Why you should take care in choosing songs for worship

Funny quote from Stanley Hauerwas:

One reason why we Christians argue so much about which hymn to sing, which liturgy to follow, which way to worship is that the commandments teach us to believe that bad liturgy eventually leads to bad ethics. You begin by singing some sappy, sentimental hymn, then you pray some pointless prayer, and the next thing you know you have murdered your best friend. (HT John Halton)

It seems hard to see how that could come about, but when it is your best friend who has chosen that insipid meaningless chorus for the twentieth time this year then perhaps you'd understand that it is probably for the best that he was prevented from making the same mistake again.

More random thoughts, this time on fear

Listening to: Antony and the Johnsons: I Am a Bird Now

Stream of conciousness blogging...

When Martin Luther expounded the 10 commandments in his Small Catechism he began every explanation with "We should fear and love God....". Fear and love/Law and Gospel/Repentance and faith etc. The two sides the Christian life are fundamental to Lutheran spirituality, and I think to the Bible too. But the language of fear is something that I really struggle with. I've been thinking about it a bit recently as I've come across things all over the place which have challenged me to think.

For example, Mark 4:35-5:20 which describes Jesus performing two miracles. In the first he stills a storm. In the second he casts out demons into some pigs. In both the reaction of the people is fear. The disciples fear him, but keep following him. The second group fear him, and ask him to depart from their region.... Is the first a good fear and the second a bad fear? In which case what is it about the fear which is good/bad? Is it what it leads to... i.e. pushing Jesus away, or clinging to him?

Perhaps, but what about Luke 5:1-10? Again Jesus performs a miracle and people are afraid. Peter falls on his knees and says "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord". He is pushing Jesus away, and Jesus responds by telling him "Do not be afraid".

Is that good fear or bad fear? Presumably good, but Jesus doesn't think it is appropriate!

But maybe that is because fear is the beginning of wisdom, but not the end. Fear is good at pushing us into the arms of love, but then be left behind. Verses could be multiplied to show this is not the case, but one striking example was brought up by Richard Coekin in the A Passion for Life DVDs the men in our church are watching. Looking at 2 Corinthians 5-6 he helpfully drew out four motivations for evangelism:

1. The fear of Christ (5:11)
2. The love of Christ (5:14)
3. The commission of Christ (5:20)
4. The day of Christ (6:1-2)

Surely the fear of Christ which motivates us to evangelism is fear for the sake of those who don't believe? Well, 2 Corinthians 5 doesn't seem to say that. Christians will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (5:10) "therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others" (5:11). It is fear for ourselves that motivates us!

Discussing the Richard Coekin video at church this morning a friend said that he understood the fear of God, but not the love. I think he meant experientially rather than intellectually. I think I understand both experientially to some degree, but I really don't understand fear intellectually. In my heart I felt that he had too much of the fear of death and condemnation that we have been freed from (Romans 8:1-17; Hebrews 2:15). But I'm not sure that I was right. I do feel that we too often take the freedom described to mean that 'fear of God' for Christians is an insipid 'respect' or 'reverence' without any fear of punishment. This doesn't seem to be what the Bible describes, and besides it all just seems too neat. Fear isn't so easily packaged as Melachthon commented:

when will a terrified conscience, especially in those serious, genuine, and great terrors that are described in the Psalms and the Prophets and certainly experienced by those who are truly converted, be able to determine whether it fears God on account of himself or in fear is fleeing eternal punishments? These two great impulses can be distinguished on paper, but they cannot be separated in real life, as these slick sophists dream. (p.189, Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XII: Repentance, BOC)

Sorry for the mess that is this post. It reflects the mess my mind is in on this issue! But at least nobody can accuse me of being a "slick sophist"!

Any thoughts?

Obey the gospel - send missionaries

Listening to: JS Bach, Mass in B Minor - I'm going to nick Dan Hames' habit and start doing this. Sometimes its hard to keep quiet about stuff you're loving, so this gives me an additional excuse to vent. Plus you may find out something about me!

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

"Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world."

19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,

"I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
with a foolish nation I will make you angry."

20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,

"I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."

21 But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

(Romans 10:14-21)

Glen has provoked me to make sense of the flow of this passage. I think I now have, thanks mainly to the insights of my learned housemate with whom I had a good session thrashing over it this evening. I think it taught us:

• to support for world mission
• to be humble because the whole world is disobedient
• to be happy that this means that all missionaries are forgiven sinners and so preach a message which is not 'be like me and be good' but 'be forgiven like me'
• to witness to Christ in a way which makes it clear we are sinners, not standing over non-Christians in judgment
• to be amazed at the complexity and non-instinctual way in which God achieves his purposes.
• God gets the glory, not us.

Briefly, this is what I think is going on.

vv.14-15a: is a pretty easy to understand chain of how people are saved. People call on God because they have heard the gospel, because someone preached to them, because someone sent that missionary to them.

15b: missionary activity is a beautiful thing. Get with the program! Specifically Paul's program for his mission to Spain.

16a: the Jews have not got with the program. They have not been missionaries to the world. When Paul says they did not obey the gospel, he does not mean they did not believe it for their own salvation. The gospel is usually something that we believe, accept or confess for our salvation. We obey it in obeying its implicit call to spread it. We obey the gospel by supporting God's mission to the world.

16b: is a quotation from Isaiah 53:1a. The reasons the Jews are not sending out missionaries declaring the coming of the Messiah is that Jews did not believe that the suffering Jesus hung on a cross, was the promised Messiah.

17: Summarising vv.14-16.

18: Psalm 19 has already been told to the Jews so they should know about God's universal purposes. They should know about general revelation, and so should realise that God plans salvation for all people. He has been speaking to all people through creation, so the Jews should follow his lead and take the gospel to all people.

19: Even the beginning of the bible ('first Moses') tells the Jews of God's purposes for the gentiles, although it also says that they will be jealous of them.

20: Isaiah much later ('then') says the same thing and says that God has purposes for the gentiles to, although again points out that the Jews won't like it.

21: The Jews have not listened to their vocation but instead been disobedient.

Challenge to the Romans and to us: be obedient, see God's universal purposes. Support mission, and marvel at God's universal love.

Brief thoughts. Feedback appreciated. All responsibility for any mistakes belongs to my housemate.

Thoughts on Job 33

Job believes two things:

1. He is 'pure', he has 'done no wrong', he is 'clean and free from sin' (33:9); and
2. Despite that God unjustly considers him 'his enemy' (33:10; cf 34:5)

Elihu contends that Job is not right. This is his human reasoning, and God is greater than human imagining.

God does speak and reveal himself and he does this 'now one way, now another' (33:14):

1. To those who are slumbering soundly in bed God speaks 'in their ears and terrif[ies] them with warnings' (33:16)
2. To those with 'constant distress in their bones' (33:19) he sends a angel who 'is gracious to them and says to God':

"Spare them from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for them—
let their flesh be renewed like a child's;
let them be restored as in the days of their youth'—
then they can pray to God and find favour with him,
they will see God's face and shout for joy;
he will restore them to full well-being." (33:24-26)

What will those who hear these two words say:

1. 'We have sinned, we have perverted what is right'
2. 'we did not get what we deserved. God has delivered us from going down to the pit, and we shall live to enjoy the light of life'

It seems cruel or irrational that God would say these two contradictory words to people. Why does God say both these things to human beings? The answer is that both are to bring them us to life (33:18,28-30), and the chances are that God will have to speak these words repeatedly to us over our lives in order to save us (33:29).

Elihu was angry with Job because he was 'justifying himself rather than God' (32:2) and YHWH isn't too happy about that either (40:8). But actually Elihu admits that he wants to justify Job (33:32) and YHWH does so in the end too (42:7). Job is justified through YHWH's own justification. Only when YHWH is allowed to be just in a way above human comprehension, can we too be justified. If we seek YHWH to be just according to our own standards we will be righteous and God will seem unjust and our enemy.

Natural theology, law and Gospel

Glen has been interacting with some thoughts on truth and goodness in pagan philosophers. I agree with him entirely and he says things much better than I could. I just think he could do with a dash of law and Gospel!

I've talked about this more here and here, where you can see how much I'm relying on Oswald Bayer. I came across another Bayer gem that explains what I mean the other day:

"The effect that the law creates is not surprising. One has no trouble understanding what it means to rely on oneself and on one's own deeds; the action-consequences relationship has its own logic. But the gospel is absolutely, completely incomprehensible. That God rescues one from, and brings one safely through, the deserved judgment is a miracle. Law and gospel cannot be plausibly intertwined together; their existence is hard and fast in opposition to each other. The gospel is literally a paradox; it stands against that which the sinner can reasonably expect; it stands against damnation"

(p.228, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation)

I think that makes clear how there can be good and true things in what pagan philosophers say (which, Glen, I think you could be clearer on), while also proclaiming the foolishness of the Gospel. They teach the good and true law, but cannot teach the Gospel. They never completely teach the law (that actually can only be done by teaching the cross), but they cannot even partially teach the Gospel. To me that makes sense of Psalm 19, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Job, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 1-3 etc

It also makes sense of my experience. For example, I watch a fair number of films and attempt to do this from a Christian perspective. I tend to feel they are often great at showing our plight, but never offer anything but false solutions.

Now there is an interesting question which I haven't really addressed, and that is where does Christ fit into this? I have talked about law and Gospel and Glen has talked about Christ. Does Christ=the Gospel, which is what Luther and Mark 1:1 (granting my discussion with Chris about different meanings of 'gospel') seem to do? But isn't Christ the one shown to be the one who will judge the world (Acts 17:31), and isn't the cross the ultimate proclamation of the law (as PT Forsyth argues)? Can't Paul even say that 'according to [his] gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus' (Rom 2:16)?

Sorry but I don't have time to pick up those threads!... just thought I'd tease you!

BTW I'm sorry if all I do is talk about Oswald Bayer, Glen Scrivener and law and Gospel at the moment. As you can probably tell by the rushed off nature of this post I'm not getting much time at the moment.

I see law and Gospel everywhere!

Cole Sear: I see dead people law and Gospel.

Malcolm Crowe: In your dreams?

[Cole shakes his head no]

Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake?

[Cole nods...]

Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?

Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere.

It is starting to feel that way....

This evening at church the preacher argued that there were two essential attitudes for prayer:

1. helplessness
2. faith

Law and Gospel, I thought. You can view everything through that lens!

More important than the existence of God?

Glen has a few thoughts on Dawkins.

I read Oswald Bayer last night and he made the rather provocative statement that:

"The question about justification is more important than the question about the existence of God."

(pp. 138f, Martin Luther's Theology)

Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it... as Don Carson might say.

I'm not sure I 100% understand him, but an earlier comment throws some light:

"certainty comes to exist in a concrete way. It takes place through the use of certain performative statements of Christian proclamation of the type used in the promise of the forgiveness of sins. Nothing can be abstracted from this concrete activity to concoct a statement that supposedly has general applicability, that would provide a place of refuge in a phenomenological, religious sense, that would have some overarching validity wherein all religions could find commonality. For Luther it follows that atheism is the high point among religions, which is most clearly seen in the religion of self-actualization, in which the human being seeks to make himself reliant simply on himself. [footnote: "Luther emphasizes this in a clearly blunt manner when he puts the Muslims on the same level with the papacy and the Enthusiasts. He does not distinguish between religions and confessions, but only between true and false faith. Everyone who attempts to justify himself apart from Christ is caught up in unbelief, no matter what form it takes."]"

(p.137, ibid)

Luther on changing nappies

"If natural reason looks thus at married life, which is what the heathen follow, at the point where they want to be the smartest, then it turns up the nose and says: Ah, do I have to rock the baby, wash the diapers, make beds, smell stink, stay awake during the night, care for it when it cries, treat its rashes and sores, afterward take care of the wife, support her, work, have cares here, cares there, do that, do this, suffer that, suffer this, and all of what else the marriage estate teaches about what is disgusting and wearying. Oh, should I get caught like that? Oh, you miserable, poor man, if you have taken a wife, phooey, phooey, with the misery and messiness. It is better to remain unattached and, without troubles, to lead a peaceable life....

But what does the Christian faith have to say about this? It opens his eyes and sees all these small, insignificant, and despised works through the Spirit and is most sure that they are all decorated with godly pleasure as with costly gold and precious stones and says: Ah, oh God, since I am sure that you have created me as a human being and have produced this child through my body, I thus know for sure, as well, that it pleases you best of all, and I confess to you that I am not worthy to rock the little one, to wash his diapers, and to care for his mother. How have I come to be worthy of this without merit, that I have become sure of how I can serve your creature and your loving will? Oh, how gladly I will do such things, even such things as could be less important yet and more despised. Therefore neither frost nor heat, no amount of effort or work will grieve me, since I am sure that such work is pleasing to you."

(The Estate of Marriage, LW 45:39-40)

James Denney on the incarnation (x7)

Here are a whole load of quotes from James Denney's The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation in which he attacks an understanding of the incarnation which gives the sinful state of our humanity a back seat.

When I hear about the incarnation it is often described as primarily a metaphysical or epistemological event. Consequently salvation is then seen as similarly metaphysical or epistemological. In contrast the Bible sees it primarily as a act of reconciliation to deal with our moral alienation from God.

-------------------------------

"It is not too much to say that the metaphysical incarnation which was the vital centre of Athanasius' thought - his sacramental union of the divine and the human in the incarnate Word - had dulled his sense of an ethical union and communion of man with God, and of the powers by which such a union and communion can be impaired and destroyed, or perfected. [footnote: "It is significant that he only mentions the forgiveness of sins once, and then only in connection with Christ's work as seeking and saving the lost during his life on earth (14.2)] The same holds of Greek theology generally, and of the type of piety akin to it. It is too much out of relation to the world in which moral creatures, conscious of their estrangement from God, and needing and longing for reconciliation to Him, live and move and have their being." (pp.42-43)

"Christ had no reason for coming into the world but to save sinners. This is the true experimental and Biblical ground on which to stand. Attractive as it may appear to speculative minds, the idea that Christ would have come apart from this redemptive purpose - to complete creation, or give humanity a Head - departs from the line of religious and especially of Christian interest. It finds the motive of the incarnation in some speculative or metaphysical fitness, and not where Scripture and experience put it, in love." (p. 59)

"God became man because only thus could sin be dealt with for man's salvation, and God's end in the creation of man secured. In other words, the rationale of the incarnation is in the atonement. It is through the atonement that the incarnation is seen to be rationally necessary and therefore credible." (p. 65)

"He must be man that He may be entitled to act for the sinful race, and He must be God that He may be able to offer to God the immeasurable satisfaction which shall be equal to the necessities of the case. Hence the need for the incarnation or the God-man. It is the necessity of making satisfaction for sin, in order that men who have sinned may nevertheless attain the destiny of blessedness in eternal life with God, which explains the one dogma of the Christian faith - namely, the incarnation. As it has already been expressed, the rationale of the incarnation lies in the atonement. Were it not for the atonement, no one could say that the incarnation had any necessity in it which appealed to reason." (p.71)

"Nothing is commoner, for instance, than for those who conceive the incarnation as the taking up of human nature into union with the divine, to say that the incarnation is itself the atonement; in the person of the God-man humanity as such is reconciled to God. To the writer such expressions are as good as meaningless, and neither for the evangelist nor the theologian can he see that they have any value. But looking at the actual life and death of Jesus as the proper definition of the term incarnation - the sum of reality apart from which incarnation is an empty sound - he would have no difficulty in saying that the incarnation and the atonement, or the incarnation and the work of reconciling man to God, were all one. The traditional dogmatic conception of the incarnation, with which the idea of an incarnation independent of sin, and designed to consummate creation, is usually connected, does not lift us into a region of eternal or ideal truth; it does not enlighten our minds in the knowledge of Christ; it only lifts us out of the region of historical and moral reality. We have the practical interest of Christianity as well as the broad sense of the New Testament with us when we stand by the view that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." (pp. 183-184)

"The only incarnation of which the New Testament knows anything is the appearance of Christ in the race and lot of sinful men, and His endurance in it to the end. Apart from sharing our experience, that sharing of our nature, which is sometimes supposed to be what is meant by incarnation, is a abstraction and a figment. But everything in that sharing our experience is essential." (p.242)

Wheels in motion

Charles Simeon on Calvinist v. Arminian systems in Scripture:

"The author is disposed to think that the Scripture system is a of a broader and more comprehensive character than some very dogmatical theologians are inclined to allow; and that, as wheels in a complicated machine may move in opposite directions and yet subserve one common end, so may truths apparently opposite be perfectly reconcilable with each other and equally subserve the purpose of God in the accomplishment of man's salvation. The author feels it impossible to avow too distinctly that it is an invariable rule with him to endeavour to give to every portion of the Word of God its full and proper force, without considering what scheme if favours, or whose system it is likely to advance."

(p.79, cited in HCG Moule, Charles Simeon)

I'm not sure how helpful the machine analogy is for Calvinism v. Arminian interpretations of the bible. But it is a very helpful way of thinking about how Scripture works more generally. In particular how it works as law and Gospel. Law and Gospel in Scripture work against each other in some ways, but as part of the whole work together for a common end. If we try and force one of the cogs to work in the same way as the other cogs the whole machine will malfunction.

Another reason I like the analogy is because it is a description of Scripture which is full of movement. I think that the Bible is a book full of movement from one truth to another. From one feeling to another.

Snowed under in September

Hi everyone,

I thought I'd give you all an explanation of why the blog has been a little quiet recently, and how it is likely to get even quieter for a while.

Last month I purposely had a break from reading theology books and tried (largely unsuccessfully) to spend more time reading fiction and the bible itself. This month I have started a two-year part-time course at the College of Law, as part of my never-ending quest to be a solicitor one day. Having now seen my timetable and the teaching methods it is clear that I'm not going to have much time to do anything other than study and earn the money to live off. Consequently blogging and reading theology is going to be much lower down my to-do list. I'm sure you will all live, but at least you now know I'm not ill or something.

In case you care, when I do get time to read I'll be aiming to read:

• Till We Have Faces (CS Lewis)
• Gilead (Marilynne Robinson)
• The Christian Doctrine of God (TF Torrance)
• War of Words (Paul Tripp)

And I'm reading most of those because I've been told to!

While I'm here though I'll also let you know how much I've been enjoying listening to a bit of Dick Lucas recently. I heard an American introduce him before one of his sermons by saying that he had been told by a British pastor that 'John Stott taught our generation what to preach, Dick Lucas taught us how to preach'. At first you struggle to see how he came to have so much influence. But soon you realise it is his absolute confidence that it is the bible, and not his ideas or rhetoric which has power to change people. In contrast to Dick Lucas you wonder how much you, and many preachers, really believe that the bible speaks today.

Here are a couple of series I've enjoyed:

• Romans 8 Re-Examined at St Helen's Bishopgate (5 talks)
• The Charles Simeon Sermon series (2007) at Taylor University (5 talks)

The right question to ask about Jesus

The right question is not:

• What is Jesus; man or god?

But:

• Who is Jesus; the God of Israel, or someone else?

That is what Richard Bauckham argues in his awesome book God Crucified, which is now part of Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity. No apologies for typing out a big passage of the book:

This [Jewish] kind of practical monotheism, requiring a whole pattern of daily life and cultic worship formed by exclusive allegiance to the one God, presupposes a god who is in some way significantly identifiable. the God who requires what the God of Israel requires cannot be merely the philosophical abstraction to which the intellectual currents of contemporary Greek thought aspired. Jews, in some sense, knew who their God was. The God of Israel had a unique identity. The concept which will be the central focus of the whole argument of this chapter is that of the identity of God.

[...]

The term identity is mine, not that of the ancient literature, but I use it as a label for what I do find in the literature, which is not, of course, necessarily a notion precisely the same as modern ideas of personal identity, but is nevertheless clearly a concern with who God is. The value of the concept of divine identity appears partly if we contrast it with a concept of divine essence or nature. Identity concerns who God is; nature concerns what God is or what divinity is. Greek philosophy, already in the period we are discussing and in a way that was to influence the Christian theological tradition significantly in the period after the New Testament, typically defined divine nature by means of a series of metaphysical attributes: ingenerateness, incorruptibility, immutability and so on. My point is not that the biblical and Jewish tradition had no use at all for statements about the divine nature. Some Jewish writers in the later Second Temple period consciously adopted some of the Greek metaphysical language. But in these writers the dominant conceptual framework of their understanding of God is not a definition of divine nature - what divinity is - but a notion of divine identity, characterized primarily in ways other than metaphysical attributes. That God is eternal, for example - a claim essential to all Jewish thinking about God - is not so much a statement about what divine nature is, more an element in the unique divine identity, along with claims that God alone created all things and rules all things, that God is gracious and merciful and just, that God brought Israel out of Egypt and made Israel his own people and gave Israel his law at Sinai and so on.

(pp. 6-7, "God Crucified" in Jesus and the God of Israel)

But because Christianity is missionary, and because Jesus Christ makes the claim to be Lord of all the world, we do need to answer the first question, even if it is the wrong question. However, because it is the wrong question we will find ourselves in dangerous territory before we even get going in answering the question. In answering the first question we are going to have to talk about metaphysical attributes whether we like them or not. What we then have to do is gradually lead the questioner down the road to the safer ground where the second question can be asked and answered.

This is risky. It would be safer to stay in our ghettos. In fact wouldn't it be safer if we didn't use English at all to describe God? Or even better, lets stop talking about God at all! But then again, perhaps if God is bold enough to speak to us, and incarnate himself with us, perhaps we should be bold and follow his lead.

As an interesting example of this, I often think of how bold it was of bold it was of the Israelites to say that Yahweh is El. I can't imagine being bold enough to do that. I would want to totally avoid using the language of El in the ANE context.

Our portion and his inheritance

'Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers. The Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him.' (Deuteronomy 10:9)

'The Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the Lord's food offerings as their inheritance.' (Deuteronomy 18:1)

'Now there happened to be there a worthless man, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite. And he blew the trumpet and said, "We have no portion in David, and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O Israel!"' (2 Samuel 20:1)

'He is the Lord our God... Remember his covenant forever, the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations, the covenant that he made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac, which he confirmed as a statute to Jacob, as an everlasting covenant to Israel, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan, as your portion for an inheritance."' (Psalm 105-7-11)

'Not like these is he who is the portion of Jacob, for he is the one who formed all things, and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance; the Lord of hosts is his name.' (Jeremiah 51:19)

'the Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem' (Zechariah 2:12)

'if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.' (Galatians 3:18)

'In him we have obtained an inheritance [...] In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, [...] who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it' (Ephesians 1:11-14)

'I do not cease to give thanks for you [...] that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his [i.e. Jesus'] glorious inheritance in the saints' (Ephesians 1:16-18)

A Biblical Theology of Inheritance would be an amazing thing to write. The most amazing thing about it is its two-way nature which is succinctly described in Jeremiah 51:19. What we are to him, he is to us.

We receive an inheritance. To the people of Israel it was the land of Canaan, although the priests experienced more they had YHWH himself as their inheritance which meant they could eat with him at the same table. This is just an expression of the intimacy of the relationship that they had with him. That was the true inheritance they received.

But that intimacy is not one way. YHWH had his inheritance or portion in Israel. In this language he expresses his care and commitment to them.

In the NT Christians 'are said to inherit a variety of spiritual benefits, including glorification (Rom 8:17), redemption (Eph 1:14), salvation (Heb 1:14), and life (1 Pet 3:7, cf Luke 18:18)' (p. 637, 'Inheritance' in The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible). But all of these are found in God himself. So our down-payment, of the same kind as our full settlement is God, the Holy Spirit, himself. And Jesus finds his inheritance in us in the Holy Spirit. What a relationship!

I'll leave you with a couple more The Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible quotes:

'Descriptions of Israel as God's inheritance point to the intimacy that appropriately exists between God and the chosen people (e.g. Exod 34:9; Deut 4:20; 2 Sam 21:3; Jer 10:16)' (p. 637, 'Inheritance')

'Expressions such as "to have a portion in (someone)" mean to be affiliated with that person or to belong to that person's company or community (2 Sam 20:1; 1 Kgs 12:16; cf. John 13:8). Words translated "portion" can also be used with reference to that which is dear and close to a person; thus Israel is called the portion of the Lord (Deut 32:9), as Yahweh is likewise Israel's portion (Ps 16:5; 73:26; 119:57; 142:5; Jer 10:16; Lam 3:24)' (p. 1072, "Portion")

Our representative and substitute

I've been listening to Oliver Crisp lecture on the atonement today as I go about my daily business. He identifies several theories of the atonement:

1. Penal substitution - Calvin, Evangelicalism
2. non-Penal substitution (vicarious repentance view) - John McLeod Campbell
3. Penal non-substitution (Governmental view) - Hugo Grotius, 19th Cent Methodists
4. Satisfaction - Anselm
5. Christus Victor (Ransom view)- Early fathers?, Gustaf Aulén
6. Moral-Influence - Peter Abelard, 19th Cent Liberals

I could say a lot about theories of the atonement but won't bore you with them at the moment. But as I was listening to all the complexities of the theories as Oliver Crisp described them I remembered this comment of TF Torrance that I heard some time ago but which I keep coming back to. I think it makes a very important point:

We have to bring together and sink into each other the concepts of representation and substitution in order to grasp the vicarious mission and role of Jesus in his humanity.

If we were to work with representation alone, where Christ represents us and therefore represents what we do, that would be a Pelagian or a semi-Pelagian understanding of the atonement. And by-and-large that is often put forward.

If we were to have a stress on substitution alone, in which Christ takes our place detached from us, then that would be something that he did over our head and that had no relevance to us.

But if we combine these two, as you should combine, and as they are certainly already combined for example in the Isaianic songs about the Servant, then we have an act of substitution which takes place in the depths of our humanity where our humanity is taken up and therefore the atonement is made to issue out of our humanity as humanity's offering toward God. And then of course it is fundamentally relevant to each and all of us in the depths of our own humanity.

(23:35-24:55 "Christ's Mediation/Human Response", Lecture 3 of The Mediation of Christ)

[BTW The Crisp lectures are some hard-core metaphysics that I've only read in the likes of Anselm and Augustine. I suppose it has been my first taste of modern philosophical theology. I am left with a lot of admiration for the brains of those involved but a feeling that it is of limited helpfulness. Also BTW my breakdown of what he said about the different theories may not be quite right as I did it from memory (Interestingly, Theopedia has a slightly different taxonomy of Atonement theories which is quite helpful).]

Is there such a thing as wordless prayer?

These are some snippets from a email conversation I've been having on contemplative, or wordless, prayer. It may all seem a bit disjointed and rushed. That is largely due to lack of time. But I hope they still make some kind of sense.

I must confess that wordless contemplative prayer is something I don't really 'get'. This may be down to my personality which has some trouble contemplating and meditating about anything. Although, it is also because I think prayer is about communication and specifically about petition.

It is unusual be in someone's presence and not talk to them, and it is unusual to be in the presence of someone who loves to give of his riches when you are deeply poor and not ask them for things.

Karl Barth says of pray that "in the first instance, it is simply asking". "It is the fact that [a person] comes before God with his petition which makes him a praying man" (CD III/3, p.268, cited on p. 49, Tim Chester, The Message of Prayer). Tim Chester, who shaped my thinking on this a great deal, comments:

"I have been frustrated by members of my congregation who could not be exhorted to focus on the praise of God or on confession without moving on to petition. It is an attitude of which I now repent. We too easily think of those who move into contemplative modes of praying or those who make worship or confession the focus of their praying as those who are advanced prayers. It is not so. We must recognize that it is the 'unsophisticated', simple prayers who truly express trust in divine Majesty., who truly acknowledge their own need before God, and who have truly grasped the freedom of the Father-child relationship. Many books on prayer exhort us to search for deeper experiences in prayer or more sophisticated modes of prayer that breed a sense of inadequacy in some and of superiority in others. The Bible invites us to find the model of prayer in the simple petitioning of a child before a father. This leads to freedom and peace."

(ibid)

Nevertheless, I think there is a place for stillness and silence which can help in calming your spirit. But I think that is not what I would call prayer, and can only really happen knowing that you have brought your cares and worries to a Father who has the says he will deal with them and has the ability to do so. If it is not in that context it contains the danger of being an act of escaping reality and burying your head in the sand. Much better is a faithful resting in the Father's promise to hear prayers offered in the name of his Son.

[...]

I do most of my thinking out-loud, in conversation, or while reading. That is the way I work, for good or ill. So I love this sort of discussion, but it does make me less receptive to the idea of wordless prayer. That may not necessarily be a good thing though. 'That is my personality' is not a good reason for very much, so it is good to be challenged.

You are right that a lot of our communication is not by words. Although I think they are more important than the commonly repeated statistics would suggest. But whether or not that is true, can we then just apply our experience of human relationships to our relationship with God? If I am communicating by telephone I can't communicate visibly, and if by letter then words are my only option. We walk by faith and not by sight in our relationship with God, and faith comes by hearing. I think it is fair to say that words are fundamental to our relating to God. That may even be why Jesus is called 'The Word'. I don't think that is a permanent state of affairs because we will see him eventually, but that is the way things are now.

That may sound an awfully restricted view of our relationship with God. N may well argue that it is. But I would tend to think that it is good news.

If God is invisible and intangible to us people waiting between his ascension and his second coming then the only avenue that he can communicate to us except through external words (spoken or visible, e.g. sacraments) is through internal words or feelings. If God is communicating to me through those internalised words and feelings then I'm in big trouble. I am creature committed to self-deception. Much of the time my inner thoughts tell me that God approves of me being thoughtless, cruel and selfish. My internal god (because in practice it is a separate deity) serves to make me more and more complacent in my sin, instead of forming me into the likeness of his Son. Other times my inner thoughts may remind me of how deeply ingrained is sin in my life. It tells me that there is no hope of me forming a relationship with God because I'm unworthy. It tells me that I'll never change because I never really have in the past.

In contrast the external word of God tells me I'm more sinful than we could ever know, but more loved than I could imagine. It tells me that, no matter what I feel, I deserved to be hung on a tree but I am now an adopted son of the Father in Christ who died for me.

There are two different ways we can relate to God. One is outward looking and the other is inward looking. One listens to external words and responds in kind, the other listens to internal words (which is really our own voice) and responds in kind. But, doesn't God live in me? Of course we are told that if we are Christians he does. We are told that the Holy Spirit dwells in us and that Christ lives is in us. But it is notable that it doesn't say that the same of the Father, and in almost every New Testament instance of prayer it is the Father whom we address.

So that is a bit more of a broad-brush picture of where I'm coming from. I can see how it could be criticised that it is quite a restricted conception of our relationship with God, but I think that it adds more colour and shape to our understanding. It is more solid and reliable, and I need my relationship with God to be as solid and reliable as his promises are when times get tough.

But as I've said earlier, I think there is a place for wordless quiet in our lives. I just think that it is secondary to, and dependant on, words.

Biblical recommendations

1. The Books of the Bible

The TNIV bible set out in single column without verse numbers, chapter numbers or section headings. They have annoyingly messed with book order as well, but overall it is now my favourite bible to read from in chunks. Its dirt cheap too if you buy it from AbeBooks.

2. Tim Keller: Isn't the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?

Probably the best apologetic talk on why we should trust the bible. I particularly like how it focuses on challenging the challenges that those who are not yet Christians bring. I recently burnt it onto a CD and gave it to someone I know who is not yet a Christian. He still isn't a Christian, but he found it quite sensible and helpful.

Growing up to judge angels

Now the Bible tells us that the Old Creation was superintended by angels, while the New Creation is superintended by redeemed humanity. To save space, and because this essay is designed as a Bible study, I won't be writing out the passages. You must look them up yourself. Start with 1 Corinthians 6:3, which establishes that at the end of the New Creation we shall judge angels, not vice versa. Then, as regards the Old Creation consider Hebrews 2:2 and Acts 7:53. Turn next to Galatians 3:19, and then read Galatians 4:1-7. These passages show that in the Old Creation we were considered as children, and the angels were our tutors. The chief tutor originally was Lucifer, but he betrayed his calling in the Garden. So the Son of God entered as the Angel of the Lord to guide humanity toward maturity. Before He was the Second Adam, Jesus was the Second Lucifer. Throughout the Old Creation, we see the Angel of the Lord and His spirit angels supervising and judging humanity. Now, however, the man Christ Jesus has ascended to rule the angels, and in union with Him we also rule them.

(James Jordan, A Brief Readers Guide to Revelation, HT Paul Huxley)

Judging ourselves rightly

A month ago I posted some thoughts on truth, lies and deception in Romans. A friend from church who read it asked me if I had any ideas how we can avoid thinking judgement applies to others, but somehow not to us? This was my answer. What would your answer look like?

I suppose that is a question we spend all our life trying to figure out. Ultimately it is not something we can do for ourselves, but only something God can work in us by his Spirit. We could then think about the means he uses to do that. Primarily God works through his word, although that comes in different forms:

1. The Written Word

The Scriptures in a huge diversity of ways tells us what we are really like and what this reaction this provokes from God (c.f. Rom 3:9-20). They tell us that God is real and will act, as he has acted before, to punish the wicked.

2. The Spoken Word

This category includes:

(a) Prophecies (I am a continuationist, believe it or not)

(b) Preaching and teaching

(c) Conversations

Through these we are told directly that we are in the wrong and there are consequences from God for that.

3. The Sacramental Word

Baptism tells us that we need to deserve to be buried for our sins, and will be in one form or another. The Lords Supper speaks to us that blood must be shed for our sins, and reminds us of the greatest sin we ever committed.

4. The Acted Word

Maybe this is poor use of language, but what I mean is that interacting with other people, and particularly the people of God, reminds us of their qualities and our lack of them. Seeing how the church lives lives changed by the gospel is one of the most powerful demonstrations of my failings.

How can these words work their work in our lives?

I think the answer to this question is two-fold:

1. 1. We need to expose ourself to them. Read our bible. Read good teaching. Listen to good preaching. Devote ourself to the Lord's Supper. Spend time with other people, in particular the church. etc. Give time to putting ourselves in the way of the word.
2. 2. We need to receive these words as the word of God and not just the words of men. If these words have no authority over us then they cannot give a true judgment of us. We could just dismiss them as soon as we heard them. Only if they are from God do they carry weight.

Jesus Christ, the Word of God to us

Of huge importance though is that we recognise that these words are not the source of our knowledge about ourselves and our plight. We must through them experience the Word of God, Jesus Christ. He in his perfect obedience showed the impossible standard that we can never meet. He though his death on the cross showed us the magnitude of the sentence that hangs over our disobedience. These other words are secondary as their role is to 'image', 'convey' or 'witness' to the word of God to us. We must always look through and beyond them to him.

This is important firstly because otherwise we strip Christ of the honour due to him. It is important secondarily because otherwise we will not know the true gospel. If we do not look to Jesus Christ we will either:

(a) water down the judgment and embrace self-righteous pride; or

(b) despair as we are destroyed by the overpowering condemnation.

However, if we do look at Jesus we will see the resurrection as well as his death. We will see Heaven's peace and perfect justice meet, and see how both can reach their fulfilment. No watering down, both at full power in one event! As we see the full extent of our sin and the holy judgment of God, at the same time, inseparably, we see the full extent of God's love and mercy. As we seek to find the correct, painful judgment of ourselves through the written word, spoken word, sacramental word, and acted word we find the Word of God who brought our condemnation and our justification in him.

As always then the answer is ultimately Christ. He is our judge and our saviour. It is to him that we should look to know ourselves, and know our future. If we find our judgment of death in him, we will also find our indestructible life in him too. Good news!

What's the difference?

"I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death." (2 Corinthians 7:9-10)

Justin Holcomb recently posted on Calvin's distinction between legal and evangelical repentance. James Torrance (in lectures I don't recommend) says that the section 3.3 of the Institutes dealing with this had a massive influence on him.

Curiously, the flavour of Calvin on repentance is certainly very different to that of Melanchthon. I may post on this again soon once I've thought about it a bit more. But before I do so I thought I may seek some thoughts from everyone. Any ideas on the difference between the two griefs that Paul describes?

Alternatively put, and using the example that was being batted around at the time of the Reformation, one may ask... what was the difference between the grief of Peter over his sin, and the grief of Judas over his? One led to salvation without regret, and the other to death. But why?

Thoughts on finding Christ in the OT

Over on Dave Bish's blog I've been involved in one the monthly discussions about how Christ is revealed in the OT. So often the two 'sides' seem to go round and round and I have often felt that there was more going on beneath the surface than what shows above the water. But I've never really got what.

You could say that one group just doesn't really believe that God is Trinity, or that the other is denying the newness of the incarnation. However I don't believe that is true of either group of regular commenters all of whom I have great respect for.... Which is not to say that we all don't have a great deal to learn.

However, listening to Mike Reeves on MP3 today suddenly things became a lot clearer. Commenting on reading the OT as all being about Christ he comments:

the key issue is I don't always have to talk about the incarnation, which is what we tend to mean when we say Christ. I don't always have to talk about that. When we say "do I have to go to Christ?" the kind of language we are using is using is "do I have to fast-forward through time to the event of the incarnation when Christ became flesh?" No you don't have to do that. But you have to be talking about the true and living God who is Christ. If you are not talking about him you must be talking about another God [...] That doesn't mean that as you are preaching on Hosea 11 you have to go "oh now lets jump into the New Testament". No you don't have to do that at all. But you must be talking about the same person. I suppose that's the key. So I'm not saying you always have to nip into the New Testament. You don't at all. But you must always be proclaiming Christ. You don't always have to be proclaiming the incarnation of Christ.

(34:43-> of this lecture, the whole series here)

I don't think you would find Graeme Goldsworthy saying that (correct me if I'm wrong). It may be Trinitarian hermeneutics but is it Gospel-centred hermeneutics?

Anyhow, although I am struggling to know where I should be, I think I understand enough to make some wild generalisations:

Group 1 is looking for the person

• This group is concerned about finding the second person of the Trinity. They are looking for God the Son. They tend to be thinking vertically about the relationship of God to humanity. They would stress that you cannot know God except as Trinity.

Group 2 is looking for the gospel-event

• This group is concerned about finding the Messiah. They are looking for the promised perfect human (king/priest etc). They will be thinking horizontally about the story of the bible/world. They would stress that you cannot know God apart from the death and resurrection of Christ.

I don't think I need go to the effort of pointing out the dangers on both sides. Doing one and not the other is clearly disastrous.

The formal and material principles

Philip Schaff defines the formal and material principles of the Reformation thus:

the material of life principle (principium essendi) of the Reformation [...] is no other than the great doctrine, which is presented by Paul especially as the entire sum of the gospel - the doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God by the merit of Christ alone through faith [...]

the formal or knowledge principle [...] consists in this, that the word of God, as it has been handed down to us in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, is the pure and proper source as well as the only certain measure of all saving truth.

(italics original, p.80-98, The Principle of Protestantism)

Martin Luther may be everyone's go-to guy for the material principle, but would we point to the person who called James an 'epistle of straw' as a great exponent of the formal principle? A lot could be written about Luther's doctrine of Scripture, but I think Oswald Bayer gets to the heart of why Luther doesn't fit into the standard neat distinction of formal and material principles. For Luther the 'authority of Scripture is not formal but is highly material and is content driven' (p.69, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation). This means that we don't follow a two step plan to knowing the truth of God:

• Step 1: Establish source of revelation
• Step 2: From that source derive knowledge of God and how we relate to him

This is the way that many Protestant confessions seem to proceed (at least post-Reformation), and it is the way many systematic theologies are organised. Oswald Bayer certainly does not like to do things that way though:

one does not arrive at the solution to the question [of the authority of Scripture] "in the passionless calm of a knowledge which is in the element of pure thought alone" [Hegel]; instead, it includes a change in the existence of the reader and interpreter. The Holy Scripture verifies itself, in that it awakens faith. As has been stated already, it does not work for one to take the so-called scriptural principle and try to differentiate between a "Protestant formal principle" and a "Protestant material principle," which states the teaching about justification; one certainly ought not to treat them as separate. Both are one and the same: wrapped up in the event that takes place when the righteousness of God is actually given as a gift, at the moment the promissio is articulated, one encounters the authority of Scripture, its efficacy and clarity - its ability to enlighten - as well as its sufficiency: its power to bring one to salvation - if indeed Scriputure is given "for the salvation" of human beings (2 Tim. 3:15). The question about the significance of the reformational turning point in Luther's theology and the question about Luther's understanding of biblical authority are the same; they are one and the same question.

(p.75-76, ibid)

I think this is related to what Mike Reeves is getting at when he says when you treat revelation as 'the ladder to get you up into the actual playroom of Christian theology, you tend to treat revelation and scripture in a non-Christian way because it is outside the room' (beginning of talk 2 here). Mike Reeves concern here is with the relation between Christology and revelation, but one thing I have begun to see lately is that Christology, revelation and salvation are all so bound up together that you cannot really separate them without doing some serious harm. John Calvin's Geneva Catechism, 1541, exemplifies that:

1. Minister. What is the chief end of human life?

Child. To know God

[...how do we know?...]

C. By His Word, in which He declares His mercy to us in Christ, and assures us of His love toward us

14. M. Then the foundation for true reliance upon God is to know Him in Jesus Christ (John 17:3)?

C. That is true

(pp.5-7, Trans. and ed. TF Torrance, The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church - that is the beginning and end of the introduction section prior to the section on the Apostles Creed)

This may seem to be the height of obscure theological discussion, but if you think that just meditate a while on what this means for how you try and witness to the truth of the Gospel to non-Christians.

Sunshine through the clouds

A fictional preacher on why we should preach the law:

This despair over sin is after all a part of the Spirit's enlightenment. Actually one sees more clearly all the while, though one is looking down at the dark pools of evil in the slough of sinful corruption. But it is important to look deeply into it, for one will otherwise imagine that it is possible to get across it by oneself. So one makes a few hops from hummock to hummock, but is soon mired. At the very worst, one does not even dare to admit that one is stuck fast, but claims that one is already across, only because one is no longer in the company of the self-secure sinners on the farther shore.

(p.121, Bo Giertz, The Hammer of God)

... and on why we shouldn't stop there:

We have thundered like the storm, we have bombarded with the heaviest mortars of God's law in an attempt to break down the walls of sin. And that was surely right. I still load my gun with the best powder when I aim at unrepentance. But we had almost forgotten to let the sunshine of the gospel shine through the clouds. Our method has been to destroy all carnal security by our volleys, but we have left it to the souls to build something new with their own resolutions and their own honest attempts at amending their lives. In that way Henrik, it is never finished. We have not become finished ourselves. Now I have instead begun to preach about that which is finished, about that which was built on Calvary and which is a safe fortress to come to when the thunder rolls over our sinful heads.

(p.122-123, ibid)

Seeing things as they really are

This is my first draft of notes for a bible study on Galatians 3:18-4:11. Any feedback gratefully received. Please feel free to be brutal.

'A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is' (Martin Luther)


1. How does Paul see the law in 3:18-4:7, and how does this imply that the false preachers viewed the law?

Verses	Paul's view of the law	The false teachers view of the law
3:18	Did not bring inheritance	Brought the holy spirit/land
3:19, 23, 25	temporary	permanent
3:19	mediated	direct from God
3:21-23	It imprisoned things under sin	righteousness
3:21; Rom 8:2	death	life
3:29	It did not determine who were descendants of Abraham	It determined who were descendants of Abraham
3:25; 4:1-3	for the child	for the mature
4:1, 7-9	slavery That is to be a slave to 'the elemental spirits/principles of the world' (4:2; c.f. Col 2:8 - human/worldly).  Connected to slavery to sin (3:22; Rom 6:6-20), and to those that are not gods (4:8).	freedom

[4:8-11 seems to be about Gentiles.  'you', 'those that are not gods'.  Although it is clear that the state of the Gentiles apart from Christ parallels that of the Jews.  Both involve slavery, and slavery to 'the elemental spirits/principles of the world']


2. Paul says in 1:6 that the Galatians were turning to a different gospel.  We are not attracted by the idea of circumcision, not eating pork, and observing Jewish holy days.  Why were they?  What made it 'good news' to them and the false preachers?

• 'They make much of you' (4:17) - where as Paul says the truth and becomes their enemy, the false teachers flatter
• It is implied that they made the Galatians think they were something, when they were nothing (6:3-5)
• Getting circumcised stopped persecution (5:11).
• Following the law makes a good showing in the flesh (6:12).

• Their teaching meant you were reassured that God is on your side because you can see the marks that prove it
• It meant other people are on your side and not persecuting you, but instead admiring you.
• It meant you can be on your own side, because there is hope that you can obtain life yourself

[NB there are biblical reasons for the false teachers beliefs, but Paul doesn't admit these as the real reasons why they taught them.  Compare:

• 'This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised [...] Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant' (Genesis 17:10-14)
• 'You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them' (Lev 18:5; cf. Ezekiel 20:11)
• 'listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land [the inheritance, c.f. Gal 3:18] that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you.' (Deut 4:1)
• 'it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void' (Luke 16:17)
• All of Deuteronomy 28]

3. What are the glasses through which Paul sees things as the opposite of how the false preachers saw them?

The Gentiles were baptised into Christ => put on Christ => sons of God (even though we can't see how by faith that is true) => there is no difference between Gentiles/Jews, men/women etc (3:26-29).  This is all 'through faith', not sight and not works.

in Christ / outside Christ - is now only division that really matters.  In Christ is every privilege.  Outside of Christ is nothing.

This is despite appearances.  Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, despite appearances.  The cross seems the last thing to boast in, but it is actually the only thing we boast in.

Paul sees the law as obsolete as he sees us living in a different age (cf. 1:4):

• 'It was added ... until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made' (3:19)
• 'before faith came' (3:23)
• 'the law was our guardian until Christ came' (3:24)
• 'now that faith has come' (3:25)
• 'when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son' (4:4)
  

[Split into groups of 2-3]


4. Where do you see places or ways to get good things?  Maybe think in the categories of:
    (a) What you do to make other people think more of you.
    (b) What you do to feel good about yourself.
    (c) What you do so God thinks more of you.


5. What do you see as bad things which you ought to see as good?  When and where do we undervalue Christ?

[NOTE TO SELF: This was a bad bible study - too clever by half]

The Good Samaritans

During the reign of Ahaz the northern kingdom of Israel defeated Judah and took 200,000 people captive. They intended to make them slaves but some of the men of Ephraim took it upon themselves to do something different:

'the men who have been mentioned by name rose and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all who were naked among them. They clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them, and carrying all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria.' (2 Chronicles 28:15)

Remind you of anything?

Samaritans, Jericho, donkeys, anointing (with oil/wine?), provision of food... sounds like Luke 10 to me.

All credit to my pastor who pointed out the connection.

Wall-E discussion notes

I am supposed to be leading a film discussion on Wall-E soon. Peter Dray's recent comments on doing this are very timely. Particularly need to ensure that we appreciate the artistry in this beautiful film. Anyway, for what it is worth, these are my notes on where I want to go with the discussion:

Did people enjoy the film?  Anything in particular?

What is it that makes Wall-E unique among all the other robots left to clear up earth?

• Cares for himself
• Cares for objects
• Cares for cockroach
• Cares for EVE

 

What is the cause of humanity getting into the state it gets into?

• BnL – advertising
• Personal responsibility
• Leisure v. work
• Individuals cutting themselves off from interaction with each other and with the universe.
• Connections with our society?

Does the film have an optimistic or pessimistic view of human nature?

• Pessimistic:
• Consumers not givers
• Lazy
• Lacking individuality even in their atomised existence
• ‘Easier’ not to care for the planet
• Drifters - literally
• Optimistic:
• Politeness – people apologetic when robots bump into them and when they finally do interact with each other.
• Once shown earth they unquestioningly embrace the challenge and responsibility of restoring it.
• Future presented in credits seems uniformly harmonious.
• ‘Sin’ is shown entirely as unintentional

Andrew Stanton, the director, on what he thinks the film is about:

That’s my theme: ‘Irrational love defeats life's programming.’

I realized that that's a perfect metaphor for real life. We all fall into our habits, our routines and our ruts, consciously or unconsciously to avoid living. To avoid having to do the messy part. To avoid having relationships with other people. of dealing with the person next to us.