The King's English

The brilliant and unique Glen Scivener is spending 2011 celebrating the publication of the King James Bible in 1611 by starting another blog.

This is what he says about it:

This blog is just one attempt to raise awareness about the impact of this translation on the English speaking world. I will blog on a phrase per day that has passed into common parlance: popular phrases like “labour of love”, “beast of burden”, “wits’ end” and “scapegoat”; but also phrases that should be more popular, like “filthy lucre” and “gird up thy loins”.

This is a blog for people of all beliefs and I’ll try to keep things as jargon-free as possible. I hope that whether you are a Christian or not you will understand more about the English we speak, and about the King who has shaped it.

Most of my readers probably know about Glen's blogging already, but if you don't you're missing a treat. Unlike me Glen always has something to say and tends to say it well. But the best thing about Glen is that he is a man with just one king.

I'm looking forward to enjoying a constant flow of his grace-filled, provocative, passionate and fresh thoughts on all those phrases. Why not add his feed to your RSS reader and tell others about it as well?

• The King's English: The English we speak and the King Who's shaped it
• Christ the Truth (his usual blog)

My books of 2010

For what it is worth, my highly personal favourite books of the year were:

1. Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People by Esther L Meek
2. The Living Word: A Theological Study of Preaching and the Church by Gustaf Wingren
3. Counterfeit Gods: When the Empty Promises of Love, Money, and Power Let You Down by Timothy J Keller
4. The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-shift that Changes Everything by Colin Marshall and Tony Payne
5. Perelandra by CS Lewis

Most of the books I read this year were pretty good. Unfortunately I read very little simply for myself because with my law course I didn't have the time. I think that meant that there were no books that were deeply personally significant this year. I read most of these books in order to discuss them with friends or pass on/recommend to others. None stand-out so much that I want to recommend any in particular.

I wish I had spent more time reading fiction and the Bible.

These are the books I read:

Crazy Love (Chan) – Like John Piper’s Don’t Waste Your Life but more focus on love for your neighbour. Perhaps could do with a stronger emphasis on our forgiveness, but I think it is a good thing that this kind of book is a Christian bestseller.

Experiencing the Trinity (Johnson) – A very short introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity. Pretty good although I’m still looking for a good introductory book to the doctrine.

Man and the Incarnation (Wingren) – A book by a Swedish Lutheran on Ireanaus. Particularly emphasising God’s continual creating activity, and our corresponding continual growth into Christ in whose image we are made.

Theology is for Proclamation (Forde) – Forde has a big idea, and it is a good one. In this wide-ranging critique he argues we should evaluate our theology by whether it leads to proclamation. He finds almost all orthodox theologising as lacking, but I didn’t feel like he had really thought through most of his critiques. I think he was just over-ambitious, and over-critical.

The Waiting Father (Thielicke) – A collection of sermons on the parables. I don’t think I’ve ever read such an amazing rhetorician, and then it is all backed by a first-rate theological mind. The down-side was that I was not always certain he was exegeting the text itself.

Letters to a Young Calvinist (Smith) – a very snappily written encouragement to soteriological Calvinists to widen their vision and embrace something more like neo-Calvinism. I thought this was a really great book.

Distinctives (Roberts) – we read this as a home group. I think we were all encouraged to have a bit perspective, and realised how radically that should affect our lives.

The Death of Ivan Ilyich (Tolstoy) – a dark short story about the dying of a stereotypical middle-class man who could have been around today. Vanity, all is vanity!

The Unquenchable Flame (Reeves) – an excellent introduction to the Reformation as expected (see my review note).

Gilead (Robinson) – Everyone says you should read it, and they are right. Gilead is a beautiful illustration of what it means to live and die well. Especially if read in comparison to Ivan Ilyich.

The Temple and the Church's Mission (Beale) – A ponderous book, but with a great central thesis that is probably a lot more controversial in the States than the UK. God intended for Eden to be a temple that would expand and fill the whole world with his presence through the work of humanity. The church, in Christ, picks up the task.

That Hideous Strength (Lewis) – Volume 3 of the Space Trilogy. I enjoyed this the most of all three, although it was probably the least ambitious.

What is the Gospel? (Gilbert) – I don’t like the fact that he included 'response' within his definition of the Gospel. But as a short, accessible and punchy explanation of what ought to be at the forefront of the Church’s teaching I thought it was very well executed.

The Trellis and the Vine (Marshall and Payne) – Argues that one-to-one ministry from the very top-down is essential in growing a church in character, conviction and competency. The central metaphor is important, and I am thoroughly convinced that churches ought to adopt this remarkably simple and word-centred model of ministry. I blogged a little on it.

Perelandra (Lewis) – the second volume of the space trilogy. Lewis attempts to describe the interaction between an unfallen woman, a fallen man and the devil. Very illuminating about temptation, and exposes much of how we assume that ‘sin’ is just the way things are.

Longing to Know (Meek) – a weird book that slips between quite mind-bending philosophy of knowledge and homey illustrations. But I learnt a lot about how we know, and how that applies to our knowledge of God and assurance. The trouble is, and the author will be unsurprised by this, a lot of what I learnt is difficult to express.

Life Together (Bonhoeffer) – a deserved classic which I read for the second time. Compact, practical and challenging. However, I continue to have a nagging doubt about Bonhoeffer. Everyone loves him and rates Discipleship and this book among their favourites, but if you asked me, or anyone else how he changed them I think most would struggle to say anything concrete.

Out of the Silent Planet (Lewis) – the first of the space trilogy. I don’t think this is the best but it sets up the rest of the series.

The Living Word (Wingren) – a powerful polemic for the life-creating power of the preached word and the significance of conflict with the devil.

He Is There and He Is Not Silent (Schaeffer) – I’m afraid I just don’t think I get Schaeffer. He paints with a broad brush over a huge canvas. I like what he is trying to do, but he doesn’t persuade me of anything.

Escape from Reason (Schaeffer) – as above. I feel I ought to love Schaeffer. My pastor is a fanatic. Perhaps I should read something more substantial.

A Sinner's Guide to Holiness (Chapman) – a short booklet on sanctification. Realistic, it was helpful for a friend in explaining the importance and difficulty of holiness in this life.

What Kind of God? (Ots) – This is best book I’ve come across at answering these kinds of questions. I wouldn’t hesitate to give this to someone who is not yet a Christian.

Friendship (Black) – A Victorian book on the importance of friendship. Vaguely Christian, but very perceptive. Reminded me a little of Lewis.

Counterfeit Gods (Keller) – I have been thinking about idolatry all year because this book stuck with me and was augmented by listening to his sermons and the influence that Keller is on friends. I have lived with the challenge and the hope of a better God in Christ all year, and I’m very thankful for that.

Proper Confidence (Newbigin) – Short book of lectures from the end of his life, it is therefore perhaps unsurprising that it is not very tightly written. Newbigin argues for the correct kind of confidence we should have in our faith.

The Reason for God (Keller) – Need I say anything? Second time I read it and enjoyed it as much as the first time. Every Christian should read this book. I don’t think it is good for giving away, but Keller is the best model I know of for thoughtfully dealing with real questions people are asking today.

The Theme of the Pentateuch (Clines) – This was a seminal book for OT studies, and like most seminal books you can see why as soon as you read it. I summarised some of it.

Doubt in Perspective (McGrath) –This is very good short book to give someone who is doubting. It is accessible and short, but goes quite deep.

I'm a Christian, aren't I? (Clark) – I’m sorry but I think this is the only truly bad book I read this year. It is written for nominal Anglicans, but I think it destroys both true and false assurance.

Just Love (Cooper) – I reviewed this here. A good book on the validity of divine retribution, that doesn’t neglect the Gospel.

• My 2009 list (when coincidently I also read 31 books, although they were longer and better because I had more time).
• Other's 2010 lists.

Some books of the year lists

• Kevin DeYoung
• Bobby Grow
• Jason Goroncy
• Krish Kandiah
• Tony Reinke
• Ed Shaw
• Sam Storms
• Trevin Wax

All the end of year reviews have collectively persuaded me that to read The God who is There: Finding Your Place in God's Story by Don Carson, and Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas. Despite their best efforts I will resist the collective wisdom to read the doubtlessly excellent To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World by James Davison Hunter and Defending Constantine. The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom by Peter J. Leithart.

.

Dissecting a frog, and Karl Barth

Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it." (EB White)

I had a rather surreal conversation with a friend the other day about whether God had a sense of humour. I didn’t really come to a firm conclusion, but I tried to think through what humour actually was and think that it must be something like:

1. An awareness of incongruity

built upon

2. A foundation of optimism

I feel that things don't fit and surprise us because as finite beings we are always engaging with a world much greater than we can ever comprehend fully. Even our own bodies and minds surprise us and amuse us (especially if you are a dad, or slowly becoming your dad, at Christmas).

Good humour is attractive in someone because it shows a combination of both humility (on account of their finitude) and cheerfulness (on account of their optimism). Sadly, often as people we are either humble and afraid, or happy and arrogant.

I was prompted to post on this when reading TF Torrance describing the importance of Karl Barth's sense of humour:

"He was able to laugh at himself, and therefore to criticise himself, and hence to direct even ruthless critique at others in such a way that he could appreciate their intention and respect their persons and their sincerity. In this respect he stood out in marked contrast to the seriousness with which nineteenth century man took himself [...]

The Christian church has no right to despair of 'this weary world' or to be afraid it will crumble away into nothing. Christ is risen! [...] In him we can lift up our heads and laugh in the face of disaster and death… The Christian is the only one with a genuine message of hope and is the one true optimist." (pp.12-13, 23, TF Torrance, Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian)

PS The Wikipedia article on the theory of humour is interesting.

PPS For what it’s worth I tentatively think that while God is full of joy and he tells countless jokes in his creation/redemption, he doesn’t actually have a sense of humour for himself because it is a creaturely characteristic. As the infinite creator the only thing that doesn’t fit in his world is sin, so God laughs at sin (Psalm 2:4 etc) but at nothing else I’m aware of. Although I don’t think that is because he finds sin humourous in the truest sense of the word (which I admit is beyond my grasp!). However theoretically, perhaps as the initiator within the Trinity the Father can surprise the Son, so the Son laughs at jokes told by his Father. But I am far beyond my knowledge. Does anyone know of anything in the Bible to give more of a clue?

PPPS more on comedy try CS Lewis (who I think I got the idea of incongruity from) and Glen Scrivener.

Christological titles and stories

Listening to: Balmorhea: Constellations

Prompted, but not in response to, Chris's blog (go read it). This post is largely a riff on Gerhard Forde's argument in pp.62-67 of Theology is for Proclamation, which is where the quotes are from unless otherwise stated. I haven't really thought it all through so please pick holes.

Jesus' question in Mark 8 "Who do you say that I am?" is a question that Jesus cannot answer directly. "Traditionally", Forde says, "titles cannot be self-designations" (cf. John 8:54: "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing"). Therefore Jesus only makes "an implied christological claim", and "does not speak of himself openly and directly".

Instead he puts others "on the spot to speak for" themselves. As soon as we start to talk about Jesus we find that the question of what title to give him is "inevitable". "We are called upon [like Peter was] to make explicit what was implicit in him".

There are two inter-related dangers in this:

The first danger is that we rewrite the story to fit what the title means in our culture.

Every new title brings with it its own world of meaning, its own story. Inevitably pressure is exerted in countless subtle ways to rewrite the story to fit the title [...] Perhaps that is why the Jesus of the Gospels either refuses the titles or wants them kept secret. The story is not yet over and all the fine titles press toward a different end.

To avoid this danger "the title must be transformed to fit the [true] story." I.e. language, and the culture expressed in language, must be 'redeemed'. But Jesus will ensure that this happens. In his church it will happen in part now and universally it will happen in the future when "every tongue confess[es] that Jesus Christ is Lord".

Most evangelicals today think that content is all that matters and that the form and mediums we use to express it (e.g. the style of music, venues, the language we use) are insignificant. Jamie Smith, sees this as naive and criticises evangelicalism for:

unwittingly reducing Jesus to one more commodity precisely because, in the name of "relevance," they've adopted a worship "style" that simply mimics the mall. Since ... the form/content distinction is specious, you can't simply take Gospel "content" and drop it into the "form" of the mall's worship because that form is already loaded and primed to another end or telos. This doesn't make the the church relevant; it reduces Jesus to a commodity.

However, this wise caution about Jesus being co-opted to serve another end can go to an extreme which is a lack of confidence in the power of the Word to transform what seems unredeemable by the Holy Spirit. Luther and Melanchthon in the 16th century would justify themselves before more radical reformers for being slow to reform the liturgies of the church because they were confident that as long as the Gospel was preached it had power enough to transform everything else. It has the power, and God's promise, to burst out of any constraints placed upon it.

We should find a middle road of confidence but not complacency that is realistic about both the power of the Devil and the power of God over our language and liturgies.

The second danger is that we rewrite the story to fit what we, personally, would like the title to mean.

The hearer, it should be realized, has a stake in the giving of titles. The title represents dreams and hopes: the final ratification of our aspirations; a judge who will finally give evildoers their comeuppance; a Messiah, a Christ who will finally do in all the enemies; a Son of God who will be a universal ruler; a liberator; a man for others; one in whom God-conciousness reaches its zenith [...] We would like nothing better than that all our dreams, without alteration, should be realized in him.

To avoid this danger we must be changed by the title. With Jesus' question "who do you say I am?" we are "drawn into the story" and either it is fitted to us or we are moulded by it. Our dreams and our loves have to be reshaped by the story of Jesus, so that we long to see God face-to-face, we hate evil and love communion with God and his church.

This need for change of the culture and ourselves (not that you can separate the two) cannot be avoided because Jesus will be king, and not let titles rule him. It is also a radical change of death and new-birth. That is why Jesus follows Peter's confession and rebuke with the statement that "if anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

We have to reach the "end of our story". We are drawn into Jesus' story by the confession, and if we cannot shape it around ourselves then we will be shaped by Jesus' story of death and resurrection.

Is this right?

The Father serves the Son. The Son serves the Father.. The circle is the circle of servanthood." (my italics, p. 80, Darrell W. Johnson, Experiencing the Trinity)

I know some of my readers know their Trinitarian theology better than me, but I cannot think of a verse that would suggest that the Father serves the Son. Certainly, the Son glorifies the Father and the Father glorifies the Son (although even that is not simply circular I don't think). Also the Father gives (life) to the Son. But doesn't the Son obey the Father and not vice versa?

Who adminsters baptism?

Probably one of the biggest questions to ask about baptism is:

• Is baptism primarily an act of, or upon, the person baptised?

Interesting to hear what a Baptist scholar may say about that based on the evidence...

Some Jewish groups practised 'proselyte baptism', i.e. proselytes were baptized in the process of converting to Judaism. In the monastic community at Qumram, members invoked passages such as Ezekiel 36:25 to justify their daily baptism... But in both instances baptism was self-administered. Candidates baptized themselves... One of the things that characterized the baptism of John the Baptist is that he himself administered it. It may even be that the authority implicit in such an innovative step triggered the assumption in the minds of at least some Pharisees that John's baptism was an end-time rite administered by an end-time figure with great authority.

(italics original, p.145, DA Carson, The Gospel According to John)

Carson notices that if baptism is primarily something done by one with authority to the person baptised there is a secondary question of who has such authority. John Calvin suggests an answer in commenting on John 4:2 where the Evangelist says that Jesus baptised, and yet also clarifies that it was only his disciples who did the action:

He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God.

PS I am sorry. I know that Christmas Eve is probably not the time to riding one of my hobby-horses.

Some thoughts on Wisdom in Proverbs

I have often felt that wisdom is a rare, unobtainable thing. I wonder if wisdom, at least for me, is more precious than gold because it is less easy to come by. But at the same time as feeling that I've felt that Proverbs is a book which is largely made up of banal commonsensical observations on how the world works!

If I read Proverbs properly I'd have got a different impression.

"Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out" (1:21). There are lots of competing voices in the world but you don't have to seek wisdom out. It is not some secret knowledge (Gnosis) that you have to climb a mountain to get to. It is actually obvious that the good life involves thinking before speaking, working hard, being generous, being honest, even fearing God. This is what wisdom is.

If access to wisdom is not what makes you wise. Google will not make us stupid, but it doesn't make us wise either. The distinction between the wise and the stupid is that wisdom "rests in the heart of a man of understanding", whereas it is only "known ... in the midst of fools" (14:33).

However it is still the mark of a wise man that he is continually desiring to "hear and increase in learning" because he doesn't possess wisdom in the complete way that God does. How often are we forced to remember that "a man's steps are from the Lord; how then can man understand his way?"

A wise man's approach will be distinguished by the following::

• He starts with the LORD - fearing him (1:7, 14:27, 22:4, 29:25), listening to him (2:6, 3:11-12), trusting him (3:5, 16:20, 28:25) knowing the wisdom belongs to him (8:22f).
• He listens to the right people - to his parents and not the attractive woman (1:8, 4:1, 15:5, 23:22; 2:16, 6:24), to many people and not just himself (11:14, 12:15, 15:22), to the righteous and not the wicked (10:11, 12:26, 13:20, 14:7, 15:2).
• He listens humbly - accepting of reproof and discipline (11:2, 13:10, 15:31, 19:25, 27:6) and beware of flattery (29:5).
• He listens thoughtfully - he is not uncritical of advice (14:15, 18:17).

So what has this to do with Christ, "our wisdom" (1 Cor 1:24)?

• We will honour his uniqueness. We know that only he possesses complete wisdom, and every human is just a creature who is continually growing in wisdom but never reaching completeness. Our wisdom is further corrupted by our sinfullness so we should be humble and accepting of rebuke not just additional teaching.
• We will look to him to receive wisdom from his hands. We will listen to the Bible. We will pray to him to give us more wisdom (1 Kings 3:1-15, James 1:5). We will listen to the righteous who are his ambassadors on earth who as his disciples learn from him and pass on what he teaches.

NB there is some overlap with what Newbigin has to say about certainty.

Everything in Christ poured into this moment by his Spirit

Listening to: Radiohead: The Bends

The deed of proclamation in the living present is the deed of the living God! It is what God has in mind for us. The mighty acts of God are not over, not relegated to the past ...Everything that God has done in Jesus Christ has been poured into this moment. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God in Jesus is the authorization for the proclamation of the will of God in the living present. The preacher needs the "nerve" - the Spirit - to act on that...

The preacher acts on the presupposition that only the present-tense, here-and-now deed of God, the proclamation itself, can be the solution to the problem of God. The proclamation is the end result, the culmination, of the great acts of God in history. The preacher ought to have the consciousness of standing in that place knowing that the Word and sacrament are themselves the end (telos), the purpose of it all. The concrete moment of the proclamation is the doing of the mighty act of God in the living present.

(pp. 30-35, Gerhard Forde, Theology is for Proclamation)

I'd qualify whether the Word and sacrament are "the end", otherwise we are over-realizing our eschatology. We must not forget that the glory is still hidden with Christ in God until the he is revealed in power and we are revealed as sons in our bodily resurrection.

I love that phrase: "Everything that God has done in Jesus Christ has been poured into this moment". Perfect! But don't you want to add something? That poured into our hearts by hearing through our ears and consuming by the mouth, the Spirit of Christ is bursting to be revealed - to transform us from the inside out in holy lives in the present and glorify our bodies when Christ comes again so that the whole world gives God the glory.

Systematic theology

"I take systematic theology, therefore, to be the kind of reflection that takes place between yesterday's and today's proclamation. One who hears the proclamation reflects on it so as to say it again in a different time and context. It is a reflection that takes place between the ear and the mouth." (p.4, Gerhard Forde, Theology is for Proclamation)

If that is the case then good systematic theology will be:

1. Listening to the Bible obediently and attentively.
2. "not only [leaving] room for proclamation but [making] the move inescapable" (p.5)

The right kind of certainty

Lesslie Newbigin finds in 2 Timothy 1:12 the right kind of certainty that Christians should have about their faith:

"I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me."

He observes that there three aspects of this kind of certainty:

1. Certainty rests not in the competence of my knowledge, but in the faithfulness of the one whom I know.
2. It is something in via. I don't possess it. I am on my way to it. I am looking forward to that day when it will be fully known to me.
3. It is a matter of grace ("What has entrusted to me")

Be born in us today

Sarah and Rebekah were both barren women who God miraculously provided sons, in accordance with the promise given to Abraham for a Seed.

God trumps both in Mary, to whom he gives a son despite her being a virgin! He was THE promised Seed (singular) of Abraham, which the others were only shadows of.

I blogged about this series of shadows to Mary 3 years ago. But yesterday evening I came across whatever the opposite of a shadow is - reflected light?!

"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband." (Gal 4:27 quoting Is 54:1)

Who is this barren woman? For Isaiah it was the land of Israel and Jerusalem that was the inheritance of the people of God. For Paul it is "the Jerusalem above" that is the inheritance of the church. She like Sarah, Rebekah and Mary also gives birth to "children of promise...according to the Spirit" (4:28-29). That is us when we are born again and "Christ is formed in [us]" though the "anguish of childbirth".

O holy Child of Bethlehem,
descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in,
be born in us today.
We hear the Christmas angels
the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us, abide with us,
our Lord Emmanuel!

Who do you want to see in the Kingdom of God?

"the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21)

Recently our home group studied this passage. Everyone there knew that they ticked one of the boxes so the plain reading of the text was that they would not inherit the kingdom of God. But it was the newer Christian who asked the obvious question: "How can that be true?"

Faced with that stark piece of 'law' the various 'answers' suggested were perhaps inevitable:

• Perhaps it meant "continue in such things" - so as long as you don't carry on doing such things you'll inherit the kingdom.
• Or perhaps it meant those whose life is "characterised by such things" won't inherit - you may do them, but they are just flashes in the pans when they happen.

It was a rather stark series of attempts to blunt the force of the 'law', which perhaps had missed the equally stark word in verse 24: "crucified". Sin leads to death and there is no way round that because God will never allow 'sinners' in his kingdom. And if a 'sinner' is all we are then it is an understandable defence mechanism to try and soften the sentence and find a way to sneak past the guards.

BUT, if we are also 'saints' by faith in Christ Jesus, then we don't care what happens to us as 'sinners'. In fact we rejoice over our death on Good (!) Friday 2000 years ago, in baptism a short while back, now (when we join in our own crucifixion of our desires and do not mind a little suffering!), and in our physical death in the future.

'Dave the Sinner' has no inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Great! I don't want to see him there frankly. I know he won't like the music or the company anyway.

Just as the plagues on Egypt meant freedom for Israel, so the death of the old me means life for the new me. In awareness of that we can welcome God's judgement - not blunt it - even as it comes down on us!

Rutherford House Audio

Rutherford House has put up quite a few old tapes in MP3 format. I think they'd appreciate donations for the cost of the bandwidth. Speakers include:

• Jim Packer
• Ed Clowney
• Don Carson
• Donald MacLeod
• Sinclair Ferguson
• Carl Henry
• David Jackman
• Dick Lucas
• John Piper
• Dale Ralph Davis
• Tim Keller
• Ravi Zacharius
• Peter Adam
• Tom Torrance
• Lesslie Newbigin and many more worth mentioning, but this list is already too long!

We do have an embarassement of riches these days on the internet. I'm listening to Sigur Ros instead though!

Lesslie Newbigin MP3s

• Confessing Christ in a Multi-Religion Society (Rutherford House)
• Christ: unique and universal (The Christian Institute)
• Nihilism (The Christian Institute)

Thomas F Torrance MP3s

This is all I know about (let me know if you know anymore):

• 7 Talks delivered at Union Theological College in Belfast, Northern Ireland (hosted by Ben Myers)
• 3 MP3s of Donald Macleod and Tom Torrance on Scottish Theology (Rutherford House - please consider donating)
• 10 lectures on the Ground and Grammar of Theology delivered at Fuller Theological Seminary (hosted by GCI)
• Talk on 'Theological Instinct' delivered at Regent College (pay to download)
• 3 lectures on the Mediation of Christ delivered at Regent College (pay to download)

Gifted response

I was searching for reviews, or even a contents page(!), for a book called Gifted Response: The Triune God as the Causative Agency of Our Responsive Worship, by Dennis Ngien, and instead Google told me about this verse from a Matt Redman song I didn't know:

This is a gifted response
Father, we cannot come to You by our own merit
We will come in the name of Your Son
As He glorifies You and in the power of Your Spirit

I like surprises....Every line of that song is worth its weight in gold.

Matt Redman has clearly been reading some good books, but not Dennis Ngien's as that was published later than the song. So who then?

This is lazy blogging at the moment!

A sprinkling of MP3s

In some neglected corners of the web I've found a few unique talks that others may be interested in:

1. Speaking To, Of, and For the Triune God by Robert Jenson (at the 2010 Lutheran CORE Theological Conference)
2. God's Decision and Our Decision by Gerhard Forde (at Mount Carmel Ministries)

Caspar David Friedrich and the curse of Romanticism

Caspar David Friedrich is one of my favourite artists. He had a Romantic and, at first glance, seductive desire to find God in nature. If you described what he tried to do it would seem attractive, but if you actually tried to live that life you would find what he found... that in trying to find God apart from in Jesus Christ you will always find both common grace and the universal curse on the ground, and so you'll be constantly bouncing between happiness and despair.

Only in Jesus Christ can you make a decsive shift and break from the curse to new life and happiness.

The trouble is that when you develop the creed of a personal religion to the extent that he did, so that every day he had to recreate his experience of God - re-find his experience of divinity before nature - it placed such a burden on the individual as to be almost impossible to sustain. Yes, on a good day, Friedrich could find God in a radiant evening sky but on so many other days the vision didn’t come, all he could see was darkness, death even a kind of anguish. I think that Friedrich set out to be a painter of a new kind of Christianity but I think what he really created was a very moving series of monuments to an age of deep, deep anxiety.

(Andrew Graham-Dixon, The Art of Germany, Episode 2, BBC4, 6 December 2010)