No hero but Christ

So you are doing an overview of the bible. The covenant with Abraham has to be one of the first events you choose to tick off. Perhaps you will start with Genesis 12:1-9 where he is called to the promised land, to be made a great nation, and to be a blessing to the whole world. Would you then carry on to look at verses 10-20?

Session 4 of The World We All Want does go on to look at those verses, and I am now convinced that you should do. Not only do you see the first partial fulfilment of God's promise that 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse', but you see the sin of his people, and the overcoming grace of God. Great stuff!

Doing theology with non-Christians

...and new Christians.

I find time and again that talking to non-Christians forces me to take my theology to another level. 'I pray', says Paul to Philemon, 'that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ' (1:6). Unbelievers are not satisfied with the pat answers and unexplained terminology that Christians all too readily accept.

(p. 152, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A radical reshaping around gospel and community, IVP)

Recent examples from my life:

• Free will
• Satan

More thoughts on the 'one body'

From an email to the friend I am thinking this through with (see my previous post for less developed thoughts).

On reflection I can think of several inter-related reasons why we are 'one body' in Paul's eyes.

We all share:

• 'one bread' (1 Corinthians 10:17)
• 'one baptism' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)
• 'one faith' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one hope' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one God and Father' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Lord' (Ephesians 4:4-6)
• 'one Spirit' (Ephesians 4:4-6; 1Corinthians 12:13)

So for Paul the ultimate cause of us being 'one body' is the Trinity (isn't great how Paul refers to all 3 persons in Ephesians 4:4-6?). The promise of the Trinity is communicated (not just mentally) to us by the sacraments, and we embrace the promise contained in the sacraments by faith. The sacraments are promises that we can share in the death of Christ (Romans 6; Ephesians 2:16) but then also share in the same Spirit (a Spirit of life, John 6:63, Romans 8) by which he was raised (Romans 8:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Mark 1:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13).

I like your observation that 'one body' has a corporal dimension. 'Body' for Paul is closely associated with 'flesh' and death. There is only one death which leads to life and that is Christ's death. His is the only cursed flesh where salvation can still be found. So he is also the 'body' which we need to find ourselves in. However for Paul 'body' is not as negative as 'flesh'/'death' and he is able to talk happily about our 'spiritual body' too (1 Corinthians 15:44).

However returning to our original discussion about where the term originated I think there are only two options:

1. The institution of the Lord's Supper.
2. The OT concept of marriage between God and Israel which Paul picks up and applies to Christ and the Church ('one flesh' is a small step away from 'one body', cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16).

It is interesting how it is difficult to imagine any closer union than either consuming something (food) or sexual union, and this is how the NT so often describes our relationship to Christ. We eat him, and we marry him! Incredible condescension to miserable sinners! He doesn't give gifts from on high, but comes down to us and gives us himself.

A question for allegorical interpreters of the Song of Solomon

How do you deal with the refrain that first occurs in Song of Solomon 2:7? It reads:

I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the does of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases. (Song of Solomon 2:7; cf. 3:5, 8:4)

I can understand this phrase as an interjection into 'a poem celebrating human love and sexuality' (p. xiii, Song of Songs (NICOT), by Tremper Longman III), but why would we not stir up love for Christ?

I've looked up Matthew Henry and John Gill who follow the allegorical interpretation and they seem to be using the reading do 'not stir up or awaken my love' - i.e. do not bother Christ or the church (depending on who you think is speaking). Is this a valid translation?

Longman seems to admit of two meanings of the warning:

One suggestion is that the phrase has the force of a “do not disturb sign.” Don’t disturb us until our love (the love of the man and the woman) has had its fill. Yet this seems an odd way to express the idea. More naturally, the verse is a warning of the woman to other women who may look on the relationship and want to experience something similar; she is, in essence, telling them not to force it. Wait for love to blossom; don’t hurry it. In a sense, then, the daughters of Jerusalem are surrogates for the reader. We too are to learn the same lesson: Wait for love to blossom; don’t try to stimulate it artificially…. She warns the others not to arouse love until they are ready to meet its rigors, both physical and emotional. Love is not a passing fling but rather a demanding and exhausting relationship. (pp. 115-116)

In addition to what Longman says I can see how a longing for the love you see in happy couples can actually lead to lust, and the idolatry of that kind of relationship.

So I cannot see how such an important verse can be made to fit the allegorical interpretation, for all its other strengths. At the moment I remain an unfashionable literalist, but please try and pursuade me.

PS I realise 6 posts in 2 days is not very good for a person only 3 weeks away from a very important exam... but I have a lot of stuff going round my head. I think it is all out though now!

1 Corinthians 11:29

Paul writes:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

My pastor thinks that 'the body' we have to discern is the church. After all Paul's intention in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 is to dissuade the church from having divisions, particularly between rich and poor. He wants them to realise that they are one body. It is also supported by the wider context, particularly 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul is going.

I think that it is more likely that 'the body' refers to Christ's presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper (the traditional interpretation). The immediate context is that of eating and drinking, and the previous reference to the 'body' is verse 27 is to the body as the bread. This is not in conflict with Paul's main intention in this passage either because it is just because of the one bread that we share that we divisions are inappropriate.

Paul does not just discuss the Lord's Supper as an example of where divisions in the Corinthian church are evident, but because it is also where he can demonstrate how inappropriate this is.

Note There are actually three possible interpretations of 'the body' that I can think of. They are all possible because they are all interrelated:

• The person of Jesus Christ
• Jesus Christ present in the elements of the Lord's Supper
• The church in Christ

The body of Christ

A friend of mine at church today asked a very good question: where does Paul get the concept of the body of Christ from?

It is a very good question because 'the body' is a very 'weird' concept, and secondly, unlike most other concepts in the NT, it does not seem to originate in either the OT or the ancient Mediterranean world.

On reflection there is only one place that it can come from and that is the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. However, it is still quite a leap from the words 'this is my body' to the sophisticated and multi-layered concept that it is so important to Paul and which he assumes the churches he writes to will understand.

I don't know quite how Paul came to add so much colour to the concept but I think he indicates how he made the connection from the Lord's supper to the church in 1 Cor 10:16-17:

The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

For Paul, the reason we are one body is because we all share in one body, and the body in both instances is 'of Christ'. The Lord's Supper forms the community that we are part of.

Of course, it is not the Lord's Supper that is ultimately the cause. It is one of many interconnected causes in different dimensions. We are one body because we have 'one Lord' and 'one God and Father of all', because we share these we have 'one faith' and 'one hope', which are communicated to us by 'one baptism' and 'one bread' (Eph 4:4-6; 1 Cor 10:17; 1 Cor 12:13).

Modern evangelicals tend to be happy to talk about our shared Lord and shared faith which join us together, but are unhappy to talk about the shared sacraments. Ritual is often then shunned as either pointless or even harmful. Others are more than happy to talk about the sacraments but lose sight of the Lord that gave them to us and that there is more come. For them ritual can become all there is and Christ is lost sight of because, for example, the sacrifice is happening 'here and now' which is more important than the 'then'.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Questions to ask about your practice of the Lord's Supper

This is reflection on my previous post.

• Do we 'devote' ourselves to the Lord's supper (cf. Acts 2:42)? How often is it celebrated? How prominant is it in the service structure?
• Do we express the unity of the body in our practice of it? I am not suggesting that we all slavishly ensure that we use one loaf, one cup, or indeed that we eat round one table, but we should be doing all we can to express this. Perhaps all the congregation could eat/drink at once if one cup/loaf is not being used. Perhaps children should participate. Perhaps it should not be tacked on to the end of a service with an oportunity for people to leave in between.
• Do we look backwards at Christ's death? Is this reflected in the actions or just in the words?
• Do we look forward to Christ's second coming? It particularly struck me in reading the passages that all look forward to the coming consumation of the Kingdom of God. It is also interesting that in current discussion the realisation that the Lord's supper looks forward to the Messianic banquet, where as traditionally it has usually been seen to 'remember' what has already happened. We need to do both.
• Do we judge ourselves truly to avoid being judged? Is it something that we approach fearfully in the knowledge that it can bring death as well as life?
• Do we believe that there objective benefits obtained by participating?
• Do we believe that Christ is truly present in/with the bread and wine? I'm not getting into debates about bodily presence etc but all sides should be in agreement that Christ is present in some way. Do we really believe it though?

Notes on NT accounts of the Lord's Supper

Elements of the Lord's Supper according to the four biblical accounts of its institution (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26):

• In the context of a meal (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; 1 Cor 11:23; 33-34)
• Thanksgiving (Luke 22:17; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Blessing of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22)
• Identification of the wine as the (new) covenant (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the wine with Jesus' blood (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• Identification of the bread with Jesus' body (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Breaking of the bread (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
• Done in rememberance of Jesus (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• Anticipation of the coming of the Kingdom of God or Jesus' second coming (Matt 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:15, 18; 1 Cor 11:26)
• Immediate context of betrayal (Matt 26:14-16, 21-25; Mark 14:10-11, 18-21; Luke 22:3-6, 21-23; 1 Cor 11:23)
• 'For forgiveness of sins' (Matt 26:28), 'for you' (Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:24), 'for many' (Mark 14:24)
• Bread first (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22, 1 Cor 11:24), or wine first (Luke 22:17)
• One loaf eaten (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 10:17)
• One cup drunk from (Matt 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17)
• New passover (Matt 26:18; Mark 14:14; Luke 22:15)

Benefits:

• Forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28)
• Participation in Christ, particularly his body and blood, so particularly his death (1 Cor 10:16)
• Unites the church (1 Cor 10:17)
• Proclaims 'the Lord's death' (1 Cor 11:26)
• Jesus is remembered (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25)
• We are covenanted with (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25)
• We are fed (obviously physically but presumably spiritually as well)

The real unity of the Bible

I love biblical theology. But I do think it has limitations, and it should not be made an end in itself. There is someone more fundamental than a story.

Mark Seifrid gets it:

It is worth reminding ourselves that just as Scripture has not been given to us as a dogmatic outline, neither has it been given to us as a single, unified story. It is a collection of narratives that not only complement one another but also overlap and stand in tension with one another. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis, two accounts of the Davidic monarchy, and four Gospels. The Psalms tell and retell the story of Israel in ways that are sometimes remarkably different from one another. More significant than the variations in perspective, and often lying behind these variations, are the differing ways in which God encounters his people.

[...]

The narrative is held together, not by a "strong historical continuity" as [Tom] Wright claims, but by the love and power of the Creator alone. That brings us finally, and decisively, to the human encounter with the God who, out of unconditioned love, forgives sin, promises salvation and blessing, and in Jesus Christ has brought his promises to fulfillment. In the gospel, God reveals himself to us beyond all other encounters with him as our loving, forgiving, and saving Creator.

(pp.24-25, "The Narrative of Scripture and Justification by Faith: A Fresh Response to N.T. Wright", Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol 72:1, January 2008)

You can change

...but just wanted to say that You can change: God's transforming power for our sinful behaviour and negative emotions, Tim Chester's new book, is exceptionally good and may just be my book of the year so far. I read it very quickly, but I think it is best read slowly so I'm going to do that with the extra material on the IVP website.

You really should buy it now.

I've tried a few times to adequately put down a paragraph long review but don't feel like I am doing it justice. So I will brutalise Paul Tripp's endorsement:

• This book is 'brutally honest'. It is real not just in Tim being honest about his struggles to change, but in forcing you to be honest about your own heart and motives both to change and to sin. You cannot sit on the sidelines when reading this book.

• This book is also 'carefully theological'. Not in a dry or detached way. It is soaked in the bible and theology because of a conviction that it is truth that will set us free. Change comes through hearing the word and believing it.

• And finally, this book is 'gloriously hopeful' because it shows that you can change. Not on your own strength, not easily, and not completely this side of death, but certainly because of God's promises.

If there was just one thing I will take away from this first reading it is that if I am serious about change then I have to be serious about confessing to, loving and engaging with the Christian community I am a part of. A community deeply involved in each others lives and itself is changing is the best place to change personally.

Anyway...

Dave Bish has already reviewed it, and liked it so don't believe me, believe him. Also read extracts and endorsements here and here.

Here is a video of Tim introducing the book:

Finally, I will just add that it hasn't come as a surprise to me that this book is so good. I have read most of Tim Chester's output and it has all been brilliant. Other titles I will happily recommend you read include:

• The Busy Christians Guide to Busyness
• Delighting in the Trinity
• Good News to the Poor
• The Gospel-Centred Church (co-authored with Steve Timmis)
• From Creation To New Creation: Understanding the Bible Story
• The Message of Prayer (Bible Speaks Today Series)
• ...I still need to read Total Church which he co-authored with Steve Timmis. It's sitting on my shelf.
• Oh yes, I shouldn't forget The World We All Want: A Course on How the Bible Really Works which I'm currently going through with a friend and is so far proving a hit.

You can buy them all from his Amazon.co.uk store here.

Happy reading.... now back to the OU study I should be doing.

Total Church Conference Videos

The Total Church North America Conference happened last month. Some videos are starting to come up on Google Videos and will go up on the website soon (HT D Goodmanson).

You don't need to be a church leader to benefit.

... I'm away at the moment

Sorry for the lack of blogging people. Unfortunately this is likely to continue till 13 October when I have my final law exam. Not much time for reading and even less time for blogging.

On the bright side I get to listen to lots of good music while studying.

The revealed Word leading you to the hidden God

Luther says in a Table Talk:

"consideration must be given to the revealed God on the one hand and to knowledge of the unrevealed [hidden] will of God on the other. Of the latter nothing at all is known to us. We must confess that what is beyond our comprehension is nothing for us to bother about. [...God] says in effect: "Let me remain hidden. Otherwise you will fall into the abyss of hell, as it is written, 'He who inquires into the majesty of God shall be crushed by it.' [Prov26:27] In this place leave me untouched. Carnal wisdom shall here have its limit. Here I wish to remain unrevealed. I shall reveal your election in another way. From the unrevealed God I shall become the revealed God. I shall incarnate my Son and shall give you one who will enable you to see whether you are elected. do this: Give up your speculations which are apart from the Word of God, thoroughly root them out, and drive them to the devil in hell. ' This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him'.["...] Christ says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." [John 14:9] Christ will lead you to the hidden God."

(pp.132-133, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert).

Further reading on the hidden and revealed will of God can be found in Calvin's Institutes in book 1 chapters 17 and 18 (especially in the first few sections of each chapter)

Helpfully this is when Calvin is dealing with God's providence which includes him being in some way behind evil acts, whilst his will is clearly for good acts. Predestination to salvation really follows from this less contested teaching.

Elisha's miracles

Elisha performs astonishing miracles and one of the highlights is when he raises the Shunammite's Son (2 Kings 4). But he doesn't always find miracle-working straight forward. He sends his staff to be laid on the dead son but it does not work. He then has to go to house, shuts out the crowd from the room, and lays on the child, 'putting his mouth on his mouth, his eyes on his eyes, and his hands on his hands'; but that only makes the child warm. He then has a short break and repeats the process before the child wakes up coughing and spluttering. Later in the same chapter Elisha also feeds a hundred men with 'twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack'.

In Mark 5 Jesus also is brought to someone's home to raise their child from the dead. He also shuts the door behind him and a couple of others but simply holds the child by her hand and speaks words to her and she immediately is risen and able to walk around. In the next chapter Mark records how Jesus feeds five thousand people with five loaves and two fish.

Killing and making alive

The Lord kills and brings to life;
  he brings down to Sheol and raises up. (1 Sam 2:6)

Some religions, and indeed some versions of Christianity, sound to me like God kills those that are out and does not kill those who are in. That is not the path of Jesus though, and it is not the Christian's path either.

Law and Gospel again

Sometimes I don't like the way law and Gospel can sometimes be used to chop the bible up into bits where some are law and some are Gospel. A nasty temptation when that is done is to ignore the law and only talk about those parts containing the Gospel (c.f. Hummel, Horace D. "Are Law and Gospel a Valid Hermeneutical Principle?" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (1982) no. 2-3:181-207). I have commented before (here and here) that the same passage can in some ways be both law and Gospel. Wengert gives an example below:

the brokenness of election in Lutheranism - as foolish as it appears to human wisdom - already contains great comfort. We can thereby announce this electing promise to anyone and everyone ("God chooses you") and watch as that declaration acts as law and gospel in justifying the sinner. As law, God's choice destroys and puts an end to all our choices. As gospel, we can finally relax and let God's grace carry the day.

(p.190, A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations, by Timothy J. Wengert)

...BTW I'm not sure that I agree with all of the quote.

Melanchthon on the Qur'an

Did you know that in 1543 Martin Luther had a significant role in the publication of a Latin edition of the Qur'an? He wrote the preface and Philip Melanchthon wrote a 'warning to the Christian Reader'. Melanchthon had a number of points to raise, one of which was to 'compare types of teachings' between religions. This is what he found:

• Mohammed 'says nothing in favor of the forgiveness of sins'.
• 'He spews forth blasphemies upon the Son of God'.
• 'He does not teach what sin is'.
• 'nor does he demonstrate the causes of human misfortune'
• 'He is incapable of saying anything about true prayer in faith'.
• 'Finally, he completely rejects that teaching which belongs to the Gospel'.

I really need to get round to reading the Qur'an at some stage, but I suspect if I did I would come up with a different list. Nevertheless I think Melanchthon's list is better than one that I would write. I probably would never have thought of observing the lack of an explanation for 'causes of human misfortune' (how important is that for living life?) or teaching on 'true prayer in faith' (what a blessing that is!).

(Quotes from "Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and the Publication of the Qur'an" by J Paul Rajashekar and Timothy J. Wengert, in Lutheran Quarterly Vol 26 (2002) pp. 221-228)

The other restoration of Peter

"go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." (Mark 16:7)

"now Peter is singled out and included in the group who are commanded to follow to Galilee: it is not yet too late for them to become disciples once more. The message is thus not simply a command, but an assurance that the death and resurrection of Jesus bring forgiveness and the opportunity to begin again" (p.66, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ by Morna D. Hooker)

Justification: one metaphor among many?

I've often been one of those people trotting out that phrase of the moment in criticism of some exegesis that it is 'importing law court language' into passages where it doesn't belong. Behind that oft heard criticism of exegesis of individual passages and peoples theology in general is the assumption that the law court (justification, righteous, acquittal etc) is just one metaphor among many for describing our relationship with God. I have had that challenged recently in reading Oswald Bayer. He argues in short that the law court is just a heightened and formalised version of something that is all encompassing:

We cannot reject the question that others put to us: Why have you done this? What were you talking about? Might you not have done something else? In the other's view of us, and also in our own view we always find ourselves to be the ones who are already being questioned and who have to answer [...] We are forced to justify ourselves, and as we do so, we usually want to be right. Before the court of law, what constitutes our whole life is disclosed with particular clarity. The world of the court is not a special world of its own, but just a particular instance - a very striking one - of what is being done always and everywhere.

(p.1, Living by Faith: Justification and Sanctification (Lutheran Quarterly Books) by Oswald Bayer, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Distractions

I was challenged as a regular cinemagoer by Ray Ortland's recent post about entertainment. Although I am not sure I agree totally. He has followed this up today with an interesting quote from Francis Schaeffer.

"People today are afraid to be alone. This fear is a dominant mark of our society. Many now ceaselessly sit in the cinema or read novels about other people's lives or watch dramas. Why? Simply to avoid having to face their own existence. . . .

No one seems to want (and no one can find) a place of quiet -- because, when you are quiet, you have to face reality. But many in the present generation dare not do this because on their own basis reality leads them to meaninglessness; so they fill their lives with entertainment, even if it is only noise. . . .

The Christian is supposed to be very opposite: There is a place for proper entertainment, but we are not to be caught up in ceaseless motion which prevents us from ever being quiet. Rather we are to put everything second so we can be alive to the voice of God and allow it to speak to us and confront us."

(Francis Schaeffer, "Walking through the mud," in No Little People, pages 86-87; HT Ray Ortland)

The only thing I'm unsure of in that comment is that it is only something that has started happening 'today'. Carl Trueman relates how Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) wondered about the same issue.

He can understand, he says, why poor people might enjoy the odd dance to distract them from the miserable drudge of their daily lives, but why should a king, glorious, powerful, surrounded by proofs of his own greatness need trivial entertainment? The answer is that, left to himself with nothing to distract him, he will think about himself and the reality of the death that awaits him.

(cited in The Wages Of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism, p. 177)

Passing judgment

Reflections on Romans 2

Romans 1:18-32 seems characterised by the words ‘they’, ‘their’ and ‘them’. ‘They are without excuse’, ‘they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images, ‘God gave them up’, ‘they were filled with every kind of wickedness’. God’s wrath seems to be ‘against those people over there’, but Paul is just setting us up for chapter 2.

Roman 2:1 begins with a big ‘therefore you’! Catching us while we are in the process of joining God in his judgment on ‘them’ he swings round the spotlight on us. We do ‘the very same things’ as them, so if we can judge them then we must judge ourselves the same.

God is kind to us now, but we cannot presume that will last when ‘God’s righteous judgment is revealed’. We cannot rely on past kindness because circumcision can become uncircumcision (2:25). God’s past kindness was not faithless but was meant to be lived out going forward in repentance (v.4). Not only was the past to be lived out going forward, but also the external was to be lived out internally in our heart (v.28). God's judgment is thorough and impartial. We cannot stand before the judgment of a God who judges the ‘secret thoughts of all’ and sees impenitent hearts.

Suddenly we who felt so complacent in judging others are fearful of the coming ‘righteous judgment of God’ which ‘will be revealed’. But then we remember that ‘the righteousness of God’ has already been revealed (1:17; 3:21-26). By faith we saw it at the cross where Jesus Christ was crucified. There our pride was put to death, and our ability to lord it over others in judgment. But three days later Jesus Christ was raised and was justified, and if we saw our death in his we also see our justification in his.

Universal justification - a definition

Phil Walker has just commented on an earlier post saying that one place that he would really not want to go with Lutheranism is 'universal justification'. As someone who is quite new to Lutheranism I was pleased for someone to give me a name for something that I had already detected as lying behind much of the discussion of baptism I have been reading. Phil probably should not get too concerned just yet, but a brief bit of internet surfing has brought up this helpful definition which I post here so I can refer to it later when I have time to properly think about it.

By "objective" or "universal" justification one means that God has declared the whole world to be righteous for Christ's sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all people. It is objective because this was God's unilateral act prior to and in no way dependent upon man's response to it, and universal because all human beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ's sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)

(Theses on Justification, Part I, A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, May 1983)

Sounds like universal salvation, but it's not. Put that in your theological pipe and smoke it.

I suspect selfish posting like this is what means I will never get very high in Technorati rankings, so it is a good thing I reconciled myself a long time ago to using this blog as a electronic notebook which other people can read if they wish.

The Threat of Grace

Tim Keller recalls recalls how he once met a women who found the promise of free grace 'scary'. When he asked her why she replied:

If I was saved by my good works, then there would be a limit to what God could ask of me or put me through. I would be like a taxpayer with "rights" - I would have done my duty and now I would deserve a certain quality of life. But if I am a sinner saved by sheer grace - then there's nothing he cannot ask of me.

(The Reason for God, p.183)

On not being able to return the favour

Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

I have recently been thinking about all the good gifts I receive from people I know, in particular my church and my family. This has been prompted by a recent splurge of gifts due to various sudden needs. I have found that grace is a difficult thing to accept as humans. If someone gives me something I feel compelled to return the favour. I find it really, really hard to accept gifts that are not part of a reciprocal relationship. I think we all do because we don't want to dependant people. That's part of why people commit suicide rather that 'be a burden', why British people are obsessed with rounds of drinks, and why we feel compelled to buy a birthday card for someone if they bought us one last year.

I see grace most often in my parents. Most of us have received a crazy amount from our parents who have given up so much for us. I find it almost crippling in my relationship with them to realise this. To realise I will never be out of their debt. I can never return the favour.

Kids often try and ignore the reality of their parent’s grace by claiming that it is a parent’s 'job' to do something, or that it is part of the circle of life because we will do the same to our children (and so on). These are pathetic attempts to avoid the reality of our debt. As adults we are more sophisticated. We accept that we have received much but draw a line over it at 18 (or whatever) and pretend that it never happened as we begin to live as equals giving in a strictly reciprocal way.

It is obvious to me that how we think and act towards our parents is usually mirrored in our relationship with our heavenly Father.

The weight of condemnation is weighing on me at the moment, but I don’t have to be burdened… the trouble is I perversely prefer to shift the burden around with me than accept that I need help.

Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
Lord have mercy