The 360 degree turnaround

Listening to: Mozart: Piano Trios

1. The turn away from people to Christ

"Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes and even life itself, cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26) [...]

Jesus' call itself already breaks the ties with the naturally given surroundings in which a person lives. It is not the disciple who breaks them; Christ himself broke them as soon as he called. Christ has untied the person's immediate connections with the world and bound the person immediately to himself.

2. Christ the mediator between person and person

It s true, there is something which comes between persons called by Christ and the given circumstances of their natural lives [...] it is Christ himself. In becoming human, he put himself between me and the given circumstances of the world. I cannot go back. He is in the middle. He has deprived those whom he has called of every immediate connection to those given realities. He wants to be the medium; everything should happen only through him. He stands not only between me and God, he also stands between me and the world, between me and other people and things. He is the mediator, not only between God and human persons, but also between person and person, and between person and reality.

3. The turn back to the world through Christ

There is no genuine love for the world except the love with which God has loved the world in Jesus Christ. "Do not love the world" (1 John 2:15) [for the sake of self, apart from gratitude to God]. But "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life" (John 3:16) [for the sake of God (and others), with gratitude to God].

4. Abraham as the role model

Abraham had to learn that the promise did not depend on Isaac, but only on God [...] He brings his son to be sacrificed [...] for the sake of the mediator. At the same time, everything that he had given up is restored to him. Abraham receives his son back. God shows him a better sacrifice which is to take Isaac's place. It is a turnaround of 360 degrees. Abraham received Isaac back, but in a different way than before. He has him through the mediator and for the sake of the mediator. As the one who was prepared to hear and obey God's command literally, he is permitted to have Isaac as though he did not have him; he is permitted to have him through Jesus Christ. No one else knows about it. Abraham comes down from the mountain with Isaac, just as he went up, but everything has changed. Christ had come between the father and the son. Abraham had left everything and followed Christ, and while he was following Christ, he was permitted to go back to live in the same world he had lived in before. Externally everything remained the same. But the old has passed away; see, everything has become new.

(pp.92-98, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship)

I thought this idea of Christ as mediator between people to be really amazing. Not 100% sure that it is the best way to understand things, but its very powerful.

BTW it seems that Bonhoeffer nicked the idea of the 360 degree circle from Barth:

When such a church embarks upon moral exhortation, its exhortation can be naught else but a criticism of all human behavior, a criticism which moves through every one of the 360 degrees of the circle of our ambiguous life

(p. 428, The Epistle to the Romans)

Following

Listening to: Bob Dylan: Highway 61 Revisited

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Eph 2:1-3)

Without Christ we:

• follow the world; and
• follow the devil.

As we discussed in Christianity Explored tonight, that is a fairly offensive thing to say to people. But it's not only offensive, its makes no sense to us. How can they we be following the devil if we don't even believe in him? And, it isn't true to say that I mindlessly follow everyone else when I make up my own mind about things?

We follow the world and the devil in two ways:

Firstly, we do the same thing as both of them. We live for ourselves. We carry out whatever our body and mind desire to do. That is the only rule we accept, the rule of ourselves. In our assertion of self-determination, we display our unity with the world and the devil.

But secondly, we not only do the same thing as them, we do the same thing as them because of them. We learnt sin from the devil in the Garden, and we inherited sin from the world. Sin is not original to us.

"But... we are [God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:4-10)

We now follow Christ. This means that we walk in good works, not in trespasses and sins. We follow Christ in a mirror image of the way in which we used to follow the world and the devil.

Firstly, we do the same thing as him. We walk in love, "as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us" (5:1). Previously we lived to satisfy our own desires. Now we seek to please God, and satisfy our neighbour, just as Christ did.

Secondly, we do the same thing as him, because of him. We are God's "workmanship...in Christ Jesus". We were dead and unable to save ourselves, but we were made alive as a new person because of God's action in Christ.

The missing commandment (Part 2)

A while back I posted what I thought was one of my more controversial posts on the absence of the commandment to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" in the letters of the NT. Surprisingly it got no comments!

I've continued to muse on this, and asked a number of people about it. As I've continued to read the NT with this in the back of my mind I continue to be struck that while we are often commanded to love our neighbour, we never seem to be commanded to love God. Today I came across 1 John 3:23. Like Jesus in Mark 13 he seems to group together two commandments in one "commandment" (singular).

this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ [vertical] and love one another [horizontal]

This seems a good summary of the NT ethic. Faith towards God, and love towards our neighbour. God's love for us is always the primary thing in our relationship towards him. Our love towards others is always the primary thing in our relationship towards them. It is the two-kinds of righteousness thing again. In one dimension we are passive, in the other active.

Serious challenge though: find me a commandment to love God, or Christ, post-Cross.

It is implicit in some places, and it is assumed that we will love God if we are Christians, but I am yet to find a place where we are commanded to do so. My bible knowledge is pretty thin though.

The doctrine of the Trinity at the end!

Glen Scrivener recently posted a great post on why when doing theology we should start with the Trinity, not with any general teaching about God. I must admit I've been largely sold on this over the last few years, and found that while people may not practice it, nobody ever seems to disagree with the basic idea that the Trinity is where we should begin.... that was up until very recently, when I came across a confident broadside against it in the most surprising place.

Oswald Bayer notes that starting with the doctrine of the Trinity "is the pattern that is followed by an ever-increasing number of dogmatic theologians throughout the world" (p. 335, Martin Luther's Theology; A Contemporary Interpretation). But this is not something which he approves of. He describes as "one of the grandiose blunders of the more recent history of both philosophy and theology" (p. 339)!

He believes that the doctrine of the Trinity is "properly located neither as a bland addition nor in the middle as just one dogmatic theme among many, but correctly in the middle and correctly at the end" (p.334). The reason for this is that "the triune nature of God can only be comprehended only as an unfolding of the pure gospel" (p.335 - reminds me of the title to Tim Chester's Theology Network, "The good news of the Trinity"). He sees a number of problems if we start the doctrine of the Trinity. E.g:

• "if one proceeds in such a way, one will come dangerously close to... a brand of speculation that ignores time and the situation" (p.335)
• it "ignores or minimizes the problem of unfaith" (p.335)
• it has no place for the sufferer's experience of God as his seeming enemy, or take seriously the "reality of evil".

The basic problem though is that those who want to see the Trinity placed at the beginning see what is first in theology as the most fundamental. They are always concerned that we fit what follows to what comes before, and that much theology has fit the Trinity into the procrustean bed of a Unitarian view of God. However, a Lutheran who believes in law and then Gospel believes that what follows is the more fundamental. The Lutheran believes the good news is a surprise.

Bayer believes that we should begin with "'general' teaching about God", but not because he thinks that the Trinity is subsidiary. He has no love for the God who is not Trinity. "The God who comes to us apart from being the triune God, who is purely and completely love, 'looks on,' and has for us the grimace of the devil" (p.338). General teaching about God, even a monotheistic God, is something that belongs to the non-Christian and will be left behind in eternity.

The distinction between what is involved in the teaching about the Trinity and "general" teaching about God [...] is encountered in faith and in the hope that this distinction will be removed, along with the distinction between law and gospel, in the eschaton. The the triune God - he alone - will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). Then we also will no longer be assailed by the oppressive, incomprehensible hiddenness that weighs us down even to the point of our death. It will be consumed by open love which itself cannot be comprehended, which will free us from its power and which comes to us conclusively already now in the gospel.

The end that we believe in and hope for, because of the love that has come to us and has been promised to us - the consummation of the work of creation by the triune God - is misinterpreted with regard to its true character when it is claimed that it exists as a timeless principle of knowledge and existence. Its universality cannot be demonstrated in the abstract, not even with theoretical means linked to the Trinity; one cannot apply its truths to every circumstance one can postulate and treat it as an a priori. (pp.339-340)

Glen and others (hi Glen!) are driven by their conviction that we should start all our thinking about God with the Trinity to argue that the Trinity was fully understood by the OT saints. Hence the regular 'Angel of the Lord' etc debates. But while a Lutheran would admit that the Trinity was seen in the OT, just as the Gospel was preached in the OT, they would also want to retain a distinction because:

just as the chief teaching of the New Testament is really the proclamation of grace and peace through the forgiveness of sins in Christ, so the chief teaching of the Old Testament is really the teaching of the laws, the showing up of sin, and the demanding of good. (Martin Luther, Preface to the Old Testament)

For Oswald Bayer there is always a shape and a story to the Bible and to our lives. He sees those who start with the doctrine of the Trinity as flattening the contours of this story, and so missing out on the depths and the heights of the Bible's message about God.

... I must confess its shook up all my thinking. Who knows how it will all settle again.

[A few asides: (a) it is interesting to note that Karl Barth was led the way in both making the doctrine of the Trinity at the beginning of theology, and in arguing that we should deal with Gospel then law. (b) It is also interesting how those who start with the Trinity always seem (IMHO) to be struggling to not say that creation and redemption were necessary for God. (c) In The Cruciality of the Cross PT Forsyth argues that the Atonement (i.e. the Gospel) drives us to the Incarnation, not the other way round. But it could be equally said of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel drives us to the Trinity from our point of view, even if the Trinity is what leads to the Gospel from God's point of view.]

How to seek to have our relationship needs met

Listening to: Sovereign Grace Music: Worship God

In The Four Loves, CS Lewis begins by making a helpful distinction between what he calls "need-love" and "gift-love". He explains that:

The typical example of Gift-love would be that love which moves a man to work and plan and save for the future well-being of his family which he will die without sharing or seeing; of the second, that which sends a lonely or frightened child to its mother's arms

He successfully shows that there is nothing wrong with "need-love". We all have emotional, physical and spiritual needs that we need meeting. So how should we go about having those needs met in our relationships?

Firstly, I think it is helpful to take the point that Ed Welch makes in When People Are Big and God Is Small. We need to examine our "needs" and consider whether they are actually sinful wants. We shouldn't just assume that because we feel the need for something that it should be met.

But given that we have done that, how should we pursue the meeting of those good relationship needs we have? Perhaps we should just look for them from God. Shouldn't he meet our needs for love, recognition, friendship etc? This seems to have some weight because to seek the meeting of our needs elsewhere looks (a) like idolatry; and (b) hopeless, because of people's limited ability to "deliver".

But if we should look only to God, is there still a place for desiring marriage, friendship etc? We know that these things are good things, but maybe only in moderation. You shouldn't love your wife too much, or be too dependent on anyone. Perhaps we just have to keep things in proportion, and ensure we always are more dependant on God. Perhaps Tim Keller definition of an idol is helpful:

It is anything more important to you than God, anything that absorbs your heart and imagination more than God (my italics)

But the first commandment, is not "You are to have no other gods more important than me", but "You are to have no other gods". God is one.

Martin Luther is right when he says that "it is God alone ... from whom we receive anything good". But, no sooner has he seemingly backed some super-spiritual monasticism than he says that "much that is good comes to us from human beings". He believes both these things because:

we receive our blessings not from [human beings], but from God through them. Creatures are only the hands, channels, and means through which God bestows all blessings. For example, he gives to the mother breasts and milk for her infant or gives grain and all sorts of fruits from the earth for sustenance - things that no creature could produce by itself.

In fact, to reject our needs being met through other human beings is to "through arrogance...seek other methods and ways than those God has commanded". In seeking to have our needs met only in God, we could be in danger of actually spurning his gifts and before we know it we would "not be receiving [our needs met] from God, but seeking them from ourselves".

But returning to the practicalities of how we should seek to have our needs met in relationships, this means that if our emotional needs (as well as 'spiritual' ones) are met by God, then we should receive them in the same way as we always receive gifts from God: passively.

But as when we receive our righteousness passively, that does not mean that we are not active. But we are active not in earning or obtaining it for ourself. The activity comes from the faith that we already have everything in Christ, even if we do not see or experience it yet.

On reflection I think that it is in those relationships where I have set out to serve and give, and continued to have to do so, have been the ones that have given the most to me and helped me through the most. But when I think about relationships that I have sought for what they give to me the fruit goes rotten in my hands. They just don't deliver.

Perhaps then we should seek only gift-love in our relationships, but then we will receive need-love anyway. The problems with idolatry come when we are actively looking for our needs met in relationships with other people, instead of passively expecting to receive through them by God's grace. Only in self-giving love are we free (as Jesus was when he gave himself for his people) and only in that way do we actually receive the love and glory we long for (as Jesus received from his Father who glorified him because of his obedience).

In Luther's book The Freedom of the Christian he sets out two famous statements:

1. "A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none"
2. "A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all"

He is basically saying there are two dimensions to life and if we misunderstand this then everything goes astray (The two kinds of righteousness). By faith in Christ we share in his lordship of Creation. Everything serves us and works for our good (Rom 8:28 etc), and this happens freely apart from any effort or works of our own. But at the same time we are called and empowered by this grace to serve everyone we meet. We don't do things to receive justification before God, or good things from people, but we serve everyone without any hope of gain because we already have everything in Christ who gives through his creatures.

By the way, I haven't thought about all this a great deal until very recently, so please feel free to poke holes. It would be helpful if you do. Hopefully, its not totally obscure.

Thoughts on how to do evangelism

Listening to: Mozart: Cosi fan tutte (interspersed with preview of Thea Gilmore's live album on Amazon!)

[Here are some hasty thoughts on my philosophy on how to 'do' evangelism. Perhaps one day I'll turn it into something proper. As this has quite big implications for my life it is probably more important than almost anything else that turns up on this blog so please do point out anything amiss. Also as a by-the-way, I don't live up to this at all.]

A. HOW PEOPLE BECOME CHRISTIANS

1. Prayer

Because evangelism is God's mission before it is ours, prayer should be the most important activity of evangelism. It is God alone that enables people to see the truth of the Gospel (2 Corinthians 4). The Lord's prayer includes within it the prayer for the coming of the Kingdom of God, and that grows as people become Christians (e.g. Luke 16:16) and its consummation is hastened by every person that is converted (2 Peter 3). Paul commands us to pray for everyone because of God's desire to save all people (1 Timothy 2:1-4).

2. Witness of the spoken word

But of course God uses means and faith comes by hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17; cf. 1 John 1:1-3 etc). It is God's word which converts people, because it never comes back without achieving its purpose (Isaiah 55:11). Our imperfect lives, and limited resources are never going to be up to the task of converting people. Even Jesus who lived the perfect life, and had the most impressive show-stopping stunts, 'proclaimed' the good news. The reason the spoken word has priority is that the Gospel is firstly something that happens outside of ourselves. While the Gospel is something that happens to us, and in us, it is firstly something done to and in Christ.

3. Witness of community of love

Jesus also teaches that people will belief in him because of the unity in love of the church community (John 17:23). People looking on the community of people preaching a message of forgiveness and love and will judge the truthfulness of that message on the basis of whether the people doing the preaching are living consistently with what they say. This is why Lesslie Newbigin described the church as the 'hermeneutic of the gospel'. Francis Schaeffer also saw the importance of this for evangelism and termed 'the observable love of true Christians for true Christians' as the 'final apologetic'. The good works of the community is a light for people to see and then believe in Christ (Matthew 5).

4. Witness of individuals living in hope

Christians should seek to do good in all of their lives though to point people to Christ (1 Peter 2:12). Employees should work hard and honestly for their employers to avoid people having contempt for the Gospel (1 Peter 2:15). Spouses by their conduct in marriage may convert their unbelieving partner (1 Peter 3:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 7:16). Sometimes this way of living will be seen in Christians in community by non-Christians but often it will just be individuals that they come into contact with. But they should notice that the individual Christian they know is not living for this world, but has a hope beyond it, and so they will want to know the reason (1 Peter 3:15).

5. Witness of miracles

It is easy to see in the Gospels and Acts how people believed in the Gospel because of the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles (John 10:25, Hebrews 2:3-4 etc). Even today many people do become Christians because of miracles.

B. IMPLICATIONS

1. Pray lots

Self explanatory really. But is prayer a central part of the church's life? And if so, is it prayer for the world or for our own personal needs? Tim Chester comments that in "the UK the traditional midweek church meeting often provided a focus for missionary prayer. But the house groups that have in many cases replaced it can all too easily become insular and self-regarding" (p.219, The Message of Prayer).

2. Call all the witnesses to the stand

Leaving aside the vexed issue of miracles, are in our evangelism are we integrating all the ways in which the gospel is witnessed to? Do our colleagues just see us living as individuals with hope but never as part of a community of love? Do people experience hear the message but never get to see the community of love in action?

I really like the Christianity Explored training graph of amount of Gospel Content v. depth of relationship. I think it was right that both should grow together. But I would make it a 3D graph with spoken word/individual relationships/corporate relationships all increasing together. As we get to know our colleagues more we should speak more about the Gospel, and they should get to know our church community more. And the same with all our networks of relationships (including church relationships).

In short, we should be questioning any activity which does not include all the witnesses to Jesus.

3. The prescription for the church and the world is the same

It is striking that what brings people to Christ, is the same thing as helps them to grow in him. It is as we hear the gospel that we grow stronger (Hebrews 5:11-14), it is as we are rebuked and encouraged by the church that we become more Christ-like (1 Thessalonians 5:11; Hebrews 10:25).

The problems for both non-Christians as well as Christians is unbelief, and the Gospel to believe is the same for both.

Because of that we don't need to have one set of activities for non-Christians and another for Christians. They can and should be the same. But that means we should have an eye to both Christians and non-Christians in all our meetings (as Paul says 1 Corinthians 14:23). Meetings should always be accessible but should also recognise that the felt needs of both Christians (e.g. rousing worship or traditional hymns etc) or non-Christians (e.g. a good moral environment for children) are not what we are here for. The church is in the business of preaching the gospel and bringing people under the Lordship of Christ.

4. Break down barriers to witness

What is it that stops us bringing all these witnesses onto the stand together for people to see and hear?

Perhaps we work in one area, live in another, and go to church in yet another so all three witnesses will never get together. Perhaps we only have time to build relationships with church people because we are too busy with church activities. Or perhaps we only have time to build relationships with colleagues, but not people at church, because we are too busy with work. Or perhaps the activities of church (organisationally and socially) are totally divorced from those of our family, friends and colleagues outside church. Or perhaps we are not being challenged from the pulpit to live the kind of radically unworldly lives that would turn heads.

Questions to ask of scripture

What are the questions we should ask when approaching a passage of Scripture?

The first question we must ask of every biblical text is simply this—what does it tell us about God? What does it say about who he is and about what he does?

The second question is: what does this text say about us human beings? What are we meant to be and what has gone wrong?

The third and final question is: what has God done about this and what does he expect of us in the light of what he has done? (source)

I quite like those, so will try and remember them. I may want to change it a little to emphasise that it is God speaking to us, but generally I think they're quite helpful. So like most helpful stuff I know I'll forget, I'll blog them.

The way of escape

You do not understand Christ till you understand His cross...

It is only by understanding it that we escape from

religion with no mind,
    and from religion which is all mind,
from pietism with its lack of critical judgment,
    and from rationalism [both liberal and conservative] with its lack of everything else.

(formatting mine, p.26, PT Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross)

The narrow road

I nearly finished (The Cost of) Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer while on holiday. An incredible, if occasionally frustrating book. Here is a particularly wonderful quote (formating mine):

The road of the disciples is narrow.

  It is easy to go past it;
  it is easy to miss it;
  it is easy to lose it,

even for those who have already walked it.
It is hard to find. The path is narrow indeed; there is a real danger of falling off on both sides.

  To be called to do the extraordinary,
    but not to see and know that one is doing it
      - that is a narrow road.

  To give witness to and to confess the truth of Jesus,
    but to love the enemy of his truth, who is his enemy and our enemy, with the unconditional love of Jesus Christ
      - that is a narrow road.

  To believe in Jesus' promise that those who follow shall possess the earth,
    but to encounter the enemy unarmed, to prefer suffering injustice to doing ill
      - that is a narrow road.

  To perceive other people as being weak and wrong
    but never to judge them;
  to proclaim the good news to them,
    but never to throw pearls before swine
      - that is a narrow road.

It is an unbearable road. The danger of falling off threatens every minute.

  As long as I recognize this road as one I am commanded to walk, and try to walk it in fear of myself, it is truly impossible.
    But if I see Jesus Christ walking ahead of me, step by step,
      then I will be protected on this path.

  If I look at the danger in what I am doing, if I look at the path
    instead of at him who is walking ahead of me,
      then my foot is already slipping.

He himself is the way.
He is the narrow road and the narrow gate.
The only thing that matters is finding him.

If we know that, then we will walk the narrow way to life through the narrow gate of the cross of Jesus Christ, then the narrowness of the way itself will reassure us. How could the road of the Son of God on earth, which we are to walk as citizens of two realms at the boundary between the world and the kingdom of heaven, be a wide one? The narrow way has to be the right way.

(p. 176, Discipleship)

Thielicke on interpreting creation

Listening to: Schubert: Symphony No.9

Hi everyone. In case you didn't know I've been away for a week in the Lake District, so sorry for the blog-silence. I had a good time, and read a fair bit which should mean lots of blogging coming up, but I probably won't have time to get any thoughts down so maybe it won't.

Last night I started a book of sermons by Helmut Thielicke on Jesus' Parables. By way of a preface he discusses the idea of the parables as "God's picturebook", and how the world can also function in this way. It has some baring on one of the niggling thoughts of this year - the gospel in creation - so I thought I'd post it at length:

For anybody who does not see the world from the point of view from which Jesus Christ, the teller of the parables, sees it, the whole profusion of parabolic images turns into a confused labyrinth; for him the doors are shut instead of opened. Are the birds of the air and the lilies of the field really nothing more than pointers to the Lord of creation, who cares for all his creatures? Or are they not also figures of a world of nature that is dumb, nature that is silent to me, that goes on its way, careless of my concerns and my loneliness. Are the stars just symbols of an eternal order or are they not also a sign of orderly processes that go on quite indifferent to my lot? May they not chill me with the cold of cosmic space rather than make me feel the pulse-beat of a Father's heart? And one thing more; may not the picture language of this world lead us to gods and idols instead of to God? Do not all the pseudo absolutes and all the isms, the hubristic attempts of philosophy to attribute to a single phenomenon - whether it be spirit, matter, or an idea - the prerogatives of ultimate reality - do not all these have their source in this same attempt to interpret the picture language of this world and derive its favorite symbols from it?

[...] In the parables of Jesus the opposite way is taken. He first shows us his Father and points to the "heart of all things." Then from there the things themselves gain their meaning. We start with God and then learn to discover the world anew; but anybody who tries to discover God through the world sees only the distorted reflections of created things, a reflex of his own mind.

That is the reason why the picturebook of created things is in itself of no use at all. Indeed, it confines and limits us to this introverted creation. The mystery of our temporal and eternal destiny is disclosed to us only in the great textbook of God - the Word in which he speaks to us and tells us who he is and what his purposes are. But it is of the mercy of his condescension that in doing so he employs the images and figures of our world. And these images are helpful and comforting; they find us where we are at home. They are so homely that they make us feel at home and give us the certainty that God is not in some remote, inaccessible beyond, but that he gives to everything around us a relationship that leads to his heart, not only grain and fruit, but also the far country and the father's house, summer and winter, lamps and night, money and clothing, weddings and death.

When we read the parables we are surrounded by the scenery of a world that is very near, our world. But everything depends upon our finding the right entrance from which their meaning is discovered [...] The heart of all things discloses the things themselves; but the things themselves do not reveal the heart.

(pp.11-12, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus)

As an aside, does anyone feel that this kind of "God is the key"/"God must be the starting point" argument you find in Barth, Forsyth and so many others often seems to assume that if you just start with the right intellectual starting point all will work out ok? I.e. dump natural theology and start with the concept of the Crucified Lord and all becomes clear.

Perhaps this misses the need for repentance and faith and for the work of the Holy Spirit. Only with the Gospel preached as wisdom of God, accompanied by the Spirit, and grasped by faith, will the world open up to us.

PS for an fascinating story about the encounters of Helmut Thielicke, Karl Barth and Billy Graham have a read of this post.

Contextualization and names for God

The BBC News website brings out a concrete question, of wide-significance, on how we communicate the gospel. It reports that:

The interception by Malaysian authorities of thousands of Bibles bound for Christians in the country has produced the latest flashpoint.

The reason - the Bibles use the word "Allah" to described God, and that's been banned by the government...

Muslim groups claim that Christian use of a word so closely associated with Islam in Bibles and children's books could be aimed at winning converts.

That sparks off lots of connexions in my head. Firstly it reminds me of a quote from Lesslie Newbigin I read yesterday about his time in India:

When I preach in a village where Christianity is not known, and where the name of Jesus is not known ... I have to begin by using the word Kadavul. But of course when I use the word Kadavul they're thinking of Vishnu or Shiva or some other Hindu God. I know that, but I can't help it. It's only when I begin to tell the stories of what God has done that they begin to say, 'Kadavul is not what we had thought.'

Secondly, it reminds me of the Old Testament use of the word 'El' to describe God.

God's name is important to him. But I don't know quite when contextualization becomes accommodation. A difficult question I think, but I suspect we may be too cautious.

Why do I believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

So this is what got churned out late this evening on a rather tight timescale, and with no time to do any reading at all. You can probably tell that I don't write essays (except on law), and I don't give talks. But I post it for what it's worth. I could have done better, but I could have done worse. I'm pretty sure that engagement was my biggest problem, although some of the idiosyncratic way I've gone about the exercise is a reflection of the conversation up till now. Pray that the truth that is in it is accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit which can break hard hearts.

Asking me why I believe that about 2000 years ago a man called Jesus was raised from from shameful death to a new indestructible life (as the bible describes happened) was to give me quite a challenge. This maybe because by nature I find it difficult to give a short answer to any question, but it is also because the reasons for believing it are so many, so interconnected and so multi-layered that it is difficult to reduce them into a few bullet points. But as I've thought how I should answer this question I've been brought to a growing realisation that the shortest answer I could give is: I believe the resurrection because of God's speech.

A. Peter's Speech

However, a good place to begin thinking about why we should believe in the resurrection is a speech delivered by Peter to a crowd of Jews 50 days after Jesus had risen from the dead. Peter had followed Jesus during his life, listened to his teaching, but when Jesus had been arrested Peter had denied that Jesus had anything to do with him. He had been afraid for his life, and quite understandably. Peter got away with his life, but Jesus was killed by the authorities. But Peter, together with the other followers of Jesus, were rescued from their fear and having met with Jesus after he was risen from the dead were emboldened to speak to hundreds of Jews less than two months after their leader had been executed. To the same crowd that had called for his leader to be executed Peter is recorded as saying these words (Acts 2:24-40):

'God released [Jesus] from the horrors of death and raised him back to life, for death could not keep him in its grip. King David said this about him:
‘I see that the Lord is always with me.
I will not be shaken, for he is right beside me.
No wonder my heart is glad,
and my tongue shouts his praises!
My body rests in hope.
For you will not leave my soul among the dead
or allow your Holy One to rot in the grave.
You have shown me the way of life,
and you will fill me with the joy of your presence.’
“Dear brothers, think about this! You can be sure that the patriarch David wasn’t referring to himself, for he died and was buried, and his tomb is still here among us. But he was a prophet, and he knew God had promised with an oath that one of David’s own descendants would sit on his throne. David was looking into the future and speaking of the Messiah’s resurrection. He was saying that God would not leave him among the dead or allow his body to rot in the grave.
“God raised Jesus from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this. Now he is exalted to the place of highest honour in heaven, at God’s right hand. And the Father, as he had promised, gave him the Holy Spirit to pour out upon us, just as you see and hear today. For David himself never ascended into heaven, yet he said,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies,
making them a footstool under your feet.”’
“So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!”
Peter’s words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?”
Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is to you, and to your children, and even to the Gentiles—all who have been called by the Lord our God.” Then Peter continued preaching for a long time, strongly urging all his listeners, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation!”

So those who received his word were baptised, and there were added to the church that day about three thousand people.'

I said before that I believed Jesus was raised because of God's speech. He is the prime witness to the truth of the resurrection. But God does not always speak as a voice from the clouds, he usually uses means through which his voice is heard. I notice 4 ways in which God speaks and acts in this speech of Peter:

1. Jesus Christ
2. In the followers of Jesus before he was born (the Old Testament)
3. In the early followers of Jesus (the New Testament)
4. In those who received the word

1. Jesus Christ - God's speech

How can we know each other? In daily experience we know we can only know each other by speaking to each other. I may know nothing about my colleague a few desks away, but the reason for this is because they have never told me anything about themselves. That may be because I never asked, but even if I asked, it is up to them whether I get to know them or not. Only if they choose to speak to me can I know who they are.

How can we know if there is God? If there is a God how can we know his character? And if we know his character how can we know how he thinks of us? We can only know if he speaks. Mercifully, he has done just that. And because of the person who he is, he spoke to us in a person - the person of Jesus Christ. It is because of the claim of Jesus Christ that he is the speech of God towards us that it matters whether he was risen from the dead. If he claimed that intimate relationship with God and he is now dust then we have no reason to believe he was who he said he was. But as a witness of Jesus from the dead declared a 20-30 years later: 'he was shown to be the Son of God [i.e. he was shown to be who he claimed to be] when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit'. The resurrection matters, because the identity of Jesus Christ matters.

2. The Old Testament - God's speech about Jesus Christ

In his speech Peter quotes the ancestor of Jesus, King David. About 1000 years before Jesus was born King David wrote songs, which were sung by the people of Israel as they hoped for a new king, greater than David, who would lead them to a peace that they never experienced under David or any of his heirs. David had brought peace to the land of Israel, which throughout most of its history until then, and for most of its history since, has been constantly at war. But David never was able to pacify our greatest enemy that conquers us all - death. But he did look forward to a day when Jesus Christ would do that.

David looked forward to a day when God would not allow a man to rot in the grave. When there would be a man who lived forever. And if that man was the king of a people then the people that live under that king will share in his victory and his life. David wanted to share in that victory, although he knew it wasn't a victory he could achieve on his, he could only share in the victory of another.

But why could David not defeat death? Why can we not do it, despite all our best efforts to fend it off with exercise, technology and healthy eating? The reason is that it is a judgment pronounced on all of us as people who have rejected God. David recognised that the only person who would not be defeated by death was the one whom God helped, and the only one who God would help would be his 'Holy One', a person who was obeyed him completely.

In all four gospels we are told how Jesus was brought to trial but he couldn't be found guilty of anything. He is the only person who has ever lived who had a clean conscience. Who never lived only for himself, who worshipped God perfectly, and served other people to the extent of loosing his life for their sake. In addition, although he didn't look like a king he was of royal blood as he spilt that royal blood for the people he leads there stood above his head a sign, ironically placed by those who crucified him: it read 'the King of the Jews' - the only 'charge' they could justify killing him for.

But when Peter quotes David in his speech he is not only bringing a great historical figure to side with him, he is also bringing God. The Jews recognised that the Old Testament, which included this song of David, was spoken by God through human beings. It carried God's authority, and Peter was bringing God into the court to give his verdict on the resurrection. God's verdict was that it was true. As you read surprisingly often in the New Testament writings, and as the universal church creeds state: 'He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the [Old Testament] Scriptures said' (1 Cor 15:4).

3. The New Testament - God's speech about Jesus Christ

Peter's speech is recorded for us in the New Testament. That collection of 27 books was written by a number of early followers of Jesus Christ, including Peter and other eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection. The reason that 3000 Jews came to believe that Jesus had been risen from the dead on that day 2000 years ago, was because people who had seen it talked to them about it. As Peter said: 'God raised Jesus from the dead, and we are all witnesses of this'. The whole New Testament is a talk like this: a witness to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and what that achieved.

But we do not believe their witness to the resurrection purely on their own authority. Indeed they did not claim to be speaking on their own authority. As their title, 'Apostle', indicates - they were 'sent ones' or 'messenger' (as 'apostle' translates). They called themselves 'ambassadors' because they weren't bringing their own message, but the message of God. The New Testament writers spoke because Jesus had been given 'the Holy Spirit to pour out upon [them]' which is what the Jews present saw and heard.

During his life Jesus had promised that when he was raised to new life he would send his Holy Spirit who would give his followers the words to speak (e.g. Mark 13:11). When the Jews heard Peter speak, and when we read Peter's words today, they testify that Jesus was raised from the dead, but we not only hear the words of an eye-witness, but we hear the words of the most reliable and trustworthy witness there could be - God himself.

4. In those who received the word - God's speech into people's hearts and minds

It is recorded that 3000 people that day 'received' Peter's 'word'. Why did they do that?

They had never met Peter. A man being brought to life after 3 days was not something that they were going to believe on a whim. After all, this was just another man's opinion wasn't it?

In one of the earliest writings of the early church, written about 20 years after Jesus died, the apostle ('messenger') Paul remembers how people in the city of Thessalonica first heard this remarkable story of Jesus' resurrection. He wrote: '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'.

The Thessalonians could have received this message of Paul's as just another human opinion. You could understand why. Instead they received it for 'what it really is', 'the Word of God'. Again they saw that the most reliable witness there is had been brought into the courtroom and they believed him. God said that Jesus had been risen from the dead, so they believed it.

But why did they accept it as 'the word of God' instead as 'the word of men'? Paul suggests the answer. He thanks 'God constantly for' their receiving of the message, and he thanks God because it was God's work. As he says God's word is 'at work in you believers'. God is in the business of speaking through the external message of the bible into people's hearts and minds. He opens eyes to see what is really there all along.

B. Our unwillingness to believe

Why does it require God to open eyes for people to see that this is a message from God and not just another opinion held by other human beings? Shouldn't the strength of the argument convince everyone? Is it a weakness of the evidence that God has to get involved and we can't work it out for ourselves?

No, it is not because God's message that is unclear that supernatural work is required for us to believe it. It is because our minds are unclear, because they are clouded and cannot see clearly. But why are our minds unclear and not able believe the truth when it is clearly presented? Why does it need a miracle for us to see?

We know from our experience that we all engage in wishful-thinking. I am continually amazed by people's capacity to believe what they want to believe. It is easy to see in other people but less easy with ourselves. We can look back on history and see incredible blindness to the facts in the 'arguments' put forward for slavery and the 'reasons' that Romans worshipped their all too human emperors. We can also see it in our daily lives as people refuse to see that they are treating another person unfairly, or are certain that they are the most qualified person for that job even when they clearly are not. But everyday we shape our 'reality' around us. This is partly to do with our ignorance, but more often it is due to false opinions about ourselves. We doubt we can be intellectually wrong, and doubt we can be morally wrong, and the facts have to be fitted round those convictions.

Christian's see that this same wishful-thinking occurs with people's reaction to God's message to them. We close our eyes to God so we don't have to look at ourselves, and we close our eyes to ourselves so we don't have to look at God.

But why would we not want to believe the resurrection? Peter again provides the answer in his speech: 'God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah'. We are responsible for the death of Jesus just as much as the Jews in the crowd listening to Peter. We have wanted him dead our whole lives, but it turns out that he is not dead but our king. We have wanted to live our life our own way - to decide for ourselves how best to live, we only trust our own opinions and look out for number one. Any threat to our sovereignty over our lives we send to the guillotine - and God is the biggest threat we have ever faced because as our creator he demands everything. But if we kill God and he is brought back to life, then we're in trouble. Much better to pretend it never happened, to continue shaping reality around ourselves and our dream of how things should be.

C. Historical evidences for the resurrection

This may all seem like the resurrection could happen on another plane of reality. But Christians believe that it did happen in history, in a certain place at a certain time. Because of this there are inevitably a number of historical evidences for belief in the resurrection. My time is running low so I will only quickly mention some:

1. The empty tomb

As we have seen, within weeks of the resurrection of Jesus people were publicly claiming to have seen Jesus raised to new life. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the authorities to squash Christianity before it got going by producing the body.

2. Witnesses

We have already seen how the disciples were witnessing to Jesus' resurrection within weeks of it happening. In his first letter to the church in Corinth, written 15-20 years after the event, Paul writes that (1 Cor 15:3-8):

'I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.'

In this public document, designed to be read aloud and circulated, Paul effectively invites his readers to speak to one of the 500+ people, 'most of whom are still alive', for corroboration of the story. The story of the resurrection was not first recounted decades after the event, but from the beginning of the church's existence, and it was accounted for by hundreds of eye-witnesses. The truth of the resurrection and other events of Jesus' life were 'passed on to' Paul, who was converted only a few years after Jesus' death. The resurrection was a common and widely attested belief of all the early church from the word go.

The first witnesses though we are told in the gospel accounts were women. This is significant because women were far from the ideal fake-witnesses if you wanted to fabricate a story. Their low social status meant they could not even testify in court, and the inclusion of them as witnesses in the gospel accounts would have undermined the credibility of the account to the contemporary sceptic. Their inclusion only makes sense if they were in historical reality the first witnesses of the risen Jesus.

3. Changed followers

As we have already discussed Peter and the other followers of Jesus abandoned Jesus when he was arrested. When Jesus is raised from the dead he finds them hiding in a small room, avoiding any contact with the authorities. But within weeks these followers are on the streets telling people that Jesus, and not Caesar, was king. From being afraid to leave the house, Jesus' followers risked their life and usually lost it to tell people about Jesus. Why could explain this transformation except a real experience of the risen Jesus? Why would people die for a belief if they knew it was wrong? There is no other explanation than that they were given hope beyond death by the promise of Jesus who had defeated death.

Paul, who we have already met a few times, was one of the boldest of these witnesses to the resurrection, and died in Rome for telling people about what he had seen. Yet before the resurrection he had not just been afraid of telling people about Jesus, he had been trying to kill those who believed he had risen from the dead. Why would he change from sworn enemy of the church to one of its greatest missionaries if he had not seen Christ alive?

4. Disjunctions with ancient culture

Many people would suggest that we shouldn't believe the resurrection because people were always claiming crazy stuff like that at the time. But this is simply not the case.

Firstly, we shouldn't assume that ancient people were ignorant of the fact that people do not come back to life. They lived with the reality of death in a way we cannot imagine today. They knew, as we all do, without any assistance from modern science or enlightenment philosophy that people just do not come back to life after 3 days. We shouldn't assume that ancient people were stupid - they did not believe stories of the resurrection lightly and there are many accounts in the bible of the idea being scoffed at.

We shouldn't believe that the resurrection of Jesus fitted into the ancient Jewish or Greek worldview either. The Jewish people looked forward to the resurrection of everybody into a new resuscitated body. Christians said that just one man had been raised, and his body was different to the one that he lived his life in. The Greeks were looking forward to a new non-physical existence after death. The idea of a new physical life just didn't fit their outlook on the world.

Neither was it known for revolutionary movements to claim their leader had come back from the dead. Historian and Bishop, Tom Wright, observes that there were a great many people claiming to be the messiah in Israel at that time, but 'in not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. Resurrection was not a private event. Jewish revolutionaries whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest themselves, had two options: give up on revolution, or find another leader. Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option'.

Such a new idea, could not be invented, but could only be explained by an event that demanded a rethinking of their contemporary paradigms.

D. The Good news of the resurrection of Jesus

Why should we care about this? Why should we read anyone, let alone this guy called Dave Kirkman who doesn't even know the meaning of brevity, discuss the reality an event that occurred 2000 years ago?

As I've already briefly mentioned the answer is in Peter's statement that the resurrection proves that Jesus is both Lord and Messiah (Greek: 'Christ'). This is big news. Early Christians summarised the Gospel (translated: 'the good news') most often in the phrase: 'Jesus is Lord'. If you reject it this is bad news, but if you recognise it and accept it then it becomes what it truly is - good news.

Jesus is Lord, but we try and make ourselves masters of our own destiny. We refuse to accept that he is king and we are not, even though as creator he has every right over you, and as a perfectly loving person he merits love in return. Because of that we deserve death for what we have done and that is what we taste now as our bodies decay and then rot. But when we are raised from the dead like Jesus, and he asserts his Lordship over the powers of evil and death, those who reject him will be rejected in the same way, and they will continue to die for all eternity. That's a pretty horrible thing to imagine, and not a fun thing to talk about, but its true so I'm telling you even though it is uncomfortable.

But the good news is greater than the bad news. The good news is that the punishment of death that we deserve was taken by Jesus. He took it on his own shoulders and was crushed by the weight of it. But because he didn't deserve it - because he was the 'Holy One' promised - God by the power of his Holy Spirit raised him from the dead. And as he took our punishment of death, we can share in his vindication to new life. If we want to receive this new life that the resurrection promises then it is ours. As Peter says the response to this message should be to turn away from our old lives (repentance) and receive with empty hands the word of forgiveness Peter talks about and baptism displays. This forgiveness is wonderful news. It means that our past is killed and we are no longer bound by it, and we have a new identity which we share with Jesus who identified with us. As Paul said that Jesus was declared to be 'Son of God' by his resurrection, we can like him live by children of God and live life in secure relationship with our Father who created us.

The resurrection is the promise of that. It is a promise that we will remain persons and not become either worm food in the circle of life, or an ingredient in the universe's spiritual soup. We will remain personal individuals, and we will remain physical beings who can enjoy life as God designed it to be when he created it - life in the world, in right relationship with him.

Furnished with reason that has a heart

In Luther's brilliant exposition of the First Commandment in his Large Catechism he says something rather strange:

it is the trust and faith of the heart alone that make both God and an idol.

Oswald Bayer, in his explanation of Luther's theology of the human being explains where that sort of thinking is coming from:

The human being is animal rationale, habens cor fingens - a being furnished with reason that has a heart, which imagines, makes pictures, invents...There are thus two basic powers that drive the human being - his rational consciousness and his utopian consciousness. The one defines the intellectual interaction with the world of human beings and is primarily oriented toward the present; the other is located in the realm of the imagination, which focuses primarily on the past and the future - interpreting the past and projecting into the future....The power of imagination fabricates images - sketches of goals for life, of happiness, as well as images of fears about disaster. They are all rational remembrances, diagnoses, prognoses, guided by images that the human heart has imagined and produced, by pictures of fear and hope, which once again are grounded in certain experiences.

Luther's definiton of the human being as an animal rationale, habens cor fingens has its theological validity within creation, but is to be understood first of alll...as a theological description of sin.... In an exactly parallel way, Calvin says: "the fantasy of the human being is a factory that works ceaselessly to make idols."

This is correct if the circumstances of the sinful situation are at are at issue. But at the same time, that which identifies what is appropriate to the creation in this formula still remains: even in faith I am cor fingens, in that I praise God by letting God by God, in that I, when I - in spiritual, spirit motivated (Col 3:16) creativity - accord to him what is appropriate to him. The cor fingens is at work even in a poetic song of praise, but in the sense that it offers thanks. Thus Luther's famous phrase fides creatrix divinitatis [faith is the creator of divinity] is to be understood as follows: the faith is the creator of the deity, to be sure, non in persona sua, sed in nobis - not in and of itself, but in us. We make God to be God, that we give him what is due to him; we let God be God.

(pp.174-175, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)

Can't say I understand it deeply, or that I know what to make of it. But its interesting.

Why believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

Listening to: Pink Floyd: Wish You Were Here

[I've been asked by someone to explain why I believe in the resurrection. I'm just trying to get some thoughts together before I write. As I've got a few days I thought I'd throw down my first thoughts of a plan in the likely event that it could do with some improvements. Unfortunately I haven't really thought about this in a structured way for a long, long time. Nobody usually asks me about it! No time for much fresh reading or a masterpiece, but any suggestions appreciated. I'm particularly concerned about handling part 1. as that seems quite tricky to do right.... I must admit - I'm a bit nervous about posting any of it though in case it falls on the wrong side of anyone in the fat apologetics debate on Glen's blog.]

1. Limits of reasons

   (a) intellectual: Any experience of any kind can be explained away. People start with assumptions about the impossibility of miracles which would prevent them believing accounts of miracles even if they did happen.

   (b) moral: our unwillingness to believe the Gospel because of its implications.

   (c) Resurrection as starting point: Necessary given nature of God as ultimate authority. Witness of the Holy Spirit.

   (d) 'Fit' with experience/reason/historical method: Explanatory power of the bible's message. Personal experience. Role of reasons within framework of the resurrection as starting point.

2. Biblical account

   (a) The empty tomb: failings of alternative explanations.

   (b) Witnesses: Women, early writings of Paul when witnesses still alive.

   (c) Changed disciples: Fear to boldness (the 12), enemies to friends (Paul), spread of the Gospel, martyrs, miracles of disciples.

3. Ancient worldviews

   (a) similarities/dissimilarities with Jewish worldview

   (b) dissimilarities with Greek worldview

   (c) Chronological snobbery: common-sense of ancient society

4. The church

   Resurrection life in believers.

5. Good news

   Jesus is Lord. Therefore death and sin defeated. Hope for eternal life and adoption. Physicality and personality retained.

Books I'm leaning on: The Reason for God (Keller), Basic Christianity (Stott), Surprised by Hope (Wright), The Case for Christ (Strobel), Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (Newbigin)

Newbigin on Science

Further to my ambitious recent post about TF Torrance on science, here is a quote from Lesslie Newbigin which has some overlap:

Like all visions of ultimate truth, science is necessarily involved in a circular argument. It has to assume from the beginning the truth of what it seeks to prove. It begins from the conviction that the universe is acessible to rational understanding, it refuses to accept as final evidence that which seems to contradict this faith, and it seeks with a passion which is one of the glories of human history to prove that the faith is true.

(p.48, The Gospel in a pluralist society)

A bible study on Colossians 2:6-15

Listening to: Andrew Bird: Andrew Bird & the Mysterious Production of Eggs

Feedback welcome.

2My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. 5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your sinful nature was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. (TNIV)

• What was the Colossians' problem before they were Christians (vv. 13-14)? [Dead/indebted/condemned/power and authorities against them]

• What did God in Christ do in the past to solve this problem (vv. 13-15)? [God forgave us having: (i) nailed legal indebtedness to the cross; and (ii) disarmed the powers and authorities]

• What did the Colossians 'do' in their past so that Christ’s work was effective for them? [v.6: "received Christ"; v.12: "baptism…through your faith"; Why did I put 'do' in scare-quotes?]

• What two paths could the Colossians take from where they are (vv. 6-8)? [live in Christ or be taken captive by human philosophy]

• In what way is one path hollow and the other full?

• Why do hollow ideas deceive us and capture us?

• Remembering the passage 2 weeks ago as well as this week's, how has Paul helped the Colossians live in Christ rather than be deceived? [(i) he prayed that they may know Christ and understand the riches we have in him; (ii) he has reminded them of the worth of Christ and what he has done for them]

• How can we help each other?

Do everything to the glory of God

"whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31)

So how exactly do you do that?

Perhaps its by constantly having God in mind as you munch on your fish fingers and thanking him for providing you with this food. Perhaps its not quite as 'spiritual' as that and simply enjoying munching on that marmite on toast as it fills a hole. But perhaps its not even as conscious an activity as that.

The sermon at church this evening was on Psalm 148 where the Sun and Moon are called on to Praise God.

Our pastor pointed out that given all creation is called to worship God, there is a problem with a definition of worship which limits it to human beings (e.g. Don Carson who defines worship as: "the proper response of all moral sentient beings to God, ascribing all honor and worth to their Creator-God", p.26, Worship by the Book).

But given that all creation should worship God, have you ever thought how the Sun and Moon worship God? I don't think I really have. I think I've always just skimmed over those statements as hyperbole, but you do come across it remarkably often in Scripture don't you? I can understand how the Sun and Moon witness to his magnificent creative power and so give him glory that way; but praise him? A bit too far perhaps?

It struck me this evening that the only way God can be praised by a lump of stone hanging in the vacuum of space is by it being what it is. It not only doesn't have intelligent thoughts, you couldn't even say it has feelings. It simply exists. It is what it was made to be.

I suppose our worship is the same really. Our worship is just living life as we were made to live life as human beings made in the image of God. God designed us to eat and drink to sustain ourselves, so we eat and drink and that is worship. Of course we are also made to be in relationship with him, to serve each other, etc. But the act of eating and drinking is pure worship in and of itself. It doesn't need anything else adding. Similarly, sleeping is worship, it doesn't become worship because its sleeping in order to do something in the morning. So having already eaten and worshipped God that way, in a couple of hours I'm going to go to sleep to worship God.

That all seems banal perhaps. But I think its actually quite important.

Judas and Peter

A friend asked what the difference between Judas and Peter was given that both deserted Jesus, but one hung himself and the other became a pillar of the church.

The short answer is the unmerited grace of God, but was there any difference in their actions?

I promised I'd email some quotes from the Reformers for him. Here they are for what it's worth.

They [i.e. the Roman Catholics] teach that by contrition we merit grace. In reference to which, if any one should ask why Saul and Judas and similar persons, who were dreadfully contrite, did not obtain grace, the answer was to be taken from faith and according to the Gospel, that Judas did not believe, that he did not support himself by the Gospel and promise of Christ. For faith shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and of Peter. But the adversaries take their answer from the Law, that Judas did not love God, but feared the punishments. Is not this teaching uncertain and improper things concerning repentance? When, however, will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, true, and great terrors which are described in the psalms and the prophets, and which those certainly taste who are truly converted, be able to decide whether it fears God for His own sake out of love it fears God, as its God, or is fleeing from eternal punishments? These people may not have experienced much of these anxieties, because they juggle words and make distinctions according to their dreams. But in the heart, when the test is applied, the matter turns out quite differently, and the conscience cannot be set at rest with paltry syllables and words. These great emotions can be distinguished in letters and terms; they are not thus separated in fact, as these sweet sophists dream. Here we appeal to the judgments of all good and wise men who also desire to know the truth. They undoubtedly will confess that these discussions in the writings of the adversaries are very confused and intricate. And nevertheless the most important subject is at stake, the chief topic of the Gospel, the remission of sins. This entire doctrine concerning these questions which we have reviewed, is, in the writings of the adversaries, full of errors and hypocrisy, and obscures the benefit of Christ, the power of the keys, and the righteousness of faith to inexpressible injury of conscience [...]

faith [in Christ] shows the distinction between the contrition of Judas and Peter, of Saul and of David. The contrition of Judas or Saul is of no avail, for the reason that to this there is not added this faith, which apprehends the remission of sins, bestowed as a gift for Christ's sake. Accordingly, the contrition of David or Peter avails, because to it there is added faith, which apprehends the remission of sins granted for Christ's sake.

(Philip Melanchthon, The Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Article XII (V): Of Repentance)

They [e.g. Philip Melanchthon] give Cain, Saul and Judas, as examples of legal repentance. Scripture, in describing what is called their repentance, means that they perceived the heinousness of their sins, and dreaded the divine anger; but, thinking only of God as a judge and avenger, were overwhelmed by the thought. Their repentance, therefore, was nothing better than a kind of threshold to hell, into which having entered even in the present life, they began to endure the punishment inflicted by the presence of an offended God. Examples of evangelical repentance we see in all those who, first stung with a sense of sin, but afterwards raised and revived by confidence in the divine mercy, turned unto the Lord. Hezekiah was frightened on receiving the message of his death, but praying with tears, and beholding the divine goodness, regained his confidence. The Ninevites were terrified at the fearful announcement of their destruction; but clothing themselves in sackcloth and ashes, they prayed, hoping that the Lord might relent and avert his anger from them. David confessed that he had sinned greatly in numbering the people, but added "Now, I beseech thee O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant." When rebuked by Nathan, he acknowledged the crime of adultery, and humbled himself before the Lord; but he, at the same time, looked for pardon. Similar was the repentance of those who, stung to the heart by the preaching of Peter, yet trusted in the divine goodness, and added, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Similar was the case of Peter himself, who indeed wept bitterly, but ceased not to hope...Though all this is true, yet the term repentance (in so far as I can ascertain from Scripture) must be differently taken [Calvin was much more concerned with words in systematics corresponding with the biblical usage].

(John Calvin, Institutes 3.3.4-5)

Fantastic Forsyth

Every other historical fact than the Gospel finds the human mind with such a disposition for truth that it has merely to present itself with sufficient evidence or attraction. It appeals to the instinct for natural certainty or excellence. But with the Christian certainty it is otherwise. The element of natural certainty or proof in it is very subordinate. Its rational appeal is always inadequate, and its desirability is not at once apparent. Nay, it has a power all its own of rousing antagonism and even hate. Its certainty comes with a blow to human nature and human reason, or with an unwelcome demand for submission, or at least preferential treatment. It has no foundation in either nature or reason, but only contact, only points of attachment for appeal. It is more despotic than constitutional, so far as rational law is concerned. How is the natural man to verify a gospel which takes the confidence out of human nature and its instincts, and destroys the egoism which is its first certainty? How can the foolishness of such a Gospel commend itself to man s native wisdom? And is the Gospel not such? I am not speaking of religion. Religion is natural to man, faith is not, Christianity is not. The Gospel revelation means self-condemnation and no confidence in the flesh, in human nature. It upsets the ordinary bench of appeal. Its protectorate begins by dissolving parliament [...] The Gospel must create the power to believe it. Revelation here is so radical that in the same act it must be Regeneration. The calling voice of a holy God to us sinners is such a judging, crushing voice that it becomes effectual only as a new-creating word.

(my bold, italics original, pp.118-119, The Principle of Authority)

Three things that make that brilliant:

The emphasis on the moral: Forsyth's great strength is always to see how its a moral world we live in. Every problem is a moral problem. So often in apologetics we forget the noetic effects of sin. This is probably horrendously wrong, but while Barth would say something similar to Forsyth here (see previous post for an example) I think he isn't usually as good because the moral dimension would not be as prominent. Instead Barth would emphasise the unknowable nature of God as god, in a way which I always feel is something like what I'm told Kant taught about how the phenomenal cannot know the noumenal (this is all way above my pay-grade though).

The recognition of connections with experience/reason/nature/history: While we cannot cannot argue someone to belief starting with where they are, there are "points of attachment for appeal". We can have discussions about the historicity of the gospels, we can show how people's longings for good relationship find their fulfilment only in God, etc. These are valid and fruitful things to do.

The Gospel-word of God creates faith: there are two points here: firstly, it is God that creates faith not our arguments; and secondly, it is through the preaching of the Gospel, and not apart from it that he does his work.

Bad Barth

Listening to: David Ford: I Sincerely Apologise for All the Trouble I've Caused

Just about the worst thing I ever have read from Karl Barth:

Unquestionably, the resurrection narratives are contradictory. A coherent history cannot be evolved from them [...] The witnesses attended an event that went over their heads, and each told a bit of it. But these scraps are sufficient to bear witness to us of the magnitude of the event and its historicity. Every one of the witnesses declares God's free grace which surpasses all human understanding. God alone can prove the truth of that history since he himself is the subject. Fortunately, God has never ceased to work in men's hearts and send the faith needed to see those things.

(p. 92, The Faith of the Church: A commentary on the Apostles' Creed)

But its a quote worth thinking about some more, so I'm posting it for my future reference. There are a lot of interesting and important things to think about both in what he says that is correct and what he says that is wrong. What was wrong with his thinking that allowed him to get to the point of making an argument like that, and think it made sense?

An Anatomy of Christian Righteousness

Listening to: Franz Schubert: Piano Sonatas (Uchida)

"Our theology" said Luther, consisted of a distinction between two kinds of righteousness:

the active and the passive, so that morality and faith, works and grace, secular society and religion may not be confused. Both are necessary, but both must be kept within their limits. (Lectures on Galatians, 1531-1535, cited in p.21 The Genius of Luther's Theology)

Melanchthon in his commentary on Colossians 2:10-15, the consummate teacher (rather than preacher), offers an anatomy of our passive/Christian righteousness. First he observes that for Paul the definition of Christian Righteousness is "In Christ you are complete" (NIV: "you have been given fullness in Christ"). He further analyses things by observing two differences between Christian and human Righteousness:

1. "Christian righteousness satisfies God, because it believes that the Father has forgiven for Christ's sake" [DK: Christ acts on the Father]
2. "the Holy Spirit, who puts the flesh to death, brings Christian righteousness into being" [DK: Christ acts on us]. This is further divided into:
   1. putting to death: "Putting to death, or repentance, is to recognize sin and to be truly afraid of God's judgement"; and
   2. bringing to life: "Bringing to life is for the conscience the conscience being raised up through faith or trust; for it to seize hold of the consolation of believing that God has forgiven one's sins for Christ's sake". This "Making alive contains two things":
      1. "taking away a bad conscience. For, when God has forgiven sins, he effects peace and joy in our hearts through faith. After that, we dare to be sure he has forgiven us, and dare to call him Father"
      2. "governing through the Holy Spirit.... in the kingdom of Christ, where he watches over them through the Hoy Spirit [and] defends them against the snares of the devil"

PS: I know I must stop posting with titles like this one. It almost seems heretical.