Truth, goodness and beauty

"Beauty is truth, truth is beauty, that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

(John Keats, 'Ode on a Grecian Urn')

Apparently the three-fold distinction between things being true, good and beautiful is an old one, although I don't remember hearing of it till now. I can't quite find where it originates. Anyone know?

I think it may be quite helpful whenever we explain the Gospel to remember it is true, good and beautiful. Different people are encouraged in their growth by one or the other, and different people find one or another a stumbling block to coming to faith.

I was reading Galatians the other day, and I must confess that I was finding Galatians 1-2 quite boring (I know I shouldn't, but it is true). As I was reflecting on this I realised that it was because Paul is largely addressing why the Gospel he preached is true because it is of a divine origin, and I'm not really interested in whether it is true or not. Not because I don't care if it is a lie, but because I already accept that it is true. Instead I want to be reminded of its beauty!

But there is a reason it is in the Bible. As I thought more about Paul's audience I realised that most people I know don't believe for reasons that could broadly be categorised as either (whether they confess it or not):

• Christianity is not true (e.g. 'Science disproves Genesis', 'Miracles cannot happen', 'Jesus did not rise again on the third day', 'we cannot trust the gospels as historical accounts', 'a good God and suffering are logically incompatible'); or
• Christianity is not attractive (e.g. 'It is unfair for God send people to hell', 'Christianity is a straitjacket', 'Christianity causes wars', 'it is not worth me giving up X to become a Christian', 'a God who allows suffering is not worth worshipping')

I think I became a Christian primarily because it was attractive (morally and aesthetically) rather that because I believed it to be true. Because of that I think I am usually tend to be a bit of a fideist and I'm slow to address issues of truth when speaking to others.

But I don't think this is a good place to be. I may be more excited by the attractiveness of the Gospel but truth and attractiveness have to go together as Keats says. Therefore I need to change for my own benefit, and for the benefit of those I speak about the Gospel to.

Mark 13 events that happen in Mark 14-16

Following on from my last post on Mark 13, here are some pointers to an over-realized eschatology of Mark 13.

Mark 13	Mark 14-15
'brother will deliver brother over to death' (v.12)	Judas betrays Jesus (14:10-11)
'those who are in Judea flee to the mountains' (v. 14)	Jesus predicts that 'the sheep will be scattered' (14:27) when he is arrested and dies, which is what happens (14:50).
Jesus constantly commands that the disciples 'stay awake' and 'be on guard' (vv. 9, 23, 33, 35, 37)	Jesus in Gethsemane tries to encourage the disciples to keep watch and stay awake but they keep falling asleep (14:32-42)
Jesus predicts the disciples will be brought before governors, councils and kings (v.9)	Jesus is brought before the 'chief priests and the whole Council' and Pilate (14:53-15:5)
Jesus says that he may come 'when the rooster crows' (v.35)	Peter denies Jesus while and the rooster crows (14:66-72)
'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light' (v.24)	'when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour' (15:33)
'There will be earthquakes in various places' (v.8)	[As Jesus dies 'the earth shook, and the rocks were split' (Matthew 27:51)]

Obviously they don't quite fit. But nevertheless there is a striking overlap. I suppose if the whole of history is concentrated and contained in Christ's passion and resurrection then it is to be expected.

Still don't know what to do with it though.

What is the point of Mark 13?

Mark 13 caused me some considerable vexation when we reached it in Christianity Explored. I find it difficult because much of it seems to point toward the passion narrative, some seems to fit better with the early church (pre 70AD?), but some of it doesn't seem to have happened at all. However, this is perhaps only a problem if we assume that Jesus is giving a straight answer to the disciples' question ('when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?') which would be most unlike him. I decided to see what the explicit commands that Jesus gives were to get more of a handle on the passage. They are:

• 'See that no one leads you astray' (v.5)
• 'do not be alarmed' (v.7)
• 'be on your guard' (v.9)
• 'do not be anxious' when before governors and kings about 'what you are to say' (v.11)
• 'Pray that it may not happen in winter' (v.18)
• 'if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "Look, there he is!" do not believe it' (v.21)
• 'be on guard' (v.23)
• 'know that he is near' (v.29)
• 'Be on guard, keep awake' (v.33)
• 'stay awake' (v.35)
• 'Stay awake' (v.37)

Jesus is not concerned that we know when the end will come because no-one but the Father knows that (v.32). In that respect he doesn't answer the disciples' question. Instead he is concerned that we are aware that the day could come at any moment, but that nevertheless we shouldn't panic when signs of this appear.

Perhaps Tom Torrance is right when he comments on Mark 13:

He has told us that [his second coming] will be sudden, and just when we expect it least, like a thief in the night. But there are signs of His coming. They are not signs that tell us when He will come, but signs and pledges telling us unmistakably that the end will come, as surely as day follows night, and that world-history will be brought to a close [...]

God gives us signs in history like that, not in order to predict the time of Christ's coming but to keep us faithful to our task of preaching the Gospel to all nations, and serving of our fellow-men in acts of unstinting love.

(pp. 21-22, When Christ Comes and Comes Again)

I'm still not sure, but I'm still thinking.

We must work the works

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' Jesus answered, 'It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. (John 9:1-4)

This man was not blind 'just' so Jesus could show his power in healing him. He was blind so that he may make the journey of faith that he makes in John 9 from believing Jesus is 'The man called Jesus' (v.11) to a 'prophet' (v.17) to 'from God' (v.33) to 'Lord' who he worships (v.38). The work is not the miracle of healing but the miracle of faith.

It is also not just something that Jesus did. That is why 'we must work the works of him who sent me'.

Jesus promises we will do 'greater works' than the works he does (14:12). Jesus says the works which the Father does he does in him he does by 'the words that I say to you'. Therefore the 'greater works' are the preaching of the Gospel. That is not only why one man was born blind but why suffering continues even today.

We rightly want to see suffering end, but God allows it to continue because he is 'patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance' (2 Peter 3:9). But night is coming...

One reason no judgment is no good

Jason Goroncy has already quoted this this week, but it is so good I wanted to post it here. This is why I like PT Forsyth and Lutheranism...

If a message of grace tell us there was and is no judgment any more, and that God has simply put judgment on one side and has not exercised it, that cannot be the true grace of God. Surely the grace of God cannot stultify our human conscience like that! So we are haunted by mistrust, unless conscience be drowned in a haze of heart. We have always the feeling and fear that there is judgment to follow. How may I be sure that I may take the grace of God seriously and finally, how be sure that I have complete salvation, that I may entirely trust it through the worst my conscience may say? Only thus, that God is the Reconciler, that He reconciles in Christ's Cross that the judgment of sin was there for good and all. We are judged now by the Cross, and by the Cross we stand or fall. The great sin is not something we do, but it is refusing to make ourselves right with God in Christ's Cross. We are judged in the end by our relation to the Cross of Christ. It is the principle of our moral world. All judgment is committed to that Son. We stand before God at last according as we are owned by Christ. We are confessed by Him according to our confession of Him. Nemesis on us is hallowed as a part of the judgment on Him to whose death we are joined. There is no such thorough assertion of God's holy, loving law anywhere as there, where in the Cross it was given its own, and was perfected in judgment in Him who became a curse for us. His prayer for His murderers, or the closing sigh of victory in the midst of that judgment, vouches for ever to this, that it is the same holy will which judges man's wickedness and also loves us and gives His Son for a propitiation for us. Only that holiness which is changeless in its judgment could be changeless also in grace. His grace was so little to be foiled that He graciously took His own judgment.

(pp. 167-9, PT Forsyth, The Work of Christ)

Christ's personality

What a man! What a maker of men! What a master of men and of events! What a sovereignty was the mien of his self-consciousness! Lord of himself and all besides; with an irresistible power to force, and even hurry, events on a world scale; and yet with the soul that sat among children, and the heart in which children sat. He had an intense reverence for a past that was yet too small for him. It rent him to rend it; and yet he had to break it up, to the breaking of his own heart, in the greatest revolution the world ever saw. He was an austere man, a severe critic, a born fighter, of choleric wrath and fiery scorn, so that the people thought he was Elijah or the Baptist; yet he was gentle to the last degree, especially with those ignorant and out of the way. In the thick of life and love he yet stood detached, sympathetic yet aloof, cleaving at once both to men and to solitude. He spoke with such power because he loved silence. With an almost sacramental idea of human relations, especially the central relation of marriage, he yet avoided for himself every bond of property, vocation, or family; and he cut these bonds when they stood between men and himself. Full of biting irony upon men he yet was their healer and Saviour. Of a quick understanding which tore through the pedantry of the Scribes, with a sure dialectic which never failed him, and never left him at the mercy of his hecklers, he had yet a naive nature and a pictorial speech which brought him very near to the simplest - whom next moment some deep paradox would confound, and even wound. Clear, calm, determined, and sure of his mark, he was next hour roused to such impulsive passion as if he were beside himself. But if he let himself go he always knew where he was going. With a royal, and almost proud, sense of himself, he poured out his sould unto God and unto death, and was the friend of publicans and sinners. With a superhuman sense of authority he had superhuman humility.

[...]

He was all that, in a unity greater than the unity of the most uncommon men, a unity ruled by his tremendous will.

(pp. 64-66, PT Forsyth, The Person and Place of Jesus Christ)

Yet, as Hunter comments, 'great as Christ's personality was, the real site of his greatness lies in what he did, in the cross' (pp. 70-71, PT Forsyth).

Sanctification on task

Regeneration, or sanctification - not in individual lives only but collectively in the church's life in the world - is thus the true work of that 'other Paraclete' (or 'Standby') as John calls the Spirit. But alas, said Forsyth, we modern Christians have sadly debased and misconstrued the meaning of that grand old word 'sanctification'. In our modern man-centred religion, we have turned it into self-consecration. But sanctification is not spiritual self-culture, and 'it is a dangerous thing to work at your own holiness'. Paul did not consecrate himself to his great work. He obeyed a call and found his sanctification - his growth in grace - in the pursuit of his ministry. So we too are sanctified when we are on our Saviour's business. Growth in grace comes not by working at it but by passing ever more deeply into self-forgetfulness - into the grace, the cross and the service of Christ.

(p. 65, AM Hunter, PT Forsyth)

Is Luther's concept of vocation outdated?

At the Reformation, with monasticism in his mind's eye, Luther rightly declared that Christians could serve God as truly in their daily work as in their Sunday worship. This was a great step forward. But why does this Protestant conception of Christian vocation sound much less convincing today? Because we live in a quite different world from Luther's.

(p. 96, AM Hunter, PT Forsyth)

As a Luther fan you will know it pains me to admit that Hunter has a point. The world of work is different in many ways. In particular:

• Work is less about creating things of clear benefit to people, but more about creating money.
• We are much freer in the choice of career we follow.
• There is much greater tension between benefiting your employer, benefiting your fellow workers, and benefiting the customer. Where do you find the balance?

I'm not sure of that I have a theology of work that is able to answer these newish challenges. I am yet to read or hear anyone else express such a theology either. Any ideas?

For what it's worth, you can read below what Hunter thinks. Writing in the 70s he is unsurprisingly concerned for the worker primarily.

The long and short of it is that Christian ethics cannot now rest content with calling on such people to glorify God in their station. We of the Christian church must seek to promote such a re-organization industry as will give the worker freedom to live as a man should, find joy in his work, be able to maintain his family, and become a responsible partner, to some degree. in the industry of which he is a part.

(ibid, pp.96-97)

Do not be anxious

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? [...God will] clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

(Matthew 6)

Jesus sees a things a bit like this:

God gives us life and looks after our body through food, drink and clothing. The problem comes when we expect those things are the ultimate source of our life and body. Is it Tim Keller who says that we should not make good things ultimate things? Jesus is saying the same.

Martin Luther (on whom Keller relies) asks:

What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good...(source)

I think that is the best definition going. It also shows that being anxious is not just lack of trust, it is idolatry.

The harvest is plentiful

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, 'The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.' (Matthew 9:36-38)

A friend wondered this weekend why when Jesus says that the harvest is plentiful he finds that nobody he knows is just waiting eagerly to hear the Gospel if someone comes with it.

I had no answer...

Then today when I was reading Joel I realised that maybe being a worker was not such a joyous task after all, and the harvest is a less pleasant thing. The immediate context in Matthew does suggest that it is, but the wider Biblical context suggests otherwise:

For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: The daughter of Babylon is like a threshing floor at the time when it is trodden; yet a little while and the time of her harvest will come. (Jeremiah 51:33)

Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Go in, tread, for the winepress is full. The vats overflow, for their evil is great. (Joel 3:13)

For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed (Hosea 6:11a)

another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, 'Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.' So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped. (Revelation 14:15-16)

God chose the short people in the world to shame the tall

Saul was taller than any of the people of Israel (1 Samuel 9:2).

Eliab (David's brother) was also tall and Samuel though that he must be God's chosen replacement for Saul, but God said 'do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him' (1 Samuel 16:7).

Goliath's 'height was six cubits and a span' (1 Samuel 17:4). When he called to Israel 'Give me a man, that we may fight together' he was probably looking for Saul to come forward and battle 'giant' to 'giant'. Instead David who was not big enough to wear Saul's armour stepped forward, won the victory, and shamed those who avoided the fight.

Christ won a more complete victory, though he too was 'esteemed not'. He leads a kingdom which seems as insignificant as a mustard seed and which is only made up of weak people. Nevertheless, as I learnt today: our God reigns.

The Church of England in 1551

Edward VI on the throne, Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martin Bucer as Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. The Church of England must have been pretty strong then... not like today...

an inspection of the diocese of Gloucester in 1551 revealed that 168 priests out of a total of 311 were unable to recite the Ten Commandments; 34 did not know who had formulated the Lord's Prayer, and 10 did not know it by heart.

(p.239, Martin Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times)

... maybe not then.

Trusting God by stopping

Rest is something I keep on thinking about these days. Some people may say I think about it too much. Anyway one thing I keep coming back to is what I read many years ago by Scott Hafemann:

The Sabbath signifies something fundamental about God's relationship to his people: it is a weekly bulletin that God, as Creator of the world, not only can but also will meet Israel's needs, because she is his chosen people. God called Israel to keep the Sabbath because, of all the peoples of the world, God created Israel to be his people. The Sabbath thus stood firm as a divinely established memorial to the covenant commitment God had made to his people. For her part, Israel was to "rest on the Sabbath" as a reminder of what she should do every day in relationship to the Creator who is committed to be her Provider: "call upon him" to meet her needs. God "keeps the Sabbath" by working for his people; his people "keep the Sabbath" by trusting him to do so.

(p. 49, The God of Promise and the Life of Faith)

Have you ever thought that all your service may actually be an expression of unbelief? Mine often is. Sadly often my rest is just laziness though. Can't get away from sin!

Abstracting doctrine

As I read systematics I increasingly find that so much that contemporary biblical studies thinks it is 'discovering' in the bible was actually being batted around by systematic theologians a generation before. I'm not sure whether I should find this disturbing or not.

Anyway, a recent example of this was reading TF Torrance criticising the Reformed Catechisms:

None of them really gives us Christian doctrine in its inseparable relation to the whole history of redemption in Israel, to the whole life of the historical Jesus Christ, and to the Baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost and the founding of the Christian Church. Certain great moments of the Heilsgeshichte are singled out, the creation and fall of man, the giving of the Law, the birth of Jesus, His crucifixion and resurrection and ascension, but Christian doctrine cannot be abstracted from the whole course of God's intervention in Israel, and the whole course of teh life work of Christ, without alteration and misunderstanding.

(p.xx, The School of Faith)

I think I need to hear that again and again. I too often go abstract. I can almost hear Tom Wright in my head sometimes when I read Romans these days. He would agree passionately with Torrance's comment written in 1959!

The world judged by the Mosaic law

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. (Romans 3:19)

There are two possible interpretations of how Paul comes to that verse as far as I can see (this may again be due to my lack of research).

1. Having established that Gentiles are condemned by natural law (as is clear by the blatant sinning of Gentiles displayed Romans 1) Paul then had to show that the religious Jews are also sinners. This he does in Romans 2-3:18. Therefore having dealt with both he can conclude that the whole world is sinful because everyone is either Gentile or Jew.
2. The law condemns Israel. Israel represents the world as a priestly and kingly nation. Therefore the rest of the world is condemned 'in Israel'.

I think 2. is the right interpretation. Therefore the whole world is judged by the same law but in an order - the Jew first, and then the Greek.

This post parallels my last in being a reflection of my continuing feeble attempts to understand Romans. I would love to hear criticism. I should also do more reading, but I am so constrained by time. Out of ignorance I make wild stabs hoping over time and continual reading something sticks.

God's righteous judgment is revealed

I have a theory, which could probably be shot down by someone who knows Greek and has read more books than me. Nevertheless I will be bold and share it.

I think the 'Righteousness of God' in Romans means something like 'God's righteous judgment' (ala Romans 2:5). I think this combines many of the strengths of the other interpretations being debated.

In what sense then is the the righteousness of God revealed? I think it is revealed in three ways (the colours tie into the senses in which God's righteous judgment is revealed in Romans 1-3 in the quotations below):

1. Present/visible
2. Future/final
3. In Christ's death and resurrection

When reading the OT you often feel that Israel is not the only party to the covenant who fails to keep to it. God says do this and you will live, fail to do this and you will destroyed (Deuteronomy 28; Galatians 3:10-12). However, Israel never fails to fail and yet God does not destroy them. He does reveal the righteous judgment and is not mocked but he always only partially reveals his judgment. This leads to Habakkuk, the Psalmists, Qoheleth, Job etc to be endlessly confused. Where is God's judgment?

Naturally this leads to a hope for a final judgment in which the law is fulfilled and God shows that he is righteous in judgment by punishing the wicked and acquitting the righteous (c.f. Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16).

Both of these judgments are according to the law, one is just the completion of the other. Paul in Romans 1 explains how God has been judging by 'giving over' people to their sinful desires. In Romans 2 he reminds everyone that this is only a partial judgment and there will be a final judgment at which everyone will be fully judged. But the law has shown (in its execution as well as its legislation) that all will be judged unfavourably on that day.

Thankfully though the final judgment has been brought forward and revealed for us in Jesus Christ. The curse of the law has been exhausted and displayed early in the public death of Jesus Christ. The law then has been fulfilled (fully executed) but apart from itself (in that it wasn't executed on who it was meant to be executed). But the judgment on Christ is two-fold: of condemnation in the cross; but also of justification in the resurrection. If we don't accept that condemnation as ours but instead look forward to being judged by ourselves, then we will not receive that justification which is joined to it.

Sorry that is not very polished, but I'm lacking in time. And although it is a conclusion that has been gradually forming in my mind it is still fairly nebulous and I'm aware that I probably need to make some serious changes. But I thought it was time I threw it out there for some comment.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [...]

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity [...]

For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions [...]

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done [...]

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? [...] you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek [...]

on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus [...]

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Animals that could be sacrificed in the OT

Peter Leithart (who is on good form at the moment) observes:

Biblical sacrifices were confined to clean animals, and, more specifically, to domesticated clean animals. No wild animal ever ascended to Yahweh's altar?

What does it say about Israel that it offered only domesticated animals? What does it say that Israel detached the cult from the hunt?

I don't know the answer to that question although I have ideas. These sort of questions are going round my head a lot while reading Leviticus at the moment. Would birds count as domesticated animals though?

One passage that includes all the animals that could be sacrificed in a slightly different context is Genesis 15:8-10 when God makes a covenant with Abram:

But he said, "O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?" He said to him, "Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon." And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half.

Of course there were non-animal offerings too (e.g. grain and wine) but I think that only cultivated crops were offered. A particularly interesting omission is fish.

Women in the Old Testament

Bruce Waltke in his lectures on Judges is asked:

• Please comment on the author's attitude to women in the book of judges.

This is his response.

In a word I would say: very, very favourably. In fact the whole Deuteronomist is very favourable to women.

Who do you know better, Deborah or Lappidoth? Deborah. You don't even know who Lappidoth is. That's her husband [Judges 4:4].

Who killed Sisera? Jael [Judges 4:21].

Who killed the wicked Abimelech? A woman of theives [Judges 9:38].

Whom did I say was smarter, Manoah or his wife? Who had the instruction to raise the boy, Manoah or his wife? His wife [Judges 13].

Who is greater Hannah or Elkanah, in the book of Samuel? Obviously Hannah.

Who is greater Abigail or Nabal? Abigail.

You see what I am driving at? This whole idea that the Old Testament puts women down is rubbish.

And that was just what he was able to rattle off from the top of his head. More could be added.

Luther recommends...

These are books that Luther himself recommends your read:

'by 1537, when he wrote to Wolfgang Capito that along with his catechism the treatment of bound choice was his best work: "none of my works is worth anything except" the catechism and De servo arbitrio [The Bondage of the Will], he said.' (p. 15, Robert Kolb, Bound Choice, Election and Wittenberg Theological Method)

'Luther was extremely critical when it came to judging the value of his own books. The commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1531-35), the exposition of the Book of Deuteronomy (1523), and his sermons on four chapters of the Gospel of John (1528-29) he thought worth preserving because they were his only works really to contain theological teachings. He found the rest of his writings interesting solely from a historical point of view' (p. 168, Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil).

'[Erasmus' arguments] have been refuted already so often by me, and beaten down and completely pulverized in Philip Melanchthon's Commonplaces [Loci Communes] - an unanswerable little book which in my judgment deserves not only to be immortalized but even canonized.' (p.102, Martin Luther, Introduction to The Bondage of the Will in Luther and Erasumus: Free Will and Salvation)

'It is a result of God's providence that the writings of Cato and Aesop have remained in the schools, for both are significant books. Cato contains the most useful sayings and precepts. Aesop contains the most delightful stories and descriptions. Moral teachings, if offered to young people, will contribute much to their edification. In short, next to the Bible, the writings of Cato and Aesop are in my opinion the best' (pp. 210–211, Martin Luther, "Table Talk Recorded by Anthony Lauterbach and Jerome Weller, 1536-1537" in Luther's Works, Volume 54: Table Talk, HT Tony Reinke)

These are books that Joachim Mörlin (1514-1571), the prominent early Lutheran theologian, and former student of Luther, suggested you read:

"Mörlin counseled beginning with the Small Catechism, for its three parts—law, gospel, and the table of responsibilities in the callings of daily life—summarize the entire Word of God. From the Small Catechism the reader should move to the Large Catechism and then to those works of Luther which summarize basic Christian teaching: the Schwabach Articles, the Confession Concerning Christ's Supper (1528), the Smalcald Articles, the Instruction for Visitors (1528), and the Augsburg Confession and its Apology, which Mörlin, like many of his contemporaries, counted among Luther's works as well as Melanchthon's. For learning the proper distinction of law and gospel the reader should turn to the Galatians commentary of 1535. Mörlin commended On the Last Words of David for its treatment of the 2nd article of the Creed, and On the Councils and the Church and Against Hanswurst for their treatment of the 3rd article. The Genesis commentary would summarize and complete the study of Luther's thought...

...The works of the earlier Luther, particularly the great trilogy of 1520—The Freedom of the Christian, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and The Open Letter to the German Nobility—were not on the lists, although they do appear on most such lists today."

(pp. 192-193, Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero, HT Benjamin Mayes)

My real history

when we repeat the words, "I believe," which introduce the Creed, we affirm our participation in that history and we confess that we are figures drawn into involvement in that history. The history of Jesus Christ, precisely, that is my history! It is closer to me than the various events of my own life.

(p. 83, Karl Barth, The Faith of the Church)

Bruce Waltke had something similar to say as he embarks on a lecture series on Judges:

To a large extent your definition of yourself is your memory ... history is memory. It is our memory. Every sociological community has both a memory and a destiny for its own self-identification. Now there is something more important than your memory, and that is your spiritual commitment.... You and I have made a spiritual commitment to Jesus Christ. This memory of the Old Testament, is his memory. It shaped him. And when we were baptised into Christ we became Abraham's seed, and this whole history is our history. So this is your history you are going to be learning. It is skeletons in the closet for the most part; but it is a tremendous testimony to God's grace. And I am suggesting therefore to you that as a result of this course, and through this gift of memory, you will know yourself better as a Christian

(MP3 lecture, A01, Course Introduction, Light from the Dark Ages: An Exposition on Judges and Ruth)

Karl Barth points us to where we can have hope. If we look at ourselves and our own lives we often see little to be hopeful about. Death appears the end, and a justified end of a short brutish life. But if Jesus' history is ours then his resurrection and justification is ours too.

But even then you may have a nagging doubt. I may identify with Jesus, but if Jesus doesn't identify with me then the union on which all our hope rests breaks down. However, when Jesus makes Israel's history his own, and identifies with the representatives of humanity who again and again went away from him and 'did what was right in [their] own eyes' (Judges 17:6; 21:25), then our hope is a certain one.

Mike Reeves MP3s

Mike Reeves is the Theological Advisor for UCCF. Previously he was an associate minister at All Souls Church, Langham Place, London. He holds a doctorate in systematic theology from King's College, London. He has written The Unquenchable Flame: Introducing the Reformation and The Breeze of the Centuries: Introducing great theologians - From the Apostolic Fathers to Aquinas, On Giants' Shoulders: Introducing great theologians - From Luther to Barth, and contributed to Should Christians Embrace Evolution?.

• NWA 2011: Hebrews 1:8-19 (1 sermon to purchase) - NEW!
• NWA 2011: Matters of the Heart (4 MP3s - to purchase) - NEW!
• NWA 2009: Right with God? (4 MP3s - to purchase, BUT Free on the Theology Network site called Justification) - NEW!
• NWA 2008: Knowing the Triune God (4 MP3s - to purchase) - NEW!
• Forum North West 2010: Leviticus (4 MP3s) - NEW!
• UCCF South West Transformission 2010: The Love of God (3 MP3s) - NEW!
• John 17:17-23: The other Lord's Prayer (video) - NEW!
• 1 Corinthians 15:22,23: Secure in Christ (video) - NEW!
• Secure in the Saving God with Angus Moyes, UCCF Forum 2010 (3 MP3s) - NEW!
• John 20:19-23, UCCF Forum 2010
• Psalm 42: The Christian's Ode to Joy (video, overlap with talk on the External Word below)
• 9Marks Interview: Mike Reeves interviewed by Mark Dever on the Reformation - NEW!
• UCCF South West Transformission 2009: Union with Christ (3 MP3s, they can also be found here and here)
• The Doctrine of Revelation (4 MP3s)
• CU Leaders' Training Weekends on 1 Corinthians; 2008 version, London; 2009 version, Scotland; 2010 version, Midlands; (4 MP3s each)
• UCCF South West Transformission 2008 on The Word of God (3 MP3s)
• UCCF South West Transformission 2007 on the glory of the cross (3 MP3s)
• Christology and Revelation (6 MP3s)
• Depending on the Living God with Jo McKenzie (3 MP3s)
• DIY theology
• Introducing the Apostolic Fathers (2 MP3s)
• Introducing Justin Martyr
• Introducing Ireneaus
• Introducing Athanasius (2 MP3s)
• Introducing Augustine (2 MP3s)
• Introducing Anselm (3 MP3s)
• Introducing Thomas Aquinas (3 MP3s)
• Introducing Martin Luther (4 MP3s)
• Introducing John Calvin (3 MP3s)
• Introducing Jonathan Edwards (5 MP3s) - NEW!
• Eastern Orthodoxy - NEW!
• Sin and Evil (3 MP3s) - NEW!
• Eastern Orthodoxy - NEW!
• The Trinity and Mission - NEW!
• Where are we heading? Armageddon or Apocoalypse?
• Trinity 1, Trinity 2, Trinity 3, Trinity 4
• Table talk: Mike Reeves interviews various people about various things! - always new stuff
• OICCU 2011 Reps Conference on 'The Love of God': 1. The Beautiful Son; 2. The Heart-Melting Spirit - NEW!
• 4 sermons at CICCU
• 34 sermons at All Souls, Langham Place
• 'Fundamentalism, terror and faith: Is Christianity good for the world?', 28/03/10, Holy Trinity Eastborne (Evangelistic talk)
• Evangelism Podcast with Clive Parnell
• Why GO?, 2006, York University CU
• How the Atheists are Right, 2009, Bath University CU - NEW!
• Zechariah 5: Behold Your King Enthroned - NEW!
• Theology of Music (3 MP3s)

There are also some duplicates and clips on the Gospel Coalition site as well as the Theology Network site.

Please let me know of any that I've missed and I'll try and keep it up-to-date. I'm sorry that there is little order to the list.

Freedom!

Alister McGrath believes that Atheism as a living idea lived 200 years. He argues it was born in 1789 with the Storming of the Bastille and died in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. What gave Atheism strength and life was the experience of the church as oppressive, and what killed it was the experience that Atheist institutions were no different.

That the church should be an enemy of freedom should shock us when we read the bible and discover that freedom is a important description of our salvation. In the Exodus we see literal freedom from slavery, and in the New Testament we learn of our freedom from sin and the law.

But when Christians say they are free who are they kidding? To many they seem to have willingly restricted their freedom. When we think of freedom we understand it as freedom-to-do-this-or-that. I have heard Christians sometimes uncritically take over the same understanding and so when they read that we are free from sin, they read that as we are free to sin or not to sin, where as previously we could only sin.

But if that is our understanding of freedom how can we say that another fall is impossible in the New Creation? Even more importantly how can we say God is free, when we say he cannot sin?

I have recently heard/read John Stott and Karl Barth both address freedom. They both define it positively, and both start from God's freedom and work out human freedom from that.

Karl Barth first of all, doing what he does best, starting from God:

God's freedom is not merely unlimited possibility or formal majesty and omnipotence, that is to say empty, naked sovereignty. Nor is this true of the God-given freedom of man. If we so misinterpret human freedom, it irreconcilably clashes with divine freedom and becomes the false freedom of sin, reducing man to a prisoner. God Himself, if conceived of as unconditioned power would be a demon and as such His own prisoner. In the light of His revelation, God is free in word and deed; He is the source and measure of all freedom, insofar as He is the Lord, choosing and determining Himself first of all. In His own freedom, as the source of human freedom, God above all willed and determined Himself to be the Father and the Son in the unity of the Spirit.

(p. 67, The Humanity of God)

From this foundational understanding of freedom as defined by God, Barth is 'bold to say' four things about human freedom:

(1) Human freedom as a gift of God does not allow for any vague choices between various possibilities....

(2) Human freedom is not realised in the solitary detachment of an individual in isolation from men. God is a se (for Himself), but He is pro nobis (for us). For us!...

(3) Human freedom is only secondarily freedom from limitations and threats. Primarily it is freedom for.

(4) Human freedom is not to be understood as freedom to assert, to preserve, to justify and save oneself. God is primarily free for; the Father is free for the Son, the Son for the Father in the unity of the Spirit. The one God is free for man as his Creator, as the Lord of the covenant, as the beginner and perfecter of his history, his Heilsgeschichte. God says "Yes." Only once this "Yes" is said, He also says "No." Thereby he reveals Himself to be free from all that is alien and hostile to His nature.

(italics original, pp.74-75, ibid)

I cannot help wondering whether John Stott had read this when a few years later he gave some addresses on freedom and said:

Christian freedom is fundamentally positive and not negative as a concept. That is to say, it has to be defined in terms of what we are free for, not in terms of what we are free from. True freedom is freedom to be one's true self. God alone, the Creator, enjoys perfect freedom, because he alone is invariably himself; he never denies himself. God's creatures are free only when they fulfil their Creator's purpose for them ....this Christian freedom (freedom for God as his children) presupposes freedom from all those tyrannies which prevent us from being what God made us and meant us to be.

(from MP3 address, "Freedom ... From the opinions of men", 1 Jan 1971)

Stott is particularly good at analysing how all the contemporary calls for freedom are calls for freedom for something, even when they are presented as being freedom from something. Calls for freedom from foreign colonial power was a call for freedom for nationhood. Calls for free press were calls for truth to be published without restriction. He quotes Malcolm X in his autobiography who calls for a free society in which black people would be free to be who they were - human beings:

Human rights! Respect as human beings! That’s what America's black masses want. That's the problem. The black masses want not to be shrunk from as though they are plague-ridden. They want not to be walled up in slums, in the ghettoes, like animals. They want to live in an open, free society where they can walk with their heads up, like men, like women!

Let's pray for the church to be seen as a place of freedom, and celebrate ourselves the freedom that we have to serve one another and worship God (not considering these things as burdens). After all, as Barth summarises it 'freedom is being joyful.'

Luther and Paul on experience

Luther refers to six things that makes a person a theologian, one of which is experience (p.17, Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation).

When Luther refers to "experience", he does not refer primarily to an actio but to a passio, not primarily to the experiences that I am in charge of, but in connection with that which I suffer. It is - to take it to the highest level - the experience that is mine in the agonizing struggle [Anfechtung] with the Word of God. This is the real point of Luther's famous statement: "sola experientia facit theologum" [only experience makes a theologian], which is admittedly most generally applied incorrectly, since it is not experience as such that makes one a theologian, but experience with the Holy Scripture.

(italics original, pp.21-22, ibid)

I read that yesterday and today we read Romans 15:4 in church:

whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Slightly different but connected. It reminds me of this John Newton hymn though.

Should we expect Christians to live differently?

Luther said that "Life is as evil among us as among the papists" (p. 57, Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil).

Tim Keller who is deeply influenced by Luther's radical doctrine of grace often says the same kind of thing. e.g:

It is often the case that people whose lives have been harder and who are "lower on the character scale" are more likely to recognize their need for God and turn to Christianity. So we should expect that many Christians' lives would not compare well to those of the nonreligious (just as the health of people in the hospital is comparatively worse that people visiting museums).

(p.54, Reason for God)

In a similar vein Alister McGrath says that he sometimes would respond to comments that "Christianity cannot be true because I know X and he is a horrible person" by saying "just imagine how much more horrible X would be if he wasn't a Christian".

I don't quite understand how to hold this together with the teaching of 1 John and the like. I often feel the NT does lead us to expect that Christian's lives should compare well with non-Christians. But maybe my trouble is I'm confusing 'should' with 'will' instead of 'ought to'.

I 'should' read Luther on 1 John, but unfortunately it involves £20 outlay.

What we conquer are the small things

What we conquer are the small things,
and victory itself makes us small.
The Eternal and Un-commmon
does not want to be shaped by us.
This is the Angel who to the wrestlers
of the Old Testament appeared:
when the sinews of his adversaries
in the battle stretch metallically
he feels them under his fingers
like the strings of profound melodies.

Who was overcome by this Angel
who has oft from battle abstained,
he walks justified, upright
and proud out of that hard hand,
which as if molding, gently encloses him.
Victories are not inviting to him.
His gain is to be profoundly vanquished
by ever greater things.

(p. 318, Reiner Maria Rilke, quoted in Hieke A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil)

Genesis 32 is a difficult passage for me to understand. I'm not sure that this German poem is correct as an interpretation of the passage, but nevertheless it contains some wonderfully expressed truth.