris (Pride) is the positive assumption that the universe exists for us. This is contrary to what God has said.

As God addresses his people in exile through the prophet Ezekiel he delivers a promise, which is fulfilled in Jesus:

(ESV) Ezk 36:24I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. 29And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. 30I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations.

I have heard this quoted many times and in many contexts. Most often the focus is that ‘isn’t it amazing that God would do this for us?’ BUT read the context – just either side of this amazing promise is the greater context of God’s self-revelation:

(ESV) Ezk 36:22“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24I will take you from the nations …
31Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. 32It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.”

God is the centre of history: not metaphorically or in some ultimate metanarrative (i.e. in the end we’ll see that God is the centre of history) but in actuality. When He acts, he acts to His glory and according to His plan. When He reveals Himself, He does so to demonstrate and magnify His glory. This should humble us, more often than not it insenses and offends us: even those of us who call Him Lord.

Every time we speak of history in a way which places anyone or anything as the central point other than Him we display acute pride. So often history is told in a way that begins – ‘the first humans used simple tools… then they built houses and made metal… then they built great cities… then they did this and that… and then we built computers and got sophisticated… and now history has led us to here to this great point of process.’

This is so plainly stupid and short sighted that even the most biblically illiterate pagan could see the holes in it. We live in a world where technologies are not progress for one and all, where poverty has not been eradicated and where the poverty of 5/6 of the world’s population enables the other 1/6 to live in decadent luxury. This is not progress or a fairy tale ending.

This myth of technological and societal advance (as though both were an unqualified blessing) also has a hold in the church; ‘in the past our forefathers had to listen to God through preaching in small and drafty churches but now we have air-conditioned mega-churches where we worship God in creative ways and with PowerPoint to dazzle us as we dazzle Him with our great music and our smooth presentations.’ We also perpetuate the secular value that God wants us to be happy and fulfilled in service (an emphasis that could only come from an ‘unpersecuted’ (read ‘compromised’?) church.

God is uncompromisingly the centre of historical gravity. It is all about Him, and He has made Himself known in Christ Jesus – and this is not about ‘us’ but about HIM.

How does this relate to social action/interaction/engagement? If we are acting for our sake, for our good, to mitigate the suffering in our world and help our contemporaries in an unequal world we are not doing evil. But neither are we doing ‘good’. Do we think that the tower of Babel still stands, or that there were not disadvantaged and poor in Soddom and Gomorrah? Can we postulate that in the nations of Canaan as Israel invaded the land were without needs, or that there were not hundreds in physical need as Jesus walked through the cities of the Decapolis? Is it not that all those who sought physical healing from Jesus without turning to Him in faith for salvation will not be judged all the more clearly for their refusal of the Son of God in human flesh (look at John 5.14-15)?

James makes the point that genuine faith produces a love for people which is concerned with their wellbeing – but he is specifically talking about the church; and thus how love for the brothers and sisters of Jesus characterises the interactions of the Church, and so galvanises us to action in relation to one another.

So what is my point here – I’m not sure that I’ve expressed it well. God is central to history. We are not. Any social action/engagement which does not recognise this in its form as well as its intention is (at best) inadvertently confirming people in the sinful suppression of the truth that they/we stand at the crux of history and it is our concerns and well being that most concerns God and His people – rather than the glory of God Himself.

History is passing. God is eternal. The judgement is coming. All of this matters, for here are the ones who will people eternity to the Glory of God. Living in a world suffering under the ‘frustration’ of judgement, provides us with the context for declaring, displaying and demonstrating the truth

“and The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Jn 1.14)

Gospel (Dis)parity

2006-03-22T21:33:00.000Z

Well, it is no surprise that Dave's post provoked a flurry of comments: this is a hot topic and there are lots of other places to go for thoughtful and Biblical reflection informed by 'living it out' - most notably (but not only) Tim Chester's blog (http://timchester.blogspirit.com).

Dave asked some questions - the following are my brief reflections.

What is evangelism? The 'Ev' 'angel' (Greek for 'Good News' and hence the anglified Gospel) is a message (angel) that is proclaimed by Jesus who is the Word made flesh (John 1.14), and is God's primary and ultimate word of self-disclosure (John 1.18; Heb 1.1-4). But the content of the message proclaimed by Jesus is that He Himself is the good news. It is historical narrative - a story of his life, death and resurrection. It is theological discourse - explaining what it is to love and know God and how that is possible for men and women who are alienated from him by His antagonism toward our sin and sinfulness. It is also apocalyptic revelation - it is to do with living in the here and now in the light of the end of the world, heralded by the first coming of God in the flesh and anticipating His return to rescue those reconciled by Himself and to condemn those who remain alienated as His enemies. All of this - as demonstrated by the paragraph necessitates and demands verbal communication of the truths of the gospel in ways that are faithful to the content of the message and are compelling in the context of the hearers. In response to its proclamation people come to comprehend the truth about their standing before God and so apprehend the promises made through Jesus as the Christ the Son of God and so come to live within he covenantal promises of relationship with God, sic, Eternal Life. This is evangelism - the active engagement in explaining and making the evangel known where it is unknown or misunderstood, and thus people coming to know God as their Lord through the Saviour Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Note: what I've just written is impossibly condensed - though I stand by it, it lies in as much as it omits many of the nuances I'd try to include in a chat over coffee - this goes for this whole post!

What is social action? I don't know. I don't think 'social action' is a biblical category and although accepted verbal shorthand for acting to better the lot of the poor and disadvantaged it does not make any sense (what is the opposite of 'social action"? Antisocial action?). Don't conclude that I think we should not engage in the 'bettering of the lot of the poor and disadvantaged' - social justice is a big one for me. It is important - that men and women are treated with an equality of dignity is something I've been committed to since my childhood. And 'there's the rub' as Shakespeare said. 'Social Action' is not the same as evangelism - it need not be motivated by the proclamation of the gospel. But, again, before anyone jumps to conclusions I think the Bible is painfully clear that 'social engagement' is a primary commandment for all who live in Christ through faith. It is not an optional extra - we (MUST!) recognize that the whole of our lives involve ethical choices which impinge on the lives of others. SO we do not live as 'unwise people' in an age given over to the materialistic gain of the strong. We are to buy our clothes and food and spend our time, money and talents responsibly with a sense of responsibility toward those who are less 'powerful' socio-economically than ourselves. We should be engaging in the lives of the poor and disadvantaged by engaging in the realities of the world we live in. I'm not talking about the soft social action of many 'servant evangelism' actions: picking up litter or handing out tins of beans but about (in part) recognizing that the church has become a well educated and well resourced entity, which is a bar to those who are socially on the margins of education and material resources. The fact that we see social engagement (a far better term that social action) as an option, is a reflection of the way in which the church has been 'educated' and 'promoted' out of the whole spectrum of the social strata. I don't know what 'social action' is because I don't recognize it as a choice we exercise but rather see that we are commanded to engage as salt and light in the world and that in doing so, like everything else we do, our engagement is therefore to point those that we engage with to Jesus (see evangelism above).

What's the history of both in the life of the church?Flip, Dave - easy questions eh?!? Suffice to say that the church from its outset did not have a good press as a social elite until it became part of the establishment in the Roman Empire. Still that has not prevented the Lord using brothers and sisters through the ages to combat social disorder and inequalities as they have engaged in the proclamation of the gospel. But it has also meant that there have been those who have sought to underpin and promote social disorder and inequality through the preaching of a skewed biblical hermeneutic. The history is messy and no less so in the last 100-150 years and no less so today. One thing we must do though is stop living as though we (who live now) are at centre and pinnacle of history: Jesus is. Why do I say that - well, just as people were once convinced the earth revolved around the sun and thought it heresy when they were told that this is not the case. If we think we are the core and the height of history, we find it offensive to find that Jesus is - history has not led 'up to this point' but is leading us up to Him, who is the point of History. Not sure if there is enough time and space to post on this here - but do you see what I'm saying?

What about that ol' quote from St. Francis of Assisi? Francis was converted by understanding the gospel and lived to preach it, renounced the considerable riches which were his by birthright in order to engage socially in the politicized church of his day and to call for reformation. I think Luther and Frank would have made good friends. If you want to find out about Francis today though - don't go to Assisi: its a supermarket of consumerist idolatry. Francis preached. He lived what he proclaimed. In that order and to that end he wrote: "Preach the gospel, use words when necessary" - remember its in translation from mediaeval Italian and the mediaeval Italian church: preach what you live and live a life worthy of the Gospel - is, I think, the emphasis. Why do I know so much about Francis - I almost became a Franciscan monk! Didn't know that did you!?

Is one a bridge to the other? No bridge - there is no distance to cross

Are they two wings of the same bird? No wings - no dichotomy

What about how it works in a CU context? Great question: the principle endures in all contexts but the question of context is supremely important. I think it is about social engagement. Not social enmeshment so that we are indistinguishable from those that we live amongst, nor social disengagement so that we think we should work with the disadvantaged when surrounded by the more advantaged in lectures, tutorials and professional environment: as though uni/study is a distraction from the ministry that God has for you rather than the context of ministry that God has provided. SO engage in campus life - get involved in the politics of the union, write for the student newspaper, lobby for safe and sensible drinking policies in the union bars (get a job there and refuse to serve drunk people and do so with love, good humour and concern; not condemnation and self-righteousness!), talk to the weirdos and invite them to CU events - befriend the unfriendly and hang out with the drop outs; reach out to the students on campus who are locked in to isolated worlds and also go out and find the ones who are locked into socially busy worlds. Engage with the world in which God has placed you - that also means THINK! Think Biblically about your studies and think about your free time - THINK, THINK, THINK and live wisely; live ways that will show that you know and love the living God and are known and loved by Him. If there weren't a builder re-doing our bathroom right now, I'd be shouting this out loud. Engage with the world that God has placed you in - don't just wash dishes, or polish shoes, or pick up litter. Engage - sure it is costly in time and energy, sure it is risky but as we engage we will also speak with clarity as people see us live lives that point to Jesus and ask us to explain what motivates us and leads us to live these alien lives.

I feel like I've ranted. I think the dichotomy between Evangelism and Social Action is SO destructive and distracting from the issues actually at stake here ( a world that is lost and dying - not because of social inequality but because of sinful enmity with God) that we are truly missing the wood for the trees.

You pulled out one of my soap boxes.

I've stood on it.

Sorry, but you asked. ;o)

Social Action and Evangelism

2006-03-19T22:21:00.000Z

So, friends... had to chip in with a new topic for conversation. I'm doing Word Alive seminar in the Hot Topics track this year on:

Social Action vs. Evangelism:
A False Dichotamy?
with Steve Casey.

Your shot at that question appreciated, but try some of these too...:

What is evangelism?
What is social action?
What's the history of both in the life of the church?
What about that ol' quote from St. Francis of Assisi?
Is one a bridge to the other?
Are they two wings of the same bird?
What about how it works in a CU context?

That lot oughta keep us going for a bit...

Morning Coffee Call

2006-03-06T17:12:00.000Z

Where I would be without coffee!

Thanks for your very helpful posts Rosemary - glad that you got time to contribute AND that you didn't crash on your way to Italy! (I really liked Bergamo airport when I was there, mostly because the coffee there is great!)

I'm with you - I think that now if we are indeed 'hid with Christ in God' (Col 3.1-3) we cannot BUT experience God: conscious of it or not, happy about it or not, warmed or chilled by our encounter of Him.

The one thing I would want to say in response to your posts is to ask if we can use the (reasoned) experience of Adam and Eve as a standard to which we should attain?

Before I sound like a pedantic so-and-so, let me explain what I mean. Adam and Eve lived in a world that was without sin, which God looked upon in it's completeness and gave his approval, blessing and joy. But is this the position toward which we are heading in Christ? Are we not heading for a world that more than lacks sin and frustration but which is perfect in the eternal absence of all evil?

The world prior to the Rebellion knew the presence of evil though not yet the impact of God's judgement of sin. The New Heavens and the New Earth will not only be without Sin but it will be without the possibility of evil as all God's people will be perfected in His likeness and The Great Enemy will be destroyed.

You said "Adam and Eve, having perfect bodies and faculties, felt their experience of God perfectly. As we will when we have the final redemption of our bodies at Christ's return". I think I'd want to make sure that we are led to this conclusion by Scripture rather than reason. I'm not sure we can be.

THAT said I think your point about being in the now and the not yet as we experience God is spot on; but my nuance would be that the 'not yet' is better than the 'back then' and so much superior to the 'right now' that it is not worth comparing. Worship is a life lived with a sense of all three, in the context of community under the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, illuminated by the authority of Scripture and so pointing to the greater glory of God, resulting in the calling of the lost to the salvific power of the gospel.

Now, where's that coffee?

Here's hoping

2006-03-06T14:23:00.000Z

To Dave's question about conversational response to someone who has had 'overwhelming subjective experiences', I'd nick Andy's reply, "I think I'd want to engage with the questioner about whether their experience is one which is to be normative for all Christians everywhere. If they believed it was I'd want to ask them why and what that leads them to that conclusion." To flesh out where I'd want to go in discussing the 'why and what leads them to that conclusion' bit:

During the course of that I'd sympathise with Mr. 'My overwhelming subjective experience of God is for everyone', assuming that his overwhelming subjective experience had something to do with response to the revelation of God in Christ (it may not be: I'm not addressing that case). After all, if his experience was in some way a reflection of, or Spirit-given response to the objective truth of the gospel (which is for all), then why should the subjective experience not be for all also? Or from the other perspective, if we're living in the objective reality of the gospel, why does our subjective experience often not match up?

We all know this answer so I'll just shoot briefly: we're in the now and not yet. My guess(!) is that Adam and Eve, having perfect bodies and faculties, felt their experience of God perfectly. As we will when we have the final redemption of our bodies at Christ's return. In the meantime, we groan, having the Spirit's testimony of our objective experience of God in Christ: Abba, Father! but not always the subjective experience in tune with it. We hope for that! Our experience of God as his redeemed people is a work of faith, labour of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, waiting for his return from heaven. Hope that is realised is not hope; we don't have it all now. We know this but so often forget it. Hope characterises the Christian life (or 'experience of God'): faith, hope and love - and the one of these we tend to forget is hope. So we expect our present experience of God to be complete, our subjective experience to accord with the objective reality and if it happened once, then at all times and for all the church, à la Mr. 'My overwhelming subjective experience of God is for everyone'! Forgetting hope, we look for full experience how. It is (wonderfully) true that God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. We see Jesus! Now if we forget the future hope of the gospel, we seek after 'overwhelming subjective experiences' of this for us and all the church. Yet that's not how Paul says our response is to be: So we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed in to the same image from one degree of glory to another. The application is Spirit-enabled response (being transformed into his likeness), not overwhelming subjective experience - i.e. again, we have God's self-revelation in Christ and response.

So in summary, I'd engage as Andy said (hardly otherwise!) and be sure to look together at Rom 8 &/ 2 Cor 3-5 about the 'now & not yet' and the glorious future hope of the redemption of our bodies when we'll all be, all of the time, heart, soul, mind and strength in tune with the reality of the gospel of our blessed God.

I'm not even going to start apologising for long posts, Andy. That's the way they come. Now, off a-travelling again.

A parabolic response

2006-03-06T13:10:00.000Z

Fellow Coffee Bible Club Bloggers, on my first post I must confess, I am slightly high on coffee. An Italian expresso this morning at 07:50 in Bergamo airport and a wonderful "Pocket Coffee" chocolate (containing liquid expresso: "The charge of coffee and the energy of chocolate") just now were slightly too much - I'm a weakling I'm know. But I'm interrupting my travels to bring you the results of 1.5 flights' worth of studying and scribbling about our topic. [Don't worry, the other 1/2 a flight wasn't spent crashed; I was just busy gazing at the Alps.]

Dave asked a 2-part question about gathered vs. scattered experience of God, and experience of God when walking down the street, to which I'll get in this post, but via attempting part of a response to Mo's qu: "What does an experience of God feel like anyway?

We've said repeatedly how worship isn't a segregated part of life; surely experiencing God in all of life also has to come down to our every attitude and action responding in faith to his self-revelation in Christ, reflecting that we are his, living in his framework. Dave said, "The Bible does deal in objective reality." Experiencing God has to do with subjectively reflecting, living in, that objective reality. Obviously that's not an emotionally disengaged thing, but it is not just an emotional thing. So what does an experience of God feel like? We'd think Moses had an experience of God in a burning bush, Anna in an answered prayer for a son, Pharoah in 10 plagues, an escaped slave nation and a river coming over his head, the disciples (and supremely) in Jesus, Ananias and Sapphira in dropping dead. What does an experience of God feel like? It seems to me that it has 2 elements: God reveals himself; man responds. We guess it feels like what's appropriate to the revelation: if judgement, fear; if answered prayer, great joy and satisfaction in God... So in Christ, God's ultimate self-revelation: God reveals himself; man is to respond. Is this (God's self-revelation + our grace-enabled response) not our 'experience of God'?

And now more to Dave's questions - in terms of experiencing God then, we respond to his self-revelation, which to we who are in Christ is of him as Father. What does that feel like? Does a child have a rush of emotion every time he spends time with his father? Does he feel emotional about being his father's son whenever he's walking down the street? Sometimes he will: when it hits him especially how good his father is, or when disciplined and forgiven, or comforted, or cuddled... But he experiences his father the whole time: most of the time his experience of his father is that of living in his household. He may not feel he's 'experiencing his father' when walking down the street, but his experience of his father frames and shapes his whole life including his attitudes, emotions and actions when walking down the street. His whole life is lived in experience of his father: particularly of trust in his father and being like him. This isn't less than the 'rush of emotion' times, and he doesn't live from one longing for the next! And does this experience differ when he is alone from when he's en famille? Of course. Alone he is no less his father's and his life no less lived in experience of his father, but together, in relationships, comportment and conversation the family remind each other of being the father's family, encourage each other in living in his name, rebuke and correct those things which don't fit with that. This is an essential part of experiencing the father.

Backtrack: This is also propositionally present in Scripture and in fact has mostly already been said from Hebrews earlier in our conversation. But it is striking that in the NT, that God is father of his redeemed is the primary way in which we relate to him in Christ. It was how Christ taught us to relate to him. Our trouble is that then we've superimposed our 21st century view of a "Dad" - one who's mostly absent, a provider who sometimes gives us special time, treats and cuddles. Then we try to fit our experience of God to that - and live for the special times, treats and cuddles. But the Father-son relationship in Scripture is much bigger than that: it's owning and living in his name, growing into his likeness, working with him in his work, as part of his household (cf 1 Tim). I often get the impression we want to cut 'experiencing God' down to the treats and cuddles, which would be pretty rubbish really.

So, summing up in my 2 questions for our continued discussion:
- Is this (God's self-revelation + our grace-enabled response) our 'experience of God'?
- Given God's self-revelation as Father to those in Christ, does this sum up our 'experience of God' more specifically or does it miss something?

Sink or swim...

2006-03-01T09:20:00.000Z

"I have continually had such a sense of my sinfulness as would sink me into utter despair, if I had not an assured view of the sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me to the uttermost. And at the same time I had such a sense of my acceptance through Christ as would overset my little bark, if I had not ballast at the bottom sufficient to sink a vessel of no ordinary size."
Charles Simeon

The experience of knowing God has to be both trembling and joyful doesn't it? We can't ever lose a sense of our sinfulness, and yet simultaneously the gospel speaks abundant grace!

"A dog says, "You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me, you must be God." A cat says, "You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me, I must be God."" - Cat & Dog Theology

We are great beneficiaries of grace and yet that's not for our self-esteem but to point us to our benefactor. We do theology rather than meology. And yet that doesn't mean stoic indifference, but as Piper/Honeysett say pursuing joy in God. The more satisfied we are in him... the more we're actually worshipping him!

Andy, I agree that its good to speak of objective experience. Feelings are not fuzzy (Man, I remember someone saying that Romans 5 talks about the fuzzy and objective love of God - the Spirit being fuzzy and Jesus being objective - tragic....). Feelings are however ultimately subjective. And the Bible does deal in objective reality. Like the reality that I'm currently seated with Christ in the heavenly realms - as well as being sat in this espresso bar (nice!). When God helps me to believe that things look and feel very different.

I guess we have to think holistically about ourselves - I can't be separated from my experiences or my thinking. And God's word commands my thinking, my affections, my desires, my will... And he works change in them giving me some taste of knowing him. Conforming my mind and my desires and my actions for his glory. Something that is both overwhelmingly amazing, and slightly uncomfortable at times.

In my experience

2006-02-28T22:55:00.000Z

You know - I'm kicking myself. I thought this blog would be fun - but you know what, its not: it is however, worthwhile and its making me think. Its making me think harder than I thought it would, I'm glad of that and kicking myself for wanting it to be fun rather than worthwhile.

You know what else Mo, I'm not sure - but Hebrews (I'm thinking a lot about Hebrews at the moment: I'm teaching through it twice at student weekend's away this month) is really helpful here. It seems to me that the writer is addressing the particular expectations of normal Christianity in the lives of his readers (did you know that the author and audience are functionally anonymous in Hebrews and the title is imposed, which underlines the content all the more). What should we anticipate from normal Christian living?

From a post-enlightenment European perspective this question is often placed in the realm of the subjective response to the objective reality - we ask "what does it feel like?" There is nothing wrong with the question as long as we recognise that it is cultural and time specific and thus may not be directly addressed by the Biblical writers. The writer of Hebrews addresses the faith response of the community to the objective achievements of Jesus as the incarnate self-revelation of God to redeem and save the Elect. Feelings are addressed by him but they are not the subject of his thoughts.

For us, well, we're much more touchy feely today. Emotions are not considered to be a secondary function of humanity but rather the authentic and central place in which humanity is expressed. So we ask about feelings and (falsely) caste our hopes and aspirations for experiencing God primarily into that context.

I think it is better to talk in terms of knowing God objectively and that therefore impacting how I experience everything, including Him. The author of Hebrews draws the distinction between the OT and NT believers in Hbr 12 (see my post below to save the full quote and rehearsing the argument again) - denoting the experience of the OT believers to be full of shock and awe but of the NT to be full of confidence and joy (note to self: these refs are not about emotion but posture: not primarily about how they felt but rather about how they lived).

But I want to agree with Mo (not that I've disagreed with him up to now) there is a significant challenge to the radical individualism of the westernised 'romantic' atomistic self which expects/demands/seeks perceived 'nice' subjective emotional affirmation in 'encountering God' when Scripturally (and I must say experientially) it is in the moments of extremely negative emotional experience (ie - it FELT bad) that God is most clearly made known (eg The Flood; call of Abram/Abraham; naming Jacob Israel; the Exodus from Egypt; the entry into Canaan; the action of the Judges; the rejection of Saul and election of David; the rending of Israel into two Kingdoms; the preaching of the prophets; the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus; the persecution of the church).

I'm hard pressed to see ONE example of a close encounter of the Divine kind that led to what we would recognise as a 'happy' one.

ALL of this said I think there are two riders I would want to add:

1. We do many a disservice if we charicterise too easily the longing for authentic experience as a longing for warm fuzzies. All the more so if we lay the charge more at one end of the church spectrum than others. This is endemic in western affluent evangelicalism, it is expressed differently BUT it is still there.

2. I am with Piper and Honeysett in the exhortation that the Christian life is to be charicterised by joy which is not located in the emotions but which must (as integrated people) impact the emotional life of the people of God, as individuals and as the gathered congregation.

Now this is another lengthy post - sorry. BUT what do Mo, Dave, Sam and our other new contributers Rosemary and Nathan think: I like questions but this is not an excersize in me increasing my typing speed is it? Step up, speak (type up) and share...

another question....

2006-02-28T08:57:00.000Z

Hey international blogging partners. This is exciting.

Anyway, I just wanted to add a question to the Bluefish's excellent ones.

Mine is "what does an experience of God feel like anyway?"

Do we have biblical precedent for imagining that an encounter with God will be euphoric and pleasant at all, or rather either terrifying (mostly Old Testament, although also Revelation) heartbreaking (Jesus in the Gospels) or constantly quite uncomfortable (the experience, I think, of the Holy Spirit described in the epistles - of the Spirit bringing us to fight against sin)? I wonder where the idea that encountering God should be in any way like the modern "worship experience " has come from at all...

Shadows and reality

2006-02-27T20:07:00.000Z

Thank, Andy and Sam for your responses to my questions. And, welcome to the conversation Sam. Nice to spread our conversation to another country.

Andy, I think you're right when you say we've sidestepped from our original discussion. It seems difficult to talk worship without ending up there. And even more when it comes to thinking about the presence of God - and yet as you ably show that's not where the Biblical testimony takes NT worship. So why do we?! Somehow can't escape the Old Testament... somehow we prefer shadows to reality... or perhaps we think its enough to just repaint the old temple ideas with Jesus-songs rather than replace it with the new....

It seems to me that there is something special about the gathering of God's people together. We're told to do it. We do do it. In terms of worship and "God with us", is there a difference between gathered and scattered?

Further, since we now have constant access to God through Jesus our knowing of God isn't limited to the moments when we travel to a place and gather with God's people.... it simply can't be. Even in my job I still spend most of my time outside explicitly Christian meetings.... so what should I expect my experience of the reality of God when I'm walking down the street, drinking coffee etc?

Here I am to worship...?

2006-02-25T01:19:00.000Z

The picture has got nothing to do with what I have to say: other than it showed up in a www.image.google.com search for 'worship'

I fear I'm going to be boring - we've made the mistake of moving from talking about worship as a Biblical concept to worship as an activity which happens in church services/when Christians meet with each other and sing.

Worship is the content of the Christian life - it is not a subcategory of Christian activity.

I'm not stuipd though - we've moved categories in this conversation because the centre of the discussion around worship is about activity rather than ontology (OK - sorry, being unnecessarily technical: 'ontology' = 'being').

Dave asked about conversational response and Sam's one is a good one. I think I'd want to engage with the questioner about whether their experience is one which is to be normative (something we should all expect/anticipate/seek in everyday Christian living) for all Christians everywhere. If they believed it was I'd want to ask the why and what that leads them to that conclusion.

For example (and now we are walking into dangerous territory) if someone falls over during a time of worship (and I don't mean trip on the carpet) we need to be asking lots of questions about the experience.

Some would want to argue that subjective experience is beyond value judgements and therefore above evaluating. But this is not what God would have us do - for on this basis you would have to take Jospeh Smith (Mormonism) and Mohammed (Islam) at their reported words!

Others would want to elevate this experience as though it were ordinary and everyday. But can this be the case? Is it something that is accorded recognition in the narratives of the New Testament community's experience of corporate times of singing in worship? The answer is that we have no records of it in the NT though there are some records in the annals of church history of such phenominon. So we might conclude that whereas it is not unknown it should not be considered normative and so should not be sought/imposed/used as a standard of the depth/height of the action of God in meeting with His people as they gather to meet with Him.

There is one standard which Jesus applies to the validity of experience - fruit.

Luke 6.43:`No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 44:for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45:The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks. 46:`Why do you call me "Lord, Lord", and do not do what I tell you? 47:I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them.

What is the fruit? The standard by which we judge the fruit is the standard of 'the word of Christ dwelling richly' (Sam's post) isn't it? This is not essentially an emotional encounter (though indeed it may be emotional) but is an all encompassing approach toward God in service: not a 'moment' but a response to grace; one might even say an orientation.

I think this is what Paul is pointing us to and teaching us about in Romans 12. This is also where I would point someone who felt lacking - they are equally using false grounds for assessing themselves.

AT THE SAME TIME - it is important to recognise the warnings that come from Christ to the Church at the beginning of revelation. Shallow, hard-hearted, permissive, lack-lustre and self-centred communal life in the church are all indicators of false standards at play in judging the fruit of church life.

Ultimately I'd want to say to them, but with a much more gracious look on my face than the picture at the top, "Look it up - don't take my word for it, it is God's Word which is the first and final authority in all matters of faith and conduct"

So I was wrong - the picture has everything to do with what I want to say.

gospel music

2006-02-24T21:31:00.000Z

This post kind of tags onto what you said Andy about Hebrews, showing how neglecting the great salvation we have can do harm - “bad theology hurts people.” It also starts to explore some of the questions you were asking, Dave, about how to talk to people about experiences (or lack of them) in worship.

1. A bit of biography
I spent a year (when I was 19ish) in a church where ‘worship’ was important. We spent sometimes up to ¾ hour singing and praying together before the talk. In this time, people would “go deep” with God – experience his love on an emotional level. This is great. However, the problem I experienced was that I often sat there and just felt awful. The people around me seemed to be having intense experiences with God – as if they were plugged into the mains. But I sat there and mused over the sinfulness of my heart – the fact that I’d been struggling not to look at the lingerie posters on the bus shelters on the way to church – and failed, the fact that I sensed so much of my life as a “cool Christian” was just a load of masks designed to cover up my adulterous heart. I got the feeling that I couldn’t connect with God – I couldn’t sing the choruses because I felt that would just be hypocrisy. “Maybe I haven’t got the Holy Spirit?” I thought to myself.

2. A bit of a disclaimer
I don’t believe the problem with the times of worship was that they were long and emotional. Some people are more emotional than others, but we are all emotional creatures. Praise God that we can love and yearn so much that our joy or lament brings us to tears!

3. A bit of a solution: more gospel music
No, I don’t mean that we need to get a phat choir, crank up the bass, and get down Kirk Franklin style. I mean that the songs we sing, the hymns, the 80s choruses, need to be full of the gospel. They need to be songs which have soaked up all the wonderful news of the grace of God, songs which are “music in the sinner’s ears.” They need to be songs which explain that the way I connect with God is Jesus. They need to be songs which help sinners see that they don’t draw close to God because “things are going alright this morning, and I can get into the worship,” but because Jesus has opened a new and living way. They need to be songs which teach me that I experience God through Jesus, through his death and resurrection. They need to be songs for sinners who come to God through Jesus. Yes, songs for justified, adopted, hope-filled sinners, but never anything less than songs for sinners.

The only verse I know of in the NT which teaches us about (i.e. not only mentions) singing is Col 3:16: ”Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

The teaching, admonishing and singing in the Greek are not just additional verbs but participles, which in this case means these words all refer to the “letting the word of Christ dwell in you”. It’s like saying: drive your car, keeping your foot on the accelerator and steering the steering wheel. The “steering” and the “keeping your foot” are ways in which you do the driving. In this same sense, the teaching, admonishing and singing are ways in which I should let the word of Christ dwell in me richly.

Singing is a way of getting the word of Christ – the gospel – into my heart. That’s the point of singing. So if the music we play isn’t “gospel” music, it isn’t doing its job.

4. A bit of conversation
When talking to people about worship, and experience in worship, I think that starting to talk about “how much experience?” or “how emotional?” is going to lead us up the wrong paths. We’re different. My mum cried nearly all day at my wedding – my wife’s mum just smiled warmly. In the gospels, Peter comes across as wearing his heart on his sleeves. We’re different – that’s beautiful.

The real issue at stake is: “is my experience a gospel experience?” Do I have the sense that I am connecting with God because today I feel able to, or do I have the sense I am able to connect with God because I know I come to the Judge of the universe as a sinner whose sin has been atoned for, once for all time?

In my opinion, bad practical theology on this level leads to much heartache, particularly among young believers like myself. Yet in my experience, songs full of the word of Christ give God’s people a sense of the joy and freedom of God’s grace, and all join in with all their might. In other words: have you ever heard “In Christ Alone” being sung quietly??!

Experience...

2006-02-24T08:32:00.000Z

Andy, thanks for the responses to my questions. I wonder how it works in practice. Often prior experience in worship or the language of those leading leads people to expect an experience in a time of worship. Some then have this overwhelming subjective experience, other don't. That experience or lack of is then measured in terms of encounter with God which obviously makes it important....

How would you respond, conversationally, to those who have had such experiences?
And conversely, to those who think their experience is deficient?

Great Thinking eslewhere

2006-02-23T20:01:00.000Z

Bob Kauflin<http://www.worshipmatters.com/> has a great blog that is a brilliant resource for people who want to think more about worship in the communal church context and on it he introduces a piece of music<http://84.40.3.164/> that is amazing: not worship in itself but I think it captures something of the speechless worship of creation that Psalm 19.1-4 tells us about.

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge.

There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;

yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

hymns ancient and modern...

2006-02-22T06:23:00.000Z

Instant coffee just isn't the same: some are better than others but, in reality, its a comparison of inferior experiences of coffee. That's really what it's like longing for Old Testament experiences of worship. (Stay with me on this one).

The writer of Hebrews addresses a congregation who longed for the certainties and ceremonies of OT Judaism: looking to the past, as though the glories of Torah and prophet, Priest and sacrifice, could somehow replace the promise-centred confidence of Jesus' atoning blood.

To blow this apart Hebrews' author anchors his argument in a past and present dichotomy: (Hebrews1.1-3) "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" On this bombshell he rests the rest of his uncompromising and earthshattering argument.

To look back to the Old Testement as thought it were normative or definitive for relationship with God after God's self revelation is not simply foolish it is rebellion deserving of judgement: (Hebrews 2.1-4) "Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will."

It is not that singing 'Lord let your glory fall' is wrong or sinful but to hark back to Solomon's Temple as though it were the highlight of God's self revelation (or to anyother point in God's OT Historical self revelation) we 'neglect' that which we have been given in Jesus. We have a greater revelation of glory - not a cloud, nor a pillar of fire, not the appearance of Shekinah glory but the radience of the glory of God in human flesh and now resident in our hearts and in the church through the presnce of the Holy Spirit communicating the full and effective presence and promise of God through Christ in God's people.

But where does that lead us in relation to acts of communal worship? First we are to be bold and forward looking (our destination is more important than what we have left behind), though rooted in the historical acheivements of the cross and the secured hope of the resurrection. As we meet: we encourage each other as the embodied presence of God, hearing His Word, reaffirming and reminding one another of what we have been given in Him and where we are headed.

This is the argument that the author of Hebrews brings to a head as he begins to draw his letter to a close: (Hebrews 10.23-25) "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near."

The comparison is made fresh in Chapter 12 of Hebrews: (12.18-24) "For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."

The community and communal worship of the New Testament people of God (ie ALL who believe in Jesus as Lord, Saviour and God) is SO much better than the community and communal worship of the Old Testament people of God that it is not worth comparing in a like for like way. God's self revelation in promise, judgement, covenant, Law, Temple and prophets worked out in the life of His appointed people is glorious, amazing and a priviledge to look upon as we soak it up from the pages of Scripture but it was never meant to be the be all and end all, the pinnacle. It is only glorious inasmuch as it points to Jesus in all His glory as the glory of the Father's Only Son (Jn 1.18), and it is He who makes the Father known through the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit.

It is as though after drinking real coffee, made with loving care and prepared perfectly, we longed for the good old days of 'Mellow Bird' (if you're too young to understand - think of the cheapest, nastiest, instant coffee you've ever had).

The sobering thing is that it is usually this nasty stuff that is served in churches during after church 'fellowship' - and all too often, it is a backward looking and 'neglectful of salvation' approach to communcal worship that is served in the services themselves. Or am I being too harsh?

SO - (sorry this has been so long: do I actually talk like this?) - in response to Dave's questions:

Isn't this kind of temple-glory actually less than we already have by the Holy Spirit living in us...?

Yes - of course

Does that temple-glory only get replaced by the (amazing) inner presence of God in all believers, by faith?

Not 'only' but in part - the confidence we have outstrips that of the believers in the Temple: we come unabashed because of our confidence won through Jesus death (a confidence not of ourselves but of HIM who has made us clean and perfect in God's sight)

Should we expect something even more tangible than the cloud at the temple?

The cloud wasn't tangible was it? I think when people talk of tangible they often talking of an overwhelming subjective experience (and I'm throwing no stones: there have been times that I've longed/asked for a comforting and confirming experience and often have received comfort and encouragement in my 'emotional centre' in worship) but this sort of experience has a short shelf life (look at Solomon's life!). Aren't we looking for something more lasting that arises from and gives rise to Jesus centred worship.

If not "as in that ancient day" then what?

I think it's as in the "Today" of Hebrews 3-4 - and 9-12 - a confidence that gives us freedom to live looking to another place where subjective experience will perfectly match objective reality. We anticipate Heaven's intimacy (rather than imitate it) as we gather to declare His praise and bolster each other's hearts with the truth of His Word.

As in that ancient day?

2006-02-21T21:23:00.000Z

When we start on worship and the presence of God surely its the reality of what happens at the temple in places like 2 Chronicles 5-7 that come to mind. We sing "Lord let your glory fall as in that ancient day..."

I fully get the desire this expresses, desire for intimacy with God. I want that. I want to know God as fully as is possible now. Whether it was temple-glory experience or something else I know I've had some sense of God's presence before in worship... but also that its not always like that...

Isn't this kind of temple-glory more actually less than we already have by the Holy Spirit living in us...?
Does that temple-glory only get replaced by the (amazing) inner presence of God in all believers, by faith?
Should we expect something even more tangible than the cloud at the temple?
If not "as in that ancient day" then what?

PS: Coffee all the way, but in moderation - as you say Andy - too much makes us go crazy!

Time To Chat?

2006-02-21T20:04:00.000Z

OK - If you want to join this group blog: post a comment to request in

Then try and say the blog title 20 times REALLY fast.

The first topic open for discussion is worship and God's presence. The idea is not to spout ideas from the top of your head but to talk, discuss, think and exlpore through Biblical teaching the various stuff that comes up.

Let's keep it respectful - typing as real people to real people - and let's be friends.

PS - tea drinkers are welcome, just don't force your tea on everyone OK (we know what you people are like!)