Rawson Street

Turning off Rawson Street

2006-08-31T22:07:00.000Z

This blog is no more.

I have started a new one where I hope to resist the urge to always scratch where I itch, and instead focus on renewing my mind. By God's grace there will be less expeling of hot air, and I will try to avoid getting caught up in what is current but not eternal.

It's been a while since I read Philippians 4:8 and decided I needed to do this, but I am finally ready to make a move to the 48 files.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Thanks again Mark

2006-05-15T18:43:00.000Z

It is more than cheeky to copy and paste an entire blog post from someone else's blog, but Mark Horne has such a good post that I would rather breach etiquette than a few less people read it.

Having one's sins forgiven is an awesome blessing, one that is greatly needed by sinful man.
Yet Paul never emphasizes forgiveness as much as justification. While justification includes forgiveness, that fact remains that justification is more frequently emphasized.
Why? What is so central about "justification" as opposed to other words that denote being counted as righteous?
The answer, I think, has to be found in the fact that God is a great King and Jesus is lord. If I sin against you I will ask you for forgiveness, but if I am brought up on charges by a public authority then I will be praying to be vindicated.
God isn't just a personal friend but also the judge of all the earth. I would be inaccurate to reduce his judicial pronouncements to only the same level of one person forgiving another.

Procrastination

2006-05-01T12:06:00.000Z

Constitutional and Administrative Law is boring me to death. All the details are so hypothetical and moot. The trouble is the longer I put it off the longer I have to wait for the criminal stuff.

It's so much easier to browse the internet in an aimless way, or write posts of no interest to anyone.

Why do you believe x?

2006-04-29T16:44:00.000Z

I've just noticed this on Rosemary Grier's profile:

What reason do you have to believe the earth is flat?
What reason do we have to believe anything? Testimony. We're all biased. So's experimentation.

I've believed that for a good few years. The apostle John (with some help from Lesslie Newbigin) taught me it:

ÂI can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true. There is another who bears witness about me, and I know that the testimony that he bears about me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony that I receive is from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?Â
(John 5:30-47)

Within a few minutes of a conversation with a non-Christian it is obvious to everyone that you believe what you do (despite the questions) because you trust (ie have faith in) the testimony of the God who sent his Son to be nailed to a cross for your sins, and who has never been shown to be unfaithful. And it is clear to you at least that the non-Christian believes what they believe because they have trouble trusting anyone else's testimony all the way - let alone God's.

Doug Wilson has a story which says something similar.

Study of culture

2006-04-29T15:42:00.000Z

Apparently John MacArthur said at Together for the Gospel that

I don’t spend a lot of time studying the culture, I think I know enough from living in it. I don’t want to be a student of the culture, I want to be a student of the Bible. (HT Adrian W):

I don't know if that has been taken out of context, and I don't know that much about John MacArthur himself so please don't take my comments as personal to him. But I do wonder because although John MacArthur may know enough about the culture from living in it, I certainly don't. And it is because I wish to be a student of the Bible, and an ambassador for Christ that I think I should study it more. I do not see the dichotomy that he sees. I have two reasons for this. One relates to my desire to see transformation of the culture (and that means other people), and the other is my desire to be transformed myself.

Everyone now knows about the dangers of Christian jargon. We know that not only can it form a barrier to preaching the Gospel because it may be not understood, but it may be so misunderstood so that it does harm. The classic example is the word 'sin'. To a Christian it means to rebel against our loving creator, running after other gods and consequently manifesting itself in abuse of our fellow creatures. To our culture the meaning is closer to 'a deducted mark for sexual immorality (among a few other things), in a test that fundamentalists believe is being conducted by a impersonal god, which when passed leads to some unearthly bliss after death’. If we are to communicate the Gospel in today’s culture, as we are commanded, we have to spot such misunderstandings and address them, even when they are less than obvious. And a earnest attempt to reach the world involves a lot more study of the culture than this first step demonstrates.

Even if we are to study the bible we need to understand what we are bringing to the text, in order to take from the text grace. The early Gnostics no doubt thought they were being faithful students of the Bible, but were totally unaware that they were distorting its message with what we can latter see is assumptions brought with them from the Greek culture of the time. Many white Christians thought that they were being faithful to what they had learnt from their study of the Bible when they treated their Black slaves to inhumanly to finance their new Georgian Terraces.

A less obvious example of the results an lack of study of culture when expounding the Gospel is in the oft-quoted comment of CS Lewis in response to the question of the uniqueness of Christianity:

"It's grace."

Grace is of course foundational to all we believe, but many other religions would claim if for themselves too (even in the way we mean it). The Bible never distinguishes Christianity from other religions in this way. In fact, the primary way it distinguishes itself is by its truthfulness. However in the early Twentieth-century culture of CS Lewis, still in reaction against Medieval Catholicism, it was a natural answer to give.

I come from a sub-culture that puts a high value on knowledge of facts and a low value on emotion. Even with a great help from John MacArthur’s fellow conference speaker John Piper, I still do not think that I have come to understand my culture’s influence on my faith in this area. I still don’t really understand what my culture finds so attractive in wealth so I read about it, because I know it is affecting my study of the bibles teaching on it. I need to study the culture as well as the Bible to do this, and both feed each other.

That was a rambling post, and the result of far too little studying of the culture, and studying and imbuing the Bible. Sorry, sometimes I get the itch to write.

New Richard Gaffin book

2006-04-25T21:15:00.000Z

I hate to make this blog an extension of my constant thirst for new books (or at least the idea of new books), but if I have any American readers of a Presbyterian bent they may be interested to know that due out this coming month in the UK is a new book by Richard Gaffin entitled By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation (Oakhill School of Theology Series) (published by Paternoster). The blurb states:

This book is about Paul's understanding of how the individual receives salvation. What does the application of salvation to sinners involve for him? Does he distinguish between salvation accomplished and salvation applied? What is the place of justification in his theology? Gaffin argues that our union with Christ must be central to any attempt to understand Paul's theology of salvation.
'Gaffin brings together a lifetime of reflection on Paul's letters [in] ... this encouraging study.' Dr David Peterson, Oak Hill

It is just a short book which appears to be based on his lectures at the 2004 Oakhill School of Theology, but I like my books short and it should be at least a little interesting considering his lack of published books.

Nagging questions at the end of Acts

2006-04-25T20:31:00.000Z

Peter Leithart suggests:

The canonical ordering of the NT does not carry the authority of the text itself, but it is not irrelevant. [...]
The narrative of Acts, especially its concluding chapters, sets up the theme of Romans. When we get to the end of Acts, the question on our minds is not "how can I find a gracious God?" but "what is God doing with Israel?" (I am not, however, suggesting that these are unrelated questions.)

Without even getting onto Romans, I feel like chipping in that as an ordinary work-a-day Christian in the world, what I think when I finish reading Acts is: 'I stand in the ripples of the spread of the Gospel out from Jerusalem to Rome. How then am I to fit into this continuing story?' More than any other book of the bible, when I read Acts I wonder about how Dave Kirkman fits into the story of God's plan for the world. I want to stand in the footsteps of Stephen, Peter and Paul. I may like them just be one of the tools of God in his mission, but it is a great mission to be part of. One that despite numerous seeming-step-backs is actually always moving forward to it's destination. I know we shouldn't read our experience into that of the original readers, but I think my thoughts will be closer to that of the early Christian hearing Acts, than 'what is God doing with Israel?', as important as that question is. In fact, that is a question rarely asked by the characters of Acts themselves.

Of course the question at the end of Acts should be broader than the me-centred one that I have suggested. I think it should be 'what is Jesus going to do next?', when you consider what we read in Acts he has already done. (As Chris Green says 'The Acts of the Apostles' could easily be renamed 'The Acts of Jesus Christ')

PS. Speaking of the canonical ordering, I must remember to share Iain Provan's great thoughts on the ordering of the Minor Prophets. I spent a good 20 hours or so listening to his introductory lectures on the OT recently, and there was much that was thought-provoking in them.

Reason #1 to give thanks for Tim Keller

2006-04-23T18:32:00.000Z

"What is our Christian hope? Is it just heaven? Is that it? If it is just heaven we just have compensation for all the things we have lost. And we have lost so much…But if the future is a new heavens and new earth, if the Christian hope is not just a compensation for what we have lost, but a restoration of the world and the life we have always wanted, that changes everything with regard to suffering.

…

If heaven is a compensation for all the stuff you have always wanted but never going to have, that is one thing, but if the new heavens and new earth is our hope, and it is - and therefore we have a restoration of everything you ever wanted - the new heavens and new earth will make every horrible thing you every experienced nothing but a nightmare… and as a nightmare will do nothing but infinitely, correspondingly, increase your future joy in glory, in a way that it wouldn’t have been increased if you had never suffered it. And that is the ultimate defeat of evil. To say evil is an illusion or that you are going to be compensated for it is one thing, but to say that evil will be in the end the servant of your joy - that’s astounding. The Christian hope does not just compensate you for your suffering, it undoes it - it absolutely undoes it. Our momentary affliction achieves an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.

…

You don’t just accept suffering, because you know God does not want it. You certainly don’t just avoid suffering, because you realise how God can use it. You don’t embrace suffering, like some kind of masochist, because you realise that this is evil, this is evil, God doesn’t want this to happen. But look how God has worked out in Jesus Christ so that even evil will be the eventual servant of our joy and our glory."

(From the sermon Christian Hope and Suffering preached on 16 May 2004)

Unfortunatly that quote does not do total justice to Tim Keller's preaching on hope, but it is still so good I had to get it typed up.
If you want to know more about Tim Keller try Steve McCoy's page of resources, or his profile for Mark Driscoll's gig, but he is all about the preaching (so go buy some mp3s).

Three crosses

2006-04-20T22:11:00.000Z

And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. (Mark 15:29)

Two nobodies, and the King of the Universe, humiliated demonstrations of Roman justice, indistinguishable from each other to those passing.

Reading a bit of the passion narrative in Mark yesterday I realised that there are few better images of how Jesus counted himself among the sinful and condemned for our sake. At the moment I cannot help seeing image after image in the Gospels showing how Jesus made himself equal (if not less) than those who were created through him. It really is an amazing thing... why doesn't the world realise the shocking nature of it? Why can't I communicate it to those who think there is nothing about it worth even having an opinion about?

Also, once you have considered this truth, why is it that images of the three crucifixions always make Jesus' cross more prominent than the other two?

Theological development and spiritual distraction

2006-04-19T21:19:00.000Z

Richard Gaffin on Gerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos:

Both men have, independently, com to the same basic conclusion. Further, this conclusion represents a marked shift so far as the traditional Reformed consensus is concerned. the center to Paul's teaching is not found in the doctrine of justification by faith or any other aspect of the ordo salutis [by which he means 'the application of redemption in the life history of the individual sinner']. Rather, his primary interest is seen to be in the historia salutis as that history has reached its eschatological realization in the death and especially the resurrection of Christ.
(p. 13, Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology; P & R Publishing)

I think this quote sums up the major development in my theology over the past two years. It has been great to realise how God's plan for redemption is less man-centred, but more fulfilling in its audacious enormity. YHWH is no god of privatised religion, and he makes big claims.

On a more critical note, I think Gaffin overestimates the uniqueness of his heros (if not their brilliance).

Anyhow...Good night folks! I'm off to follow Dave Bish's (implicit) suggestion and spend some time in the bible. In the day-to-day routine of work I must admit I am struggling to remember Carson's words that I read a long time back:

People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord.

What I have been waiting for?

2006-04-18T21:34:00.000Z

Romans: A New Covenant Commentary by William J. Dumbrell

Finally I have come accross a commentary by a respected biblical theologian on a NT book. As a bonus, it is short, recently published, and not too expensive.

I am due a good book.

And the Lord relented...

2006-04-18T21:27:00.000Z

I listened to a Stuart Townsend song yesterday which prayed for God to 'relent'. It really struck me that I had never heard a modern song, or even a prayer, that used that word which to me evokes so many OT passages of God's grace (see ESV search). When I wondered about this I also realised that it was not a word, or even a concept, that is found much in the NT.

I am considering what all this may mean. I have some ideas... does anyone else?

Not another church sign...

2006-04-12T18:58:00.000Z

Not usually one to post on these things but I spotted this today, and as the blogger who took the picture said: 'Wouldn't it be depressing if the sign's message were true?'

Praise him it is not.

PS. I think I may be blogging again soon (properly). It has struck me this week, that I am no longer not blogging because I'm busy, but because I am lazy.

Relevant writing

2006-03-16T00:03:00.000Z

In an age when there are so many Christian books purporting to be relevant to the 21st century, or to the reality of our lives, this is the first book I've read that actually delivers. I would never have bought a book with this title unless it had been by Tim Chester. I suspect this is because I am a Christian snob, but thankfully my great respect for Tim Chester won over. This is the most beneficial book I have read this year. A perfect mix of big picture Christianity, and day-to-day practicalities (ala Proverbs). I thank God for this book.

Buy The busy Christian's guide to busyness from IVP, and read extracts here.

PS It's a mark of my pride that I can barely prevent myself slipping in that I am reading far more intelectual/leftish books at the moment too (e.g Walter Brueggemann) but you cannot argue with that which truly satisfies.

You heard it here first...

2006-03-03T18:42:00.000Z

For all you UCCFers who read this blog: He may not be there yet but I confidently predict that Pete Dray will soon be the latest Staff Worker to enter the blogosphere.

I've been kidnapped...

2006-02-26T12:20:00.000Z

I have little time before my captors return but I wanted you know that I am alive, although sadly with little chance of further communication in the forseeable future. I would give me up for dead if I was you - I may never be able to escape their grasp again.

If you see any of the following culprits, please do not approach them yourself - they have taken away the best years of my life... and worst of all I have let them.

Posts worth chewing over

2006-02-19T12:05:00.000Z

This is a well written post by Alistair Roberts with much to think about for Calvinists like me.

This one is also worth thinking about for those of us much influenced by John Piper's particular emphases.

Moral Climate Change

2006-02-12T12:57:00.000Z

Tom Wright being a senior bishop in the established Church got to speak on the recent Religious Hatred Bill in the House of Lords (after the vote bizarely). His speech was top notch:

What we face, my Lords, is ‘moral climate change’, comparable to other forms of climate change and equally dangerous. The 1960s and 1970s swept away the old moral certainties, and anyone who tries to reassert them risks being mocked as an ignoramus or scorned as a hypocrite. But since then we’ve learned that you can’t run the world as a hippy commune. Getting rid of the old moralities hasn’t made us happier or a safer. We have discovered that we do indeed need some guidelines if chaos is not to come again. But once the foundations have been eroded, where will you find firm ground on which to build new moral fences? Can we, as a recent correspondent to the Times suggested, invent and agree upon two or three basic moral standards out of thin air?
This uncertainty, my Lords, has produced our current nightmare, the invention of new quasi-moralities out of bits and pieces of moral rhetoric: the increasingly shrill and polymorphous language of ‘rights’, the glorification of victimhood which enables anyone with hurt feelings to claim moral high ground, and the invention of various ‘identities’ which demand not only protection but immunity from critique.
It was this messy but potent combination of neo-moralities, my Lords, that generated the Religious Hatred legislation of which your Lordships, rightly in my opinion, took a dim view, and whose key elements were narrowly voted down in another place last week. It is the same combination which has produced a world in which it is thinkable for a University Christian Union to have its funds seized, and to be denied the right to meet, because it will not allow non-Christians equal membership. Many other examples could be given.
...Within the new world of civility for which we must work, we desperately need to take the religious dimension seriously and not wave it away as irrelevant. I quite see that some secular commentators are now dismayed to discover that neither Christianity nor the other great religions has withered on the vine as they had expected – indeed, as their ideology had demanded. But it is only these late-modern shibboleths, I believe, which are preventing us from realising that healthy religion and healthy public life do truly belong together and that the attempt to keep them apart leads to a dangerous vacuum which may well be filled by unhealthy styles of religion and by unhealthy forms of public life. All this is clearly visible in some parts of America as well as elsewhere....

Read the rest here.

Brilliant

2006-02-07T19:23:00.000Z

Mark Lauterbach writes:

one of the turning points in my own thinking on this was to notice the "tone" of the NT. As I read through the apostolic letters I was struck by how, with the exception of Galatians 1, there is always a sense of patient hope in the background. Try reading Colossians or 1 Peter with an angry voice -- then try with gentleness and clarity. It is clear that the realities of the new creation controlled their perceptions -- both in addressing sin clearly and in fueling faith for the pursuit of Christ. No self-righteous or chiding tones here! And even Corinthians and Galatians move into a confidence in the Gospel mode very quickly

-------edit:-------

Hmm.. on second thoughts maybe it needs some caveats... I'll have to think about that...

a man came up to him and, kneeling before him, said, "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly. For often he falls into the fire, and often into the water. And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him." And Jesus answered, "O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me." (Matt 17)

The Lord's Service (our service to God or his to us?)

2006-02-05T14:20:00.000Z

I never have any time at the moment, but I figure I can spare a few minutes to share a quote from The Lord's Service by Jeff Meyers. I think I deserve some blogging time, especially as I managed to recently read the entirety of Against Christianity (a brilliant book, and ridiculously quotable) without posting on it. I recently posted on how I could not understand how Meyers could find fault with David Peterson's book on worship. The chapter this quote came from made it clear for me.

'In view of the one-sided emphasis in some Evangelical and Presbyterian circles that the congregation gathers to give praise to God and not to get anything. I must insist on the lopsided, impoverished nature of this posture....The first sentence in John Frame's popular book on worship is "Worship is the work of acknowledging the greatness of our covenant Lord"....This notion must not be permitted to go unchallenged. It is only half of the truth, and the second half at that.

First, and above all, we are called together in order to get, to receive.' (his emphases, p. 93f.)

If you have any problems with this idea a little musing over what we know of OT worship confirms this was certainly the case then, and I do not think there is enough in the NT suggest that this was overturned with Jesus. And to bring Christian Hedonism into the discussion (something Meyers does not do), there is nothing more honouring to God than coming to him to receive. Entering his presence with the idea that you have something to offer to him really is ridiculous.

I am learning a lot from this book, although, Meyers has failed to convince me of many things he believes. Despite this his book asks many questions that English Evangelicalism could do with thinking about. The least effect he would have would be to challenge people to think purposely about what church services should look like; sadly though, I cannot see many in Britain reading it.

I do wonder about a couple of things though. Firstly, what conclusions Meyers would have come to if he had spent his life in a country with centuries of experience with an institutional church that worships much as he suggests. Secondly, why he only seems to think about one sort of church gathering, the main meeting on a Sunday, and how he would apply his insights to the varying church meetings from the very informal meeting of two Christians for coffee, to prayer meetings, to home groups.

...I really would love to sit in on a conversation between him and Tim Chester and Steve Timmis in Sheffield (A conversation with Pete Ward would just be messy).

Note to self...

2006-02-04T12:58:00.000Z

Re-read Mark Horne's sermon on 1 Corinthians 14 and properly digest it.

God's gifts

2006-02-01T21:44:00.000Z

I just feel like broadcasting to the world how great it is to receive prayer letters from people I know. I have received a few recently and it is so, so encouraging and praise-inducing to hear about the amazing diversity and quantity of different ways that God is working in our world.

I am in a great mood... I must just determine to be more disciplined in praying the requests.

If you open your eyes you can see how God is working, and praise him for it. So often I wander around with my head down, and eyes shut and wonder why I am not 'in the mood' to praise God.

Back to work at 9am tomorrow, 3rd floor of Yorkshire House. I wonder what God is doing there...?

An apology and random bits

2006-01-28T13:14:00.000Z

Sorry for the lack of posts recently. I have been very busy, as well as trying to put a bit more time into other relationships. All my blogging time has been spent reading or commenting on other blogs so little has happened here. I have had a few bloggable thoughts, but non that have really been burning to be published. I am trying to read as much as my limited time permits and have just started The Lord's Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship by Jeff Meyers, who is one of interesting bunch of American Presbyterians who I have only recently discovered. They are so fascinating because they share my theological ancestors and are still passionately protestant but yet are so different to the Conservative Evangelicalism of the UK and Australia that I know and love. Where this is most obvious is in their view of what Church meetings should look like, which Jeff Meyers book focuses on. A portion of Meyer's bibliographical essay illustrated this very fact vividly for me:

'Most of the exegetical and biblical theological work done on worship has been extremely disappointing. For example, David Peterson's Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship gets the whole purpose of sacrificial worship exactly wrong. We don't engage God, as Peterson thinks; rather, He engages us. The whole book is flawed because of this one sided, Pelagian perspective.' (p. 420)

I haven't read Peterson's book but I've read some of his other books. His pedigree is solidly Conservative Evangelical, showcasing the best of that branch of the church emphasis on Biblical Theology, expository preaching and good sense. I have never heard a bad word before about Engaging God, but rather endless praise. The last thing I would expect is criticism for a 'Pelagian perspective' that is 'exactly wrong'. I am bemused and curious about what is going on. Interesting reading lies ahead.

Elsewhere I think Rosemary's good sense, and heart for God means I may have to put étrangère on my favourite blog list. Also Ant Adams has made me determine to be a bit more purposeful in my reading, and although I probably will not follow him with chosing a author for the year I am now determined to enjoy some meals, rather than snacks, provided by John Stott, and finally read the 1536 edition of Calvin's institutes which has been siting on my shelf for a long while (prompted by Mark Horne, it is a long time since I feasted on the standard 1559 edition).

Wanting to listen to some lectures on worship?

2006-01-15T22:07:00.000Z

Then get your teeth stuck into these - a veritable 'who's who' of the theology and practice of worship (HT: Bob Kaufin).

A joke containing a rebuke

2006-01-15T21:54:00.000Z

No time to post much, but in my previous post on a lecture by Lesslie Newbigin, I missed out recalling a great point during the questions afterwards when a questioner excused some past timidity by his Englishness. Newbigin responded as follows:

You know the story about the English lady who was explaining to a Black Pentecostal that although English are so unexcited and sober in their worship as compared to the black Pentecostals.
She said, “it doesn’t mean that we don’t love our Lord we love him very much, but we English are very restrained in expressing our emotions”
And the pastor said, “yes, I understand that, I’ve been to a football match myself”

It's quite funny, but it also contains a stinging rebuke to those in the church that excuse the lack of emotion in worship by their nationality. I remember once listening to John Piper on CD making a similar biting comment to an English audience .

Of course there is more than one way to express emotion in worship.

Newbigin on 'Christ: Unique and Universal'

2006-01-13T20:54:00.000Z

I recently listened to the only audio lecture I have ever found by Lesslie Newbigin on the net. It is entitled 'Christ: Unique and Universal' and is as thought-provoking as Newbigin always is. I highly recommend it as an introduction to Newbigin's main emphases in his books. I made some notes the second time I listened to it to help me absorb what he was saying and I have typed them out below. I do not think I agree with everything he says, but I can never easily dismiss anything he says. I would appreciate any thoughts you may have.

Notes:

He makes five Points relating to the statement which is his title:

This is a statement of Truth
- Saying something true about the world. Not as John Hick says all religions are about 'how to be saved'
- There are three problems with that understanding:
  1. Ridiculous because how can you be saved without relying on something outside yourself.
  2. Very human-centred.
  3. If the gospel is true the central question here is not 'how to be saved' but 'how God can be glorified'.
- This is public truth - true for all.
How could we know this statement is true?
- It is common today to say 'that may be true for you, but it is not true for me'.
- This is a claim to know the limits of knowledge, which is an arrogant claim.
- If the root desire is to the question 'how can I be saved/fulfilled?' we forget that there is a world outside ourselves.
- This understanding is not found in science departments. There is a division in our culture between science/arts departments and facts/values.
What kind of truth statement are we making? How are these words used?
- We are not describing one in a class of religions.
- It is true there are many parallels between the ideas/doctrines of Christianity and other 'religions'.
  - There is a branch of Hinduism so similar to Christianity it has the same heresies by different names (e.g. Pelagianism).
  - In a conversation with one of the teachers from this branch when asked the question 'what do you mean by salvation?' the Christian answer was found to be exactly the same, bar the name of Jesus himself.
  - However when pressing the teacher about his assurance for his belief, found that the teacher considered that if did not provide any assurance the teacher would simply worship a different God!
  - LN realised then that if the centre is yourself there will be nothing to choose between many religions.
  - From then on LN did not preach sin->forgiveness as he introduced the gospel but first explained the story of God as found in the bible.
- Hindu friend questioned LN why the bible was presented as a book of religion (which Hindus have plenty of) by Christians, when it was unique as a interpretation of the history of the cosmos, which presents the humans as having a part in this cosmic history.
- Must remember that 'How can I be saved?' is the question of "a pagan jailer in a fright" (Acts 16) not of Moses/Paul etc.
What is involved in this belief?
- There are a number of different interpretations of history. Some (e.g. Indian) see history as cyclical and purposeless. Some see history as having a purpose but with the purpose elsewhere, for example:
  - Christian interpretation (Christ as pinnacle).
  - Nationalistic interpretation (the nation as pinnacle).
  - The story of civilization (civilization now as the pinnacle).
  - Islam, like Christianity, looking for God's rule. But unlike Christianity equates power with truth - Muhammad rode into Mecca at the head of an army, Jesus on a donkey to die.
- The cross and resurrection will only make sense if taken as the starting point.
- The truth is still veiled as it was in Jesus incarnate, and in the imperfect church. The church is entrusted with the witness to this 'secret'.
- This does not mean there is no goodness outside the church.
  - It is bad that the existence of goodness outside the church has been seen as a disincentive to mission. That was not the case with Cornelius who was 'good' and so evangelised by Peter, who with the church was challenged to rethink what the gospel meant in this light.
What should be the response to a request for proof that this statement is true?
- The problem with this question is that it assumes there is something, 'x', which you can both agree on and can provide the ground for the statement.
  - This is an illusion though, as you can only prove x by a y, and that by z, etc...
  - A Jesuit has argued that the roots of modern atheism lie in Thomas Aquinas (!) who set out to prove the existence of God from something else. Crazily Aquinas spent the whole of book 1 of his Summa proving God's existence without mention of Jesus, and then went on in book 4 to say that it is only through Jesus that we can know God!
  - This attempt to find a proof has led to a false conception of God.
  - It has also led to a false hope of certainty not based on Jesus.
  - In science a statement is considered true because it leads out to wider truth - it makes sense of the life.
  - Our starting point for discussions with other faiths, should not then be a clash of different starting points but an joint exploration of how well the different faiths play out in explaining everyday life.
  - However, if pushed we should point to the final day when we will fully know.
  - This does not mean that our faith is a 'leap in the dark' rather it is a response to a call.

PS the lecture was delivered in 1991 at The Christian Institute, which has a lot more interesting audio online, including an eight part overview of the bible by David Jackman.

An identity worth clinging too

2006-01-10T23:02:00.000Z

Quick thoughts on Genesis 11 and Matthew 10:

Following the Mccheyne bible reading plan, I read Gen 11 and Matt 10 today. Gen 11 includes, of course, the story of Babel (the city as much as the tower). The building of which was so that they may make a name for themselves so that they would not be dispersed (read: 'driven from their homes'). Although you can make a big deal about it, the story is at it's heart a demonstration that what humanity does will never bring it security, but that God can sweep away the most powerful without a breaking a sweat. There is no use building your own name, on the foundations as shaky as your own strength.

In Matthew, Jesus is also concerned about the name people identify with. He predicts that the disciples will be hated for identifying with him ('for my names sake') and the whole chapter is concerned with how following Jesus does not lead to blissful peace (now), but that the sword accompanies his representatives. From our perspective the Babylonians (people of Babel) had a great name and nothing to fear any longer now they had built there city and made their name great. The disciple of Jesus in contrast has little hope of an easy ride while clinging to Jesus' name and neglecting their own. However Matt 10 while full of dire predictions is regularly interspersed with hope worth clinging too. God will accept no rivals to his great name, and Jesus (and those united with him) will rule in power given by God....

'Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.' (31-33)
'whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.' (v. 39)
'whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward' (v. 42)

PS I think it is great to read a passage and think of the thousands worldwide reading the same. United with unknown brothers and sisters and sharing a common hope. Come Lord Jesus.

Entering the rat race

2006-01-09T20:07:00.000Z

Yup I now have a 9-5 job at an inurance company working on the third floor of this building.

Glamourous - no. Where I believe God wants me to be at the moment - yes. The Christian life is weird sometimes.

Still busy...

2006-01-08T14:59:00.000Z

Still busy so no blogging today (again), and I have had to force myself to viciously cut my blogroll to about a third of its former size in order to keep up. Although I have added one that I have been hearing good things about Mark Lauterbach's 'Gospel Driven Life'.

Poetry, I am told is to be chewed over. I find that hard to do, but Abraham Piper always repays the effort:

“Now go where there is need, my child. I’ll be near to you in word and deed To work in all Who hear you plead with me in prayer That they be saved from harm. —Look!— Underneath you there is my eternal arm.”

Sorry about the lack of posts

2006-01-05T21:12:00.000Z

Just a quick note to apologise for the lack of blogging recently, and probably for the next few days. I've just started a new job, got a bad cold (now gone - thank God), and I am now trying to sort out all sorts of other stuff. I haven't even got enough time to keep up to date with my blogroll (97 unread posts and counting...).

Hope you enjoy reading some decent blogs.

Listening to the Chosen One

2006-01-01T21:42:00.000Z

Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James and went up on the mountain to pray. And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. And as the men were parting from him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah"—not knowing what he said. As he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!" And when the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen. (Luke 9:28-36)

I heard a great sermon on the Transfiguration tonight, which really opened up the passage to me. I constantly need reminding that the Gospels are all about Jesus and who he was, and everything else they provide us with (how to get saved, ethics etc) come out of that. The transfiguration is no exception to this, and if read carefully is all about the unique majesty of Jesus too. In all the synoptics the story is placed directly following Jesus teaching about his own coming death, and the need for his disciples to also take up the cross and follow him. This is difficult teaching for disciples then and now to hear and I do not think it is accidental that the Transfiguration is recounted next, as the story’s introduction (‘Now about eight days after these sayings…’) suggests.

Until today I only understood the ridiculed comment of Peter ‘Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah’ to be stupid because these Elijah and Moses were dead. But of course I was forgetting that this is all about Jesus.

If you try and think about what the disciples were thinking it seems likely that they were marvelling that Jesus should be ranked with the greatest figures of the OT, and wondering at the honour given to him. Peter’s offer to set up tents, carries with it the implication that these were three prophets of God worthy of equal honour. It seems obvious to me now that this is the import of Peter’s comment and that it isn’t just ‘filler’ because we are told that God interrupts Peter at just this point to pronounce Jesus’ uniqueness. We should not let anyone, or anything (even the prophets of God) compare to Jesus, and it is for just this reason that we should ‘listen to him’.

The cloud clears and ‘Jesus is found alone’. There is no one else to rival Jesus, or even to complement him. Jesus is the one and this means we should listen to him. Even when he tells us things that seem foolish (like the Messiah dying), or hard (like following his path).

My prayer/resolution for 2006 is that I would listen to Jesus.

PS Reading the whole bible, even the hard bits to swallow, is one way to hear what Jesus has to say to us. Because of this I have signed up to Ant’s challenge.

Pretenders to the throne of the King of Kings

2005-12-31T09:51:00.000Z

I am getting my pop history fix at the moment from Tom Holland's Persian Fire: The First World Empire, Battle for the West. It's a very interesting, easy to read, window into another world which also has some overlap with the bible. I was particularly struck by this passage last night:

For, earth-shaking though Darius' usurpation had proved to be, it had never been his intention to turn the whole world upside-down [...] A pharaoh still reigned in Egypt; a king of Babylon in Mesopotamia; a self-proclaimed heir of the house of Astyages in Media. Darius was all these things [he had conquered all the above], and more. 'King of Kings': such was the title he most gloried in, less because he viewed foreign kingdoms as his fiefdoms - although he did - but rather because it gratified him to pose as the quintessence of royalty. All the monarchies there had ever been were to be regarded as enshrined within his person. He was the Great King. (pp. 56-57)

Elsewhere D R Brooker is concerned that 'Wright says that at its heart, the gospel is a political message. Not that it has political implications, but that Jesus Himself brought a political message.' I too think Wright overplays the political aspects of the NT, but he is right to notice that when Jesus is proclaimed Lord by the Christians in the first century, that is a challenge to the political powers of the day. You only need read Daniel to see that the same was the case in the OT. When God declared himself 'King of Kings' the implication (often made explicit) was/is that Darius and his ilk, were making claims that they could not back up. They were arrogant, foolishly trusting in their own strength rather than recognising that all they had was given to them by God.

However we must not accept the division between public and private truth given to us by our culture, and assume that this political dimension of the Gospel makes it unrelated to us. God's identity does not have either a political impact or a personal application, it has both. We so often are as arrogant as Darius in our own spheres of influence, trusting in our savings, health, or whatever to enable us to do what we want. Reading Dallas Willard at the moment, he makes the point that we all have our own little kingdoms, but it is best that we enter the kingdom of God and acknowledge that God is the 'King of Kings'. That way is the way of both truth and happiness.

The most popular verses in the bible?

2005-12-27T14:47:00.000Z

There is a fascinating post over at the ESV bible blog on the most requested bible verses/chapters. Worth looking over and thinking about why certain ones are so popular and which bits of the bible you neglect to listen to.

Go read this....please...

2005-12-26T23:04:00.000Z

If you listen to anything I bother writing at all, you MUST, I repeat MUST, read this recent entry by Mark Horne. Much better than anything I could ever write, it contains an invaluable lesson for how we think and talk about penal substitution.

I am deadly serious. If the evangelical church is going to stop the multiplication of Steve Chalke's views this is a MUST READ post.

However, if you do insist on reading my attempt to make a point related to Mark's (like him inspired by Tom Wright) you can read an old post of mine.

PS Hope you had a Merry Christmas. I wonder whether most of the blogosphere did - all the bloggers I read seem to have been attached to their computer.

A post unconnected to my faith!

2005-12-24T17:56:00.000Z

Yes, I thought the current issue of the Economist had such an interesting article on wheat (!) that I thought I would give you a couple of snippets.

Today scientists use thermal neutrons, X-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical—anything that will damage DNA—to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of "mutation breeding". No safety tests are done; nobody protests. The irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding—an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted. [...]
The world population growth rate, in percentage terms, had been climbing steadily since the second world war (bar a two-year drop in 1959-60 caused by Mao Xedong). But in the mid 1960s it stopped rising. And by 1974 it was falling significantly. The number of people added each year kept on rising for a while, but even that peaked in 1989, and then began falling steadily. Population was still growing, but it was adding a smaller and smaller number each year.
Demographers, who had been watching the exponential rise with alarm, now forecast that the population will peak below ten billion—ten gigapeople—not long after 2050. Such a low forecast would have been unthinkable just two decades ago. Already, in developing countries, the number of children born per woman has fallen from six to three in 50 years. It will have reached replacement-level fertility (where deaths equal births) by 2035.

I must be comfortable with my status as a geek because I am happy to admit I found that article on the history of wheat truly amazing! The Economist must be in a Christmas mood because the article is public domain, as is the much more boring special report on the business-like behaviour of some churches, and one on how religion is materially good for you.

Random musings on revolution

2005-12-24T17:13:00.000Z

Dave Bish has just posted his films of the year, which got me thinking about my own. Bit difficult to make a list as I get little chance to watch many films, but my favourite must be The Edukators; a German language film about young-idealism. I post about it because it reminds me of a gut feeling I had early this year that the church was no way near revolutionary enough. A bit of further thought made me realise that largely this is to be expected as although Jesus expected revolutionised lives he did not expect the revolution of institutions. In fact it is in our day to day relationships with others that it is hardest to create change (as the Edukators themselves found). I soon realised that my unsettled feeling was as much a result of frustration that I wasn't 'acheiveing' anything substantial with my life, and it's a lot easier to be a Marxist than keep the second greatest commandment.

It's because of difficulty of changing human hearts that has often been commented that when the oppressed rise up against their oppressors, very soon they become oppressors themselves. No news-worthy revolutions ever satisfactorily achieve their aims because the people in control (even in a democracy) are horrible sinners. Because of this, right-wing American bloggers were right to mock the arrogance of the Make Poverty History campaign's slogan as they will never achieve their aims (with or without debt-cuts etc, especially when we recall what Tim Chester taught me that poverty is more about relationships than wealth).

The special Christian witness is that poverty can, and will, only be made history in the New Creation which God alone can achieve and that was only made possible at the cost of Jesus life, and by his defeat of Satan in his resurrection. Where those right-wing bloggers were wrong though, was in denying that a difference can be made now, and that the church has a role here, both in its revolution of its inner life, and in its outflowing. I went to the Make Poverty History rally for that reason, to spend my time and money to encourage world leaders (and the ordinary person who got let off by Geldof & co) to do the same. To bring a taster of New Creation into the present, even though it was hard not to get enveloped in the arrogance of the confident claims of what people can do on their own.

My experience of this year therefore make me wonder about the truth of this poster:

I think that there is a lot of truth in it's message. However, being a natural pessimist, I suspect it is more likely to be misunderstood, and to reinforce already prevalent assumptions about Jesus' identity, than to convey truth. Makes me think though.

Tobit's prophecy about the temple

2005-12-23T22:12:00.000Z

I have decided it is about time I set out to read the Apocrypha; both for a little more understanding of Jewish Culture close to the time of Jesus, and to help in discussions with Catholics. Tonight I read Tobit, a fast-paced and enjoyable story, with a prophecy by a blessed Tobit at the end. Part of it reads as follows:

I know and believe that whatever God has said will be fulfilled and will come true; not a single word of the prophecies will fail. All of our kindred, inhabitants of the land of Israel, will be scattered and taken as captives from the good land; and the whole land of Israel will be desolate, even Samaria and Jerusalem will be desolate. And the temple of God in it will be burned to the ground, and it will be desolate for a while.
"But God will again have mercy on them, and God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come. After this they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt, just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it. Then the nations in the whole world will all be converted and worship God in truth. They will all abandon their idols, which deceitfully have led them into their error; and in righteousness they will praise the eternal God. (14:4b-7a)

I may be misunderstanding the passage (the language is hard for me to pin down) but I just thought it was interesting that Tobit was predicting the rebuilding of a poor temple (by Ezra and co) followed by a greater one at the real return from exile, which will be accompanied by the conversion of the world and real righteousness. No doubt this prophecy was actually penned long after the building of the second temple, but I thought that it was interesting that the writer realized that the exile had not really ended with Ezra et al (backing up Wright's thesis about a common belief among Jews that the continuation of the exile until the time of Jesus), and that he looked forward to a glorious return more like the one predicted by Ezekiel/Isaiah which (Praise God) Jesus achieved at great cost in himself!

PS If anyone else is wanting to read the Apocrypha I passionately suggest you get New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha-NRSV - it is amazing value for money.

Two things worth noticing

2005-12-23T13:58:00.000Z

This Newbigin quote was recently mentioned by a Wrightsaid email list member. I remember reading it a while back, it is truly brilliant. In my opinion, it asks some tough questions for many social action charities (Christian or otherwise) who so love the role of condemning prophet from the outside, that it is hard to imagine what they would do if they were given the power to change anything.

When the ancient classical world, which has seemed so brilliant and all-conquering, ran out of spiritual fuel and turned to the church as the one society that could hold a disintegrating world together, should the church have refused the appeal and washed its hands of responsibility for the political order? It could not do so if it was to be faithful to its origins in Israel and in the ministry of Jesus. It is easy to see with hindsight how quickly the church fell into the temptations of worldly power. It is easy to point – as monks and hermits, prophets and reformers in all ensuing centuries have continued to point – to the glaring contradiction between the Jesus of the Gospels and his followers occupying the seats of power and wealth. And yet we have to ask, would God's purpose as it is revealed in Scripture have been better served if the church had refused all political responsibility, if there had never been a "Christian" Europe, if all the churches for the past two thousand years had lived as tolerated or persecuted minorities like the Armenians, the Assyrians, and the Copts? I find it hard to think so [...]

From the eighteenth century onward, Europe turned away from the Christian vision of man and his world, accepted a radically different vision for its public life, and relegated the Christian vision to the status of a permitted option for the private sector. But for the modern church to accept this status is to do exactly what the early church refused to do and what the Bible forbids us to do. It is, in effect, to deny the kingship of Christ over all of life – public and private. It is to deny that Christ is, simply and finally, the truth by which all other claims to truth are to be tested. It is to abandon its calling (p.101-2, Foolishness to the Greeks).

Elsewhere Tony sums up my thoughts on Christmas.

John 11

2005-12-22T20:06:00.000Z

Jesus hears that Lazarus is sick and decides to visit him in Bethany near Jerusalem. The disciples know that the Jews in and around Jerusalem are seeking to kill Jesus and think that a visit to Jerusalem is too dangerous. Jesus answers their concerns with an unexpected answer as usual.

"Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of the world. But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him." (11:9-10)

They are being asked to stake their life on Jesus himself. There is no authority, concept, or person that Jesus expects will help his disciples walk the road to Jerusalem and to likely death, only himself. The disciples, like me, are daily confronted with the challenge to find their way through life by the light of Jesus despite the doubters that surround us. But though it is not an easy journey to wait, beyond the death at the end there is life in abundance.

Sparked by yesterday's bible reading and the cover story of today's Economist....

Got to walk by the light!

Observations of an American Presbyterian

2005-12-22T19:59:00.000Z

I am not certain of all the reasons why a church gathers together every Sunday. But I was wounded and shamed when the other day an American Presbyterian, making observations about the churches he had visited since coming to England, pointed out how he thought that there was often too little attention paid to explicit God-centred worship in our services. His observation of some 'church-family' activities of a church in York, made me think particularly how often 'community' is a god worshipped alongside our Father in many churches including mine.

Lord God, remind us constantly that the real community, is only found in Christ; when you and not us are at the thing we long for and seek in our relationships.

Dunn on the New Perspective on Paul: Part 2

2005-12-22T19:44:00.000Z

In my previous post I explained how Dunn (in his landmark essay ‘The New Perspective on Paul’) described Sanders’ new understanding of first century Judaism as one much more of grace than Reformational characterisations of it as a religion of merit-legalism. In this post I will, following Dunn, describe Sanders’ idiosyncratic view of how this effects our understanding of Paul, and how Dunn (and many others NPP advocates) found Sanders’ implications unsatisfactory.

Sanders’ in his 1977 book challenged the traditional understanding of first century Judaism and replaced it with a much more ‘Christian’ looking picture. Dunn then finds it strange then that Sanders’ then, emphasises the differences between Paul’s theology and the Judaism he came from, instead of emphasising the continuity. Sanders’, Dunn describes, can only rationalise this massive switch from an appealing Judaism to Christianity, by the personal impact of his conversion experience. Sanders’ Paul rejects Judaism because the religion cannot explain Jesus (not because it is a religion of works); this appears to Dunn to make Paul very arbitrary, and his view of the relationship between the NT and OT is very black and white which makes no sense of many passages. Other scholars, Dunn describes, have taken on board Sanders’ description of first century Judaism, but have also been unable to use it to provide a satisfactory picture of Paul, with Räisänen even seeing Paul as mischaracterizing Judaism as a religion of works whenever it suited him, even though he knew better.

Dunn, having described the New Perspective on Paul, and some scholars’ use of it, now sets out to describe how he thinks it can be harnessed to provide a convincing picture of Paul. Dunn’s Paul sees Jesus as the natural fulfilment of Judaism, not as a new pattern of religion opposed to the old. This (for Dunn) is the natural result of Sanders’ re-characterisation of first century Judaism, and would be much harder without it. My next post will describe how Dunn’s Paul looks like in this light.

It is worth noting that though Sanders’ 1977 work was the watershed book, Dunn’s use of his research (not Sanders’ own) has one the day and most NPP proponents see great continuity between the relationship between Judaism and Paul’s theology. NT Wright certainly thinks this, seeing Christ as the Climax of the Covenant (as his title to his book on Paul’s theology attests). It has often been noted that Dunn and Wright here have much more in common with Reformed theology than Lutheran in emphasising continuity over discontinuity between the covenants. Indeed Wright especially, has quite a following in some Reformed circles.

It has also been often noted that the impact of the West’s collective guilt about the Holocaust has fed much of the desire of Biblical scholars to be more charitable to the Jewish religion, and avoid the incredibly derogatory statements made by Pauline scholars of the past. Luther and Bultmann are the oft-quoted main culprits here. Dunn especially makes comments explicitly stating the relationship between his work and the anti-Semitism of the past. Clearly both Old and New Perspectives on Paul have been affected by the culture’s view of Jews, and you do not have to be a postmodernist to beware of vested-interests on both sides.

Dunn on the New Perspective on Paul: Part 1

2005-12-17T14:36:00.000Z

Trying to be a more responsible, less self absorbed blogger I am going to try and do a series of posts giving an overview of some writing. I’m going to try and do this without being too long-winded, and actually come through on one of my blogging promises for once. The 'discussion' on the American blogs of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) has continued with no sign of it slackening. If I ever comment it is usually to back the under-dog of the NPP against the might of the evangelical majority. However this makes me unhappy as I feel I am being a bit imbalanced. In an attempt to heal my conscience and to promote a little more actual real understanding I am going to summarise and comment on the essay that gave the viewpoint it’s name. Originally delivered as the Manson Lecture in 1982 the essay ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ by James D. G. Dunn can now be found in his book Jesus, Paul and the Law (from which I quote).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking back on the past few decades Dunn concludes that while there has been some interesting books published, Pauline scholarship seemed to have run out of steam and that it was only with E. P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) that a genuinely ‘new perspective’ has been introduced to the discussion. Sanders, Dunn describes, has demonstrated from the primary sources that generally Christian scholars have totally misunderstood the Jewish religion of the first century. ‘What is usually taken to be the Jewish alternative to Paul’s gospel would have been hardly recognized as an expression of Judaism by Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh’ (p.184). The problem is that ‘Paul seems to depict Judaism as coldly and calculatingly legalistic, a system of “works” righteousness, where salvation is earned by the merit of good works’ (his italics, p. 185) however, Sanders’ study of the Jewish literature of the period gives a very different picture. Sanders’ describes first century Judaism as ‘covenantal nomism’ (from nomos = law), a religion in which God’s gracious establishment of a covenant with his people is basic. So in this context according to Sanders’ ‘Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such' (his italics, p. 186)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My next post will look at how this perpective on Judaism affects Sanders' understanding of Paul’s theology, and Dunn’s unhappiness with how Sanders' does this. The above description of Sanders' position is what the New Perspective on Paul really is. It is first of all a new perspective on 1st cent Judaism, which then secondarily affects our understanding of Paul. Indeed when people talk about multiple new perspectives on Paul that is only because the focus has moved from Paul’s context (on which there is broad agreement in proponents of the NPP) to Paul himself (in which there is much disagreement).

Although this post is already too long, I may venture a few (too) brief comments:

There has been many attempts to show that first century Judaism was quite diverse, and in fact there were are legalistic strands in the primary sources which Sander’s glosses over (e.g. Carson et al). I suspect these are attempts are successful, but I am not really in a position to judge).
Just because the Jews thought that there religion had God’s grace as it’s foundation, does not mean that they lived that truth.
Is there really that much difference between obedience to stay in the covenant, and obedience to get into the covenant?
Note the shift by Sanders to talk about being found in or out of the covenant people, from the common talk of how individual Jews/Christians 'get saved'.
As Christians this should get us thinking about whether in the OT provided a religion of works-righteousness, and if he didn't the probablity of 1st cent Judaism being simply a religion of works.

Blue Like Jazz

2005-12-16T00:52:00.000Z

"I never liked jazz music because jazz music doesn't resolve... Sometimes you have to watch somebody love something before you can love it yourself. It is as if they are showing you the way... I used to not like God because God didn't resolve. But that was before any of this happened." - Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz

On a lighter note than my last post and comment, which I wrote in a very depressed frame of mind, I have been told I must read this book! A friend in my cell brought up how brilliant she thought it was tonight. When I mentioned that I heard it was a bit controversial I got rounded on! 'Is it because it is not Republican?' 'Is it because it is honest, and Christian books are not allowed to be honest?' Taken aback I pleaded that I had not even read it, just heard of it, and would proceed to read it straight away before making further comment!

It's in my Amazon already.

For some views of those who have actually read it try Mark Traphagan or Maurice McCracken (and his commenters).

The hermenutic of the gospel in (in)action

2005-12-16T00:01:00.000Z

Just had a depressing conversation with a fragile Christian (I think that is a fair description). He has had some bad experiences since he became a Christian of insincerity in the Church and lack of love. Basically he doesn't want to attend formal Christian meetings because he doesn't want to be like these people. In contrast he sees very moral people elsewhere.

I was surprisingly upset. I still haven't really come to terms with the way that the Church is made up of sinners, and yet are also meant to be the re-born new creation of God. Indeed 'we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death' (1 John 3:14). How can we fail so miserably time after time? I know I have done the same, if not to this person then countless times to others. I have said the right thing but not follwed through with love. We ARE meant to be discerningly different though, the fact it 'happens' is no excuse. I know you cannot live a life that will convince everyone, some people even accused Jesus of having a demon(!), but we are not just failing to jump through our self-imposed hoops, we are causing others to fall (cf. Rom 14)! You can read about the importance of real love to our mission, and give it fancy names but it happens in reality and there are consequences.

Judge not lest you be judged (in softer terms) was some of my stumbling answer, for compared to God all fall short. But that is not a complete answer; as I have already said, Christian's are different according to the bible, and I just do not know how to hold the old and new reality together.

I know wiser heads than mine read this blog, advise would be much appreciated (I may make a phone call as well).

PS coming home I was thinking about why I go to church. We always feed new Christian's the line that it is good for you (along with Bible reading and prayer), however I think this can lead people with an expectation of 'getting something out' of chuch, and judge it a failed product if the result is not satisfactory. In slight contrast I came to the conclusion that I go to church (meet with Christians) to serve others, and to be reminded and encouraged that I am not alone in my struggles and joys, in the world and in myself. My conclusions are I think a lot more relational than that 'it helps you grow and be encouraged' although there is not that much difference and the latter is 100% true.... Just thinking out loud...funny I was thinking this week that I must change how I post so it is less like that.

PPS not everyone's experiences are the same I suppose, I have much to be thankful in my early years of following Christ.

Tomorrow...

2005-12-10T14:18:00.000Z

I am going to this. Please pray those I have invited (i) come (ii) hear what is being said as 'news' not religion (iii) receive it with joy (iv) and that it all is subject to the will of God, and a desire for his glory.

-----------edit-----------

I should never have written that I pray my friends 'hear what is being said as 'news' not religion' - I don't like using the word religion in such a negative way. What I meant by 'religion' is religion as our culture views it. Newbigin would have said 'pray that they hear what is being said as public truth, not private truth', and that's better.

My most influential books of 2005

2005-12-08T14:31:00.000Z

It is the time of the year for the best ... of 2005. The papers are starting to print their opinion. Dave Bish is the first blogger I've read to chime in with his selection. I've been planning mine for a while, and have plumped to do 3 book lists: the best; the worst; and today the most influential. I don't know if anyone cares about my opinion, but as Mark Horne recently pointed out, annotated bibliographies are really fun to write. The following is in a rough order of decreasing importance, but there are no numbers because each could easily be in very different places.

'The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments' by CFD Moule (in W. D. Davies and D. Daube ed., The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology):

Not a book, but an article but it was too good not to be mentioned. Building on my earlier reading of Ian Stackhouse pointing out the Lord's Supper as a place to find the Gospel, this brilliant essay brought the sacraments to life for me. Moule encouraged me to judge myself and see my sin again (and again) to recognize that it is I who should be baptized with death, not Jesus, but to willingly identify with Christ and his undeserved suffering and so undeservingly receive his deserved vindication. Sadly out of print, but you can read my summary of it here.

The Gospel in Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbigin:

Still swimming about in my head. He has things to say on how we know the gospel is true, and how we preach the Gospel in our culture which must be heard by the church. Particularly powerful is his challenge to the church not to accept societies categorization of religion as private truth, but to declare with conviction and love that the gospel is public truth. I'm less sure about his theology but his thoughts on universalism, election and perseverance are more challenging to me than any I've read since Calvin.

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the OT by Peter Enns:

Raises questions about how as evangelicals we deal with (rather than ignore) the way the biblical writers used and assumed the peculiar beliefs, stories and hermeneutics of their culture. I am not sure that he answered his questions satisfactorily but he sharpened the questions so that they now bother me a great deal. He also has some interesting stuff to say about theological diversity within the bible. Great to see such honest struggling with the issues, while retaining a firm desire to listen and not judge the God behind the words.

Finding Joy: A radical rediscovery of grace by Marcus Honeysett:

Dave Bish's book of the year. The first time I started it I choked on the constant references to the merit legalism of Paul's opponents (NPP influences there). I restarted it a couple of months later, and was brought back to the cross again as the most important thing. Brilliant to just think over and over about Christ's sacrifice for us. The cross is central and joy-giving!

Gospel-Driven Church: Retrieving Classical Ministries for Contemporary Revivalism by Ian Stackhouse:

Taught me two things. (i) Often what we are doing in the church today (Stackhouse's focus was on revivalism) makes what is happening here and now the most important. Rather than rejoice in what was done for us 2000 years ago we often judge whether the news is good or bad by what is happening now. This is unsustainable and will only bring disappointment. (ii) The sacraments, preaching etc are about remembering, and rejoicing in, that past event in the here and now. Stackhouse's book was very hard to pin down, and I suspect I may have not really got it.

The Theology of Paul's letter to the Galatians and Jesus, Paul and the Law by James D. G. Dunn:

Studying Galatians this summer, reading these books marked a significant acceleration in my understanding and appreciation of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). Jesus, Paul and the Law contains some great essays, including the famous one naming the NPP. The book on Galatians was less good but is well written, and has some good stuff on the Holy Spirit. I now think IH Marshall is broadly right when he said that the NPP is right in what it affirms but wrong in what it denies (I think it was him). It's a bit more complicated though.

The Triumph of Abraham's God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians by Bruce W. Longenecker:

A great example of an interpreter of Paul not bound by party-lines but believing in the triumphant God of Paul. Longenecker emphases how important ethics was to Paul in Galatians, and how he saw Christ as bringing about an apocalyptic new age for the world. Points out God's magnificent triumph over evil in both the cosmos and in the individual Christian's life. Occasionally supremely balanced in it's interpretation, and occasionally really imbalanced, it was a hard book to read. The title reveals his emphases: Paul saw Christ as doing something dramatic, bringing about the end of an evil age ('Triumph' echoing Beker's famous book emphasizing the same point); but it was also an action in continuity with the story of Israel (the 'Abraham' bit). The apocalyptic bit was personally really invigorating.

Perspectives Old and New on Paul: the 'Lutheran' Paul and his critics by Stephen Westerholm:

Taught me what I should already have known: that there are an awful lot of possible interpretations of Paul (there are not simply two camps) and most provide some fruitful avenues to explore. Paul is complicated and we are never going to arrive at a perfect understanding.

Paul: Fresh Perspectives by NT Wright:

Further convinced me that generally Wright has a lot of great stuff to say. I had already absorbed most of what he says in this book (apart from perhaps his chapter on Creation and the covenant), but it made them all a bit clearer. Far less polemical, and more balanced than his earlier What St Paul Really Said, this is a great introduction to Wright's view of Paul. Could still do with a bit more emphasis on sin (with a small 's') as personal rebellion deserving of God's judgment; but everyone should read Wright sympathetically as well as discernfully.

NRSV v. ESV

2005-12-08T11:38:00.000Z

Just a quick post to say that despite what you may have been told the New Revised Standard Version is actually quite good. The most common problem evangelicals have with it is it's liberal approach on translations of gendered terms such as 'son' or 'brothers'. I believe that some degree of gender-inclusivity is needed in our translations, in order for the bible to be translated accurately in today's culture (I am not alone either e.g. Don Carson, and Craig Blomberg agree). However, the NRSV probably still goes go to far (the TNIV is better); in contrast the ESV probably doesn't go far enough.

The most important test of a translation is how well it acheives both accuracy and readability. The Revised Standard Version was widely aclaimed in its time for both, but time has took it's toll on it's archaic language (e.g. 'Thou..'). The NRSV and the ESV are both updates of the RSV seeking to include recent research and language changes. In my experience the NRSV and RSV get draw on the changes on the basis of recent research, with perhaps the more conservative ESV translators edging it. But I really believe that the ESV dropped the ball on updating the language of the RSV sufficiently. It follows the RSV word for word an increadible amount, and although it gets rid of the most awful archaicisms I get the feeling they just didn't try very hard. An example of this that lead me to post was my Christmas card text (Heb 2:14):

RSV: Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

ESV: Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil

NRSV: Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil

This is typical of many examples I've come across in my bible reading. Both the NRSV and the ESV follow the RSV closely, and accurately translate the greek, but the ESV slavishly follows the RSV, where as the NRSV updates the language where necessary. I mean who uses the word 'partook' anymore? The NRSV definitely wins on readability (NB it occasionaly makes helpful changes in the word order as well). If only there was a New English Standard Version which makes these kind of updates, then I would not feel like a donkey unable to choose between two equally juicy carrots!

I wonder if I've now blown any chances of entering the Evangelical blogosphere.

Irregular ordinations

2005-12-08T11:15:00.000Z

English readers of this blog may have read recently about the controversial 'irregular ordinations' in the Diocese of Southwark. Many big-name conservative-evangelicals, and one little known one whom I know, all of whom I profoundly respect, have signed up in support. Still the majority of evangelicals are supporting the revoking of the license of the instigater, Richard Coekin. I am really sad about both actions. I think Richard Coekin and co. live in a very bubble-like community of Christians who share their theology which acts with a party spirit with little self-critism, when dealing with the CofE. In this bubble I think it is easy to slip into a view of seeing everyone outside as against them, and irrelavent. But we are all share the same Lord! We are still one body, one church, by God's grace not because of any self-exalting boundary-markers.

On the other hand I am deeply sympathetic with why Richard Coekin thought he needed to go down this course of action. Although I do suspect that a little more conversation would have helped, I have heard from people I know that it can be difficult for a conservative evangelical to get ordained in the CofE. I think the bishop's actions reveal a greater concern with the institution of the CofE than the unity of the body of Christ which is not contained within the former.

There is of course no reason why you should agree with my opinions, I have offered no real arguements. I suppose I wanted to let off steam rather than inform. You would probably be better to try reading Fulcrum's view for a centerist-evangelical view, or read Richard Coekin's own view in the Church of England Newspaper.

Creative stuff

2005-12-04T22:35:00.000Z

I have just noticed that Dave Bish now has two song/poem blogs (Aircon for my soul, and Scared of Aeroplanes). They are great stuff, although I am not sure why he has two. Another poetry blog about faith and it's object that I really enjoy reading is Abraham Piper's God-centred CIsongs, and I am beginning to explore the poetry of Ceryn Oakes (any more recommended blogs/books?). I used to not appreciate poetry at all, but the Open University's teaching on Sonnets made me realise a little more what it was all about. Sadly I do not have the gift of being able to write it and must leave it to the experts (admitedly I have not tried very hard, but learning piano from scratch is my first artistic priority!)

One thing I can do though is art, at least I used to be able to - I am a bit out of practice. My family is gifted that way, but at 16 I decided to head down the Maths/Physics route, only being rescued by an awful degree result, books, and the OU again. So this year I am designing and making my own Christmas card. Not entirely sure of the design yet, but I decided a long time back with great enthusiasm that I would base it on Heb 2:14-15:

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

Not your usual Christmas card stuff, but its all about the incarnation and hope, and as Doug Wilson says:

We must never forget that an essential part of the Christmas story is the stark reality of sin [...] This story has death woven through it—the backdrop is death, and sin, and tyranny. We celebrate at this time, not because we live in a sentimentalist paradise where there has never any evil, but only gently falling snow and the sound of sleigh bells in the distance. We celebrate the birth of the one who overthrew the principalities and powers. This is not a holiday that commemorates the essential sweetness and goodness of man. It is a holiday that commemorates the beginning of the story of how it came about that death finally was killed, and how the warrior who did this great thing was spared in His infancy.

Another reason to love IVP (UK)

2005-12-04T02:05:00.000Z

They have a winter sale on and it is clearly not a bare-faced attempt to clear the unpopular books out from the storehouse, rather they are trying to get people to read those books that will benefit them most. Those are books IVP are proud of.

Brief thoughts

2005-12-03T12:41:00.000Z

Behold, upon the mountains, the feet of him
who brings good news,
who publishes peace!
(Nahum 1:15)

There is no good news without violence against the enemy: Nahum 1.
Jesus takes a tack against merit legalism that should be heard more often than 'it doesn't work': Luke 17:7-10.

PS is it just me or does anyone else find the Gospels are sometimes almost too rich, a bit like chocolate fondont? Makes you wonder how they were meant to be read. We always talk about reading letters in one go, but is that what we should do with the Gospels? Should we just read one pericope and think deeply about it?

I do know I like the prophets though.

Conversations on unity

2005-12-03T00:23:00.000Z

This post is inspired by my previous in two different ways.

Interesting that the same point should be made by two Christians passionately concerned with reaching the world with the gospel but are from very different wings or sections of the church [if this does not spike any interest with you, then as we shall see: 'good on you!'].
The encouragement of both of those Christians in glory that the church should be united!

A few days back I was talking to my South-African-ex-Vineyard-pastor-friend about if there was any examples of some of the insights of the New Perspective being taught in the churches. The main two groupings we came up with (focused unsurprisingly on NT Wright) were many within the emerging church, and many within the federal vision [asking 'what?' try this, or this]. I dislike bandying about labels, but I shall not linger. I made some comment how it was striking that Wright at least, was being read by what from my distant view-point are such very different groups of Christians (one containing advocates of a literal 6 day creation, the other containing some having trouble with substitutionary atonement). My friend pulled me up: 'You are working with quite a fragmented view of the church. Why should we be surprised that Christians are reading the same books?'.

He is quite right. My surprise was a result of a failure to see the church how God does, and to keep in mind that, when it comes down to it, there are only two ways to live.

PS I wonder in the light of the above about this book:

The final apologetic...the hermeneutic of the gospel

2005-12-02T23:44:00.000Z

Francis Schaeffer said that this love and unity were the 'final apologetic'. That is, the ultimate defense of the truth of the gospel. He wrote this: 'Love - and the unity it attests to - is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world. Only with this mark may the world know that Christians are Christians and that Jesus was sent by the Father.'
(p. 92, Graham Beynon, God's New Community, Leicester:IVP)

I do not know why this idea didn't leap out at me when I read the above book. Obviously I was reading too fast again. Thankfully God pointed me to the same idea in Lesslie Newbigin:

How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross? I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel [his famous phrase], is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it. I am, of course, not denying the importance of the many activities by which we seek to challenge public life with the gospel - evangelistic campaigns, distribution of Bibles and Christian literature, conferences, and even books such as this one. But I am saying that these are all secondary, and that they have power to accomplish their purpose only as they are rooted in and lead back to a believing community.
[...] Insofar as [the church] is true to its calling, it becomes the place where men and women and children find that the gospel gives them the framework of understanding, the "lenses" through which they are able to understand and cope with the world.
(p. 227, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 122, London: SPCK)

To read more by Schaeffer on this subject try his essay 'The Mark of a Christian'.

Hmm... how to practically encourage that love and unity in my relationships. Only by God's grace I suppose: his Holy Spirit.

Oh! on that subject, have you ever noticed this thought in Luke 11:10-13:

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but doesn't it seem interesting, and as a corollary challenging and encouraging, that Jesus seems to assume that the Holy Spirit is all we could ever desire and ask God for (that is good for us).

So... I suppose with regard to my practicallity question, the answer does not stop at 'God will sort it', but must include prayer.

Luke 17 and Micah 7

2005-12-02T16:32:00.000Z

Today I read Luke 17 and Micah 7.

Lord,

My I listen to both Moses and the Prophets and the risen Jesus, may I be warned to look to eternity and the greater treasures that lie there than here. May I love the people around me and act with justice and patience.

May I remember that you are a God 'pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance' and all I have has already been bought with money too great for me to obtain, but at the same time, and for the love of your promise, listen to your word and be a shrewd manager.

Send your Spirit Lord, in the name of Christ, Amen.

---------- update ---------- Why on earth did I see fit to post a prayer? No wonder I get no commenters with such a self-indulgent approach to blogging. That's push-button publishing for you.

Bob Kauflin

2005-12-01T17:26:00.000Z

You may have noticed that Bob Kauflin has been promoted from my standard blogroll to my favourites. Like all the best Worship leaders he knows that worship is about about all of life, and not just singers. I have been reminded by him though, that all of life is about worship, with his outstanding posts. Try as a taster great posts on idolatory, thankfulness and astonishment. Go read.

+Sentamu Ebor

2005-12-01T16:25:00.000Z

Posted while being unsure that doing so is a good thing...

A lot of people, especially Anglicans, are happy about the inauguration of the first black Archbishop of York yesterday (e.g Andrew Jones). I knew quite a few people who went, and most were very exited about the choice. Of the two hour service I was only able to see a little bit while eating lunch, but thankfully this included his sermon. Preaching on what it means to be disciples he was very challenging to the church and myself. I was especially happy when he emphased how life-changing the gospel should be and how the church should be radically different, not just do different things:

The scandal of the church is that the Christ-event is no longer life-changing, it has become life-enhancing. We’ve lost the power and joy that makes real disciples, and we’ve become consumers of religion and not disciples of Jesus Christ (in The Times)

However just as I was thinking about how he had not yet brought in the Christ event, and its implications for the final day, I found real cause for dismay. He advocated constructive conversations with other faiths/no faith (I'm all for that) but without each conversation partner trying to convert the other. Instead (!) the church should concentrate on preaching to the 72% in Britain claimed to be Christian in surveys. Firstly this seems contrary to the praise he had for Britain (which he admires) for bringing the Gospel to his birth place of Uganda. Having tasted how good the Gospel is I cannot comprehend how he would deny it to others. Secondly, I cannot help but think that the underplaying of the Christ's historical death and resurection has a role in his lack of concern to convert people. Thirdly, I am sad about my beloved CofE tieing its hands and underplaying the the magnificance of the life/world/history-changing nature of the Gospel, while focusing so much on the church as we see it without the filter of Christ's work.

I'm depressed...although I know I shouldn't be. He will no doubt be a great Archbishop, and bring much glory to God... encourage the good.

Random Observations

Illustrating what discipleship looked like in the first century, he quoted a funny story from the Jewish Talmud. Of the group of bishops I could only see Tom Wright laughing... He does like his Jewish litrature.
Happy he quoted from York's own (I like to think of him that way anyway) late great David Watson:
Christians in the West, have largely neglected what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of Western Christians are church-members, pew-fillers, hymn-singers, sermon-tasters, Bible-readers, even born-again believers or Spirit-filled Charismatics – and we have got some those here this morning - but aren’t true disciples of Jesus Christ.
If we were willing to learn the meaning of real discipleship and actually to become disciples, the Church in the West would be transformed, and the resultant impact on society would be staggering.
I have this niggling doubt that this whole post is the mark of a 'sermon-taster'...hmm.
Having had recent heated conversations about whether the CofEs buildings are a net disadvantage, to proclaiming the gospel. I could not help but wonder if (i) all the pomp and ceremony was helpful in anyway (n.b I think not despite being a big fan of liturgy/sacrament; because I think they succeed in communicating even today) (ii) any Archbishop, however good or bad, would ever have that much effect on the inertia that controls so much of the CofE.
Read the whole sermon here and make up your own mind.

Jesus standing with us on the banks of the Jordan

2005-11-28T00:29:00.000Z

Try and imagine the scene. A weird looking guy is hanging about the wilderness to the East of Israel calling on people to 'prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight'; that is to prepare for the Lord leading his people back from the oppression of exile to the promised land (in the verse's Isaianic context). Of course to do this they will have to go through the river Jordon, a bit like Joshua did, to symbolise that entering of the land, and also their cleansing from the sins that previously lead to the exile. However there is no point coming to visit this man and symbolically participate in this entering into blessing unless you are going to repent and produce work in keeping with repentance. Despite this high cost, and the weirdness of it all this strange leader seems to be attracting quite a following. They do not appear to be a very impressive grouping though.

The entrance of Jesus into this situation, not to sit on the sidelines but to participate, is very hard for a Christian to comprehend. While the rite clearly holds out considerable hope it is also intrinsically a self-condemnation, and a recognition that you and your people are not in the place of promise but still in the place of punishment. John the Baptist has the same dilemma as the Christian, that this is not the actions of a sinless Son of God, but of someone who did not think of himself more highly than anyone else. Jesus' answer (that it is 'to fulfil all righteousness') quite cryptic, and for me has only added to the problems I have had with this passage. However, it convinces John the Baptist!

Light was finally shone on this passage for me a few months ago when I read this passage thinking about how it must have seemed to the people attending (not just John and Jesus), and with a mind infected with a lot of stuff from Tom Wright. 'Righteousness' Wright and others (e.g Hagner on this passage) argue can have the meaning of 'God's plan for redemption'. What sparked off in my head that this may be the case here was the word 'fulfil' which usually in Matthew (which I was reading) used for the fulfilment of scriptures. Whether or not you accept this definition, it seems to me that the glorious truth is that this is a story of Jesus beginning his ministry by identifying with a motley crew of repentant sinners with a hope. Jesus condemns himself like the crowd and goes beneath the water (understood, later at least, as symbolising death, Rom 6:3). However when he comes out of the water he is, like the people around him hoped they were, seen by God as clean and pleasing. He is called by God 'Son' a title previously (slightly ill-fittingly) held by Israel (Exodus 4:22f) and Israel's representative king (Psalm 2). Except, unlike how his previous name-sakes were so often found, he is found pleasing in the eyes of God. This is not some temporary thing either, as immediately he is then tempted in the desert just like Israel, but unlike Israel in the passages he quotes at the devil he is perfect obedience.

We repentant sinners participate in baptism with the baptism of death he suffers, but because we are participating in the symbol of his death and not just our own we are also raised with him to new life, and seen by God as pleasing. Something we could never have achieved without the supremly humble Son of God par excellence.

This truth put me on such a high a few months back. A problem-scripture became for me the most brilliant picture of the Gospel. I am only sorry I took so long to share it (I was really busy at the time). Please worship God with me for the way his Son chose to begin his ministry.

PS I could never have applied it so well without the insights of Charles Moule.

PPS although this great event's interpretation does not hang on whether or not baptism was seen by Jesus himself as a symbol of death I think Mark 10:38-39 suggests he did. James the son of Zebedee being the first martyr if I remember correctly.

Time management with God

2005-11-27T23:39:00.000Z

I wonder what some of my readers would think if I said that today I attended an Anglican church service with a woman curate preaching on ‘Balancing Act: Time Management’. I can assure you I felt much the same way especially when one of the two sermon texts was Ecclesiastes 3 (‘a time to be born, a time to die…’), a text that, as the preacher pointed out, had ‘launched a thousand tea towels’! In fact it was really good, partly because it largely ignored the title except for the word ‘time’. Obviously it was not perfect, and I added in bits, and made connections, in my head as we went along which were clear improvements ;) – who said sermons were not interactive. Anyway for my own benefit I’ll try my weak best to summarise what she said.

Ecclesiastes has a negative understanding of how significant the things we do really are. This may be contrasted with Proverbs.
Verses 1-8 must be understood in the light of what follows (vs. 9-13) and especially v.11 (‘He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.’)
Braking v. 11 up: time can be beautiful; but still we are designed to long for more; that more is in God, yet God is hard to reach and comprehend.
While we may toil under the sun, God did not stay distant but came close in Christ’s incarnation.
Looking at Rev 22 we see that time is a part of God’s plan for eternity – time is not inherently tyrannical.
We are caught in-between times trying to live in the eternity, which has already begun in our lives, while also being under the sun as Ecclesiastes describes.

It gets harder to remember the exact order of things now, but she continued along something like.

In the light of the above it may seem that it doesn’t matter what we do with our time. Paul however opposes such a view and encourages us to make the most of every opportunity, and to be alert to Christ’s coming.
If you want some time management advice try the Internet or go on a course.
Make sure you spend time with God.

This may be the first time I wish I had taken notes to a sermon. Partly I suppose because she didn’t stick to a text.

How on earth does 'the commandment' produce and 'opportunity' for Sin?

2005-11-27T22:40:00.000Z

The identity of the man described in Romans 7:7-25 has been the subject of considerable discussion in scholarly circles. I tend to agree with the growing majority that it does not refer to Paul post-conversion, but must refer to either him or Israel without Christ. However this observation has never made it easy for me to really understand how on earth, 'the commandment [not to covet], produced in me all kinds of covetousness' (v.8). It on the face of it makes no sense and obviously Paul is well aware of that and explains how this counter-intuitive sequence of events occurs because of Sin (n.b. capital 'S'). However, I have never been able to get behind this explanation to understand more clearly what is going on [this has often made me wonder whether I am just a little dim]. This is also why I’ve never really been able to understand when Tom Wright commenting on this passage says things like:

Torah could not of itself condemn sin in the flesh in such a way that it (sin) was fully dealt with. It could only heap up sin in the one place.

I have serious problems comprehending how sin can be heaped up. This is probably why I have had problems when Alistair Roberts adds that

it is important that we notice that this aspect of Christ’s death focuses on His dying for the sins of the covenant people of Israel. Christ dies for the nation first and foremost (e.g. John 11:50; Galatians 3:10-14; Hebrews 9:15). He dies by extension for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

As you can see it is not as if this is an unimportant problem concerning just this one passage either, it affects how you do biblical theology, and how you understand Christ’s death too. In the light of this two different people have been very helpful in helping me to get it together a bit more.

Alistair Roberts (again) recently wrote that:

The Ten Commandments were primarily intended to teach people how to live in God’s presence. Unfortunately, Sin starts to grow in power as it comes into the presence of God. Outside of the presence of God Sin is like a slumbering dragon. When God comes close Sin awakes and starts to rebel. Those who are brought into the presence of God will find that their struggle with Sin becomes more and more intense. This is one of the ways in which God’s Law increases the power of Sin.

This passage only jumped out at me because I had recently read Lesslie Newbigin saying:

As the coming of Jesus precipitated a crisis for Israel, so the coming of the Church will precipitate a crisis for the world. The coming of light into darkness must necessarily have this effect. In the darkness things can be hidden; when the light comes people have to choose. If Jesus was rejected, so will his mesengers. Not only so, there will be false Christs. The coming into the world of the promise of total salvation, of a radically new age, precipitates at the same time the appearing of those who offer salvation on other terms.
(The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 122, London: SPCK)

At risk of moving on to the personal without enough emphasis being paid to the corporate, you can easily understand how Romans 7 has so often been related to the Christian’s experience in the history of interpretation. We still face the battle against the old self rebelling against the presence of God as Israel did corporately and individualy. However I doubt Paul would describe the battle for the Christian as Sin vs. ‘the commandment’. Now it is the battle between Sin and the heavenly (and future) reality in Christ mediated by the Spirit. This time the result will be very different BUT ONLY BECAUSE the previous battle was fought in Israel and, after the rout, defeated by Israel’s champion: the king of the Jews.

Think about and then cultivate thankfulness

2005-11-26T13:14:00.000Z

Still busy, so if you are visiting go and read this post by Bob Kauflin:

Our culture puts a high value on being "real" as we come before God. Genuine. Vulnerable. Authentic. The Psalmists don’t hesitate to tell God when life is a mess and they’re struggling. (Check out Psalm 13, 42, and 88). But in a society where self-expression is often hailed as the ultimate virtue, I’m not sure that "being real" before God is my problem. Being thankful is.... [Read more]

Very true, and inspiring. But if our culture finds being honest to God easy more than most (and I think we do), it is strange that it doesn't seep through into our worship songs (at least the popular ones).

Examining yourself to proclaiming the Lord's death

2005-11-23T23:50:00.000Z

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (1 Cor 11:27f)

Douglas Wilson takes no prisoners debunking the far too often misunderstood meaning of this passage.

I love the Lord's Supper. To be able to be like the disciples Wilson describes, but examine yourself and see it, and then proclaim that the Lord's death has shed the blood you drink so you will not be punished (v.32)!

But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. (1 Cor 11:31)

'Jesus Christ is in the OT in the sense ‘New Israel’ is in the OT'

2005-11-22T23:34:00.000Z

I enjoyed this quote from Brevard Childs, although there is nothing especially original about it. Please feel to skip what is just another of my quote-posts.

The Christian Church retained the Old Testament not for antiquarian reasons, but because it spoke of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is not just an historical preparation for his coming, but it is a manifestation of him. Yet every time the attempt has been made to determine more precisely the presence of Jesus Christ within the Old Testament, Jesus emerges as a very shadowy figure and the Old Testament loses its real content. This uncertainty appears not only in the Biblical theologies, but reflects itself even more acutely in the pulpits of the Christian Church. In our opinion, at least the direction for a solution is to be found in the understanding of 'New Israel' as the Old Testament’s witness to reality. Jesus Christ is in the Old Testament in the sense ‘New Israel’ is in the Old Testament. Whenever Israel responded in faith, the new existence, which is Jesus Christ, was taking tangible shape. For this reason the New Testament identifies appearances of the new life in Israel’s history with Jesus Christ. Abraham saw Christ’s day (John 8.56); Moses suffered for Christ’s sake (Heb. 11.26); Isaiah saw his glory and spoke of him (John 12.41).
(pp. 105-6, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament, 1962, London: SCM)

All I would add is that the 'Old Israel' can point to the 'New Israel' and so to Christ too.

Oh to have time to post

2005-11-22T23:15:00.000Z

I've not been posting much recently. I really would like to but never seem to have the energy at the same time as I have the time (I have both but they never coincide). I'd like to post on Jesus' baptism (because it is one of the most amazing things, and it is only relatively recently that I have understood what an amazing demonstration of God's love, and our hope it is). I'd also like to post on UCCF, the Anglican Communion, and church unity (all at once, prompted by an Anglican friend and the UCCF annual report). I hope to get round to posting on the suffering of the NT church and how that effects our application of the NT (because I find it hard). I’d love to post on how I have learnt from experience that the New Perspective, properly utilised, has plenty of cash-value for application to 21st century Christian lives. I’ll properly never get round to any of them, but there it stands as a record.

Our personal God...a unquestioned foundation?

2005-11-19T15:37:00.000Z

Thanks largely to a friend I have been thinking in a serious way about apologetics for the first time in a while (I will get back to you Chris). Now having a very Newbigin-influenced, semi-presuppositional approach to apologetics I was interested to read a post by Peter Leithart on a lecture by John Franke (who has been the focus of a bit of a blogosphere hullabaloo recently). Here is Leithart on Franke's lecture:

He cited Nancy Murphy's definition of foundationalism as 1) the assertion that systems include indubitable, unquestioned beliefs that are not subjected to critical scrutiny and 2) the claim that all reasoning moves in one direction, from the indubitable beliefs outward.
Intriguingly, the respondent raised the question of whether God is "foundation" or "rock" for believers, and if that is so, should the foundation be questioned. In response, Franke clarified that he believes in ontological foundations, but disputes "classical" foundationalism. But he also noted that in Scripture believers do question God (think Jeremiah, even Abraham before Sodom). On this view, even God is not an "unquestioned" foundation.

I do not have much to say - this is way out of my league - but it seems to me (and I do say 'seems' because I do not know what Franke has to say that well) that Franke appears to have confused our personal God with a bare worldview/paradigm. This may sound like a airy fairy attempt at dodging the issue (like 'the bible is not propositional it's a story(!)') but I really do think it is key. You can question a person, without doubting their existence. Admittedly the bible character's questioning implied they had doubts, but their doubts were about whether God really could be trusted not his existence. Incidentally it should not be forgotten that doubt is not the same as unbelief.

Some of the people I got some of my thinking from:

Lesslie Newbigin; try his essay 'Certain Faith: What Kind of Certainty?'
CS Lewis; despite being anything but a fideist, believed that once you believed faith is much more a personal relationship, and faith should persist in the face of evidence if previous dealings with that person warranted trust. His essay 'Obstinacy in Belief' is brilliant if you can get hold of it.

Notes to self: Exodus 1-6

2005-11-17T19:40:00.000Z

Things in Exodus 1-6 to think about more, and to look up in the library.

Exodus 7:3 and other verses referring to the 'signs and wonders' Moses will perform to convince the people of Israel and Pharaoh. Interesting that the NT should use just the same phrase to describe the evidences of the Apostles (e.g. Heb 2:4). Also related is it of any significance that a quick computer search of the phrase 'signs and wonders' in the NT produces 11 entries all of which refer to the miracles of the Apostles (or false prophets) with the one possible exception of John 4:48?
When Moses is sent back to Egypt after earlier escaping with his life, there is real tension as you think he is going just to be executed as soon as he gets there. He sets off for Egypt on a donkey with his wife and children. Is it possible that Jesus was thinking of this passage, as well as Zechariah, when he chose to enter Jerusalem, to be executed, on a donkey (4:20)?
What on earth is going on in Exodus 4:24 and following? Why is God seeking to kill the man he has just sent, and why does Zipporah’s action solve the problem?
At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision. The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him.
What does Moses mean when he says to Yahweh that 'How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?' (6:12 and 6:30)? It only appears in these two verses in the whole bible according to my computer!

Jeff Meyers on translating 'YHWH'

2005-11-17T16:08:00.000Z

A few months ago I posted on why we should use the divine name Yahweh/YHWH instead of 'the LORD'. Jeff Meyers clearly thought of it before me, and has a lot more good reasons than me why he and his church use the name of the Hebrew God when reading the OT.

On not assuming the role of the benefactor in life

2005-11-17T14:42:00.000Z

Reading a bit of Luke today in preparation for an upcoming cell meeting I came across the parable of the Good Samaritan. I have never have totally understood the dialogue between Jesus and the Lawyer, but one thing at least explains the reason why Jesus answers the Lawyer's question with the parable. The lawyer asks the question with a desire to understand who (and who not) he has a duty to love, Jesus answers it with a parable which ends with basically the same question but this time from the perspective of the helpless not the benefactor.

Reading it today I thought back to a Sydney Anglican article on one of their recent synods (although that is not to imply they are the equivalent of the lawyer, it is just they illustrate how one could become like him):

It was a real shock. Synod is very professional/middle class, old and very white. I live a sheltered life and it is not often I come across this type of crowd. Not at work, church, or on the train. [...]
But it was the whiteness of the crowd that got to me. It felt like I wasn't in Sydney. Many of my fellow pewsitters were not there.
From some well-meant-but-revealing speeches it was clear that the "house" considers itself as made up of the "well educated". "The poor" were outsiders. [my italics]

I also thought of Mark Horne’s so called 'big lie' which I feel the point of more and more:

Every time we Christians talk about our need to reach contemporary culture we are telling a lie to ourselves and others--a lie that worsens the problem we're trying to address.
We are contemporary culture just like everyone else who is now alive. We don't have to reach anywhere. We're already here.
Speech about reaching contemporary culture reveals our ongoing effort to keep the gospel away from most of who we are.

Despite what we say, we all too often we think of ourselves as the benefactor of either God or other people. For all its faults I am deeply grateful for Marcus Honeysett's book which has powerfully reminded me that first and foremost we should be joyful, and thankful, for what God has done for us in Christ. And behind much religious sin is a attitude of considering yourself the benefactor and not the recipient of grace.

God is good, and I rejoice in what he has done.

Finding joy

2005-11-16T11:41:00.000Z

Thinking about it, all my posts recently have been a bit serious/depressing/confessional. Perhaps it's time I finaly got round to reading Dave Bish's book of the year and find joy ;)

Funnily enough I am being serious (and I supose confessional as well)!

The incarnational nature of scripture

2005-11-15T23:25:00.000Z

Sadly I am becoming a blogger who does little other than quote people at the moment. If I had a little more time and energy I would not be, but here is another quote-based post.

Rick Phillips is complaining about the recent concern of some to propagate a 'incarnational' doctrine of scripture. This approach (recently, and slightly controversially, espoused by Peter Enns book) is concerned to emphasize that Scripture is both fully of God and fully human.

I think I will record my various thoughts on what he wrote...

It is true that God's Word is both divine and human, but that does not make "incarnational" an accurate description. The message is a divine message, not a divine/human message. Its origin and content derive not from man but from God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

It seems to me Phillips is setting up an antithesis 'incarnationalists' would not accept. Being a good Calvinist I believe everything that has its 'origin and content' in humanity has its ultimate origin in God's will. Really the question is whether it it's content is after God's heart, and so whether it contains freedom or slavery; truth or lie. The humans writing scripture like any preacher today believe they are speaking in accord with the longings of God's heart, they claim that both the origin and authority for their content is God (agreeing with Phillips) but that does not mean that they would deny the 'origin and content' did not belong to them too. So when Phillips argues that: 'Warfield labors to point out that "what the prophets affirm is that their messages do not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the workings of their own spirits" (p. 93).' he is manifestly wrong. If the biblical writings did 'not represent the workings of their [writer's] spirits' they would never have bothered to put pen to paper.

Phillips then, after affirming the divine accommodation of scripture (which in fact is very similar to the 'incarnationalists' approach), says some interesting things.

But it is noteworthy, I think, that current Reformed scholarship's emphasis on the humanity of Scripture (following mainstream academia) is exactly opposite of the Bible's strong emphasis on the divinity of Scripture over against its humanity ("Thus saith the Lord," etc.). In doing so, we also de-emphasize those perspectives on the Bible that most reflect its divine nature, such as its unity, its authority, its clarity, and its power. Instead, we emphasize (and glorify) human factors, most especially the priest-academics upon whose critical-scholarly techniques we will increasingly have to rely as the Bible is more and more seen as a book of man.

I feel the sting of this comment. I want to both defend the Reformed scholarship I often follow, and follow Phillips criticism of it, and of myself with it. In its defense I would say that Reformed Scholarship is right to emphasize the humanity of scripture in the light of views such as Phillips (which as Enns points out often do as much harm as good) for reasons I have hinted at. On the other hand I feel the force of his appeal to scripture. But after a little thought I think that the reason for this can be found in the differing contexts of the two. The 'incarnationalists' emphasis on the human is right in the context of unhelpful views like Phillips, the biblical writers however were I suspect reacting against the opposite view. Perhaps the differing approaches are due to different understandings of the threat to the truth, scripture with a much more outward-looking concern, than the largely in-house argument of the 'incarnationalists'. I think of the all too few occasions I stand to defend the truth of God's word to the world, compared to the many times I think over the pros and cons of various doctrines in my own home.

I do not think it a sin to look to God's appointed teachers in the church for understanding I cannot receive alone on a desert island with my bible. However, I do confess that I too often emphasize the human part of the bible because of my fleshly desire to avoid a confrontation with God. But bizarrely this is also avoidance of the human authors own challenge!

I have disproved myself there! And when I think about it I can emphasize the divine aspect in my thought and still avoid the confrontation. I am confusing myself so I will stop.

For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thes 2:11-13)

I cannot separate the divine and human origin of scripture in my head, but sadly I can hold it at arms length however I imagine it so that it cannot work in me, as it did in the Thessalonians.

...Please pray for me. This is after all the root of all Christian life.

PS sorry for the confusingly written post, I hope you got the gist of it. I would rewrite if I had the energy, but I do not. I am glad I thought about the issues though

The two-directional church

2005-11-15T15:20:00.000Z

A similar point to that articulated by Peter Leithart in the last post is made by Oliver O'Donovan:

We tore ourselves away from them and, putting to sea, made a straight run (Acts 21:1)

A nice dramatic translation there, from The Revised English Bible, capturing the intensity of Paul's farewell to the elders of the church at Ephesus: "We tore ourselves away." And there is more "tearing away" to come. St. Paul's company puts in at Tyre; the disciples there urge him to give up his journey; but a week later they have to escort him to the beach, kneel down and pray with him, and bid goodbye. In Ptolemais there is just a single day spent with the brotherhood. In Caesarea "all the local people", we are told, "beg and implore" the apostle to stay put. Once again he will not be persuaded, but hits the road, escorted on his way again by local Christians. As we follow Paul on these last steps of his journey round the Eastern Mediterranean, we find at each place the same striking tension: the local community wants to keep him with them, he presses on determinedly to Jerusalem.
What is it that draws Paul forward towards the conflict that faces him? What is it that makes the churches want to hold him back? [...]
[...] From the beginning the church is universal and local, catholic and particular, spread throughout the world and gathered, one and many.
And as we read on in the Acts of the Apostles we find this is reflected in a twofold service that supports the church. There is the service of the word, on the one hand; and there is the service of "tables", on the other. A useful word, "tables". In the ancient world you served food on them and you used them to count money on. All material and pastoral administration is summed up in the service of tables. Out of this twofold service tradition developed the ministries we now know of bishops, priests and deacons. The essential point, however, is that the service God gives the church is always two-directional: turned inward, and turned outward. There is the intensive care of the gathering community; there is the extensive outreach of missionary communication; the inward horizon of charity, which links us in neighbourhood and mutual service, and the outward horizon of proclamation, which reaches to the ends of the earth.

This two-directional call of the church, is something I have only recently come to really understand. It is powerfully challenging.

Interestingly I have only just read Leithart express a related truth in his brilliant essay on the Kingdom of God:

I have argued in previous writings on the kingdom of God that the "universal" and "particular" aspects of the kingdom are "perspectivally related". That is, each requires and assumes the other. The universal leads to the particular because Christ rules over all things for the Church (Eph. 1:22). The particular leads to the universal because the Church over which Christ rules exists for the sake of the world.

No wonder David Field can, in a review of A Royal Priesthood, suggest that 'Peter J. Leithart, has written a small, eminently readable and accessible book [Against Christianity] which captures the key themes of O'Donovan and presents them pithily and amusingly.'

...Against Christianity has just been promoted to the top of my to-buy list.

The purpose of Christian community

2005-11-12T10:46:00.002Z

My cell is thinking about what it exists for at the moment. It's trying to regain some vision. I am desperate that we do not fall into the trap Peter Leithart describes, although I suspect I am the worse offender.

From the paean to nineteenth century New England community offered by conservative David Wells to the social Trinitarianism of the trendy postmodern theologian Stanley Grentz, evangelicals across the theological spectrum are singing the praises of community. I have great sympathy for this recent interest in (obsession with?) community. At the same time, I fear that much of it is driven by a thinly veiled nostalgic romanticism. In the face of rampant secularization and brutalization of public life, a retreat into the safe bounds of old-fashioned "community" is attractive. We can hole up in our little ghettos and wait for the storm to pass. We can nurture community life on a small scale, and leave the world to do what it likes, which is mainly to go to hell.
This is a snare, and a foolish, dangerous one. It is foolish because it perpetuates the modern heresy that confines the church to a private sphere. When we act as if Christian community is a "safe haven" in a heartless world, we are making common cause with the secularists, who are only too delighted to let us indulge our infantile communal fantasies in private, so long as we leave the public world to the (inevitably secular) grownups.
More importantly, treating community as a private retreat is a snare because it is a betrayal of the church's nature.

As an aside, I think Lesslie Newbigin would passionately agree with it all.

...When will I listen?

Critiquing some Evangelical's critique of postmodernism

2005-11-06T18:23:00.000Z

I do not really know much about postmodernism beyond what I have read in a couple of books and met on the street. It is a hot issue though for Evangelicals with a concern for mission today. When Evangelicals critique postmodernism it is often painted as denying the possiblity of knowing anything, or that there is such a thing as 'truth'. I do not really know if this is accurate or not but I have been interested to read two independent reviews of Evangelical critics of postmodernism.

First I read Joel Garver on the Don 'jack of all trades' Carson's weighty book on the subject.

In The Gagging of God Carson does a decent job of explaining "the modern," but when he turns to the postmodern, his exposition seems to forget that it is the modern against which the postmodernists are reacting. Thus, when a philosopher rejects the notion of "objective truth," Carson reads this as if it were a denial of any truth whatsoever, rather than a denial of a theory of truth that presupposes a radical subject-object dichotomy, a representationalist theory of mind, and the need for apodictic certainty in order to know anything at all.
Carson goes on to suggest that deconstructionists insist upon either absolute knowledge or complete relativism. But this is not what the deconstructionists claim. Rather, this looks to me much more like Carson's own modernist prejudices showing through, presupposing this either/or.

Elsewhere Steve Bush finds fault with Paul Helm's review of The Character of Theology by John Franke, which is quite postmodern I think.

A prominent theme in The Character of Theology is the need for the theologian to perform the theological task in full cognizance of his or her personal and social context. Helm mentions Franke’s opening discussion of this theme and then states, "Then follows what is by now an all-too-familiar apologia for the need for us to be postmodernists in theology, jettisoning claims to knowledge in the process."
This is erroneous. Franke never suggests that we jettison claims to knowledge. Rather, he rejects a particular conception of knowledge, Cartesian foundationalism, in order to attend to contextual specificity: "To be human is to be situated in the context of particular cultures and communities such that our respective communities and traditions, be they religious or secular, play an indispensable role in shaping our conceptions of rationality as well as the beliefs we deem most basic and central to them" (182). These considerations are not unique to Franke, but are well established in the philosophical literature. Franke asks theologians to take their situatedness seriously in their pursuit of theological knowledge. He does not remotely suggest that this situatedness precludes knowledge, and Helm gives us no reason whatsoever to think that Franke’s position collapses into such scepticism.

I do not know what to make of these comments yet, but will keep them in mind and try to avoid any rash comments on the subject myself.

----------------- Update: 8 Nov -----------------

Mark Horne, Kyle Newcomer, and Kyle's commenters have more to say on reviews of Franke's book... Illuminating stuff.

----------------- Update: 15 Nov -----------------

Paul Helm has responded to Steve Bush, and Steve Bush has in turn responded yet again. This post is also worth reading. It all makes for interesting reading.

The only way to unite God's people

2005-11-05T22:53:00.000Z

Only just starting to get into Peter Leithart. An great example of his insightful short posts is his recent one on the attempts of various Israelite Kings to unite the nation following the division after Solomon. Many of these are by force, but every one ultimately fails. In conclusion Leithart states:

The only effective union for Israel and Judah was their union in exile. They are tied back together in a single nation only by being united in the grave (1 Kings 13).

You can just taste the NT fulfillment!

A lot of his posts are (like this one) on Kings, and I am left looking forward to his forthcoming commentary in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible on the book.

Newbigin quized

2005-11-03T10:11:00.000Z

WALKER: If we're going to define Christianity by its centre, in what ways can you say that Jesus Christ is still 'good news for modern man'?

NEWBIGIN: Because death is conquerable; because the crucified is risen; because not just anyone rose from the dead, but this one who went down to the very depths of the human situation; because he is raised. I see Christianity as a kind of fall-out from an original explosion of joy. But of course you don't just communicate it simply by arguments. It's an existential reality present in a believing, worshipping community, and the only ultimate hermeneutic for the gospel is a believing community.

WALKER: What are your hopes for the future as far as the Church is concerned? What do you look for generally and hope for as the way forward?

NEWBIGIN: You may think that I'm evading your question, but I do believe fundamentally that the horizon for the Christian is not some prospect, some bit of futurology – either for his own personal life or for the life of his society. The horizon for the Christian is 'He shall come again' and 'We look for the coming of the Lord.' It can be tomorrow or any time, but that's the horizon. That horizon is for me fundamental, and that's what makes it possible to be hopeful and therefore to find life meaningful.

Brilliant! - especially the second answer. Read the rest here.

Instantaneous communication 30AD

2005-11-01T22:35:00.000Z

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness...

In 1 Timothy 3:16 [Paul] quotes from a fascinating little hymn which helps us here. Jesus, says the hymn, 'was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory' (RSV).
This is a summary of Jesus' career. But the ascension comes last, following the universal proclamation of the gospel and a universal response. Historically, the conversion of the world takes place in the interval between the ascension of Christ and his return in glory (and that is how Paul views it in 1 Cor. 15:22-28). But theologically, Christ returned to glory bringing with him a redeemed world, a Victor with the spoils of war in his train - and this is the thought in 1 Timothy 3:16 (as also in Eph. 2:6 and 4:8-10).
(p. 123, Israel in the plan of God: Light on today's debate, 1989, Leicester: IVP)

Steve Motyer again with some interesting and Christ-honouring stuff.

Carl Trueman on Psalms

2005-11-01T22:19:00.000Z

Off the top of my head, in frustration that Reformation 21 doesn't do comments.

Carl Trueman over at the Reformation 21 blog is arguing for the superiority of Psalms over hymns and other songs. My first response is surprise that there are evangelicals that even do that anymore. My second was that he makes some sound points and I am liable to agree. However there is a big 'but', and that is because of the fact that on the face of it there is nothing of Christ in these songs of Israel. I do know that there is really plenty in every one, but I wonder how useful it would be for the most of a congregation without a preceding course in how to do Biblical Theology like the apostles!

Ooo and another 'but' would be that we should be encouraging people to exercise their God given creative gifts to his glory here and now. And a third 'but' would be that I think that the church should not shy away from contextualization of the gospel, even in its singing (although I do not think that happens consciously at the moment anyway).

Not repeating Israel's mistake

2005-11-01T17:10:00.000Z

Steve Motyer commenting on Romans 9:19:24 writes:

Can Paul reconcile his viewpoint with the teaching of the Old Testament? his 'objectors' answered with an emphatic 'No!' But he was no mean Bible student; and in the next section he seeks to show that the present situation accords with the way god has always dealt with his people. He rejects his opponents' essentially sentimental interpretation of the Old Testament and the covenant with Israel, which regarded God as a constitutional monarch, simply signing all the bills sent to him and unquestioningly underwriting Israel's existence. No, insists Paul, he is an executive monarch, managing his people as he wills within the framework of his promises even if this means making decisions hard for his subjects to understand.
(my italics, p. 65f, Israel in the plan of God: Light on today's debate, 1989, Leicester: IVP [criminally out of print])

Later in the letter Paul writes:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. (Rom 11:17-22)

I don't know about you but as a gentile Christian I can easily see myself (and the gentile church) falling exactly like Israel did (Try replacing OT with NT, and Israel for church, in the first quote).

However I want to acknowledge my executive monarch, not a rubber stamping projection of my own desires.

From him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (11:36)

Newly discovered blogs!

2005-11-01T14:13:00.000Z

Very excited!

Just found out that Tim Chester has a blog. For those of you who do not know who he is there is a list of what his writing includes here (including an online version of his thought-provoking article Christ's little flock) and his cv here. I am a great fan of his books which display a wonderful balance between thought-out theology and concern with the church and the world. He is involved in a wonderful group of churches in Sheffield called Crowded House which also has another blogger called Andy Stovell.

Looks like I have some happy reading to come when I have the time. Sadly though discovering new blogs means others need to be taken off my bloglines feed as I cannot give the ones I read at the moment the attention they deserve.

Also newly discovered is one by David Field (lecturing at OakHill Theological College) although it seems to contain even more eclectic types of post than mine (perhaps too much so).

Food, Unity, and the weaker brother

2005-11-01T13:59:00.000Z

James’ judgment following the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 on whether the Gentiles should be circumcised runs as follows:

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."

What has struck me today is how the requirements James details focus around food, and that that may be due to the central role of the ‘love-feast’ Eucharistic meal among the early Christians. If you imagine the local church sitting down for their meal together, it would be important for Jew-Gentile relations that everyone could eat the food provided. Food sacrificed to idols or un-kosher food would offend most Jews creating disunity at the one time that unity should be most present. I am not sure but even the concern about fornication could be seen as linked to the eating of these shared meals from what I know about what happened in Greek symposia.

I think perhaps we can see why this issue was so important by looking at the letters of Paul.

In the Corinthian church food sacrificed to idols was quite an issue, and although the Jew-Gentile divide does not seem to be to the fore here I think it is helpful for understanding Paul’s approach to the matter. Eating food sacrificed to idols is perfectly acceptable to Paul as idols are only ‘so-called gods’, but he appreciates those who are unable to see this. Paul encourages the Corinthians to exercise their liberty with kindness towards those for whom feeling pressured to eat ‘defiled’ food (e.g. at a Eucharistic meal) would ‘wound their conscience’.

A similar situation is pictured in Romans, although here the issue is entwined with Jew-Gentile unity in Christ. In Romans 14 applies the same principles he described in 1 Corinthians, that as Christians we are free to eat whatever food we like (on the face of it against the Jerusalem Council letter) but with respect toward those ‘weak in faith’ who feel only able to eat vegetables (perhaps because the meat on offer had blood). This would again be a issue most keenly felt at a church ‘love feast’, we have a really strong vegan in our cell and whenever food is mentioned or eaten it becomes a real issue.

I think these passages can through a lot of light on the Antioch incident described in Galatians. Whether or not the letter was written before or after the council the same issues seem to be important. Again the issue is food, although the implications include the larger who’s-in-and-who’s-out Jew-Gentile discussion. Peter initially was happily eating with the Gentiles, and the presumption must be that he was eating the same food, indeed as Paul points out he was living like a Gentile (2:14). Peter was in Paul‘s view ‘self-condemned’ because he had already accepted that the Gentiles were included in God’s people and that the ‘uncleaness’ of food is not an issue because of his roof-top vision. However when decisive men came from James and were unable to eat the Gentile food with Gentiles, Peter showed where his preferences lay, causing the Gentile Christians confusion, and a feeling of inadequacy as their leaders deserted their ‘love-feasts’. This may have only been because of food but the connotations were obvious to all, and Peter and Barnabas could not claim to be ‘weak in faith’ as they were leaders who had already made the jump to considering food an non-issue. No doubt from Peter’s side it was not a big deal, but the implications about Jesus’ sacrifice and what that meant to church unity (who needs the legs of the body heh?) was decisive to the youngish church of Antioch.

Interesting but less important possible corollaries:

1. Maybe the certain men from James were not the problem, they just had weak faith. The problem was how the church leaders, specifically Peter and Barnabas, reacted to the this new pastoral issue. Instead of dealing with the issue as Paul does in 1 Corinthians and Romans, Peter and co. show their deep seated lack of faith in the cross (so deep that they are not even aware of it, something we all share).

2. If, as seems most likely, the Antioch incident was pre-Jerusalem Council it may explain the focus on the kosher food.

3. The most obvious contemporary application to me is the existence of a number of different services in churches (or even different churches full stop) catering to different tastes, which often contain a underlying sense of superiority of one group over the other. I’ll have to spend some time thinking of more applications.

NB I haven’t done any fresh reading of the secondary literature on these passages, as I do not have the time and just wanted to get down what I was thinking. Worryingly I cannot remember anything I have read on the passages off the top of my head. However, I had a quick look at what Jimmy Dunn has to say on the Antioch incident and he would disagree with me that the Antioch church had gone so far down the line that they were all eating un-kosher food before the men from James came. Rather the issue was much more about the ritual purity of the people at the table rather than the food on it. I would argue that years of hosting Paul would have had their effect on the church, and I think (unlike many scholars who think things can only change incrementally) we should assume that Peter followed the radical consequences of his vision through in his life.

Harriet Miers and a Christian in the UK

2005-10-26T19:12:00.000Z

Started writing about how another post in the Christian blogosphere on Harriet Miers, the Supreme Court nominee in the States, was boring me. But before I had finished it I convinced myself that it shouldn't, and doesn't!

Jonathan Edwards in his Scottish(!) context

2005-10-26T18:41:00.000Z

It’s always nice for me to discover how ideas were not worked out in a vacuum; even if everyone else either already knows they were not, or does not not care whether they were or not. In that light...I am reading The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots' Invention of the Modern World by Arthur Herman. At the moment I am reading about some of the pioneers, including a Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746).

Everyone’s ultimate goal in life, Hutcheson decided, is happiness. 'He is in a sure state of happiness who has a sure prospect that in all parts of his existence he shall have all things he desires.' Vulgar people assume, mistakenly, that this means gratification of physical desires: food, drink, sex. But for Hutcheson the highest form of happiness was making others happy. (p.74)

Sound familiar? Sounded to me like Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) – except ‘making other people happy’ replaces 'God'. I suppose that's the enlightenment for you - people-centred and optimistic about human nature. It is interesting to me how Jonathan Edwards (the philosopher as well as theologian) came along and used these same ideas, and adapted them to his more Calvinistic and God-centred theology. These sort of observations, fascinate me.

The Allure of Australian Biblical Theology

2005-10-21T10:03:00.000Z

Like the duckbilled platypus, contemporary Biblical Theology is an Australian animal the existence of which many have doubted and even mocked. Is it a hybrid? A joke? An aberration? An impossibility?

So begins a review of Interpreting God's Plan: Biblical Theology and the Pastor, ed. by RJ Gibson, in the open-evangelical (see here for term) Anglican journal Anvil (Vol 16, No.2, 1999, p. 139). Unlike the duckbilled platypus Biblical Theology is not a peculiarly Australian animal (despite what the reviewer says), but there is something special about the Australian variety. The reviewer continues:

[for Gibson et al] unless we understand the promise properly, our grasp of the gospel will be attenuated and sentimental, and probably lack an adequate eschatology. In other words, most of what passes for preaching is judged shallow and unchristian.
Although they are too polite to say so, the Australians are making an important and formidable intellectual assult on normal Anglo Saxon Evangelical theology, and the find us seriously lacking as exegetes, systematicians and pastors - in fact, since their hermeneutical key is the gospel itself, they find us lacking as self-professing evangelicals. Their case is, to my mind, unanswerable, and for all the rough edges and unanswered question which work in progress produces, this is material which must be taken on board. These are not naive fundamentalists by serious-minded theologians of considerable calibre, and their relative obscurity is a result of distance, not inability.

Probably nobody reading here has ever read the Anvil journal (my explanation is that my Dad used to subscribe), but this is a review that stands out from the rest of their reviews like a beacon. You just do not get such enthusiastic reviews of conservative books in it. Reading Tom Wright's Paul: Fresh Perspectives over the last couple of days, my mind has gone back to the effect that the other grand-narrative-theology I have been exposed to had on me at university. I give thanks to God for it. It opened up the bible for me, and although I am not a died in the wool Goldsworthyite, I would not be without it.

Elsewhere I recently discovered the blog of Brian Hedges (who I know of through his many Amazon reviews), who has just discovered Goldsworthy and crowned him his 'author of the year'. He is now posting a review of his Gospel and Kingdom in parts (so far 1, 2, and 3).

So on the testimony of two or three witnesses trust me that there is something especially alluring about Australian Biblical Theology.

To find out more try as a beginning:

PS of course there is an American variety as well but I think it's less alluring (why is another question), and the best bits of the British version are Australian anyway.

The power of biblical literature: Daniel 1

2005-10-20T09:22:00.000Z

I've finished Ezekiel in my daily reading now and began Daniel today, which begins:

1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

8 But Daniel....

Sometimes you remember why the bible is not writen like a textbook. In the first 8 verses of Daniel the (seeming) humiliation and powerlessness of the people and their God comes across so strongly, even though there is the hint of what is later developed in v.2 ('the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand'). But in vv1-7 humiliation is piled upon humiliation:

Jerusalam is beseiged.
The vessels of God are taken and placed into a the conquering god's treasury. Seemingly Yahweh like his people has been subjugated by Babylon and it's god.
The best pickings of Israel's people are taken as plunder.
This cream of Israel, relys on food handouts, unable to provide for himself. There was not even granted the responsibility to manage - the handouts were 'daily'.
They are then renamed, clearly demonstrating their ownership.
Consider as well the meaning of their new names:
- Daniel -> Belteshazzer = 'protect his life' or maybe derived from the Babylonian deity Bel (4:8).
- Azariah -> Abednego = 'servant of Nabu' (Nebuchadnezzar’s personal god).
- Mishael ('Who is what God is') -> Meshach = 'Who is that which Aku [Summerian lunar deity] is'.
- Hananiah -> Shadrach = 'command of Aku'.

That 'but' in v.8 seemed so powerful to me today. What I had read was not the whole picture, and was not permenant, God was still king. But God's ways are strange to the world and in the midst of this giant game of real-world Risk, the story chosen to tell following this humiliation is of a insignificant man trying to be faithful to his God in the middle of it all.

I love how God chooses to comunicate, I love the truth he communicates, and I love to think about I fit into what he has communicated - but not enough.

PS. that was my hundredth post!

Recovering...

2005-10-18T18:44:00.000Z

Sorry for the lack of blogging recently, I have been revising for a big Open University exam (which went ok, but not that good). I've had a proper day off today - the first in a while - and because I like reading I planned to catch up on some. But I could not face any thinking because my mind is frazeled, and reading and blogging both require thought, so I think that I will not be doing much of both for a while, even though I have lots of time.

I'm sure you will not feel the loss, but actually I came up with some really good blogging subjects when I should have been revising. I'll have to try and remember them for later.

Election implies...

2005-10-14T14:24:00.000Z

Happily, I have been reading a few bits and posts about involving the doctrine of election recently, including Dave Bish's comment that 'Election implies evangelism'. There are two ways I could think of what that could mean. One very important and encouraging one, that we were discussing in our cell meeting (on evangelism) last night, is that because it is God who changes hearts not us, anyone can have their eyes opened by God's grace (this was the meaning Dave Bish had at the top of his mind).

The other meaning I can think of is that we are elected for reasons, including being co-workers in the out-pouring of God's grace on others. This has been at the top of my mind since I read Newbigin on it a few days ago.

Probably no-one reads beyond this point in a blog post, but I think it is worth commiting the seeming blunder of quoting at incredible length what Newbigin has to say. It needs some sifting, but this has been a great source of challenge and thought for me over the last few days. That's why I thought it worth the effort to copy out every word of the following:

BOQ

In the light of this crucial passage [Rom 9-11] we can expose the false ideas which have gathered around the doctrine of election and which have made it unacceptable to many Christians as well as to others. In the first place, and most obviously, there is the idea that election is election to privileged status before God. This false belief is something against which the prophets of Israel had constantly to contend. It is indeed true that in many moving passages of the Old Testament we are told of Gods undying love for Israel, of his commitment to its cause. Yet this love and commitment are to Israel as the instrument of God's purpose of love for all the nations, and when Israel interprets God’s love as a license to do as it pleases chastisement follows. In a classic passage Amos says in the name of God, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins" (Amos 3:2). As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that to be God’s chosen people means not privilege but suffering, reproach, humiliation. Israel is called to embody in her own life God's agony over his disobedient world. And in the New Testament this comes to its final manifestation in that God's chosen one is called to suffer the ultimate agony of a death which carries God's curse, on behalf of all peoples. We know that this disastrous misunderstanding of what God's election means has persisted right through the history of the Church and to the present day, so that Christians believe that as Christians they have a claim on God's love which others do not have. The trenchant words of Paul have been quietly ignored in the history of the Church: "There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him" (Rom. 10:12). But that recognition, so far from eliminating the doctrine of election, becomes for Paul the very basis for that doctrine, for how shall they call on him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher, and how can they preach unless they are sent? It is the universality of God’s saving love which is the ground of his choosing and calling a community to be the messengers of his truth and bearers of his love for all peoples. Once again we have to remember that neither truth nor love can be communicated except as they are embodied in a community which reasons and loves.

EOQ

Bizarre!

2005-10-11T13:42:00.000Z

Far to busy too post anything proper at the moment. But I thought I would share probably the most bizarre thing I have ever encountered in a good while reading Christian blogs:

The Tentpeg song

I really don't know what to make of it at all.

Taking up the cross which should be mine but is Jesus'

2005-10-09T21:12:00.000Z

Been thinking about living a life of taking up the cross.

I think perhaps when more left-leaning (best term I could think of – liberal wasn’t quite right) folks talk about a cruciform life they often put themselves in Jesus’ shoes. This is not wrong in and of itself, as we are called to imitate him; and more live a life 'in Christ', which means death then life (in many dimensions). However, we must also realise that we are not Jesus, because although he suffered the results of Adam's curse, he did not need to, but we should have done. Our suffering must not be self-righteous; it must not be a so-called martyr complex (not least because there is joy set before us). It is only a taster of our just-deserts. His condemnation by the human authorities was the injustice of history, the suffering we take up is not unjust, we should accept it humbly. True the bible can see the horribly wrong nature of our suffering, but the reasons for that only flow out of God’s grace. Our suffering is wrong, because we are made in the image of God, and our suffering at the hands of the devil or humanity is a rebellion against our creator. Secondly, and similarly, our suffering is wrong because by God's grace we are 'in Christ' we are his brothers and his ambassadors. Because we are 'in Christ' our suffering can be considered wrong, and so we have hope because 'in Christ' we like him will be vindicated at our resurrection.

Lord, give me humility.

Legalism by Design or Default?

2005-10-07T17:44:00.000Z

Thinking and reading on the NPP again, I came across a interesting article by Tim Gallant on the Judaizers of Galatia. What opened up bright new shining streets for me though, with a little thought about tying in salvation-history as well, was just one phrase: That for the Judaizers 'Judaism becomes a merit religion, not by design but by default'. On a first re-reading of Galatians this afternoon, that could well explain both the clear focus on the Jew-Gentile relationship and the less prominent passages clearly combating legalism.

Re-reading an article by Bruce Longenecker (in this book) I found the same idea...

I think I read too fast, and with too little thought, because this happens to me time and again! Piper would be ashamed of me.

[update: and now I learn Richard Baxter would be as well:

"It is not the reading of many books which is necessary to make one wise, but the well reading of a few, could they be sure to have the best."]

...Still learning...

Old and New Perspectives...Oil and Water?

2005-10-07T10:28:00.000Z

Bruce Longenecker reviewing Moo's commentary on Romans in 1998, says some interesting things regarding the New Perspective:

The remainder of this review will give consideration to one final matter: Moo's rhetoric against the 'new perspective on Paul'. From the first page of the 'Author's Preface' (p. viii), Moo advertises his concern to critique this perspective throughout the commentary proper, while espousing a more traditional view. This reviewer had the sense that, while the 'new perspective' receives some criticism, it has nonetheless helped to refine Moo's discussion considerably. The ethnic and covenantal dimension of the law is often discussed in a way that would please most advocates of the 'new perspective'. This is especially clear in Moo's work on Romans 2, for instance, where Paul is repeatedly shown to be countering covenantal nomism directly (e.g., pp. 126-27, I3I~33, 148, 155, 157-59, 166-67, 171. 181, 215); as Moo highlights, the law 'functioned, more than anything else, to give Israel its particular identity as a "people apart" (p. 145; cf. pp. 146, 166, 398). Dynamics of this sort are far more evident in Moo's commentary than in, say, C. E. B. Cranfield's commentary of 1975, evidencing that the more recent discussion has contributed significantly to the perception of issues, even among those who are unsympathetic to the 'new perspective'. While Moo polemizes against the 'new approach to first-century Judaism' that is largely indebted to the work of E. P. Sanders, finding it to be 'ultimately inadequate' (p. 208), he nonetheless seems unaware of the extent to which he himself has benefited from that approach.
[…]
In the light of this, I look forward to the day when commentaries on Romans move beyond the polemical 'either-or' that currently plagues the issue of 'Paul and the law'. The 'new perspective' has proved especially helpful in highlighting the social dimension of the matter, but may not have given enough attention to Paul's description of the desperate condition of humanity which frequently underlies his critique of Jewish covenantalism. On the other hand, while traditional views have made much of this 'anthropological' component of Paul's critique, they have not always been attuned to the significant 'social' dynamics that Paul seeks to address. Moo's commentary often attempts to do justice to both aspects, and on this he is to be applauded. But his polemic against the 'new perspective' reinforces a sense that the two perspectives are like oil and water. That is unnecessary and unhelpful, as even his own commentary shows. (Perhaps his attack on the 'new perspective' arises from an assumption that the traditional view has a more practical and pastoral cash value for contemporary Christians, serving to keep Christians dependent upon Christ alone; see, for instance, Moo's comments on the bottom of p. 216.) How might this unnecessary trap be avoided in the future? Perhaps the first thing to abandon is the perception of the new and traditional perspectives as two monolithic and mutually exclusive entities. In fact, there are many variations of position within both perspectives, with advocates of one perspective often articulating matters in a way that also includes elements of the other perspective. My hope is that the 'either-or' rhetoric of commentaries such as Moo's will come to be seen as the product of a particular era in scholarship, an era that quickly gave way to a more productive scholarly environment. Rather than going another round allowing the same dichotomizing agenda to determine the presentation of issues, perhaps we might hope for the appearance of commentaries that break out of the rhetorical constraints which mark out the current discussion. Whatever its other strengths might be, on this score Moo's commentary fails to set a constructive agenda for the future, being instead a product of its time.

(my italics, Longenecker, Bruce W. Review of The Epistle to the Romans, by Douglas J. Moo, Journal of Theological Studies 1998 49: 766-772)

It's not online I'm afraid, unless you have a subscription, which the Open University gives me despite the fact I don't study Theology...I love the OU.

Meanwhile, Ligion Duncan has a useful summary of Sinclair Ferguson's recent critical lecture on the NPP, which, while it made some good points, does nothing to overcome the 'either-or' impasse.

Newbigin and Universalism

2005-10-06T13:11:00.000Z

Having just posted on how I was really enjoying reading Newbigin, but that he wasn't saying anything that I hadn't already absorbed from his previous writings, his next chapter on Election, has me really struggling in deep water. He writes on how Election should not be a doctrine which creates self-satisfied people, but that God elects some in order to bring salvation to all (drawing upon Romans 11). In the last page of the chapter, he then brings up the question that everyone must be asking: Does his doctrine of election lead to Universalism - is every individual saved?

He is clear that he realises that some people will be not be saved, but he doesn't want to say who. He does not even want to say what sort of people! However, he notes with approval that Paul worried about his salvation, and thinks Christians should do likewise. He likes the fact that in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25), both the saved and lost are suprised by their fate (in his view). He also likes the fact that when Jesus is asked whether there will be few or many who are saved, Jesus' doesn't answer but encourages the questioner himself to seek the narrow way (Luke 13:23ff).

I am very confused about what to think. He seems to be saying a lot of true things, but I don't think he can be right. Skiping forward, I discover that this does not affect his zeal for mission, as he thinks that mission is human-centered when concerned with saving souls, when it should be concerned with giving glory to God, which comforts me a little.

Because he wrote so much, he repeated much of what he said so you can read him on Universalism from page 9-11 here, thanks to Newbigin.net, or read his answers to some related questions (2 and 4) here. If anyone has any insights please tell me, I think I will have to ring my uni friend who introduced me to Newbigin, and see what he has to say.

On top of the Universalism point he said a couple of other things in what I read last night which made me sit up and think...Just when I was getting comfortable with him!

The story of the Blind Men, the Elephant, and the King

2005-10-05T13:08:00.000Z

I bet you've been told the Indian fable of the blind men and the elephant in one form or another. A King asks some blind men who have been directed to an elephant:

"'Tell me, blind people, what is an elephant like?'
"Those blind people who had been shown the head of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a water jar.'
Those blind people who had been shown the ear of the elephant replied. "An elephant, your majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.'
Those blind people who had been shown the tusk of the elephant replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a plowshare.'
[...]
Those blind people who had been shown the tuft at the end of the tail replied, 'An elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'
"Saying 'An elephant is like this, an elephant is not like that! An elephant is not like this, an elephant is like that!' they fought each other with their fists. And the king was delighted (with the spectacle).
"Even so, bhikkhus, are those wanderers of various sects blind, unseeing... saying, "Dhamma is like this!... Dhamma is like that!'"

It is a story often used by those in favour of either agnostism or syncratism in talking about the plurality of religions. The elephant represents god, the blind men, adherents of various religions; but who is the story-teller? Lesslie Newbigin, long-time missionary to India, understands:

The story is constantly told in order to neutralize the affirmation of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognize that none of them can have more that one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind there would be no story. The story is told by the king, and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth which all the world's religions are only groping after.
(The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 9, London:SPCK)

I thought I would give you the smallest of Newbigin tasters, in the light of my previous post. One might also ask, what if the elephant could speak?

Two things I am enjoying at the moment

2005-10-05T12:44:00.000Z

Mark Horne's sermon on the Christian's armour (Eph 6). Amazing exposition focusing on how Paul is calling on us to put on God's own armour (see Isaiah 59:17) and carry out God's purpose of bringing salvation by so doing. It's a absolute must listen!
I am also reading some Lesslie Newbigin again, this time The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Although I haven't finished it yet, I am already ready to say that it is the best book I have read this year. (Not the most personally important, as I have already absorbed much have what he has to say, but the one I would most happily recommend as worth every minute for everyone who reads it.) It is so in touch with what is going on in society, despite writen by an eighty-year-old 15 years back, and so rightly shows how Christian's should interact with it. It's not too academic but it is deep, and faithful. I have wanted to post quotes from almost every other page, but have resisted because if I post one I will have to post the rest.

Hebrews 2: Jesus the forerunner

2005-10-05T12:06:00.000Z

Just starting to read Hebrews one-to-one with someone and spent much of last night thinking through chapter 2, specifically:

It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. But there is a place where someone has testified:

"What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?
You made them a little lower than the angels;
    you crowned them with glory and honour
    and put everything under their feet."

In putting everything under them [or him], God left nothing that is not subject to them[or him]. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them [or him]. But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

(Hebrews 2:5-9 TNIV)

I started with my ESV which translates as 'him'/'his' (as does the NIV) instead of 'them'/'their' (as TNIV/NRSV) the words in doubt, and I gave myself a right headache trying to understand how the passage made sense. Under the ESV/NIV the quotation is understood to be talking about Jesus, even though it was originally about humanity (no problem their though), and the Hebrews problem was that Jesus did not seem to be ruling the world, with glory and honour. He didn't seem to be ruling because his followers were being persecuted, not vindicated - this was no abstract theological problem for them. How does the author answer this concern of theirs? He says 'But...see Jesus...crowned with glory and honour' - You don't see Jesus crowned with glory and honour...but look he is! It makes no sense!

So although I know no Greek, I have to go with the TNIV/NRSV because they make sense of the argument...the encouragement to these suffering Christians. It really blowed me over last night as I understood it for the first time. The Hebrews problem was that they did not see humanity crowned with glory and honour. They were still subjected to the fear of death (v.15), despite being the new humanity restored to the image of God! The author's encouragement to them is to look at Jesus who came alongside suffering humanity (a point that the author drums home again and again this chapter) but is now no longer in that lowly state but is crowned with glory and honour. In fact, chapter 2 insists, this suffering was necessary for him to be crowned with glory and honour.

This is an encouragement to the Hebrews because they can 'share in Christ' (2:14)! Jesus went as a 'forerunner' (6:20) and we can follow him. But like him we need to suffer first.

This is great, especially for my new Christian friend who is just beginning to realise that the Christian life is not all sweetness and light. Although I dread trying to communicate how humanity's place is as ruler over creation, and how that is good for everyone. Creation may in some ways now make life hard for us in consequence of God's curse, but it does long for humanity to be restored to its right place, in a right spirit. There are few things I fear communicating to 21st century people more than this idea, yet it is so central to the bible, and to the gospel, it cannot be avoided.

PS I realise that I have not covered all that is going on in this passage, and that very little of it is ground-breaking. But I wanted to record the happy time I had last night with God and the author of Hebrews, and my fears over passing it on.

What God has joined together

2005-09-29T09:57:00.000Z

Ben Witherington (top class scholar) has just posted on what Jesus and Paul have to say about Marriage. He thinks that the NT era means that we are no longer required to 'Be fruitful and multiply', at least in the same way as Adam did. Which is intriguing. But he has some other thoughts as well, including:

Not all persons who get married in the church building have been "joined together by God". Think about it. In the first century A.D. when Jesus and Paul were speaking there were no church buildings, there were no certificates of marriage that were just like modern ones, and weddings, at least in early Judaism, did not require ordained rabbis to solemnize them. What then made a marriage a Biblical marriage if it wasn't the officiants, the piece of paper, or the locale where it transpired? The answer is that God led two people to be together, they made vows and promises in the presence of God and human witnesses and they agreed to 'plight their troth' to one another. That's it.

In fact, I would stress that a lot of Christian persons have raced into marriage ceremonies without really seeking out the spiritual basis for what they are doing, without really asking, Is God leading us together? Even Christians are capable of coupling themselves together, just as non-Christians do, without the permission, guidance, or blessing of God. If God has not joined them together, or if they are not prepared to submit their relationship to God after the fact and beseech God so he will indeed join and bless their togetherness, then they do not meet either the pre-requisites for what Jesus and Paul say about marriage, or the pre-requisites for what they say about divorce.

Now I don't know about his application to today, but I have never really thought through in what way the married are 'joined together by God'. I have always assumed that it is because men and women were created to be 'joined together', so if they do get married they are automatically joined together by God. I may be wrong though, but I don't see any biblical justification for Ben Witherington's own idea in the two NT texts using this terminology.

On the subject of what constituted marriage in biblical times, I am no scholar but I always found 1 Corinthians 6:16 ('Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."') thought-provoking. It uses the phrase 'one flesh' which is used with both the 'God has joined together' passages. Sex it would seem is important to God, because it means quite a lot.

I am hesitant to post this post as I am not in the least qualified, being 100% single, and having not even read I Kissed Dating Goodbye! But I don't think it can do too much harm, although feel free to correct me.

So... what is the Gospel anyway?

2005-09-27T21:54:00.000Z

..editing

Garbled thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount

2005-09-27T08:50:00.000Z

I'm still thinking about the Sermon on the Mount. In this post I will recount some of my thoughts and reading over the past week, in a garbled fashion which mirrors my own thinking.

Graham Stanton on the Sermon on the Mount:

Luther also discussed the Sermon in terms of 'law' and 'gospel'. In some of his writings he emphasized that the Sermon is the 'law of Christ' that makes people aware of the gospel of God's grace through Christ: 'we are not able properly to fulfill one tattle out of our own strength...but must always crawl to Christ.' But in other passages Luther stated that the Sermon is not just the accusing law that points to sin: it is also 'gospel'. This is especially true of the beatitudes (5. 3-12). Christ 'does not press, but in a friendly way entices and speaks: "Blessed are the poor."'

By referring in different passages in his writings to the Sermon both as 'law' and as 'gospel', Luther confused some of his later followers. Many Lutheran theologians have stressed that the Sermon is the law that awakens knowledge of sin. But some (notably J. Jeremias [1961]) have claimed that the demands of Jesus in the Sermon are preceded by 'gospel', that is, by his proclamation of the kingdom and by his encouragement to his disciples to share his own sense of sonship.

(p. 292, Stanton, Graham N., A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew, 1992, Edinburgh:T&T Clark)

I think Luther knew what he was doing more that Stanton thinks he did, and I think both can be maintained.

Ulrich Luz says that Jesus' 'doctrine, the "gospel of the kingdom", is contained in the Sermon on the Mount' (p. 42, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew, 1995, Cambridge:CUP) at the beginning of his discussion on it. However he never really expands on why he thinks it is good news. I agree with Stanton though that we should remember that the sermon is just one of five discourses in Matthew, and so we should not assume that it contains all Matthew wants to recount of Jesus' teaching.

Tom Wright pointed out the obvious (that I missed) that all the obvious parallels to Moses' giving of the law means we should see what Jesus' is doing as inaugurating the New Covenant. Parallels with the Mosaic covenant are helpful. For example, you can think of how the ten commandments are purposely set in the context of Israel's redemption ('I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery...You shall...'). Or you can compare the beatitudes with the blessings/curses of Deuteronomy 28 which is no doubt what Jesus intended. But I do not yet have any conclusions on these comparisons yet.

Jesus' claim to fulfill the law I am convinced must be understood in much the same way as the numerous other references to fulfillment in Matthew, but am not sure what that means yet. Also concerned with the context of the sermon in salvation history, I remember a lecture of Don Carson once where he posed the interesting question, will their be laws in heaven (and the New Creation)? Living in the overlap of the ages I think this is the most profound question in NT ethics. I haven't yet worked out how that applies to the sermon though.

God's desire for his glory, his intra-Trinitarian Love, and John Piper

2005-09-26T23:21:00.000Z

Just read a post by wink called Why I am no longer a Piperite which is very intelligent and insightful. The best bit is critique of Piper's central concern that God is most concerned with his own glory. He says:

Frankly, I don't think that the traditional Glory of God model is worth salvaging. While the Bible consistently talks about God being concerned for His own glory, I do not agree that His own glory is His ultimate concern. Rather I think that God's inter-Trinitarian love is His ultimate concern. That is to say that the Father's highest concern is to love the Son, and the Son's is to love the Father. Similarly so with the Spirit. Piper takes care to reject this idea using John 17:24-26. Piper states:

From these texts we learn that through all eternity God the Father has beheld the image of his own glory perfectly represented in the person of his Son. Therefore one of the best ways to think about God's infinite enjoyment of his own glory is to think of it as the delight he has in his Son who is the perfect reflection of that glory (See John 17:24-26)...As God the Father contemplates the image of his own glory in the person of his Son, he is infinitely happy." (Desiring God, pg 33)

Thus, according to Piper, God loves the Son because the Son reflects the Father's glory. However, this is in flat contradiction to the very verses he uses to make his point. John 17:24 says "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." The beloved disciple makes is clear that the Father glorifies the Son because He loves the Son, not the other way around as Piper asserts. Glory is a by-product of Love. (It is possible to glorify someone without loving them. But I assert that it is impossible to love someone with out glorifying them.)

The doctrine of the Trinity is enough to give anyone a headache, but it seems to me that the placing of intra-Trinitarian love as central is dead-right. However, that does not negate the importance of Piper's concern for God's glory, as the glory of each other is so important to each member of the Trinity because of their love for each other. Applying that to us we should love the Father/Jesus/the Spirit and so desire their glory, not visa versa, which should also prevent cold-hearted seeking after God's glory that Piper himself so dislikes.

Wink's second criticism, in my opinion, doesn't stick quite as well largely because he has not absorbed Piper's point that everything you desire/seek/do is done for pleasure. So when Wink argues, against Piper seeking joy in loving his wife, that 'his motivation should...[be] his wife herself' he does not seem to understand that that sort of statement is really just shorthand for 'his motivation should be his own joy in his wife herself'. Seeking joy is not something that you can choose not to do, everything you do is seeking joy whether you like it or not. You can only choose to find joy in something over another.

If you appreciate Piper though go and read the post carefully, it is very good. If you like you can read his review of God and the Gospel too.

HT: Adrian Warnock who sees controversy where I see quibbles.

PS do not get me wrong, I think Piper's God centered theology is greatly needed in the world (I was going to write church, which would have been bad) today. I certainly thank God for how he has used him in my life.

A waste of time and ink? 1 Chronicles 27

2005-09-26T23:14:00.000Z

A few days back I had the amazing privilege to spend a day with a friend from uni and his wife to be, and to join them in their daily bible reading. They’re great people. They were due to read 1 Chronicles 27-28 and were celebrating the fact they had almost finishing the lists and genealogies that the Chronicler was so fond of. I shared their sentiment.

However, as 1 Chronicles 27 was read out, I tried to imagine what the post-exilic Jews (subjects of the enormous Persian empire) who first heard the list read would have been thinking. Hearing it read aloud was a great benefit as so often when you read them alone you skip them over, or your brain switches off as you try and remember 2 Tim 3:16.

It begins by describing how the army was organised so that every month of the year was covered by a division of 24,000, a number drummed into your head by the repetition. However, there is no mention of war here (they have been fought and one) but the country is safely protected by this ordered force. The list of commanders from all corners of a united nation tells a different story to the post-exilic Jews for whom a united nation must have seemed little more than a myth. Reinforcing this the next list tells of the leaders of each tribe. The latter Jews, and us, are then treated to a list of David’s (and the nation’s) great and diverse wealth, all organised by different named people. The lists communicate a sense of stable prosperity to me than any prose ever could, making much more real than vague descriptions.

This picture of prosperity, unity, peace, independence, and above all ordered stability must have seemed like a dream to the post-exilic Jews who knew only poverty, could not imagine unity, could not remember real peace, could not foresee independence from such a great empire, and had been buffeted from one corner of the known world to the other with not even a stable subjugator. All this is intimately connected by the Chronicler to the person of David, the designer of the temple who had a heart after God's own. Chapter 28 is basically David's challenge to Solomon and the people to follow his example (and to go further in completing the temple), and serve God 'with a whole heart and with a willing mind'. The benefits will follow forever if they obey God’s commandments.

Saul never really gets a look-in in Chronicles, and the narrative only really starts from this great height for the people of Israel. The rest of Chronicles charts the continually falling fortunes of the people, that is until there is a glimpse of light when the exiles return at the end by Cyrus' decree, which is not that the people return, but that the temple is rebuilt (necessitating the peoples return). I imagine the original hearers must have been filled with a sense of what could have been if Solomon and the people had been up to David’s challenge. At the same time looking on a different temple they must also have been challenged themselves to follow David's example, and looked for God to bless them in it. Maybe they could do better this time. A true descendent of David to rule over them would help as well though...

I came out of that time buzzing with thoughts of God’s blessing...I have had a great time recently reading the bible with others.

PS feel free to pick me up if you think I have Chronicles, and especially chapter 27, all wrong. I haven't really read it for a long while.

Blog Redesign

2005-09-23T20:44:00.000Z

I've adapted the underlying standard Blogger template which my blog has had since the beginning. It's a bit more of a clean look, perhaps even clinical (perhaps a sad reflection of my character). But it is only the result of a few hours work, most of which was spent trying to work out how on earth you used Paint Shop Pro to create the image at the top (btw thanks to 4 Free Image Host for hosting that). It needs more fiddling, but that will have to wait for another night when I both have time, and don't feel like thinking.

It's not like I get many visitors to impress, although I now have 4 links according to Technocrati, a record for me (Although the generous Dave Bish accounts for 3 of those). This suits me fine as I already worry too much about the damage push-button publishing could do in my hands (and only slightly less about how I consistently embarrass myself).

The Beatitutes are Good News!

2005-09-22T15:01:00.000Z

The Beatitutes (Matthew 5:1-11) have never been a favourite passage of mine. They have always seemed to me to have the flavour of 'do this, and this, and this, ...etc and you will be blessed', and as a card-carrying Protestant I find that hard to like. Jeff Meyer's recent post entitled The Gospel in the Gospels made me think about them all over again. I am not sure about much of what he has to say, although it is very thought-provoking, but he pointed out that the few verses before the Sermon on the Mount should control much of our understanding of what Matthew was doing. 4:23 reads:

And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.

That could be described as Matthew's summation of Jesus' ministry, and when chapters 5-7 are the Sermon on the Mount and 8-9 are various healing miracles, it suggests 5-9 is an expansion of that one verse. That does suggest to me that the Gospel is proclaimed in the Sermon on the Mount (even if not all of it). And I now agree with Jeff Meyers that:

the Good News of the Kingdom is that those who teach and live according God's instruction as laid out in the Law and Prophets and embodied in Jesus' life will be called great.

That the Beatitutes are a message of Good News to the poor in spirit, the mourners, the meek etc seems obvious. How I for all this time read them as a How-to-be-holy-and-so-blessed guide, when they are a proclamation of something God is going to do for his faithful people, is beyond me.

Jeff Meyers deserves to be heard again:

Okay. So how is THIS good news?

Whether anyone in this life recognizes it or not, those who seek to be scrupulous about their conformity to God's instruction are blessed by God.

This is NOT to say that they merit God's favor or that they earn their position of greatness by means of brownie points with God. Rather, remember, Jesus is speaking to his disciples, to the Israel of God who have been chosen by God, graciously redeemed by God, favored by God's unmerited love and grace, and made part of his kingdom.

This train of thought lead me to a few other passages which are along the same theme:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn;

(Isaiah 61:1-2)

And Mary said, "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant. For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name. And his mercy is for those who fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts; he has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.

(Luke 1:46-53)

I still think out loud...

PS. I think Jeff Meyers is saying something quite different to me, so please read his own stuff before catagorising him (even then you may struggle).