David Powlison articles

• Idols of the Heart and “Vanity Fair” Personal Reflection
• "God’s Grace and Your Sufferings" and "Don’t Waste Your Cancer" (co-authored with John Piper), chapters in "Suffering and the Sovereignty of God"
• What is wrong with the therapeutic approach to counseling?
• What Distinguishes Biblical Counseling from other Methods?
• What Questions Does a Biblical Counselor Suggest We Ask?
• Praying Beyond Health Concerns
• Looking at the Past and Present of Counseling
• The Therapeutic Gospel
• Sane Faith (parts 1-3)
• The River of Life Flows through the Slough of Despond
• Hope for a "Hopeless Case": A Case Study
• What Good Is "Don't Worry" in Times Like These?
• Facing Death with Hope: Living for What Lasts
• "Don’t Worry"
• I Am Making All Things New
• Does the Shoe Fit?
• "Peace, be still": Learning Psalm 131 by Heart
• Is Anger Morally Neutral?
• Affirmations & Denials: A Proposed Definition of Biblical Counseling
• Recovering from Child Abuse: Help and Healing for Victims - Part 1 and part 2
• Breaking Pornography Addiction - Part 1 and part 2
• Making All Things New: Restoring Pure Joy to the Sexually Broken
• "I Am Making All Things New (Enhanced Edition)"
• Praying Beyond the Sick List
• Peace, be still: Learning Psalm 131 by Heart
• A Personal Liturgy of Confession
• "Suffering and Psalm 119" from JBC 22:4, 2004, pp. 2-16.
• "Familial Counseling" from JBC 25:1, 2007, pp. 2-16
• Should We Really Call It a 'Quiet' Time?
• Cure of Souls (and the Modern Psychotherapies) Only a Teenager
• X-ray Questions: Drawing Out the Whys and Wherefores of Human Behavior
• Critiquing Modern Integrationists

Digging a god-shaped hole and filling it up again

"According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride... Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind." (p.100, CS Lewis, Mere Christianity)

"unbelief alone commits sin, and brings forth the flesh and pleasure in bad outward works, as happened to Adam and Eve in paradise...Unbelief is the root, the sap, and the chief power of all sin." (p.100, Martin Luther, "Preface to the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans" in Timothy F Lull Ed, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings)

So who's right; Lewis or Luther?

I think that Luther is right because, as David Powlison points out, unbelief is the act of erasing God from reality. And as GK Chesterton once observed, when we "cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything". If God is not king then perhaps I am, or perhaps my father is, or my boss, or cancer, or [fill in the blank]. Or perhaps they're all kings, with no one all-powerful or deserving of exclusive worship, but some are more powerful and worthy than others. Either way, whether it is ourselves, other people or any other created thing, all other sins are just trying to fill that imaged god-shaped hole in our heart. And often the thing we fill it with is not something we love, but something we're petrified of because it can take as well as give.

[Incidentally, if you're an economics geek I hope you appreciated the allusion in the title to John Maynard Keynes' oft quoted principle, that apparently he never said.]

Luther on the marks of the church

Luther argues that the church is best understood by the words "holy Christian people" (p.335-336). They are people who "truly believe in Christ" and "have the Holy Spirit against sin" (p.336). The Holy Spirit "sanctifies them daily, not only through the forgiveness of sin acquired by Christ (as the Antinomians foolishly believe), but also through the abolition, and purging, and the mortification of sins, on the basis of which they are called a holy people" (p.335-336 [surprised to read that by Luther?]).

The church is a people "in whom Christ lives, works and rules" and in whom the Holy Spirit "gives people faith in Christ and thus sanctifies them" (p. 336-337). This sanctification is the renewal of the whole person, soul and body, by the inscription of both tables of "the commandments of God not on table of stone, but in hearts of flesh" (p.337).

Luther criticises the Antinomians for making much of the first table and their knowledge of God by preaching "much about the grace of Christ", but displaying that they don't really understand Christ or the Holy Spirit by not not "practic[ing] the works of the Holy Spirit in the second table" (p.339). The Catholics he criticises for doing many holy works "of an external, bodily, transitory nature" but living "without faith, fear of God, hope, love and whatever the Holy Spirit, according to the first table, effects" (although actually he doesn't even think they teach the second table correctly, p.339).

Luther believes that Christians should be marked by the Holy Spirit sanctifying them (note the continuous tense) in both tables of the law, coram Deo and coram mundo, soul and body. Schaeffer was right that the position of the Reformation was that "God made the whole man and he is interested in the whole man" (p. 38, Escape from Reason).

We can recognize the church then by their possession of certain "external signs" through which the work of sanctification is performed by the Holy Spirit. There should be external signs of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit according to both tables of the law. However as we cannot see the hearts of people and many non-Christians practice works from the second table "and indeed at times appears holier than Christians", so it is not as "reliable" to look for the external signs of the Spirit's work according to the second table (p.359). Therefore the principal signs relate to the first table, although the signs relating to the second table have a secondary role.

Luther identifies "seven principal parts of the great holy possession whereby the Holy Spirit effects in us a daily sanctification and vivification in Christ, according to the first table of Moses" (pp. 357-358):

1. the "possession of the holy word of God" (p.340);
2. "the holy sacrament of baptism, wherever it is taught, believed, and administered correctly according to Christ's ordinance" (p.343);
3. "the holy sacrament of the altar, wherever it is rightly administered, believed, and received according to Christ's institution" (p.344);
4. "the office of the keys exercised publicly... where you see sins forgiven or reproved in some persons" (p.345);
5. men consecrated, called or having offices to "administer, and use the aforementioned four things or holy possessions in behalf of and in the name of the church, or rather by reason of their institution by Christ" (p. 346);
6. "prayer, public praise, and thanksgiving to God" (p. 356);
7. "the holy possession of the sacred cross [of enduring] misfortune and persecution, all kinds of trials and evil from the devil, the world, and the flesh [...] in order to become like their head, Christ" (p.356).

None of these things are in the first instance things we have done, or possess intrinsically, but all are gifts by which we are sanctified not the fruit of our sanctification (although sanctification always leads to the desire to be further sanctified and so more searching for the means by which that comes).

[Quotations from "On the Councils and the Church, 1539" in ed. Theodore G. Tappert, Selected Writings of Martin Luther, Vol.4]

Reflection on the five solas in John

Christ alone

The Father granted his Son to have life in himself (John 5:26). He is the bread of life sent by God and gives life to the world (6:33), but you will not find life anywhere else (John 6:53). Sure you may 'live' for a while, but the kind of life that you possess will be constantly running dry and you will be thirsty again, and the life that Jesus gives is inexhaustible (John 4, 6:26).

Scripture alone

The Scriptures bear witness about Jesus, and for that reason have eternal life in them (John 5:39, 46). Jesus is the content, but also the speaker of the word of God, and listening to him moves you from death to eternal life (John 5:24). The work of the Word of God has not been completed, and won't until Christ calls us from the grave at the resurrection of the dead (5:25), but it still performs that daily work in us now.

Faith alone

Jesus is the greater manna which God provided to the empty handed, starving Israelites in the desert. They received at as a gift and didn't even benefit from working harder than others in trying to gather up, and store the food they had been given (so they wouldn't have to trust entirely on God's provision the next day). Similarly, the one work we need to do is to believe Jesus is the Christ (6:29). This means simply to gaze on Christ, like the Israelites in the wilderness gazed upon the bronze serpent, to receive healing by God's provision (6:40; 3:14-15).

Grace alone

In Christ there is grace alone - he is bursting full of it (1:14). The law was given through Moses, and apart from Jesus it accuses us, but there is no accusation in Christ (5:45). If we set our hope on anything, even the good Christian gifts of church membership and knowledge of the Scriptures but have not got Christ we will only face accusation. Anything we do in our own flesh, will only turn to dust in our hands, but the Spirit resting on Jesus (1:32) and then poured out on us by his word gives us life (6:63).

To the glory of God alone

We seek recognition (respect/glory) from other people, but that is not really worth anything despite what the fashion shops are telling us. Jesus isn't in need of an ego boost from other people either, and we shouldn't think that our worship performs that purpose (5:44). Perhaps then a better way is the way of Oprah and L'Oreal - I'm worth it. Total self-respect might be the glory that is worth something, but really we know that is "nothing" too. Jesus doesn't glorify himself because he recognises that too (John 8:50, 54). He doesn't grasp the tree of life, or the manna in the wilderness, but gives up his glory and his life - trusting that God will give him life and glory 3 days later. Glory from God the Father is the only glory that is worth anything (5:44, 12:43). God the Father glorified the Son, because of the worthiness of the Son to receive glory (8:54; 16:14 17), and by grace that glory overflows to his church (17:22). But God the Father is himself glorified in this act of glory-giving so that he may be all in all (13:31-32; 14:13).

[prompted by Glen and Pete's comments]

James KA Smith - Desiring the Kingdom

Worth a watch. Jamie Smith summarises much of his recent book Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation. You can get an overview of the book on his blog. I think he massively over-states his case, but it's interesting. Spot the brief mention of York Minister towards the end.

James K.A. Smith - Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation from Calvin College on Vimeo.

MP3 of lecture here.

Interpreting the gaps

We look at a sliver of moon and surmise that we're seeing part of an orb, not all of a crescent. Part of an orb, not all of a crescent! The crucial difference is that we see the empty space as something hidden. Quite literally, in the case of the moon, we trace an outline, and at the point of the gap in the outline, we say that the pattern is there, but hidden. And this is what you would expect from a three-dimensional orb only one of whose sides is reflecting the light of the sun.

To see that an empty space is really a hidden portion is to give meaning to that space in light of the larger pattern. Our coherences have gaps, but the gaps, once they are embedded in the coherences, eloquently testify to the profound three-dimensionality, the coherent unity of our pattern, a center of agency that now responds to us.

... When it comes to knowing God ... I hardly consider the fact that I rarely see him. Of course I don't see him. God "lives in unapproachable light," the apostle Paul says indicating God's power and goodness. Jesus told his disciples, "I am going [to my Father's house] to prepare a place for you ... I will come back and take you to be with me." Of course I don't see him now. The hiddeness confirms his greatness.

... Why doesn't God punish evildoers immediately? ... Peter says he is being patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but wanting everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come, he says. A misinterpretation of this gap will be your eternal ruin.

...The focus has turned the tables on me on a cosmic scale.

(pp. 121-122, Esther Lightcap Meek, Longing to Know: The philosophy of knowledge for ordinary people)

Some rough notes on knowing, and dealing with doubts

Esther Meek, drawing on Michael Polanyi, argues that we know people and things as we focus on them by integrating particular clues into a pattern. For example we know God by connecting together numerous dots into the pattern of a person who we commit to in faith.

In apologetics the clues may be personal experience, arguments, historical evidence, and even the Scriptures itself, but the focus is God himself. In discussions about assurance of salvation the clues may be good works you have done, the promise in the sacraments, the words of absolution of a brother, but the focus is the cross and resurrection for your salvation. In leading bible studies the clues may be literary structure, historical details, personal experience, but the focus again must be Jesus.

Both the clues and the focus are important to our act of knowing, as can be seen when we examine doubts in particular.

Doubts arise when we focus on the clues, or fail to focus through the clues:

I think we can distinguish two doubt-producing movements in connection with the clues of our integrations. One is reverting to focus on the clues. The other, closely related one is feeling like, in our integration, that we are not in touch with our clues.

How we respond to the doubts depends on which mistake we are making.

There are two ways to respond to doubts, and those responses, on the surface appear to contradict each other. One is to try once more to look through the clues, reintegrate to the focus. The other is to take some time to look at the clues. In the end, I think that we cope by alternating these two movements, and that they are just the movements that make up good learning.

If we are obsessing with the clues, we may need our gaze lifting. To reintegrate the focus. We can help people do this by pointing out the beauty of Jesus, and relating to him in our daily life and worship.

First, we should try once more to look through the clues. We know enough about the act of knowing to see that it ought to feel uncomfortable to look back at the clues. When we look back at the particulars, we can feel that in themselves they don't account fully for the pattern we have seen in them. Of course they don't, for it wasn't looking at them in themselves that prompted our integration; it was living in them and looking through them. To look at them is not to see the things on which our pattern was based. We access truth, and can only properly assess it, as we live in the pieces of the pattern in our bodies. If looking at the pieces makes us feel doubtful, there is good reason for it: the pieces, without our living in them, aren't the starting point of our successful effort.

[...] So, one remedy for doubt is to stop looking at the clues, striving again to look through them, to get back inside them.

If we are feeling our focus on God is lacking connection to our thinking and experience we may need to examine these clues close to hand.

We are most familiar with this effort as plain old study and analysis, examining the underpinnings of our claims and actions to understand the what and the how of the whole thing. Analysis is not all there is to knowing - identifying knowing with analysis, I believe, has been the central mistake of the modern model of knowledge. Clue scrutiny is not an end in itself, nor can it or should it be lifted out of the context of the larger picture that is knowing: humans engaging the world through patterns. But seeing analysis as a key instrument for the sake of a larger reintegration to a focus actually reinstates it, no longer as master, but more helpfully as servant.

Why is studying the clues valuable and important, if real knowing is living them, not looking at them? The clues that make up our integrations, you might say, are liable to get their feelings hurt if you forget them. They are happy being subsidiary, but you ignore them or take them for granted to your peril. We vector through them, but we never leave them behind.

We can also see how knowing happens well by thinking about playing an instrument:

It happens on the piano bench. I've watched my [daughter begin] cranking out a Scott Joplin rag with her usual confidence [and then] she must have stopped and thought what she usually never though about: How do I figure out what the note is?

[...] Piano teachers have told my daughters: Don't stop thinking about what you are doing when you are practising. Plan for what to do if autopilot fails you under pressure. Scrutinize your fingers and your fingering carefully in problem passages. Then put it back together. [Mature musicians] have a well-developed connection between the artistic and analytical sides of their brain.

Good connections and continual movement is the key to a growth as a Christian. So in knowing "we move back and forth between both directions, from the clues, and to the clues... back and forth, back and forth". I would argue that this reflects much of what the Christian life is. A continual back and forth and building of connections until they meet completely in the cross and resurrection of Jesus where everything meets. Another example would be law and Gospel, repentance and faith, death and life, OT to NT.

(Quotations from pp. 169-172, Esther Lightcap Meek, Longing to Know: The philosophy of knowledge for ordinary people)

Engaged, not married

I recently gave my first ever children's talk at my church on the Isrealite elders' meal with God in Exodus 24:9-11 and its connection with the table of the bread of presence! The elders' meal is a typical ceremonial OT covenant meal following the inauguration of a covenant (cf. Genesis 26:30). I drew a parallel with photos we take to remember a wedding (the bread was a memorial, for God to remember his covenant). After all, the inauguration of the Sinai covenant was the marriage of God to Israel. Sadly the marriage was not a happy one.

Ezekiel 16:8-15 graphically describes the story of Israel's marriage.

"When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendour that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord God.

But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore because of your renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his." (cf. Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 3:20, Hosea 2)

Of course, the theme of marriage of God's people is strong in the NT too. In the NT Jesus is regularly referred to as the bridegroom set to marry the bride of the church (Matthew 9, 25, John 3:29, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:21-33, Revelation 18-22).

But I think I made a little misstep in my children's talk in drawing a parallel to our marriage to Christ. Because it is striking that in the NT our marriage is always future (when Christ returns), in comparison to the OT where the marriage is always past (at Sinai).

I need to think on this much more but I am increasingly convinced the as a conservative evangelical I (for great reasons) focus on the finished work of Christ, but forget that this is a promise of a still future glorious relationship that I currently only taste. There is so much more to come... while it was only downhill for the Israelites (that is until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in).

Imitating the Trinity?

I've been listening to a lecture by Graham Cole, Trinity without Tiers (HT Mike Bird). He made one point which really struck a cord with me:

There is a way of doing Christian ethics that actually leaves the Gospel out. That is you reconstruct the inner life of the essential Trinity and then draw applications to family life, marriage, the church, even for some the wider society. And yet I believe the genius of the NT is to always go through the narrative of Christ and what he has done for us.

[...] instead of trying to imitate the inner life of the essential Trinity, I think Thomas a Kempis got it right - we imitate Christ. Did Jesus say: "this new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I love the Father"? No, "as I have loved you". And behind that is the footwashing of John 13 and the self-sacrifice and the humility that represents.

1 Corinthians 11:1: Paul says "imitate me as I imitate Christ".

1 Peter 2:21 says he left you an example to follow in his steps when it comes to unjust suffering.

1 John 2:6 says we're to walk as he walks.

I could show this over and over again that that is where the accent in our NT falls. The narrative of Christ is crucial to the shape of a cruciform Christian life. A life that is shaped by the cross.

He then discusses the wonderful text of Philipians 2:1-11, before concluding:

notice he doesn't say be other person centred like I have always been in the eternal godhead. He goes through the story of Christ, the evangel, to make his point. The imitation of Christ is, I think, the NT accent.

I don't think it is an either/or but I agree that we ought to accent the cross. More generally I disagree with Cole on quite a bit, not least in being more positive about a strict ruling of Rahner's rule and its application to ethics. I loved Tom Smail's Like Father, Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity. Maybe some kind of distinction between (creation?) ethics based on being created in the image of God, and (redemption?) ethics based on how we engage a fallen world like Christ did in dying for his enemies (although creation and redemption is all of one piece [thanks Isaiah, Ienaeus, Wingren, Wright etc] there is some kind of differentiation)?

More thought required.

"People shouldn't try and share their beliefs." Discuss

I have never been so thankful for the RE curriculum...

My little (probably not a Christian) sister had something like the title to this post for homework. I'm still happy that she rung me up to ask for help and I got to share more of the Gospel with her than I have for ages (and with her actually listening carefully too!).

I'm also thankful for God actually giving me the words to communicate relatively clearly for once (ala Mark 13:11). He gave me three points off the top of my head, and some good verses to back it up (she wanted sources!):

1. There is one God for everyone, because he created everyone: "is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one" (Rom 3:29-30)
2. The Gospel is good for everyone (cure for cancer argument): "'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' 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?...'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!'" (Rom 10:13-15).
3. We're commanded to tell everyone: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19-20).

Anyway, that's not really a usual post. And I'm sorry for the lack of blogging recently. But opportunities with my family are rare, and I just feel compelled to share it (bit like you should burst to tell the gospel - although I too rarely do). And I suppose I'd like to ask for quick prayers for her if you get a moment. Thanks!

You can always tell me what I should have said too, because I guess I only focussed on giving an answer from a Christian point of view - but I'm not really sad about that.

FD Maurice's famous dictum

"A man is most often right in what he affirms and wrong in what he denies." Why is that?

I was recently skim reading a bit of Lesslie Newbigin in which he makes two great statements we could all do with absorbing, but commits the error Maurice saw so often:

"election is for responsibility, not for privilege"

[Christ] bears witness to the presence of the reign of God, not by overpowering the forces of evil, but by taking their full weight upon himself"

Surely in both instances it is both!

I admit I often do the same though. Why do the best of us, make this mistake over and over again?

Why the deepest truth has to be mythic

Listening to: Laura Marling: I speak because I can

Why don't we abstract all the truth found in the Bible and cast of the 'husk' of story, and 'myth'?

CS Lewis argues that the mythic elements of Christianity are actually the "vital and nourishing element in the whole concern". The story of the Bible is the "substance", and not "vestigial".

"And yet the human intellect is incurably abstract. Pure mathematics is the type of successful thought. Yet the only realities we experience are concrete - this pain, this pleasure, this dog, this man. While we are loving the man, bearing the pain, enjoying the pleasure, we are not intellectually apprehending Pleasure, Pain or Personality. When we begin to do so, on the other hand, the concrete realities sink to the level of mere instances or examples: we are no longer dealing with them, but with that which they exemplify. This is our dilemma - either to taste and not to know or to know and not to taste [...] As thinkers we are cut off from what we think about; as tasting, touching, willing, loving, hating, we do do not clearly understand. The more lucidly we think, the more we are cut off: the more deeply we enter into reality the less we can think. You cannot study Pleasure in the moment of the nuptial embrace, nor repentance while repenting, nor analyse the nature of humour while roaring with laughter. But when else can you really know these things? [...]

Of this tragic dilemma myth is the partial solution. In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. [...]

Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact."

("Myth became fact" in CS Lewis: Essay Collection: Faith, Christianity and the Church)

Knowing we're not dreaming

Esther Meek defines Knowing as "the responsible human struggle to rely on clues to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality". We integrate subsidiary clues, but only as we focus on a pattern and not the clues. But how do we know that the pattern we focus on is actually real? Meek suggests that in all knowing two accompanying experiences make us feel that our focal pattern is a discovery and not an invention.

1. Growing out of our past - the profundity of the pattern. We "sense the richness, the profundity, of the pattern [that is] grander than the clues on which it relies." We find the pattern "more than makes sense of the clues [it] unites and transforms them into a fresh center, in light of which the clues gain profounder meaning. The pattern evokes uncanny harmonies and resonances between things that once appeared disparate. The gaps become meaningful hiddennesses."
2. Growing into our future - unspecifiable future prospects. "In the moment of a profound integration, we experience a sense of the future possibilities, prospects, horizons of the thing we have encountered. There are sides we cannot currently see, behaviors we suspect but could never predict, implications only some of which we can reason out, but which in their inompleteness may lead us to uncover new and transforming dimensions."

[Notes on Chapter 16 of Longing to Know: The philosophy of knowledge for ordinary people]

The Song of Solomon and Abishag?

Listening to: Seth Lakeman: Kitty Jay

When David was growing very old, and was quite unwell, his servants "sought for a beautiful young woman throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Abishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The young woman was very beautiful, and she was of service to the king and attended to him, but the king knew her not" (1 Kings 1:3-4).

David's son, Adonijah, attempts to become king, but David makes Solomon king in time to stop the coup. Adonijah's allies desert him and he pays homage to Solomon, so managing to avoid death. After David's death Adonijah approaches Solomon's mother, Bathsheba, to ask Solomon on his behalf if he can marry Abishag (2:13-17). When Bathsheba asks Solomon for this he reacts furiously:

"King Solomon answered his mother, 'And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is my older brother, and on his side are Abiathar the priest and Joab the son of Zeruiah.' Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, 'God do so to me and more also if this word does not cost Adonijah his life! Now therefore as the Lord lives, who has established me and placed me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today.' So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and he struck him down, and he died." (2:23-25)

We don't hear of Abishag the Shunammite again... or do we?

In the Song of Songs 6:13 it seems we find a bride who is a Shulammite (Heb. sulammit) due to marry Solomon. The meaning of 'Shulammite' is uncertain, but it could indicate an inhabitant of the town of Shunem (p. 1217, Eerdman's Bible Dictionary). I.e. she could be a Shunammite (Heb. sunammit). It would seem very fitting for Abishag to be the Shulammite of Song of Songs.

If Abishag is the concubine of David, who he never had sex with, but who later married Solomon, how does that affect our interpretation of the Song of Songs?

... Dave Bish, you're the expert, I'm looking at you!

The essence of the Christian religion

Shamelessly stolen from Tony Reinke because I'd like to remember it. A stripped down Apostles' Creed with a touch more of a redemptive-historical flavour?

"The essence of the Christian religion consists in the reality that

the creation of the Father,

ruined

by sin,

is restored

in the death of the Son of God,

and re-created

by the grace of the Holy Spirit

into a kingdom of God."

Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:61.

Another post on the sacraments

Listening to: Kris Drever: Black Water

[To a friend who asked "Are the sacraments means of grace or signs of grace?" By no means the last word on the subject.]

I think there are two good angles to approach this issue from.

Firstly, the conviction that the sacraments are not primarily something we do but primarily something done to us. More specifically it is not something we offer to God, but something that God offers to us. The direction is down more than it is up. I think that this reflects the language the Bible uses to speak about the sacraments. It also reflects that the Gospel is a Gospel of grace, apart from works. God always takes the initiative. This means that, for example, while baptism is a declaration of our faith to the world, it is more importantly a declaration of God that he promises life in Christ to all those who die with Christ - and particularly to that person being baptised.

Secondly, the comparison of the sacraments with less theologically charged topics, which share similar characteristics. Healing miracles, and the Bible are good examples and I think help to throw light on how we should understand the sacraments.

Coming from these two angles (all at once!) we can then see that the sacraments, in common with healing miracles and the Bible, are signs pointing away from themselves to grace, means by which that grace comes, and even the grace itself.

1. Sign of grace

The healing miracles of Jesus were described by John as signs because they pointed away from themselves. They pointed to Jesus, his authority, and the nature of that authority as life-giving. To neglect this is to make the mistake of the Jews in John 6:26 and love the gift to the neglect of the giver.

The Bible also points away from itself to the acts of God in history, and through them to God himself. To neglect this is to commit bibliolatry which evangelicals are occasionally criticised for.

Similarly, the sacraments point away from themselves. They point firstly to the Holy Spirit's work of new-birth (in Baptism) and nourishment (in the Lord's Supper), but they point through that to Christ's death and resurrection which is the source of both, and the eschaton when both will be consummated. If we neglect this then we think of the sacraments as having some magical power inherent to them, and barriers to real personal relationship with God. We also are in danger of forgetting that we live a life of hope, looking forward to Jesus' second coming.

2. Means of grace

The healing miracles were used by Jesus as means by which people were brought to faith. They were a channel through which God sent his Holy Spirit to bring people to living relationship with Jesus who was behind the miracle. If we neglect this aspect then we can think that they are just signs, and so are unnecessary or even distractions from the reality, or that they are the whole reality and there is nothing more, and we are just left with the physical healing and no spiritual relationship.

The Bible also brings us to faith and is a way in which God strengthens, rebukes and encourages his people. We believe that God speaks through his Word to bring us life (i.e. grace). Again, if we neglect this then the bible could be seen as of no significance to knowing God, or even a hindrance to personal relationship ('the dead letter').

The sacraments also are used by God to bring us life. They speak of Jesus Christ and the promise that he is to us. Therefore, if we believe the promise they speak (of life through death to self in baptism, or life through the death of Christ in the Lord's Supper - among other things) then we will be blessed by God, i.e. through them we will receive grace. If we neglect this, we will have no real understanding of why Jesus instituted these rituals and seek other means by which to be blessed by God (e.g. works).

3. The grace itself

The miracles were actually a gift of Jesus, not just a sign of another gift, or a means to receive it. They were a taste of the complete salvation we wait for in the New Creation, but they were still part of that same dish. If we neglect this we may think that the miracles were not instances where the Kingdom of God was breaking into our present reality, because the Kingdom of God is non-corporeal rather than gloriously physical.

A famine of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) is actually a famine of fellowship with God. God the Father may be speaking about himself in his Son by his Spirit in the Bible, but if he stops speaking to us about himself then we have ceased to have fellowship with him. Speaking to someone over the phone may not be a relationship with that person in all it's fullness, but the speaking is part of the relationship. If we neglect this we may be tempted to think that communication is not what a relationship with our Father is all about, and instead think that some kind of 'mystical union' where words are somehow unnecessary - but that is to loose the personal nature of our relationship.

Finally, and sacraments too are the grace they signify and are means towards. They are not the full enjoyment of the grace, but they are a taste. Jesus is really present in the Lord's Supper (as he is whenever Christian's gather and he is testified too), so we are actually in that life of fellowship with him that the Lord's Supper points us to in its fulfilment in the marriage supper of the Lamb in the New Creation. When received in faith it also really is the life-giving food of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. Similarly, when received in faith, baptism really does put to death our sinful old nature, and bring to birth new Christ-like life. It is only ever a taste, and the fullness will only be experienced when we fully die and are then raised again on the last day. But it is the same action breaking into our life now, by faith.

When to talk about election

Phil Ryken says:

The famous American Bible teacher Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895–1960) often used an illustration to help people make sense of election. He asked them to imagine a cross like the one on which Jesus died, only so large that it had a door in it. Over the door were these words from Revelation: “Whosoever will may come.” These words represent the free and universal offer of the gospel. By God’s grace, the message of salvation is for everyone. Every man, woman, and child who will come to the cross is invited to believe in Jesus Christ and enter eternal life.

On the other side of the door a happy surprise awaits the one who believes and enters. From the inside, anyone glancing back can see these words from Ephesians written above the door: "Chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world." Election is best understood in hindsight, for it is only after coming to Christ that one can know whether one has been chosen in Christ. Those who make a decision for Christ find that God made a decision for them in eternity past.

But I've been thinking. My impression on reading John recently was that Jesus taught election to unbelieving Jews to explain why they didn't accept him. I'll think about it some more.

Reformation recommendations?

I'm toying with the idea of some kind of crash course on Reformation theology. The idea to give a taste of what the Reformation was all about; the excitement, the spirituality, and the big ideas. The plan is to read about 4-6 short original works (e.g. Luther's The Freedom of the Christian), perhaps with Reeves' The Unquenchable Flame as a secondary source.

I've got a few ideas, but would be interested if you have any recommendations. In particular I'm trying to work out a section of Calvin's Institutes to include. What's your favourite 40ish pages of the Institutes?

Two rules:

• Short, but enough to get your teeth into (about 40 pages?)
• Exciting, challenging and heart-warming. Not boring!

More general criteria:

• public domain if possible
• self-contained pieces
• representative range of authors (anything by Cramner or other minor Reformers I may not have read? Anything by a Catholic you can think of? [I can only think of Sadoleto's letter to Geneva])
• representative range of topics (not just justification)

Luther's prayer to receive the Word

Eternal God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, grant us Your Holy Spirit who writes the preached word into our hearts so that we may receive and believe it, and be gladdened and comforted by it in eternity. Glorify Your Word in our hearts. Make it so bright and warm that we may find pleasure in it, and through Your inspiration think what is right. By Your power fulfill the Word, for the sake of Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord. Amen.

(TLWA, p. 38 and endpaper of the LSB)

A structure for quiet times

[This is an attempt to bring together things I've learnt over the last few months from Martin Luther, David Powlison, Gerald Bray and Tim Keller. I've put them into practice to varying degrees, but thought I'd write it all down to help me remember. I've also made myself a pretty A5 sheet, although now I've written it I think I'll remember the content anyway.

Written schemes are helpful to avoid mental blocks and to keep some 'balance' between listening/speaking, yourself/others, praise/request etc. But Luther has two good warnings to heed too: "if in the midst of such thoughts the Holy Spirit beigins to preach in your heart with rich, enlightening thoughts, honor him by letting go of the written scheme. Be still and listen to the one who can do better than you can"; and, "take care, not to undertake all of this or so much that one become weary in spirit."]

• LISTEN to the Bible as God instructs us. Ask questions:
• What does it say about God? What does it say about who he is and about what he does?
• What does it say about us? What are we meant to be and what has gone wrong?
• What happens next? What has God done about this and what does he expect of us in the light of what he has done?
• THANK God for what the Bible reveals about God's character, our situation, God's actions and how we should relate to him.
• CONFESS how you need God because of its:
• Sin's oppression (in your circumstances and in your heart)
• Your active collaboration in its rule
• ASK God to show mercy and act hear us and act in:
• You
• To change our circumstances
• To change us (wisdom and love)
• To display God’s glory
• Prayer list
• To change our circumstances
• To change us (wisdom and love)
• To display God’s glory
• Church and world
• To change our circumstances
• To change us (wisdom and love)
• To display God’s glory
• Meditate on CHRIST and praise him (in his past, present and future work) is the fulfilment of all you heard from the Word about God, and assures us of forgiveness, sanctification and the transformation of all things.

Posts I'll want to return to

Sorry for lack of blogging recently. Revision and other stuff are keeping me from doing much. These are some posts from around and about that whose content I'd like to remember so will need to return to. All worthwhile reading.

• Doug Wilson: Piperian Hedonism 3.0
• GE Ladd (via JT): What You Can and Can’t Do with the Kingdom
• David Powlinson (via JT): The Three Strands of Biblical Prayer
• Kevin DeYoung: One Simple Way to Demonstrate Love and Humility
• Tim Chester: Slow Church
• Tim Keller: Puritan Resources for Biblical Counseling
• CFD Moule (via MB): The Intention of the Evangelists
• 9Marks (via JT): Sermon Application Help
• Tim Chester: Sharing the gospel
• Jason Goroncy: No faith is an island
• Pete Jackson: 'Balance' is tritheistic

Bible study on Mark 10:13-27

Yes, I'm messing with the Christianity Explored bible study again. Here is my week 5 (What is Grace?) bible study on Mark 10:13-27 (instead of 10:17-29):

1. Why would the disciples think that the children should not brought to Jesus to be blessed? (verses 13-16)

• Insignificant. Nothing to offer? Nothing to receive? Jesus would not be interested?

2. How does Jesus respond to the disciples keeping the children away? (verse 14)

• Angry, because he does love them and can bless them.

3. What does verse 17 tell us about the man? What is he concerned about? What does he think of Jesus?

• desperately concerned about salvation
• very respectful of Jesus

4. What has the man done and not done? (verses 19-22)

• commandments v. given away everything and followed Jesus

5. In what ways is the man rich and not rich? (verses 21-22)

• treasures on earth v. heaven

6. Who is good enough to be saved; the rich man or the children?

• Neither. No one is good but God alone.

7. How is the man different from a child?

• child has done nothing and has nothing
• child doesn't love his possessions and his works

BONUS QUESTIONS

This passage describes being describes the same thing in several different ways:

• owning the kingdom of God (v.14)
• receiving the kingdom of God (v.15)
• entering the kingdom of God (vv. 15, 24-25)
• inheriting eternal life (v.17)
• treasure in heaven (v.21)
• being saved (v.26)

What do these different descriptions tell us about the cliché of "being saved"?

The disciples were "amazed" and "even more amazed" at Jesus' teaching about how hard it is for rich people to be saved. They assumed rich people would be saved, and children were of no importance.

Why did they view people differently to Jesus?

Is it impossible for rich people to be saved?

Some thoughts on Mark 10

Mark 10:13-16

The disciples prevent the little children from being brought to Jesus presumably because they thought they had nothing to offer Jesus and/or didn't have capacity to receive anything from him. Jesus explains to the disciples that in fact the Kingdom of God belongs to those like children. They "receive" the Kingdom of God because they have nothing in their hands. They don't even need to have the something which is gives them the capacity to receive (e.g. certain ritual/moral/intellectual preparation). To be human, and particularly to be sinful, is to be in position of utter dependence upon the grace of God for every good thing - including the Kingdom of God.

Mark 10:17-31

The next passage continues the same theme, as Jesus again explains who will inherit the Kingdom, and identifies his disciples as "children" who will (10:24).

The incident of "the man who had everything" (Alan Cole) also highlights the distinction between God and humanity. Only God is good, and only for him is nothing impossible. It is not that rich men cannot enter the Kingdom of God, but that even rich men cannot enter the Kingdom of God because for all men it is impossible.

Jesus' command is not so much that the rich man gives everything he owns to the poor, but that he leaves behind what he has to follow Jesus (that what he does with his wealth is incidental can be seen by comparing with vv.28-29 where the emphasis is again on leaving). Giving away his wealth is not a work that the rich man has to do to earn the right to enter the Kingdom of God, but is just a natural corollary of following Jesus in his itinerant ministry - following Jesus is actually entering the Kingdom of God. Peter boasts that they have "left everything" but Jesus cuts him short by pointing out that actually they has received far more than they have lost.

Money is like the banana in a monkey trap. If the monkey is unwilling to let go of the banana he will never escape. Only by letting go and coming with nothing to offer, whether good works or good things (all of which are gifts from God, not good things we offer him), do we follow Jesus. We can't serve both God and money, and we can't receive the Kingdom of God into a hand already full of stuff.

Why people believe in John's Gospel

This is just about every reference I can find reading through John's Gospel about why people believe. If I've missed any, let me know. I'd be interested if anything strikes you.

• John the Baptist "came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him" (1:7)
• Jesus revealed God (1:18)
• Jesus is revealed because of John's baptism of people (1:31) and by the Spirit descending and remaining on him (1:33)
• Nathanael believed because Jesus said "I saw you under the fig tree" (1:50)
• Disciples believed because of the miracle at Cana (2:11)
• When Jesus was risen they believed "the Scripture AND the word that Jesus had spoken" (2:22)
• Many believed in Jesus when they saw his miracles (2:23)
• He who believes Jesus agrees God is true (3:33)
• Samaritans believed because of the testimony of the Samaritan woman at the well that he knew her past (4:39)
• Then the Samaritans believed because they heard Jesus for themselves (4:41-42)
• Jesus criticises the official at Capernaum for only believing if he sees a sign (4:48), but then believes his word alone (4:50) and then believes again when he sees evidence of the miracle (4:53)
• the person who believes Jesus' word and the Father's testimony has eternal life (5:24)
• John the Baptist is a testimony to Jesus (5:32). But he relativises that as man's testimony, which he appeals to only so people will be saved (5:34). A greater testimony comes from the Father who testifies to who Jesus is by the miracles he gave to Jesus (5:36) and the OT (5:39). To have the Father's word abiding in you means you will believe Jesus (5:38)
• You can't believe if you seek glory from men rather than God (5:44)
• Believing Moses and believing Jesus are inseparable (5:46-47)
• Jesus implies he is his own miracle proving his identity. He is the equivalent of both the manna and Moses. Believing he is the food and eating of him proves he is the food by satisfying. (6:30-40)
• Peter says that they believed and so came to know that Jesus was the Holy One of God (6:69)
• If anyone wishes to obey God then he will know Jesus is from God (7:17)
• People believe Jesus because of the number of miracles he performs (7:31)
• Jesus says that there are two testimonies to who he is. The Father and himself. If you know Jesus you will know the Father (8:14-19)
• People will know who Jesus is when he is crucified (8:28)
• People believe in Jesus because of his teaching (8:30) but Jesus says that they will only "know the truth" if they "abide" in his word (8:31)
• The Jews ought to believe because he tells the truth (8:46), but actually they don't believe exactly because he tells them the truth (8:45)
• The healed blind man is astonished that the miracle of his healing is not sufficient proof for the Pharisees because God only hears his worshippers (9:30).
• People listen to Jesus because as his flock they know him as their good shepherd (10:4-27).
• The works of the Father that Jesus does bear witness to him (10:25), and people don't believe them because they are not part of his flock (10:26). He encourages them to believe on account of either his words or the miracles (10:38).
• People believe John the Baptist's testimony about Jesus, despite John the Baptist performing no miracles (10:41-42)
• If Martha believes Jesus promises her she will see the glory of God (11:40).
• Jesus prays aloud for the raising of Lazarus so that people will believe in him (11:42).
• Many people believe because of Lazarus (12:10-11)
• Some people don't believe despite seeing the miracles (12:37)
• People don't believe because God has blinded them (12:4)
• Belief in Jesus, is primarily belief in the Father (12:44)
• Jesus predicts Judas' betrayal so that when it happens the disciples will believe in him (13:19)
• People will know Jesus' disciples are his disciples by their love for one another (13:35)
• Jesus asks the disciples to believe him, or believe on account of the miracles (14:11)
• Jesus will make himself to his disciples and not the whole world by sending the Spirit for the Trinity to live in the person who loves Jesus and keeps his word (14:23)
• Jesus predicts his ascension and the sending of the Spirit so that when it happens the disciples will believe (14:29)
• Jesus obeys the Father (by dying?) so that the world will know that he loves the Father (14:31).
• The disciples claim to believe Jesus on the basis of his non-figurative teaching (16:29-30), despite Jesus saying the his teaching is figurative at that time (16:25), although it won't be when he sends the Spirit. Jesus doubts that they really believe already though (16:31).
• The disciples came to know that Jesus is of the Father because of his words (17:6-8)
• People will come to believe through the Apostles speech and by their unity (17:20-21).
• John claims that he has seen the events and knows they are true so his readers should believe on his testimony (19:35).
• Thomas doesn't believe on the testimony of the other disciples (20:25), but believes when he sees the risen Christ (20:28). However, Jesus implies that he should have believed on the disciples' testimony alone, and that others who believe without seeing are blessed (20:29).
• John explains that he recounts the miracles of Jesus so that his readers may believe (20:31).

Some reflections:

• Belief in the Father and the OT is inseparable from belief in Jesus.
• The testimony of John and the Samaritan woman is of secondary importance to the testimony of Jesus to himself and the testimony of the Father in miracles and the OT. But it is valid.
• Belief, obedience and humble searching after God are inseparable.
• Believing is only the beginning. In some cases knowledge of Jesus as the Holy One of God, and seeing the glory of God comes later. Also belief on the basis of testimony of other men, or of miracles, can grow into belief on the basis of Jesus' own words.
• It is implied that people can only fully know who Jesus is after his death and resurrection and the sending of the Spirit.
• Belief in Jesus is not an end in itself but should lead to belief in the Father.
• Belief is dependant on supernatural work of opening blind eyes, and only belongs to the elect.
• The disciples loving unity and spoken testimony is how people are expected to believe after Jesus has ascended.

Paul's boasting before the judgment seat of Christ

Paul tells asks the Thessalonians "what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?" (1 Thessalonians 2:19).

Similarly he finds the Philippians his "joy and crown" too (Philippians 4:1). But on Judgement Day Paul will even boast about the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 1:14), for all their problems.

When he says that "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10), I think the context demands we see "what he has done" as primarily the results of his missionary work. If that is the case it is striking how 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 parallels Philippians 3:20-4:1. In both Paul looks forward to Christ's second coming, bemoans his current mortal body, but anticipates receiving a new resurrection body, and finally looks forward to boasting in the churches he has planted.