Why we get on the merry-go-round in the first place

The lack of recent blog activity (now being overcompensated for) may have made you realise that I've been quite busy recently. I tend to go through phases of taking on too much, and Christmas was a wonderful rest from that. Tim Chester's The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness is a brilliant book on how it is our lack of faith that often (although not always) leads us to be over busy. I highly recommend it.

But Helmut Thielicke said the same a few decades ago when preaching on the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29):

Our overactivity, which constantly keeps us on the merry-go-round and yet, no matter how fast we go, gets us nowhere, but only makes us dizzy, is not caused by the fact that we were so nervous or that we had no time. It is just the opposite. We are nervous and we have no time because we think everything will stop without us and because we think we are so tremendously important - we parvenus [newcomers/upstarts] in this old business of creation! And this is why we can never let anything get out of our hands and be entrusted to others. That's why we hold on to everything convulsively and thus wear ourselves out all over again. Undoubtedly, all this is connected with the ultimate decisions of our life and not so much at all with medicine or with the problem of our modern way of life. And because we have thus taken over the management of the bankrupt assets of creation, because we do everything ourselves and therefore must always be producing something, we never get away from constant care and concern. For anybody who takes everything upon himself finds that everything depends on him.

(p.84f, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus)

Isn't the true gospel so freeing in comparison to the false gospel of our mastery over the world? No wonder it rest is so important in the bible. Not because passiveness towards the world is the ideal, but because God is active in caring for his creation.

Thielicke on the Parable of the Soils

Helmut Thielicke makes two really important points that I think I often miss when reading this familiar parable:

1. It is a solemn parable

I wonder whether we have caught the sadness that hangs over this story. Jesus spoke this parable at a high point in his life and activity. The people were flocking to him in great numbers [and yet] the parable is really pointing out how frequently the divine seed is destroyed - destroyed in stony hearts, by the heat of the sun, by choking thorns and predatory birds - this is why there is in this parable a deep sense of grief and sorrow. And all this is seen and proclaimed while outwardly the people are coming in droves, inspired with festive enthusiasm, and the hucksters are rubbing their hands with delight over this "colossal" attraction

(p.53, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus)

2. It is meant to provoke a response

We should be misunderstanding [Jesus] disastrously if we thought that this was simply an enumeration of the forces which obstruct and choke our faith for our information or even for self-examination. This is more than "analysis." Jesus is never interested in counting and statistics; he always puts us to work. He says: Weed out the thorns; see to it that the seed does not fall on the path; be careful lest you be people so shallow that the Word cannot take root. Jesus says: Be good soil.

(p. 59f, ibid)

Are we sure assurance should be sought for?

[To S]

Luther's whole theology was driven by the question of how he could be assured of God's favour - how he could know that he was saved. He even defined faith as including assurance of salvation.

Our theology is shaped by the questions we asked. Was that the wrong question for Luther to be asking? Should we expect Christians to be sure of their salvation? Perhaps it is even unhelpful.

In contemporary Evangelicalism you could often assume that good emotions, and positive feelings are the primary purpose of all Christian activities. So we don't even think if there is anything wrong with Luther's question. But it is a question we should ask. Why is assurance of salvation essential to Christian faith?

Off the top of my head I would give two answers:

1. It honours God as truthful. To not be assured of your salvation is to call God a liar, because he promises just that in the Bible, the words of Christians, and the sacraments. "when the soul firmly trusts God's promises, it regards him as truthful and righteous. Nothing more excellent than this can be ascribed to God [this is the] very highest worship of God" (Martin Luther, The Freedom of the Christian).
2. It is the only way anyone will do good works. We will never be motivated to do truly good works by mere command, even less by fear. Unless we are sure that we have all that we need we will look first to shoring up our own salvation, before seeking to serve others. Unless we know for sure that God loves us we will not love him in return. A few quotes:

"For what reason is faith, as trust in God's promise [of our forgiveness], given priority over all works? In what way does it alone make all works good? Because it alone - and thus God alone, who establishes faith - breaks open the nature of the sinner as one curved in on himself; only he can loosen the fist that is clenched so tightly, so that my existence on behalf of others becomes natural once again and takes place with 'passion and love.' The imagery of receiving and passing on to others brings us to the foundational motif of Luther's understanding of God, that of categorical gift: through the Son, God in the Spirit gives himself to us as Father, in every sense of the word, so that we do not hoard and keep for ourselves what is given to us, which is what we do as sinners, but instead pass it on to others" (p. 283, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)

"if we recognize the great and precious things which are given us, as Paul says [Rom. 5:5], our hearts will be filled by the Holy Spirit with the love that makes us free, joyful, almighty workers and conquerors over all tribulations, servants of our neighbours, yet lords of all." (pp.304f, Martin Luther, The Freedom of the Christian)

"It is impossible to love God until the forgiveness of sins is first grasped by faith. For the heart that truly believes that God is angry is unable to love God until he is shown to be reconciled. For as long as he terrifies us and appears to be casting us into eternal death, human nature cannot bring itself to love such a wrathful, judging, and punishing God. It is easy for complacent minds to fabricate some foolish dreams about love [...] But in its agony and its battles the conscience experiences the emptiness of such philosophical speculations." (p. 126, Apology of the Augsburg Confession)

When Christian friends meet

My Christian friendships should look like this. I should

pour out my sadness to the one who is close to me and ask him for comfort. What that person then gives and promises to me as regards comfort is to be affirmed by God in heaven as well. On the other hand, I should also comfort and and say to another person: dear friend, dear brother, why do you not let go of your affliction? It is certainly not God's will that you experience a single bit of suffering. god allowed his Son to die for you, so that you need not mourn but that you can be joyful. Therefore be of good courage and be comforted; you will do a service and that which is pleasing to God, and you ought to kneel down with one another and pray the Lord's Prayer, which is certainly heard in heaven, for God promises: "I am in your midst" [Matt. 18:20]. He does not say: "I will see it. I will hear it," or "I will come to you," but "I am there already."

(Martin Luther, Matt 18-24 interpreted in sermons; 1537-40, cited in pp. 277f, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation).

I.e. Christian friendship should involve:

• Openness in discussing sins, worries and sadnesses;
• Application of the Gospel to comfort, encourage, and bring joy;
• Corporate prayer.

I have friendships with Christians where I'm pretty bad on one or all of those. But Luther is not listing requirements for gritty and serious Christians to put their backs into their Christian growth. Instead, it is a wonderful encouragement that Christ stands behind our words of consolation guaranteeing their truth, and that he stands with us when we pray so that we can have confidence of an answer.

Christ, our peace

"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace" (Eph 2:13f)

We are hopefully used to the idea that we cannot find our righteousness in ourselves, but have to find it in Christ. We know that this means among other things that:

• We are (now) perfectly righteous in God's eyes, no matter what we think or feel about ourselves;
• Sin remains in our life, but we are progressively being made righteous by the Holy Spirit's application of Christ's righteous resurrection life;
• As Christ is the only righteous one, he is our model for what righteous living looks like. That is what is helpful about the WWJD slogan. Jesus, and his cruciform life, is the definition of righteousness.

But what is true of righteousness is also true of peace (wisdom, etc).

• We have peace with God and his creation, even if we feel that God is at war with us and the world is all against is. We may rarely feel very settled and tranquil in ourselves, but we are (now) perfectly at peace in God's eyes;
• There remains hostility towards others and towards us, and much of life is chaotic rather than tranquil, but the Holy Spirit is giving us the peace of God, and that is slowly becoming integral to us, even if we're not aware of it;
• But part of the reason we may not be aware of the peace we already have is because we have a false idea of what peace looks like. Perhaps we think it looks like stillness, or a deserted beach with the sun coming up over the horizon. But if Christ is the one who has, and is, perfect peace, we should look to him to know what peace looks like. He is at war with the devil, mourning over evil, and even when they are defeated will be as active and creative as he has always been.

Questioning people

Listening to: Red Mountain Church: The Gadsby Project

Questioning Evangelism by Randy Newman argues that it is much better to answer a question with another question when doing evangelism. I could do with reading the book, rather than just skimming it, but it strikes me that questions are important not just because they are an effective evangelistic technique, but because of what they communicate in themselves. As such, they are important not just in evangelism but in all our relationships.

1. Questions communicate that we care - people who care ask questions. A self-obsessed person will talk about what themselves, what they think, and what they've done, till the cows come home. They don't want to listen to you, or understand you because that's irrelevant to their relationship with you. In contrast, someone who really cares about you will ask probing questions to find out how you really are (although not in an insensitive way).

2. Questions communicate that the person we're speaking to is not the judge - a danger of suggesting that we always ask questions is that we assume that to be loving is just to listen. But questions also ask people to give an account. They demand an answer. We are always prone to think that we understand the world perfectly, but as soon as we are forced to explain it to others we realise the shortcomings of our understanding. We realise that we are not in a position to judge - the questions are being asked of us. The questioner becomes God to us, and it is now us in the dock, and not God. This is a challenge to the sinner in us who judges themselves to be righteous apart from Christ, and release for the broken saint involved in self-condemnation.

Top ten books I read in 2009

I like making lists to review my year. Last year I didn't read that much so didn't do a top ten list (2007's list is here) but this year I've read more books in a year than I ever have. I realise I've read quite a lot looking down this post, but this has been an exceptional year for me. I'm unlikely to have so much time for reading again for a long, long time. Besides, a lot of these books are really very short. I'm painfully aware too that reading doesn't produce either holiness or wisdom ex opere operato. Thankfully though many of them do remind me that I have both in Christ, by faith and not by reading!

One theme of my reading this year has been CS Lewis (7 books). You may have missed that on this blog, as I haven't blogged that much about it. A group of people from our church have had a reading/discussion group going through some of his books this year and that was the impetus. I am left with enormous respect for the brain he had. His learning, his skill in communication, his mastery of so many disciplines (fiction, philosophy, theology etc), and his insight into how humans tick is beyond belief. Nevertheless, I have a few concerns with his approach. I was continually struck by two things. Firstly, how rarely he starts with Jesus Christ, and secondly the almost total absence of repentance as fundamental to knowledge of God. But a couple of his books make it into my top ten despite those fairly fundamental problems.

The second theme is probably less of a surprise. Nine of the books are Lutheran. My respect for the distinctives of Lutheranism has only grown this year. I ought to write a post to give an account for why I think that everyone should listen to the Lutherans, and take them as seriously as they take the human situation. However, I have seen that their strength in getting to the heart, and seeing through to what is fundamental, also means that they often become disconnected from the Bible.... but this does need a post to explain.

Before I get into the top ten books I've read this year, I have to mention 2 books which I've only dipped into but which still come with the highest recommendation from me. First, Leiths Vegetable Bible. A dirty little secret is that I became a (flexible) vegetarian this year. This recipe book has made me actually enjoy that transition. While I went over to the dark side on moral grounds, I think this book has made me willing to stay here just on taste grounds too. Hundreds of excellent, honest but not boring, recipes. Even if you're not a veggie you should buy this book. Second, is The Books of the Bible which I've mentioned before. It has made reading lengthy sections of the bible so much more enjoyable.

But without further ado, here are the top ten books I read in 2009:

1. Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation (by Oswald Bayer). This book took me almost a year to read. It was so rich I felt I needed a few weeks to absorb each chapter. A truly incredible book, I can't recommend it highly enough. One of Germany's premier Lutheran theologians having a conversation with Luther in order to understand what he has to say to us today.
2. Loci Communes (1st edition, 1521, by Philip Melanchthon). Luther praised this book more than any other, saying it deserved "not only to be immortalized but even canonized". Written by his sidekick Philip Melanchthon when aged just 23, only 4 years after Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church. It is a theology shaped around the distinction between 'Law and Gospel'. Short, but packing a punch. It should be much more widely read.
3. On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (by Gerhard O. Forde). Brings out the powerful, world shaking nature of Luther's message to his fellow Augustinians at Heidelberg early in the Reformation. Will throw you upside down, as you seek to re-evaluate whether you really see things as they are.
4. Life Father Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity (by Tom Smail). A good brief introduction to the contemporary movement to putting the Trinity back at the heart of our theology. It then asks what implications thinking Trinitarianly would have to our understanding of ourselves as human. Brilliantly provocative.
5. Out of the Storm: Questions and consolations from the book of Job (by Christopher Ash). A brief exposition of the book of Job. I've read Job many a time, but I don't think I really understood it as good news for sufferers until I read this book. It really opened up God's final speech to me at a time in this year when I really needed to hear it.
6. When Christ Comes and Comes Again (by TF Torrance). A collection of early evangelistic sermons by Tom Torrance. Beautiful, comforting and thought-provoking. You couldn't assume this level of biblical and theological literacy today (you probably couldn't then!), but he shows us how we can imaginatively present the gospel from a variety of different angles.
7. Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold (by CS Lewis). A novel! I have only read two this year, and this is the only one that wasn't explicitly Christian one. I'd read it once before, but reading it again while discussing it with others showed just how deep it goes. I have literally spent hours talking about this book with others in our group that have read it, and I still don't think I've reached the bottom of it.
8. Miracles (by CS Lewis). Packed full of arguments to take seriously. I particularly liked his argument against David Hume. And his idea of the 'fittingness' of the biblical miracles - and particularly the 'Grand Miracle' of the Resurrection.
9. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (by Heiko A. Oberman). Brings out quite how Luther's view of his life and the preaching of the Gospel as apocalyptic struggle against the devil shaped his theology in ways as Moderns we have trouble comprehending.
10. The Soul of Prayer (by PT Forsyth). This is on the list almost entirely for the final chapter, 'the Insistancy of Prayer', and its explanation of how prayer should include wrestling - that is fighting - against God's will being done (Ooo that's provocatively put, but that's what he says and I think he's right).

For what it's worth here is the complete list of books I read in 2009:

• Martin Luther's Theology (Bayer)
• [The Cost of] Discipleship (Bonhoeffer)
• The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (Lewis)
• Miracles (Lewis)
• The Cruciality of the Cross (Forsyth)
• On Christian Liberty (Luther)
• When People are Big and God is Small (Welch)
• The Four Loves (Lewis)
• A Grief Observed (Lewis)
• Out of the Storm (Ash)
• The Soul of Prayer (Forsyth)
• Till We Have Faces (Lewis)
• The Hammer of God (Giertz)
• Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Athanasius)
• Mirror, mirror (Beynon)
• The Screwtape Letters (Lewis)
• On Being a Theologian of the Cross (Forde)
• Loci Communes (1521, Melanchthon)
• When Christ Comes and Comes Again (Torrance)
• The Abolition of Man (Lewis)
• Luther (Oberman)
• The Enemy Within (Lundgaard)
• PT Forsyth (Hunter)
• Like Father, Like Son (Smail)
• The Humanity of God (Barth)
• Pia Desideria (Spener)
• Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace (Torrance)
• Baptized into Gods Family (Das)
• Calvin (Wendel)
• Handling the Word of Truth (Pless)
• Treatise on Good Works (Luther)

My films of 2009

One of the wonders of living in York is the City Screen cinema by the river. I love this cinema, and saw a good few films there this year.

Its review of the year time, but sadly 2009 hasn't been a vintage year for filmgoers. Nevertheless, for your consideration, here are my top ten films I watched at the cinema in 2009:

1. Slumdog Millionaire
2. The Wrestler
3= Doubt
3= Away We Go
5. Up (3D)
6= Revolutionary Road
6= Gran Torino
8. Star Trek
9. Das Weisse Band - The White Ribbon
10. Moon

With an honourable mention to Synecdoche, New York.

There have been some great films that I've missed. But so you know the sample I'm basing this on. Here are all the films I saw at the cinema this year:

(500) Days of Summer
A serious man
Away We Go
Breakfast at Tiffany's (rerelease)
Che - Part One
Das Weisse Band - The White Ribbon
District 9
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
Gomorra / Gomorrah
Gran Torino
Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince
Milk
Moon
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire
Star Trek
State Of Play
Synecdoche, New York
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Wrestler
Up (3D)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Where the Wild Things Are

Christ's mediation: pop quiz

Some questions on my mind this evening.

1. Do you think that most people think of Christ as the mediator between us and the Father, and the Holy Spirit as the mediator between us and Christ?
2. What impact would it have on our thinking if we remembered more often that Christ was the mediator of the Spirit?
3. What do we mean by Christ's mediation anyway? Is his cleansing us so we can enter the prescence of God the end of it? If not, what else does it involve?

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe film discussion questions

[These are my notes for leading a discussion on the film The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Feedback welcome. Sorry for the extent that they're decipherable only to me. I haven't had time to edit them for public consumption]

From dedication of the book: "My Dear Lucy, I wrote this story for you, but when I began it I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But some day you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it. I shall probably be too deaf to hear, and too old to understand a word you say, but I shall still be your affectionate Godfather, C. S. Lewis."

We're a bunch of adults who have decided to watch a 'kids' film, involving talking animals and a secret other world. Is Lewis right that you grow out of fairy tales, and then grow into them again? Why?

• Escapism?
• Sentimental longing to relive childhood?
• Do they enable us to understand the real world in a way which realist fiction or abstract argument can't?

** WATCH FILM **

Any parts of the film you particularly enjoyed, or thought didn't work?

• Tilda Swinton
• Colours of Narnia, particularly when Lucy and Edmund first enter. Snow.
• Soundtrack
• London scenes. Character development. Parallels of war in England and Narnia.
• Why Aslan had to die.

Once all four children enter Narnia, it is largely the actions of Edmund that drive the story. What motivates Edmund to join the White Witch?

• Absence of his father (running back to save his photo in air raid; "Wouldn’t have to go away if Dad was here" at station). Does this excuse him?
• Book: new school is blamed
• Estrangement from siblings, in particular from Peter.
• Problem with authority: Doesn't like authority of Peter and Susan over him ("You think you’re Dad, but you’re not" when Peter tells him off for mocking Lucy’s belief in Narnia; "Yes Mum" his response to Susan when she suggests they go to bed)
• Desire to be king (Doesn't like it when he thinks Witch will make Peter king as well; sits on Witch's throne: “like it?” she asks - “yes” Edmund replies).
• Half-believes she is right (thinks that faun may be lying about her, that and that it is Tumnus who is a criminal).
• Enjoys the Turkish Delight and wants more (book: "this was enchanted Turkish Delight and... anyone who had tasted it would want more and more of it, and would even, if tthey were allowed go on eating it till they killed themselves")
• In the end he doesn't get anything that he betrayed his family for. No throne, no food.

If Edmund is flawed, is Peter any better?

• self-righteous
• quick to round on Edmund at any opportunity (gets angry at air raid about photo Edmund goes back for, gets angry about cricket ball, gives Edmund girls coat out of wardrobe, "I know")
• He likes authority too. Not happy to ask Professor for help, "we can handle it".
• Confession to Aslan: "It’s my fault really. I was too hard on him"

Aslan sacrifices himself to save Edmund. Self sacrifice is a common theme in films. The centaur and rhino sacrifice themselves in this film to save Peter. Is Aslan's self-sacrifice different in any way?

• Planned? No, it is often planned in stories.
• He is in control though in a way that you don't often get. He has to satisfy the Deep Magic. That is the problem, not the Witch.
• Only he could "turn death backwards", be resurrected, break the Deep Magic's hold over Narnia, because he is the only innocent one - and god?
• Why does he have to die? What does it achieve?

[OPTIONAL QUESTION: Tilda Swinton says about the film: "It's about finding self-sufficiency in difficult circumstances and finding the capacity to dig deep, survive and prevail."

Is her interpretation of the film correct?

• Yes, digging deep and courage important themes.
• No, self-sufficiency is far from promoted (Children need each other and other animals, need Aslan - “Only Aslan can help your brother now” Mr Beaver on Edmund going to the witch’s palace, Aslan's desire not to be alone as he goes to his death, contrast the Witch who needs no-one and doesn't want to - even says to dwarf who asks if she will kill him: "not yet"). We are created to need others, and particularly to need Christ (and his death). Self-sufficiency is not an ideal to aspire to.

]

Running theme in film is who is telling the truth. Lucy and Edmund contradict on existence of Narnia. Lucy: "She calls herself the Queen of Narnia thought she has no right to be queen at all". Faun has book on his shelf "Is Man a Myth?" Edmund on Mr Beaver: "how do we know we can trust him?" What does film say about how we can know what is true?

• Edmund at least really knows in deep-down that witch is evil. He lies to himself.
• The Professor's advice to Peter and Susan on whether to believe Lucy: "If she’s not mad and if she’s not lying then she must be telling the truth"
• Ultimately, belief in truth is presented in a very personal way.
• Some are ignorant of truth so doubt it ("Is man a myth?").
• Truth is inescapable reality whatever stance people take.

The Deep Magic of Narnia

A lot of Evangelicals have a problem with the atonement theory they see displayed in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by CS Lewis. They are uncomfortable that it seems to suggest that:

1. the devil had something he could demand of Christ
2. Christ's death was not to satisfy God's wrath, but to satisfy the devil

But I think that CS Lewis does not say anything wrong, but he leaves the door open to problems coming in.

The Witch appeals to the "Deep Magic" for her claim on Edmund's life. She also says "the Law" demands it. For Lewis the "Deep Magic" seems to be another name for "the Law" in Christian theology. It is built into the fabric of the universe, but it is not an independent god which both the Witch and the Aslan have to obey. It was put in place by the "Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea" (God the Father), and it belongs to him. The Stone Table represents this Deep Magic. It has the words of it written on it, just as the words of the Law were written on stone tablets delivered to Moses.

Any claim that the Witch has against Edmund is derived from the Deep Magic, and more fundamentally from the Emperor who gave it. Aslan says that the offence committed by Edmund was not an offence against the Witch, and so she does not have a natural right to claim Edmund's life. As the Beaver observes, she is "the Emperor's hangman" and it is he who gives the Witch her right. It is ultimately not either the Witch or the Deep Magic which has a claim on Edmund's life, it is the Emperor. The devil in Christian theology is in the same position. He is called Satan ('the accuser') because his power is only in bringing the Law of God to bear on people's lives. As the early chapter's of Job show clearly, he is God's servant and not a truly rival power.

Aslan would not go against the law given by the Emperor who is his father, but his authority does not derive from it like the Witch's does. He subjects himself to the Deep Magic voluntarily, even though it clearly only applies to traitors. In this sense Aslan and the Witch are not two equals under the Deep Magic. Aslan lowers himself to the Witch's level, but that is not where he belongs. It is only as Aslan identifies with Edmund that the Witch can demand anything from him. The parallels with Christ are obvious.

When Christ died on the cross in the place of us, the Law was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). The Law has been torn down and we no longer will we be put to death by it. Similarly, the Stone Table cracks when Aslan is brought back from the dead.

That's all good stuff, but I think Lewis leaves the door open for problems in several ways:

• God is distant. It is only in a very indirect way that Aslan seems to be experiencing the Emperor's wrath. Because of this it appears that our biggest problem is not God's anger at our sin, but the devil out to hurt us.
• Because of this distance of God, it seems almost like the devil is acting as a free agent, albeit under authority of the Law. There is no sense that God has sovereignly arranged for the attack of the devil. Except perhaps in Aslan locating his army's camp at the Stone Table from the beginning.
• Because Aslan is a lion and Edmund a human, it is not clear that Aslan is only subject to the "Deep Magic"/Law by his identification with Edmund. It could be misunderstood that he is under the "Deep Magic" in exactly the same way the Witch is.
• The Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea does not seem to be the loving Heavenly Father of the Christian Faith. He is not only distant, but possibly even evil. He does not act for good (it is never clear that he sent his son, Aslan). He is only ever depicted as standing behind the cold justice executed by the evil Witch. The Deeper Magic which means Aslan is raised from the dead is only implicitly the Deeper Magic of the Emperor. In contrast the New Testament is crystal clear that it was God the Father raised Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. The whole Trinity is acting in the salvation of sinners. If it is was not then, like here, God the Father is thought to be the angry God, and Jesus the loving God subjected to divine child abuse.

Those are my thoughts. Do you have any others?

These are the only relevant passages in the book:

"You have a traitor there, Aslan," said the Witch...

"Well," said Aslan. "His offence was not against you."

"Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?" asked the Witch.

"Let us say I have forgotten it," answered Aslan gravely. "Tell us of this Deep Magic."

"Tell you?" said the Witch, her voice growing suddenly shriller. "Tell you what is written on that very Table of Stone which stands beside us? Tell you what is written in letters deep as a spear is long on the fire-stones on the Secret Hill? Tell you what is engraved on the scepter of the Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea? You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill."

"Oh," said Mr. Beaver. "So that's how you came to imagine yourself a queen - because you were the Emperor's hangman. I see."

"Peace, Beaver," said Aslan, with a very low growl.

"And so," continued the Witch, "that human creature is mine. His life is forfeit to me. His blood is my property."

"Come and take it then," said the Bull with the man's head in a great bellowing voice.

"Fool," said the Witch with a savage smile that was almost a snarl, "Do you really think your master can rob me of my rights by mere force? He knows the Deep Magic better than that. He know that unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water."

"It is very true," said Aslan, "I do not deny it."

"Oh, Aslan!" whispered Susan in the Lion's ear, "can't we – I mean, you won't, will you? Can't we do something about the Deep Magic? Isn't there something you can work against it?"

"Work against the Emperor's magic?" said Aslan, turning to her with something like a frown on his face. And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again.

(pp. 128-129)

"though the witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge only goes back to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."

(p. 148)

How can we be sure of God's love?

A lot of people are very 'down on themselves'. They clearly need words of affirmation and assurance that God really does love them. But that doesn't mean that we stop telling people they are sinners. Only through judgment will we experience God's love. And, as PT Forsyth put into words, only when a person has seen the magnitude of God's holy anger against us will that love be real and trustworthy to the person who can never see how he could be loved.

If God's love were not essentially holy love, in course of time mankind would cease to respect it, and consequently to trust it. We need not a fond love, but a love we can trust, and for ever [...]

the sinner could not trust a love that could not justify itself as holy. It is the holiness in God's love, I urge, that alone enables us to trust Him. Without that we should only love Him, and the love would fluctuate. For we could not be perfectly sure that His would not. It is the holiness in God's love that is the eternal, stable, unchangeable element in it - the holiness secured for history and its destiny in the Cross. It is only the unchangeable that we could trust; and there alone we find it. If we only loved the love of God, we should have no stable, eternal, universal religion. But we love the holy love He established in Christ, and therefore we are safe with an everlasting salvation.

(pp. 113-137, The Work of Christ)

Ultimately, the person who is down on himself can only be sure "because the father not only says but pays" (p.111, ibid)

Living witnesses to the Gospel

What kind of life commends the Gospel?

My stock answer would be something like Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:6: "by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love". In short, by 'the good life'.

But that isn't the whole picture. As Paul himself says in that passage it is also by "great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, riots, labours, sleepless nights, hunger" (vv. 4-5). We commend the Gospel by suffering! I don't often hear that or say that, and I think that is because I'm a closet theologian of glory.

Sinning less is how I see us commending the Gospel. But that isn't a rounded New Testament picture. In many ways it is by appearing foolish, weak and bad in the world's eyes that the Gospel is most proclaimed. Not by seeming to be wise, strong and holy.

Although this does not flow seamlessly, PT Forsyth has his own problem with the idea that it is by sinning less that we commend the Gospel:

The difference between the Christian and the world is not that the world sins and the Christian does not. It suits the world to think that it is; because it offers a handy whip to scourge the Church’s consistency while resenting its demands. But such a distinction is no part of the Church's claim. Nor does it mark off the Christian’s worldly years from his life in Christ. A difference of that kind is merely in quantity — all the sin on the one side, none of it on the other. But the real difference (I must say often) is not in quantity; it is in quality. It is not in the number of sins, but in the attitude toward sin and the things called sin. It is in the man's sympathies, his affinities; it is in his conscience, his verdict on sin, his treatment of it — whether the world's or his own.

(p.109, God the Holy Father)

So both in respect of our physical lives, and our moral lives, it is also being put to death (in the physical body by others, and the moral 'body' by ourselves) that we point people to Christ.

As Paul said "We are...always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies" (4:8-10).