Using the imagination in apologetics

I've been listening to some lectures on apologetics by Alister McGrath. In them he explains how you can respond to the argument of Ludwig Feuerbach (and carried on by Marx, Freud and others) that 'when we think we are talking about God, we are in fact, just talking about ourselves... [that] just as a film projector throws images on to a blank screen, we project [our ideas] on to that ultimate reality and call them God' (p.5, Tom Smail, Like Father, Like Son).

McGrath explains that we can easily show the logical incoherency of this, but there are other ways of showing up the argument for what it is, and one of those is by employing our imagination and telling a story. He quotes CS Lewis' The Silver Chair where Scrub and the Prince are being held captive in an underground kingdom and arguing with the witch that is holding them that there is an overground world. She mocks them in their 'faith'.

"What is this sun that you all speak of? Do you mean anything by the word?"

"Yes, we jolly well do," said Scrubb.

"Can you tell me what it's like?" asked the Witch (thrum, thrum, thrum, went the strings).

"Please it your Grace," said the Prince, very coldly and politely. "You see that lamp. It is round and yellow and gives light to the whole room, and hangeth moreover from the roof. Now that thing which we call the sun is like the lamp, only far greater and brighter. It giveth light to the whole Overworld and hangeth in the sky."

"Hangeth from what, my lord?" asked the Witch; and then, while they were all still thinking how to answer her, she added, with another of her soft, silver laughs: "You see? When you try to think out clearly what this sun must be, you cannot tell me. You can only tell me it is like the lamp. Your sun is a dream; and there is nothing in that dream that was not copied from the lamp. The lamp is the real thing; the sun is but a tale, a children's story."

Luther's rules for studying theology

Luther's rules for studying theology, which he sees as almost synonymous with the study of the bible, may surprise you. They are:

1. Prayer, because you know that you cannot understand anything without the Holy Spirit enlightening you.
2. Meditation, by which he means 'not only in your heart, but externally' by talking, speaking, singing, hearing, and reading the same passage over and over again.
3. Anfechtung, by which he means the devil harrying and assaulting you.

[see "Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther's German Writings" [1539] in Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Vol 1]

Travelling widely in our backyard

Mark Meynell quotes Eugene Peterson:

Henry David Thoreau, one of our canonized American sages, wrote of having "travelled a good deal in Concord" (the small New England village in which he spent his life). An item in the oral tradition that formed around Louis Agassiz, the celebrated Harvard biologist and professor, remembers that he returned to his classroom after the summer vacation and told his students that he had spent the summer travelling and made it halfway across his backyard. I want to hold out for travelling widely in Holy Scripture. For Scripture is the revelation of a world that is vast, far larger than the sin-stunted, self-constricted world that we construct for ourselves out of a garage-sale assemblage of texts.

(p.45, Eat This Book)

Isn't that beautiful? I want that too, but get easily distracted.

Martin Luther wanted us to do the same. He commented:

I would have been quite content to see my books, one and all remain in obscurity and go by the board. Among other reasons, I shudder to think of the example I am giving, for I am well aware how little the church has been profited since they have begun to collect many books and large libraries, in addition to and besides Holy Scriptures [...]

It was also our intention and hope, when we ourselves began to translate the Bible into German, that here should be less writing, and instead more studying and reading of the Scriptures. For all other writing is to lead the way into and point toward the Scriptures, as John the Baptist did toward Christ, saying, "He must increase, but I must decrease" [John 3:30], in order that each person may drink of the fresh spring himself [...]

My consolation is that, in time, my books will lie forgotten in the dust anyhow, especially if I (by God's grace) have written anything good.

(pp.7-8, "Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of Luther's German Writings" [1539] in Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Vol 1)

I've always found this a funny thing for such a voluminous writer to say. There are a few naiveties about the both Peterson and Luther describe things too (but they know that). Nevertheless, I want to be a person who drinks thirstily from the spring, even if that means I miss out on other things.

Tom Smail on The Holy Spirit

I have a whole host of posts in my head at the moment and I want to get them down before I forget them all. Unfortunately I'm also quite busy and so I'm going to be short on analysis and comment and long on quotes and notes.

I'm really enjoying Tom Smail's book Like Father Like Son, even when I don't fully agree with it. I use the word a lot but it really is thought-provoking.

A difficulty with talking about the Holy Spirit is in keeping two things in balance. We can so understand his personal-nature that we seperate him from the other members of the Trinity and describing him as working outside of or apart from the finished work of Jesus and the finished written word. On the other hand we can understand him as an impersonal force which just a tool of the Father and the Son and not in anyway distinguishable from him. I know I have often not kept things in balance, but I think Tom Smail does quite well:

"He will glorify me because he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:15). Pannenberg has fastened on this verse as a basis for understanding the Holy Spirit as a source of personal action distinct from the Son. The Spirit brings to the Son, from outside his own person, a new glory that he does not have within himself. Nevertheless, in the work of the Spirit it is the Son who is glorified. The focus of the work of the Spirit is the work of Jesus, not some work of his own that he accomplishes apart from or beyond Jesus. The Spirit is the one who unfolds all that is implicit in the work of the Son, applies it creatively and transformingly in the mission of the Church across the continents and down the centuries in an endlessly enthralling kaleidoscope of new creation in the men and women who, in the Spirit, are brought into the power of the love of the Father as it is savingly incarnate in the love of the Son.

(p.184, Like Father, Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in our Humanity)

Al Jazeera on Iraqi converts

HT Glen.

I suppose this shows how I am far from worldly-wise, but this video really surprised me. Not because there are Iraqis who become Christian - I am slowly starting to realise that God is doing far more than I could ever keep track off everywhere in the world. No, I found it surprising that such irrational suspicions could be propagated in such a coldly rational way, by clearly intelligent and educated people.

A review of The Gospel Centred Church

This is a short review/summary of The Gospel Centred Church by Steve Timmis and Tim Chester for students in my church.

Steve Timmis and Tim Chester are leaders in a network of house churches in Sheffield. They wrote this short 'workbook', which is published by the Good Book company, to help individuals and groups think through their church life. It is notable for not arguing for certain church structures or activities for pragmatic reasons but because of what the Gospel implies. The Gospel-Centred Church that the book wants to see is a church 'in which the whole of its life and activities are shaped by the content and imperatives of the gospel'. To help us evaluate whether we are being faithful in this calling it identifies 3 key priorities of the church:

1. The priority of mission
2. The priority of people
3. The priority of community

They assert that mission is the central purpose of the church in the world. Given that. they argue that every church member should be involved in mission and should do so confidently and daringly. We shouldn't stay hunkered down in our 'cosy, safe ghettos' but go out to the ends of the earth. You may question this and ask whether there are more central purposes of the church such as worship. After all as Andrew pointed out to me last night we will not be doing mission after the second coming of Christ. However, worship we all know is a whole of life thing and so mission and worship are not two opposing purposes we have to hold in balance but 'in the world' they are welded together. Mission should not be one of many activities we do but should be all that we do. We therefore worship as we go on mission.

So everything that we do as a church and as individuals should be measured by our faithfulness to this priority. Does the priority of mission shape the decisions you make about where you live and work? Does it shape your prayers and your meetings together as Christians? Does it effect the standard of living you expect?

But if mission is the central purpose of the church, what is the church? As we have been considering quite a lot recently the church is the people of God. As Timmis and Chester put it 'The church exists wherever believers are covenanted together under the authority of the word of God.'

This means that mission is not a question primarily of programmes or events. It does not require a building or paid staff. It is done by everyone because everyone is part of the church and it is often low-key and through long-term relationships.

Church leadership should then enable people to serve and not shape activity around 'things'. But the priority of people also means that the whole church has to be involved and active. The leadership are not the church but we all are. That means we cannot be passengers but must have our lives shaped by the priority of mission too.

But the priority of people could lead to lots of isolated individuals going off doing their own personal missions. This is not what God intended. He wanted the church to be doing mission and the church is a community of people. Hence the third priority is the priority of community.

This is a great comfort as we are not alone in our mission. It is not us up against the world. We can do mission in partnership, and in fact this is the best way to do it. Jesus prays in John 17:

'The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.'

Timmis and Chester put it like this: 'a Christian community is a persuasive apologetic for the gospel'. People who are not yet Christians are attracted to the community of self-giving love that the church should be. They may be initially attracted to that community itself but Jesus recognises that by seeing that community in action they come to know God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are united in a community of love which is imaged in the new humanity of the church. But like the Trinity our community should not be closed and exclusive but outward-looking, welcoming and inclusive. This means we should asking questions of ourselves such as whether when we meet together we can be understood by non-Christians present. Nobody should feel on the fringes.

So lets think about how we can reach friends, and those we have never even met yet through exposing them to the church which is shaped by the Gospel. Lets ask ourselves how how we we can build relationships as a community of people with those outside the church.

So that is my take on the book. It is well worth a read, but it is not a book you can passively read in a comfy armchair. It is a workbook. It is quite provocative and you may not agree with all of it. It is always (literally) asking questions of you, but also providing plenty of stimulating answers.

Pessimistic or Optimistic

In the pub today a friend related how he went to a couple of churches before he got married in order to fulfil the criteria to get married in a church building. One he said was fire and brimstone, the other more positive. He asked me which I would indentify with. I was able to steal a comment from John Stott in a sermon on Ephesians he preached in 1971.

I said I was deeply pessimistic about humanity, but very optimistic about the power and love of God. He liked that.... thank you John Stott.

Reigning in life

"because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." (Romans 5:17)

John Stott comments on this verse:

It is not simply that the reign of death is superseded by a reign of life, for it is not life which reigns, but we who are said to 'reign in life'. Formerly death was our king. Death reigned over us and we were its subjects, slaves under its totalitarian tyranny. We do not now exchange death's kingdom for another kingdom, so that we remain slaves and subjects although in a different sense. No; once delivered from the rule of death we begin ourselves to rule over death and all the enemies of God. We cease to be subjects and become kings, sharing the Kingdom of Christ.

(p.27, Men Made New: An exposition of Romans 5-8)

They do joy

I don't like much about U2, and in the UK I'm not alone. However, my housemate likes them, especially their lyrics, so maybe I'm just a stick-in-the-mud. Sean O'Hagan comments in The Observer that U2 break the unwritten rules of British rock stardom because instead of angst they do joy. "And spiritual joy, to boot. This made them unfashionable in Britain, the irony capital of the world, where sincerity, especially sincerity tinged with spirituality, is seen, at best, as uncool, at worst as downright embarrassing." (HT Simon Mayo).

A world at peace?

The four horseman of Zechariah 1, return from patroling the earth with the report that: "all the earth remains at rest." The Angel of YHWH does not think this is good news and responds by crying out to YHWH: "how long will you have no mercy on Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, against which you have been angry these seventy years?"

We can often think that the world is at peace when it is actually under judgment. We also forget that God bringing the sword of judgment can be the merciful thing to do.

Jesus (the Angel of YHWH) is depicted as interceding for God's chosen people. God is bound to listen to his prayer and does act. This action of showing mercy to Jerusalem is necessarily* his action of judgment on the world apart from him.

However, this is not bad news for the world as a whole. God will "terrify" and "cast down" the nations who plundered Judah (v.21), but at the same time Jerusalem will not shut itself in while the world goes to hell. It will have no walls and will grow as nations flow to it and also become God's people (2:4-11).

So lets pray the imprecatory psalms knowing that the Son of God is praying them with us. But at the same time lets urgently invite and call people to God's dwelling place, God's place of undeserved mercy.

* Zechariah 1-2 indicates why judgment and mercy 'necessarily' go together. These chapters are dominated by God coming again to dwell with humanity. He promises to rebuild his house (1:16) he will again be in Jerusalem's midst (2:5, 10-11). This is cause for rejoicing for those who have been sanctified by blood, but a reason to fear for those who do not obey. Judgment and mercy are not two seperate acts but bound up in the one act of God coming close to us.

Glory in Romans

In Romans glory belongs to God and should, and will, be given to him (1:23; 3:7; 3:23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 9:23; 11:36; 15:6; 15:7; 15:7; 16:27).

But the amazing thing is that this glory can be ours (2:7, 10; 8:17-21, 30; 9:23). This glory in some sense belongs to Israel (9:4), but we receive it if we share in Christ's (Israel's Messiah's) glorification which is to come. We receive it as God's children and heirs with Christ (8:17-21).

This explains why sometimes when Paul talks about 'glory of God' he is unclear whether it is God's glory alone, or whether it is glory given by God to us. It is bothm because as God's children we share in God the Son's own glory. Glory is mine, yet not mine (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:10; Galatians 2:20).

As an aside, this may have some application to the 'Righteousness of God' debate.

Peace in Romans

The word 'peace' appears in 9 of the 16 chapters in Romans:

"To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (1:7)

"There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good" (2:9-10a)

"Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known." (3:15-17)

"since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (5:1)

"to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace." (8:6)

"If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." (12:18)

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding." (14:17-19)

"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope." (15:13)

"May the God of peace be with you all. Amen." (15:33)

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." (16:20a)

Any thoughts? Is this significant for our understanding of Romans or not?

I can see:

1. Peace belongs to God and he gives it to us.
2. We have peace with God, but we are to live in peace, or walk in the way of it, and this has to do with our relations to others.
3. It is connected to 'glory', 'honour', 'life', 'joy' and 'righteousness'.
4. We have peace with the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

Self-validating dogmatics

Karl Barth on 19th century theologians:

It did not enter their minds that respectable dogmatics could be good apologetics.

(p.18, The Humanity of God)

Three legs of a stool

Last Saturday I went to Leicester for a training day on running Christianity Explored. It was very helpful and energizing. In the first session we looked at three biblical foundations of evangelism with particular focus on 2 Corinthians 4:1-6:

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

These are my notes.

A. GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY

Conversion is seeing knowing or seeing the glory of God in the face of Christ. It is seeing the true identity of Jesus.

This is an act of new creation comparable to the original creation. The same God who spoke words to create light, also effects this opening of our eyes.

Consequences if we do not rely on our sovereign God

1. The results of evangelism are our own. This has two further consequences:

> We either become proud; or

> We breakdown with the pressure.

2. Prayer is neglected

3. We feel that we have to change the Gospel to get results.

B. GOSPEL INTEGRITY

We should not preach ourselves, our own personal opinions, but Jesus who is outside ourselves.

We should not distort or underplay any part of the Gospel message, but be open about the whole truth.

Consequences if we do not present the Gospel with integrity

1. We point people to us and our ideas rather than to Jesus.

2. We lead people to eternal destruction.

3. We do not prepare people for the cost of the Christian life (e.g. Gospel tract).

4. We produce Christian hypocrites

C. OUR CREATIVITY

We should seek to serve everyone by being creative in seeking to reach as many people as possible (1 Corinthians 9:13-23). Requires energy and time to be devoted to thinking imaginatively and strategically.

Consequences if we are not creative

1. We do not limit those who we can reach.

2. We make people think that they are a 'target' because we give the impression that becoming Christian is becoming like us.

3. We make the Gospel seem irrelevant and make it difficult for people to apply it to their lives.

D. CONCLUSION

Ask yourself which component of evangelism are you particularly weak on?

Who do you need to listen to in your church to improve in that area?

When to church plant

Not that what I think about this is ever likely to have that much impact but I have long thought that 150 is about as big as a church should get before planting. The Economist has just told me that this isn't just a random number I plucked out of my head but is built into my DNA.

150, you see, is actually Dunbar's number.

The purposes of sacraments

Philip Melanchthon lists (he is great at lists) the following purposes of the sacraments:

1. 'they are signs of God's will toward us, or testimonies of promised grace'
2. 'confession' of what we believe
3. 'distinction from other groups'
4. 'so that [God's] name might be celebrated and doctrine spread'
5. 'a reminder of many obligations. First of giving thanks to God, then of mutual kindness of members of the church'

However, as I've already quoted:

although many purposes have been ordained for the sacraments, yet far at the head of all of these must be placed this chief purpose, namely that they might be signs of God's will toward us, that is, added testimonies of the promise of grace

(p. 139, Loci Communes (1543))

This is not an example of the Reformers being unable to escape from Catholicism, but of them listening to Scripture:

Jewish baptism was political and ritualistic, whereas John's baptism was ethical and eschatological (similar to Ps 51:7; Is 1:15-16; 4:4; Jer 2:22; 4:14; Ezek 36:25; Zech 13:1). Gramatically there is an important distinction to be observed. The NT uses active and passive (primarily) forms of bapto and baptizo, while texts referring to Jewish proselyte baptism primarily employ middle or reflexive forms (Oepke, 530-35). Thus what was self-administered in Judaism was seen more as an act of God and surrender to him in early Christianity.

(p. 97, G Beasley-Murray, "Baptism I: Gospels" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

FYI, Calvin isn't quite as good as Melancthon at clearly ordering the purposes although he is better than most Protestants today:

[a sacrament] is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. (Insitutes 4.14.1)