Triperspectival application

Still listening to Tim Keller on applying Biblical texts. Keller draws out some helpful stuff from Vern Polythress on triperspectivalism in application:

Vern Poythress in [God-Centered Biblical Interpretation] takes John Frame's 3-perspectives of normative (prophetic). existential (priestly), and situational (kingly) and works this out for hermeneutics [...]

Each perspective is true in that it eventually comprises the whole, but each approach begins with a particular 'door' or aspect.

[1. 'Doctrinalist'] The 'normative' aspect I'll call "the gospel of Christ" - stresses objective, historic work of Christ that Jesus really came in time-space and history to accomplish all for us. It will talk much more about the real, historicity of Jesus life. death and resurrection...This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a doctrinal heresy.

[2. 'Pietist'] The 'existential' aspect I'll call "the gospel of sonship"- stresses our new identity in Christ as adopted children, liberated from the law. It will talk much of the power of the spirit to renew broken hearts and psyches...This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was a pastoral one of Christians falling back into legalism.

[3. 'Cultural-transformationist'] The 'situational' aspect I'll call "the gospel of the kingdom" - stresses the reversal of values in the new creation. It will talk about healed community, cultural transformation, ministry of deed and justice... This view thinks that the problem addressed by Paul in Galatians was the lack of 'table fellowship' between Jew and Gentile.

We need all three perspectives, though each perspective is not simply a 'part' of the gospel. For example, the 'kingdom' perspective contains the other two. If God is king, then salvation must be by grace, for if we are saved by works, something else will be our Lord and Savior . Or, if we have a new identity in Christ by sheer grace. then we must not look down at anyone else, and self-justification is the basis of racism and injustice. If you go deep enough into any one perspective, you will find the other two.

(From the lecture notes here)

Turning scripture to prayer

You may be familiar with using the acronym ACTS (adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication). I like that, although I feel adoration and thanksgiving should merge. I also believe that prayer should be in response to the word of God, and that should shape our prayers. Although I often just ream off a large number of requests, it is better to listen to God first.

Martin Luther has a good four-stage structure to his prayers in response to Scripture. He says we should treat the Bible in a fourfold way:

1. A school book which we listen to - Meditate on what the Bible is teaching and instructing you.
2. A song book from which we praise God - Give thanks for what the passage teaches.
3. A penitential book which prompts our confession - Repent and ask for forgiveness for not responding rightly to what the passage has taught you.
4. A prayer book which helps us to know what to ask for - Make supplications for yourself and the whole world to

Although, he also says we should hold to this structure loosely and "if in the midst of such thoughts the Holy Spirit begins to preach in your heart with rich, enlightening thoughts, honor him by letting go of the written scheme" (p. 16, A Practical Way to Pray).

The plot to moral reasoning

In his excellent lectures on preaching, Tim Keller gives his basic outline for preaching to the heart as well as to behaviour. In fact, he describes it as the foundational outline for all the moral reasoning and argument that lies at the heart of application.

a. The Plot winds up: WHAT YOU MUST DO.

• "This is what you have to do! Here is what the text/narrative tells us that we must do or what we must be."

b. The Plot thickens: WHY YOU CAN'T DO IT.

• "But you can't do it! Here are all the reasons that you will never become like this just by trying very hard."

c. The Plot resolves: HOW HE DID IT.

• "But there's One who did. Perfectly. Wholly. Jesus the---. He has done this for us, in our place."

d. The Plot winds down: HOW, THROUGH HIM, YOU CAN DO IT.

• "Our failure to do it is due to our functional rejection of what he did. Remembering him frees our heart so we can change like this ..."

(From the lecture notes here)

We're all preachers, not least to our own hearts, so it is important to think how we apply the Bible to our hearts. This structure is biblical, Christ-centred and packed with grace where it matters. But it is important that it is also a story. This makes it interesting to hear because there's dramatic tension and it is effective because it also takes the Christian on a journey from death to life, law to Gospel and self to Christ. We all want to make that journey, and by starting with the command, and not Christ, you don't just preach the goal but how to get there.

That's why I love the distinction between law and Gospel. It is about a movement. It's not an exercise in chopping up scripture but a dynamic.

Extending the sanctuary

God created the cosmos to be his great temple in which he rested after his creative work. Nevertheless, his special revelatory presence does not fill the entire earth yet, since it was his intention that this goal be achieved by his human vice-regent[/priest], whom he installed in the temple sanctuary to extend the garden boundaries of God's presence worldwide [Gen 1:28]. Adam, of course disobeyed this mandate, so that humanity no longer enjoyed God's presence in the Garden, and the entire earth became infected with sin and idolatry in a way it had not been previously, even while yet in its still imperfected state.

Therefore, the statements about God's inability to dwell in any structure on earth not only refers to the Creator's transcendence but plausibly includes reference to the necessity for purification and re-creation before God's Shekinah presence, formerly restricted to heaven and the earthly holy of holies, can dwell universally throughout creation together with his multitudes of worshippers.

(p.138, Greg Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission)

This is a summary of a large part of the argument of Beale's book. Unfortunately the book is a classic example of a great thesis buried in poor writing and then insufficiently and unimaginatively explored. A very frustrating mixture. I would recommend it, but wish someone could write another book with the same thesis.

The most influential person in my life is me

"You are the most influential person in your own life. you talk to yourself more than anyone does. What are you saying to you about you?" (Paul Tripp)

So, what are you saying? Is it helping you grow? Is it true?

Also, just because it is true that you are the most influential person in your life that doesn't mean you have to blithely accept that.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Martin Luther develop things further.

Some thoughts on the canon

Whenever anyone challenges me about the church's role in choosing the canon I still come back to a quotation I read in my first few years of being a Christian:

"the church did not select and authorize the canon but recognized it and sat down under its authority. When a patient returns to a doctor and says, 'Yes, that medicine is exactly what I need', the patient does not authorize the medicine but recognizes its inherent authorization." (p. 207, Alec Motyer, Look to the Rock)

One reason why I think Motyer's point works, even if it could be refined, is because it does not separate the Bible's authority from its purpose. You cannot know the authority of scripture apart from its saving work in your life, and the early church didn't try.

But how did the early church know that the purpose of any books claiming to be the word of God should be salvation of sinners? They could, and to some extent did, think of it as a political tool, a guidebook to life etc instead. However, from creation onwards the church has experienced the word of God and has known that it is characterised by the creation of life. The word of God and God's saving activity have always been inseparable.

So when it came to deciding the canon the primary question asked of any book was does this book bring salvation? Questions about historical reliability and apostolic authority are also valid, but are correctly understood as part of this question. The church cares that they provide historically reliable access to Jesus of Nazareth because he is our Saviour, and we care that their authority derives from Jesus because only he has the authority to forgive our sins.

But how do we know if a book brings salvation? We know salvation by the Spirit who gives life and freedom (John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:17). In this sense the Spirit authenticates the Bible. Not by a little voice in the head saying "yes that's true" or "no that's a fake", but by the new life that accompanies it (cf. John 3:8). Paul appeals to the Galatians experience of the Spirit ("Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?", 3:2) not just to verify the sufficiency of faith but to verify the Gospel of Christ he preached and they heard (1:6-7). God's word, God's salvation and God's Spirit are all inseparable. Our salvation is hidden with Christ, but we have the down-payment of the Spirit, so if we have the Spirit we can know we have life as an inheritance waiting for us (cf. 1 Peter 1:4-5).

But finally, how do we know if we have the Spirit? Paul and John both agree on one answer to this:

"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:3)

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2)

So to a degree, we can ask the question about the canon apart from our personal experience. We can ask, does the Bible confess Jesus Christ as Lord? Jesus thought the OT did (John 5:39) and I'm convinced all the NT does too. And if it does, when we can be sure that it is the Spirit-breathed, salvific word of God. But when I have come across non-canonical 'Gospels' I've been less convinced they confess the Jesus as Lord.

In Matthew and Luke I find that Jesus is confessed as the Lord who goes searching after lost sinners like a good shepherd (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:3-7). In the Gospel of Thomas I find a Jesus confessed as the Lord who who also goes searching for a lost sheep, but that sheep also happens to be the largest sheep and is never identified with sinners (saying 107). That seems like a different Jesus, and a different Lord to me, and it brings no salvation for a lost sinner.

Why the Levites?

A little while back I wondered whether God approved of the Levite killing spree in Exodus 32. Jim Jordan has convinced me that God not only approved, but chose the tribe of Levi to be priests on the basis of that action. As Moses declares once they have completed their killing "Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord" (32:29, 'service' being priestly language).

In Exodus 18 Jethro offers a sacrifice to God. In Exodus 24 the "young men of the people of Israel" are commanded to make sacrifice. Sharing in the food that belongs to God in the holy place was a priestly privilege (c.f. Lev 24:9), but in Exodus 24 God invites representatives from the whole people (Moses "Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel") up the mountain, his holy place, to eat and drink with him. But after Exodus 32, the God restricts such activities to the Levites, and this seems to be particularly tied to their willingness to take violent action.

That priests should be particularly violent may seem strange to us, but Phinehas later in Numbers 25 was certainly not afraid to draw the sword, and a significant part of the priest's job description was guard duty (Num 1:53; 3:6-38; 18:3-7).

It could even be argued that when God declares that he has "taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the people of Israel" (Num 8:18), indicates that before the Golden Calf it would have been the firstborn who would have been priests (the "young men" of Exodus 24:5?).

What is Exodus about?

I suspect when most of us think about the book of Exodus we think about the plagues, crossing of the sea and the Ten Commandments. The book of Exodus is a message of release from slavery, and of the giving of the law. But the structure of the book suggests a different focus.

The centre of the book is the arrival at Sinai and that is where the people remain for the rest of the book. As RWL Moberly comments, God's first message to Israel when they arrive at Sinai summarises the whole of the two-part structure to the book:

1. "You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself"
2. "Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (19:4-6)

The theme that over-arches these two halves is the presence of God with his people (David Clines). In the first half the focus is on the bringing of the people to the presence of God at Sinai. In the second half the focus is on the presence of God going with the people as they prepare leave Sinai for Canaan.

1. "brought you to myself"

The first half of the book is not primarily about the escape from Egypt, but the bringing of people to Mount Sinai and to God. Right at the beginning of the book Moses meets with God on Sinai and is told "when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain" (3:12). God's repeated demand to Pharaoh is that he "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness" (7:16; cf. 7:16, 8:1, 20, 9:1, 13, 10:3).

These passages suggest that to be in the presence of God is to serve him. That is to worship him. And this is what we find both at Sinai and in the Tabernacle, when the people offer sacrifices as they draw near to the presence.

2. "make us gods who shall go before us"

However, the presence of God at Sinai presents a problem to the people of Israel. Firstly, God is distant and unapproachable in his dwelling at the top of his mountain. Secondly, the mountain is immovable and the people have somewhere else they need to be; i.e. Canaan. Every idolatry has a reason, and the Golden Calf finds its reason in their response to both of these problems. Firstly, God is made visible and accessible, and secondly, he can be taken with them on their journey. But God has another plan. The mountain will move with them.

3. "my presence will go with you"

By far the largest portion of the book of Exodus is devoted not to the action set-pieces, but to the instructions about, and construction of, the Tabernacle. It dominates all of chapters 25-40. We may be tempted to skip over this, yet the presence of God with his people in the Tabernacle is central to understanding the whole book (e.g. I was struck that Alec Motyer devotes only 25% of the pages of his commentary to chapters 25-40).

God's answer to the problem the people tried to solve with the Golden Calf was a "portable mountain" (Jim Jordan). As well as symbolising the whole of the cosmos and the Garden of Eden, the Tabernacle was also a mini mountain that could dwell in the midst of the camp and go with the people as they faced the daunting task of conquering Canaan.

At the foot of Mount Sinai Moses built an altar where the people served God (24:4), the similarly the Tabernacle had the bronze altar nearest the doorway. God set limits around Sinai to keep the people from coming too close (24:12), and similarly the Tabernacle was characterised by barriers to keep people out. Cloud and fire displayed God's presence as he led them through the wilderness and then surrounded the mountain, and then the book climaxes with the same cloud of God's presence settling on the Tabernacle (which usually would be full of the cloud of incense and fire of the altars/lamps). The book ends:

"Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled on it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Throughout all their journeys, whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the people of Israel would set out. But if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel throughout all their journeys." (40:34-38)

This great dwelling of God with man only occurred because of the struggle of Moses with God in the last portion of the book to forgive the sin of the people. However, if we do not see the presence of God with his people as the great theme of Exodus this struggle may not make much sense to us.

After the Golden Calf incident God sends plagues on the people but then holds back from further destruction. He promises them that they will be given the land and that he will send an angel with them to accomplish this. But that kind of blessing is not enough for the people, or for Moses. The people mourn when they "heard this disastrous word" because they wanted God's presence with them even if they would still get the land with a mere angel. In response God agrees to think about it his decision. Moses then enters into negotiations in the neutral ground of the tent of meeting set up outside the camp, and doesn't give up until God promises to dwell in the midst of the people as they leave from Sinai.

I also don't want to be satisfied with blessings of God apart from the presence of God. But I want the passion of the book of Exodus to grow that hunger in my heart. Hopefully, it is obvious where we need to look to find the true and full satisfaction to that hunger.

What's on Tim Keller's ipod?

Do you remember that pointless bit of 'world news' a few years ago, when we were all informed what George Bush listened to on his ipod?

I listen to MP3s when I jog too, although I mainly listen to sermons and lectures, so it was interesting to hear Tim Keller say he does the same. Even if he jogs every day for 45min which puts me to shame.

He mentioned four preachers he particularly listened to, and in the spirit of the cult of Christian celebrity I thought I'd share:

• David Jackman
• Dick Lucas
• Martyn Lloyd-Jones
• John Stott

Yes, they're all British. Jackman is 67, Lucas and Stott are well into their 80s, and MLJ would be 110 if he was still alive. And yet Keller commented that these British pastors have been great models for preaching to a postmodern New York congregation because the British culture is closer to New York than the rest of the States.

What lessons should us Brits draw from that?

Where do you go from busyness?

So its past 1am and I'm pretty tired. Its been a busy few weeks and I've got a busy week ahead, so don't expect too much blogging. However, I've been reflecting recently on how we should respond to busyness and thought I'd blog my late night incoherent thoughts.

I've heard many churches preach that busyness in this life is an evil which Christ came to save us from. Yet in my experience there are few busier people than Christians. Why this paradox? Is it because busy Christians are Marthas seeking self-justification, or is it because the Gospel demands we pour ourself out in service of others?

I think it is good to be busy. My dad once commented that there is nothing sadder than someone with too much time on their hands. He works with quite a lot of elderly people, and the purposeless existence many of them live when retired and stripped of responsibility to employers and children is quite depressing. While I feel the pull of our leisure culture, ultimately it displays a society of people turned in on themselves. No hope and no joy - just temporary escape.

However, we soon realise that juggling lots of balls, means you drop them more often. And then there is the huge pile of balls that you cannot physically juggle. There are needs and opportunities everywhere you look, but your ability is so limited. Busyness then can be a great barometer of your faith, and sadly it often shows me up as a sinner; just as much as the command not to covet.

When busyness forces you to realise you've reached the end of yourself you have two options: you can pray more or you can pray less. Which to choose? Faced with the demand of busyness do I treat prayer as dead-time which can be reallocated to more productive uses, or desperately pray all the more realising the true depth of my inability and trusting in the mighty power of a Father who cares for me?

Please pray for my prayers.

Incidentally, if you want a phrase to chew over at length try Hebrews 4:11: "strive to enter that rest". And I've said it before, but Tim Chester's book on Busyness should be read by everybody.

The Trinity and prayer - part 1 - To the Father...

I'm trying to write a little piece on the difference the doctrine of the Trinity makes to our prayers. This is a rough draft of part one. Part two will look at "through the Son", and part three on "by the Spirit". Any feedback would be gratefully received, whether it is to pick up on heresy, pastoral insensitivity, or even poor writing quality.

"through Christ we have access in one Spirit to the Father" (Ephesians 2:18)

If we don't know who, or what, we are talking to then there is little reason for us to pray. We may pray when things get particularly tough and we think that anything is worth a try, but its always going to feel like a gamble. We would be like the Athenians in Acts 17 who pray to an "unknown god". It wouldn't surprise us that the unknown god never got to have the biggest temple in Athens because worshippers could never love and trust a god.

But Christians are privileged to actually know who God is. We may never have seen God, but Jesus Christ "has made him known" to us (John 1:18). Because of Jesus we know God is not a impersonal force, or the whole material universe, or one of many competing deities. Instead God is "our Father", and that person is the God we are told by Jesus to pray to.

We can be tempted to think that the title "Father" is just a description of God - i.e. that because he acts like a father towards us we call him "our Father". But God has been God the Father from all eternity. Fundamentally, God is not God the Father, because he acts like a father towards us, but because that is who he actually is. He has always been God the Father because he has always had a Son, Jesus Christ. And that is important because it means that when we say that we pray to God the Father we are not saying that we pray to a god who is like a father just like those of many other religions do. Instead it means we are praying to a particular person, to the exclusion of all others. As Paul so often says, we pray to "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". There is only one god, who is Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just like there is only one Father of Dave Kirkman. By addressing "our Father" in prayer, we don't just know the character of the God we pray to, but we know exactly who it is that we are talking about.

That we pray to "our Father" should shape our prayers in a number of ways. Firstly, we should pray in community because we are told to pray to "our Father". When alone, we should remember it is not just about me before God, but we should pray as part of the church. The Lord's prayer is full of the plural ("our", "us", "we") because we are not saved as individuals but as part of a whole body. We pray as the community and family that we are, concerned for each other's welfare and encouraged by the faith of our brothers and sisters praying with us.

Secondly, we should pray knowing that we have a Father who knows our needs and longs to do us good. After recounting Jesus' teaching of the Lord's prayer Matthew reminds us that God looks after the lilies and the birds and tells us that we have no reason to be anxious about anything because our Father knows all that we need. And after the Lord's prayer in Luke, we are told that even evil people like us give good things to our children so we can be confident that God will give us the Holy Spirit if we ask him. But God does not shower gifts on his children from afar, our relationship is one of intimacy so that we can call him Abba, Father, and approach him without fear.

Thirdly, we should pray respectfully. Fathers in the ancient world were august figures who demanded respect from their children. This should particularly be our attitude towards God because he is not only "our Father", but also "in heaven". He is creator and we are his creatures, but even that should encourage us to pray. Children ask their parents for things not just because they know they love them, but because they know that they can do what they cannot. As a child I asked my parents for bike not only because I thought they loved me enough to buy me one, but because I had no money and they did.