Before creation...

My quote of the year so far:

"prior to creation...God the Father not only loved the Son but made a promise to him" (Francis Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time, referring Jn 17:24; Eph 1:4, 1 Pet 1:20; Titus 1:2)

If I were to do some evangelical-culture analysis I think we're rediscovering the first part of that sentence, but loosing the second. Perhaps we need a rediscovery of the Covenant of Redemption and promissory nature of God.

When bad news becomes good news

The Trinity is bad news...

• because it shows how intrinisic the 'outgoingness' of God is to his being. After all, your 'curved-in-on-yourselfness' seems fairly intrinsic to who you are.
• because we killed one of the divine family. After all, the Father's love for his Son is so God-sized his wrath will be unimaginable.

Jesus is bad news...

• because he sweated blood and went to the cross for a world that hated him. After all, how much do you do for those who love you, never mind your enemies?
• because we killed him. After all, he has been raised from the dead and is coming again to judge the world.

The Trinity is good news...

• because we're included in the divine life.
• because God is "our God" and for us.

Jesus is good news...

• because we're united in him and his resurrection.
• because when he died and rose again it was for us and our sins.

In short, talk about God, even 'the Trinity' or 'Jesus', is not good news until we hear the promise that we are (a) in God; or (b) God is for us. The same can be said about God as 'Almighty' or 'Creator' we hear that the Almighty Creator united himself with weak creatures and is for us. What makes 'God talk' good or bad news is not the name, but the promise.

The windowless room

A quick thought...have you heard the windowless room illustration?

It runs like this...Imagine you're kidnapped, blindfolded and the next thing you know you're in a featureless, windowless room with some other people. Nobody knows how they got there, or what is on the other side of the walls, but speculation is rife. However, we can find out once someone from outside enters in. That is a bit like us in the world and Jesus coming in the flesh.

While great at pointing to Jesus as the person who reveals the truth about God, the illustration has some serious problems.

1. It does not seem to have room for Psalm 19: "the heaven's are telling the glory of God". In the Bible it seems like the world is not a dungeon, but a greenhouse through which the glory of God shines clearly.
2. It makes the primary mission of Jesus seem like it is one of revelation and not salvation. Agnostics and atheists may think the main question is 'how can I know the truth about God?' But the Bible gives little attention to that question in comparison with 'how can I be saved?' So far as it does address the first question, it is through answering the first question.

Responding to atheist morality

Christian responses to things like Alain de Botton's 10 Commandments - for Atheists usually focus on questioning the source of the morality. For example:

• Authority: Who says? Without a god, on what objective basis can you say people must be moral? Ultimately, the Atheist's authority is only their word.
• Motivation: Why bother? Theist's motivation is love for their lover, gratitude to a giver or fear of a punisher. Ultimately, the atheist's motivation is all selfgenerated.
• Power: Who can? The Christian will point to the Holy Spirit's enabling through Christ and the church. Ultimately the atheist can only rely on him/herself.

There is a lot of value to questioning atheist morality at its source, but you can also focus on the telos of atheist law.

Whether atheist or religious, law only ends up in two places:

• Guilt for failing to live up to the standard. Not just felt guilt (which not everyone may feel keenly), but real guilt.
• Suffering due to failing to live up to the standard. All moral failure hurts someone, or something in this world.

Jesus can be found in both those places. He lived out Alain de Botton's commandments, Moses' and yours - better than you could imagine. But he is also in the place of guilt and suffering. Before we get up in the morning and tie our moral bootstraps to walk out the door into the world he is in that place, bearing the weight of both guilt and suffering. He's there bringing an end to both the guilt and the suffering, and the law itself, for us.

One way I think this forward orientation may help in engaging atheist moralists is that it follows the direction of travel. Rather than going against the grain and pulling the atheist back to the source, it is accepting of the truth in atheist morality but goes with it to the end.

Any thoughts?

Bible history

When we read the story of the Bible we can see:

1. Covenant history
2. Christ's history
3. the Christian's history

On Glen's blog recently it was argued that in Galatians 3-4 Paul was talking about Covenant history, not the personal history of a Christian in the journey from law to Gospel. This maybe true, but the antithesis between reading the Bible as Covenant history backed by biblical scholars and or as the individual Christian's history backed by pastor-teachers is a false one.

The Bible is primarily about Christ who took up Israel's covenant history and made it his life story. By his Spirit Christ makes his story, our story and we can suddenly see ourselves in the pages of a Scriptures of an ancient people. We don't have to choose between them, but Christ is the one that binds them all together.

All three journeys are a journey from Old Creation life slowly being put to death by God and then New Creation life being raised by his Spirit. But, that story is not straight forwardly linear and there are lots of mini-versions of the big story (e.g. Jesus' miracles). Different descriptions of that reality are used as well, e.g.: Darkness and light, slavery and adoption, cursed and blessed... anyway, I'm rambling now.

David Attenborough's problem with evil

Someone says: ‘I believe a God of infinite mercy created every single species and the Lord looks after us and all the animals.’ Well, what about that little African boy, five years old, sitting on the banks of a river, and he’s got a worm in his eye that’s going to turn him blind in three years? Did this God that you talk about actually design this worm and say: ‘I’ll put it in this boy’s eye?’ To suggest that God specifically created a worm to torture small African children is blasphemy as far as I can see.

(Metro interview with David Attenborough, 29 January 2013)

This is what I wanted to say to David Attenborough on my commute this morning:

1. I don't know how God can be both loving and sovereign over that African boy's plight*.

2. This is how I know that he must be:

• God the Father has always loved God the Son. From eternity past and without change he has been pouring his love out on his Son and he always will. That is who God is and if he ceased to do that he would cease to be who he is - God the Father.
• God the Father sent his Son to die in agony, abandoned by his friends and abandoned (but still loved) by the Father he had spent eternity with.
• God the Father did not do that because he loved someone or something more than his Son. He did it to glorify (John 17:1) and bring joy (Heb 12:2) to his Son who loved his world and his church.

So God's love and God's bringing humans to places of suffering are not incompatible. We've seen that in Jesus of Nazerth, the Son of God. Therefore, it is rational (in the same way that empircal science is rational) to believe God when he promises us that:

• He has always loved us;
• He has planned for us all to suffer and die; and
• He does that because he wants to bring us joy and glory.

* can someone help me remember where I read a quote somewhere recently? It said something like: "we can argue whether God permitted, allowed, purposed, or caused something, but the fact is 'God...'". Dorothy Sayers maybe?

Two presuppositions about baptism

Contemporary evangelicalism:

• Our word to others
• about our death/resurrection

Bible (I think):

• God's word to us
• about Jesus' death/resurrection for us

A few tweaks could be made for the different understanding of preaching.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16

Imitation:

• Paul imitates Christ
• We imitate Paul

Glory:

• Man is the glory of God.
• Woman is the glory of man.
• The woman's symbol of authority is the glory of woman.

Image:

• Man is in the image of God.
• Woman is not the image of Man (implicitly: she is also in the image of God).

Head:

• God is the head of Christ.
• Christ is the head of Man.
• Man is the head of woman.

Dependancy:

• Men and women are dependant on God.
• Men are dependant on women.
• Women are dependant on Men.

REFLECTIONS

• 1 Corinthians => giving
• Patriarchy => taking
• Our culture => keeping

Also worthy of note that the passage is bracketed by an appeal to the tradition/practice of the historic and worldwide church.

Clippings from Kierkegaard

On modern times:

In contrast to the age of revolution, which took action, the present age is an age of publicity, the age of miscellaneous announcements: nothing happens but still there is instant publicity. An insurrection in this day and age is utterly unimaginable, such a manifestation of power would seem ridiculous to the calculating sensibleness of the age.

(Two ages: The age of revolution and the present age: A literary review, 1846!!)

On loving your neighbour as yourself:

When it is said, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," this contains what is presupposed, that every person loves himself. Thus, Christianity, which by no means begins, as do those high-flying thinkers, without presuppositions, nor with a flattering presupposition, presupposes this...Is it possible for anyone to misunderstand this, as if it were Christianity's intention to proclaim self-love as a prescriptive right? Indeed, on the contrary, it is Christianity's intention to wrest self-love away from human beings.

(Works of Love)

On finding your identity (as we say now):

the lowly Christian does not fall into the snare of this optical illusion. He sees with the eyes of faith; with the speed of faith that seeks God, he is at the beginning, is himself before God, is contented with being himself...From ‘the others’ a person of course actually finds out only what the others are — it is in this way that the world wants to deceive a person out of becoming himself. ‘The others’ in turn do not know what they themselves are either but continually know only what ‘the others’ are. There is only one who completely knows himself, who in himself knows what he himself is — that is God. And he also knows what each human being is in himself, because he is that only by being before God. The person who is not before God is not himself either, which one can be only by being in the one who is in himself.”

(Christian Discourses)

Three random observations from my recent reading of Kierkegaard:

1. He sees how radical Jesus is and the radical nature of the call to follow him. He understands people and sees through rubbish Philosophy. However, he suffers from his Pietism which means he massively underplays the objective gift of Jesus and his righteousness. He is a bit legalistic at the end of the day.
2. In passages like the last one I've quoted I have seen very clearly that a lot of the epistemology of Karl Barth is heavily influenced by Kierkegaard...for good and bad.
3. Kierkegaard and Barth are some of the few pure geniuses I have read and both continue to teach me a lot. Karl Barth is much better person and theologian than Kierkegaard, but in a way I trust him less because the blind alleys he leads you on are much more difficult to spot than Mr K's which shine like neon lights.

Ten books of 2012

I haven't read many books this year, but for what it's worth here are my ten books of 2012.

Six objectively great books:

1. Loving the Way Jesus Loves (Ryken)
2. The Good God (Reeves)
3. God at Work (Veith)
4. A New Name (Scrivener)
5. The King's English (Scrivener)
6. Christian Youth Work (Ashton and Moon)

Five books that taught me something great:

1. Notes from a Tilt a Wheel (Wilson)
2. The Joy of Calvinism (Forster)
3. God at Work (Veith)
4. Revelation and Reconciliation (Williams)
5. Training in Christianity (Kierkegaard)

I read half a dozen marriage books too. Most of which were good, all of which taught me something, none of which blew me away.

One Whole Word

[...out of blog slumber..]

Tullian Tchividjian has recently posted on "The Pastoral Practicality Of Law-Gospel Theology". I'd encourage you to read it. He describes really helpfully how his (Lutheran) Law-Gospel theology gave him the resources to preach into a horrible pastoral situation of adultery. However, in doing so he used what I think is a really unhelpful bit of Lutheran terminology. He says:

I emphasized and explained to our church was that we are not a one word community (law or gospel) but a two word community (law then gospel).

Surely we know that there is but one Word of God - Jesus Christ revealed in the Bible by the Holy Spirit. However, that word is a sentence. Not two separate words, but a coherent whole that is structured "law BUT Gospel". Or as Paul puts it, "through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law" (Romans 3:20-21).

If there were two words, then "the Law" would be the word of God on its own. But, if "the Law" is just part of the word of God, then if you are just preaching "the Law" then you are not preaching the Word of God at all.

So lets have the whole counsel/word of God... lets have Jesus, crucified and risen for us. No mere 'commands and promises', but the one mediator Jesus who comes to us as a command and a promise.

Alec Baldwin's disturbing god complex

What an amazing scene.

CS Lewis on writing

Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, “Please will you do my job for me.”

A thought on submission and prayer

If I still have any readers I thought I'd throw this one out for feedback/thoughts...

What does the submission of a wife to her husband taught by Ephesians 5 look like?

Prayer as we find it in the Bible is where I most often go to think about what it means to be human. And isn't Ephesians 5 just encouraging the wife to be truly human in her relationship to her husband? So how about prayer for a perfect illustration of submission in marriage?

• Active
• Specific requests
• Arguing/wrestling/resisting/pleading
• Holding to promises
• Respectful
• Ready to say 'thy will be done' because I trust you, but not before a fight!

I love PT Forsyth on prayer:

We say too soon, “Thy will be done”; and too ready acceptance of a situation as His will often means feebleness or sloth. It may be His will that we surmount His will. It may be His higher will that we resist His lower. Prayer is an act of will much more than of sentiment, and its triumph is more than acquiescence. Let us submit when we must, but let us keep the submission in reserve rather than in action, as a ground tone rather than the sole effort. Prayer with us has largely ceased to be wrestling. But is that not the dominant scriptural idea? It is not the sole idea, but is it not the dominant? [...]

I would refer also not only to the parable of the unjust judge, but to the incident of the Syrophenician woman, where her wit, faith, and importunity together did actually change our Lord’s intention and break His custom. Then there is Paul beseeching the Lord thrice for a boon; and urging us to be instant, insistent, continual in prayer. We have Jacob wrestling. We have Abraham pleading, yea, haggling, with God for Sodom. We have Moses interceding for Israel and asking God to blot his name out of the book of life, if that were needful to save Israel. We have Job facing God, withstanding Him, almost bearding Him, and extracting revelation. And we have Christ’s own struggle with the Father in Gethsemane.

[NB where Forsyth uses the word 'submit' I take it that he means something different to what Paul does in Ephesians 5. Elsewhere in the chapter Forsyth explicitly equates it with 'resignation' and 'quietism', thoughts which would not have crossed Paul's mind.]

Greeted them from afar

"These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar" (Heb 11:13)

What a great image (... and not just the still from Lawrence of Arabia)!

I think that helps with progressive revelation. They didn't trust the shadows, but the person of Christ who was to come. Nevertheless, he hadn't arrived and they couldn't see him as clearly as we can. Also, on an emotional level, "greeting from afar" implies they were full of joy to see Jesus on the horizon and welcomed him.

Because it is true

"The Christian faith is not true because it works; it works because it is true. It is not true because we experience it; we experience it - deeply and gloriously - because it is true. It is not simply "true for us"; it is true for any who seek in order to find"

(p.79, Os Guiness, Time for Truth: Living Free in a World of Lies, Hype, and Spin [Thanks to Ed Shaw])

Paul Miller on one use of 'the law'

We don't know how bad we are until we try to be good.

(p.31, Paul E. Miller, A Praying Life)

Paul Miller talks about this in relation to prayer. Mark Galli talks about it in his excellent article "Giving Up Self-Discipline for Lent". Its one of the uses of 'the law' at the end of the day, in whatever form 'the law' comes to us.

Kierkegaard on tilting at windmills

People try to persuade us that the objections against Christianity spring from doubt. The objections against Christianity spring from insubordination, the dislike of obedience, rebellion against all authority. As a result people have hitherto been beating the air in their struggle against objections, because they have fought intellectually with doubt instead of fighting morally with rebellion.

(Soron Kierkegaard cited in Stephen Williams, Revelation and Reconciliation)

Of course the objections spring not just insubordination, but distrust, disordered loves etc. But, intellectual doubt is certainly not the wellspring.

A heart for God

In one of my all time favourite talks, Tim Saleska tells the story of his room-mate at college. His room-mate was engaged, but his fiancée broke up from him leaving him totally devastated.

The room-mate tried everything he could to win the girl he loved back. He probably gave her space, bombarded her with love letters, sent gifts, drove across the country to tell her all he felt for her, guilt-tripped her, even threatened. Nothing worked.

As Tim Saleska said, you cannot do anything to make someone love. It's something beyond the control of Aladdin's Genie and it's certainly beyond me. I cannot even make myself love something. There's a reason its called "falling in love" and why we talk about being "captivated"... its something beyond our control.

So, we cannot persuade our friends, family, colleagues and strangers to love Christ. We cannot threaten them enough with the consequences of not loving him, or present him as so attractive that he is irresistible. Their hearts are not won to Christ. The Father sets his love upon them and through the Word and by his Spirit gives them a heart transplant - killing the old heart and giving them a new one that beats for him.

The Bible is basically about...

Is the Bible basically about us or about Jesus?

Perhaps both, but in different ways.

Jesus is the subject of the Bible, and we are the object.

"Here is a trustworthy saying..'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners'--and I am the worst of them all." (NLT)

As Philip Cary summarises Luther's teaching on the Gospel, the Bible is:

• A story
• about Christ
• for us

Three branches of salvation

I have heard it said that there are three main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics (logic could be fourth, and no doubt others could be added). The Gospel is the news of our salvation in all three branches:

• We are saved from the destruction of our being and reality which is death and hell to become like God.
• We are saved from and ignorance of God to knowing him.
• We are saved from our sins to righteousness.

I wonder if Western Christianity (particularly post-Augustine) should be characterised as mainly dealing with salvation in the realm of ethics, much modern Christianity (in response to atheism and agnosticism) in the realm of epistemology, and Eastern Christianity being the only one that is that concerned with being in its doctrine of deification.

I can several of many Bible passages which deal with salvation in the three different ways and often they are closely linked. But, is there one branch which has priority as the one which leads to either curse or blessing in the others?

What about logic and aesthetics though?

Creation ethics

Listening to: Vivaldi: Magnificat

I used to think that it was best not to ask individuals or society to obey a 'Christian ethic' until they became Christians. This was borne out of a concern that we give the impression that you are Christian by living an ethical life.

But, I now think the problem was the idea of a 'Christian ethic' at all. Isn't it really a 'Creation ethic' written into our very beings as people made in the image of God? In which case, you're not giving anyone the impression that they are Christian by being ethical. They're just being human.

Falling over and over again

This is probably obvious to most. But, there are at least two Falls in Genesis. Adam and Eve, and Cain.

In both the LORD asks where people are (3:9; 4:9)

In both the LORD asks what people have done (3:13; 4:10)

In both there is a curse on the relationship of people with the ground (3:17; 4:11)

In both people are driven from the presence of God (3:24; 4:14)

In both people end up heading east from Eden (3:24; 4:16)

In both God provides a mark/covering for those he has driven out (3:21; 4:15)

At the end of both a new child is born to Eve (4:1; 4:25)

...history will only continue to repeat itself until the promised Seed is born.

The story of Noah in brief

Listening to: St Matthew Passion: JS Bach (Leonhardt)

"The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth" (Gen 6:5)

The LORD said "I have seen that you [Noah] are righteous before me", so the LORD saved him, his household and all those animals he takes with him (Gen 7:1)

"the waters prevailed...but God remembered Noah...and God made a wind [or 'Spirit'] blow" (Gen 7:24f)

"The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma" of Noah's sacrifice and made a covenant never to curse the ground again and to bless Noah and his sons (Gen 8:20ff).

God gave the sign of the rainbow so that when Noah was no longer around he would "see it and remember the everlasting covenant"

Fulfilled in the righteous man who drowned in God's wrath, was remembered by the Father, was saved by the Spirit, made an pleasing sacrifice to the Father who then gave us the sign of baptism which he sees and remembers the covenant he made with his Son.

... or something like that.

Getting real

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets." (Matthew 23:29-31)

The Pharisees witness against themselves by not admitting they were sons of Ahab and would have sought to murder Elijah just as much as he did. They are lying to themselves and acting out a part to everyone else (the root meaning of hypocrites). Their way out of woe and into blessing is through reality - not fantasy stories. And its the same for us. We can be honest and confess that we find Jeremiah and Ezekiel very weird and scary. We can confess that we would have dismissed Jonah as a religious nutcase.

We only condemn ourselves by our own words and we should do just that. We cannot justify ourselves (that is declare ourselves just), because it is "God who justifies". And praise God that in Jesus he does just that!

The words of Jesus on the cross - "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" - belong to those who crucified Christ, and those like us who would have done the same.