|
Here are the first 202 posts
from my blog
Sorry
they are in reverse chronological order.
If
there’s a blank space, that’s probably where a youtube video was.
3 October, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
These are
a few scattered thoughts prompted by my recent mini-series
on parables.
We all
know Jesus’ rebuke regarding Old Testament understanding - John
5:39ff. Yet I’m sure a rebuke remains for our appreciation of the
New:
You diligently study the
New Testament thinking that now you’re breathing the free air of
apostolic Christianity and therefore, definitionally, have
life. But the point of these Scriptures (as with all Scripture) is
witness to me. Yet you neglect to come to Me for life.
New
Testament does not mean ‘gospel’. It doesn’t mean ‘gospel’ any more
than Old Testament means ‘gospel’. Rather, both are witnesses
to Christ.
You see
it’s not the New Testament that fulfils the Old
No.
Jesus fulfils the OT, not the NT. There’s a
difference. It’s He that stands above both Scriptures.
There’s
nothing inherent in the Greek Scriptures that the Hebrew Scriptures
lack. The point of both - Christ Himself - stands ever above both
Old and New Testament. Life does not exist in the Old
Testament. But life does not exist in the New Testament
either.
This is
one of the problems with the saying: ‘The New is in the Old concealed,
the Old is in the New revealed.’ It easily lends itself to the
thought that the New Testament itself is the fulfilment of the Old.
But no, Christ is the fulfilment of the Old. And
He’s the fulfilment of the New. The Old is in need of fulfilment in
Christ yes. But so is the New. To understand Old or New
demands that we read them as witness to Jesus.
We’ve
been taught to pick a Christ-less Old Testament sermon from a mile
off. Yet we put up with Christ-less New Testament study much more
readily. How can that be unless we secretly believe life really
does exist in the Scriptures - we just happen to prefer the
Greek ones?
.
Posted in New Testament, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, hermeneutics, revelation | Tagged christology, covenant continuity,
hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, revelation | 1 Comment »
2 October, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok,
no-one wants to touch Preaching
Groups. I respect that.
Let’s
return to the parables.
By now we
know. Jesus
is the man who found treasure, the merchant looking for fine pearls
and He’s
the good samaritan. So now we turn to the most famous parable.
And what
shall we call it? The prodigal son? Of course not, there are
two sons. Well then how about that for a title - the two
sons? Perhaps. But are they really the focus? Why not
call it what Michael Ramsden tells us many oriental cultures call it:
The parable of the running father.
Clearly
it’s the father who is the hero of the story. Going out to meet the
younger and then the older son, the father’s deepest passion is to
reconcile his estranged children to himself.
And both
children definitely need to be reconciled. The younger son may have
asked for the inheritance but the older son also takes it when it’s offered
(Luke 15:12). They’ve both taken the fruits of the death of their
father and have spurned their filial relationship with him.
Physical
distance and a slave relationship characterizes both sons, it’s just more
obvious with the prodigal. The younger son puts a lot of distance
between he and his father but the basis on which he returns is
thoroughly calculating. He plots to return as a hired hand and
uses a form of repentance very reminiscent of Pharaoh’s counterfeit
repentance in Exodus 10:16. Everything in the story up until the
father’s embrace shows that the prodigal prefers to be a slave at a
distance than a son in the father’s arms.
And that
is just as true of the older son. We find him out in the field,
refusing to go in (physical distance). And again, how does he
perceive his relationship to his father? “All these years I’ve been
slaving for you.” (v29) Physical distance and a slave
relationship mark both sons. The only difference is how the two
sons receive the approach of the father. The one melts in the arms
of his father, the other remains angry outside the house.
And
now to turn to the title of this post: Who’s the daddy?
Well,
you’ve heard it preached numerous times I’m guessing. What did the
preacher say? The father is God right? I mean it’s obvious
isn’t it? We call God ‘Father’ and here’s a story of a reconciling
father - it must be God.
Well
don’t forget how Luke 15 begins.
Now the tax collectors and
“sinners” were all gathering round to hear Jesus. 2 But the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes
sinners, and eats with them.” 3 Then Jesus told them this
parable… (Luke 15:1-3)
The
occasion for the three stories - lost sheep, lost coin, reconciling
father - is the grumbling of the Pharisees. Jesus welcomes
sinners and eats with them, and the religious complain about it. So
then Jesus tells a story about a man who welcomes a sinner,
eats with him, and someone complains about it. Well now - who is
the younger son? The sinners and tax collectors of course.
Who is the older son? The Pharisees and teachers of the law of
course. And who is the father who eats with one and is complained
to by the other? Jesus of course.
Jesus is
the father. Plain and simple. Jesus is the father.
Jesus is the good shepherd (v4-7), he’s the good woman (v8-10), he’s the
good father (v11-32). It just seems blindingly obvious don’t you
think? And have we been confused on this simply because
of the role ‘father’? Well Jesus casts himself as father even in
the Gospels - ‘Son, your sins are forgiven… Daughter, your faith has
healed you.’ He has children (Is 8:18; 53:10; Heb 2:13; see also
Luke 7:35). If He can be a woman and even a mother hen, it’s not at
all inappropriate for Him to be pictured as father.
But
perhaos there’s this objection: Doesn’t this rob us of the story’s
potential to reveal to us the Fatherhood of God. Well no it shapes
our understanding of it properly. Surely we want to
understand God the Father in God the Son. And this
parable helps us do that very well. As we see Jesus running to the
lost and eating with sinners we can hear Him saying “I do none of this by
myself, I am doing only what I see My Father doing.”
But the fact remains we see the Fatherhood of God in Jesus,
who is the central character - portrayed as father. The story
is about Jesus - the Jesus who goes out to reconcile both the religious
and the irreligious to bring them in.
Does this
matter? Well yes. What if the story is spun in the usual
manner - i.e. the father = God and those who come to their senses will
get back into his good books? Well if that’s the story then
we’ve just described Islam not the gospel. Kenneth Bailey puts the case
for the Muslim interpretation like this (h/t
Matt Finn)
“Their case can be stated
thus: In this parable the Father obviously represents God while the
younger son represents humankind. The son leaves home, gets into trouble
and finally decides to return to his Father. He “yistaghfir Allah” (he
seeks the forgiveness of God). On arrival the Father welcomes the son and
thus demonstrates that he, the father, is “rahman wa rahim” (merciful and
compassionate). There is no cross and no incarnation, no “son of God” and
“no saviour”, no “word that becomes flesh” and no “way of salvation”, no
death and no resurrection, no mediator and no mediation. The son needs no
help to return home. The result is obvious. Jesus is a good Muslim who in
this parable affirms Muslim theology. The heart of the Christian faith is
thus denied by the very prophet Christianity claims to follow. Islam with
neither a cross nor a saviour preserves the true message of the prophet
Jesus”.
The Cross and the
Prodigal, Kenneth Bailey, p15
But no,
Jesus is at the very centre of this drama. And His reconciliation
is unlike anything Allah could or would offer. He goes out, He
bears the shame, He pleads, He appears weak and He celebrates
sinners. This is not prompted by the sinner’s repentance,
which was calculating at best, but by His own reconciling love.
Take this together with the other two stories which form a single
‘parable’ according to verse 3 and what do you have? You have
(as Barth put it) the father going into the far country to hoist the lost
onto his shoulders and bring them home. Luke 15 is no Christ-less,
cross-less forgiveness tale. Christ and His cross is the heart of
it all.
.
Matt’s
posts on the parable are great.
Michael
Ramsden’s sermon is extraordinary preaching (though,
if I’m picky, a bit vague on the point at issue here)
Keller’s
sermon is wonderful (though, again, not as straightforward on this
point as I’d like).
.
Posted in hermeneutics, parables, sermons
| Tagged hermeneutics,
parables, sermons | 5 Comments »
1 October, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Adrian
Warnock quotes Spurgeon (h/t
Matt Finn):
…to win a soul, it is
necessary, not only to instruct our hearer, and make him know the truth,
but to impress him so that he may feel it. A purely didactic ministry,
which should always appeal to the understanding, and should leave the emotions
untouched, would certainly be a limping ministry…
I hate to hear the terrors
of the Lord proclaimed by men whose hard visages, harsh tones, and
unfeeling spirit betray a sort of doctrinal desiccation: all the milk of
human kindness is dried out of them. Having no feeling himself, such a
preacher creates none, and the people sit and listen while he keeps to
dry, lifeless statements, until they come to value him for being “sound”,
and they themselves come to be sound, too; and I need not add, sound asleep
also, or what life they have is spent in sniffing out heresy, and making
earnest men offenders for a word. Into this spirit may we never be
baptized!
Now I
don’t think I need to argue that such critique applies to the circles in
which I move and which to some degree I represent. In fact to
defend against such critique could easily end up proving the
accusation! I take it on the chin and it hurts.
But why
are we like this?
A
thousand reasons - but let me point to something I’ve been thinking about
lately. This is by no means even a major cause of such ‘desiccated’
’soundness’ but I think it’s emblematic of some of our larger problems.
I’ll
phrase it as a question: Why do we have preaching groups?
By
preaching groups I mean circles of preachers (whether professional or
novice) who get together to critique one another’s talks. As
of three weeks ago I’m in one. In fact I lead one, and I’ve
found it a great pleasure thus far, but we should never be afraid of
questioning why we do what we do. So why do we have preaching
groups?
On one
level, we have these groups because fanning into flame God’s gifts is
something best done within the body. We do it because
preaching, while being the word of God, is also a human
act, and human acts can be practised and improved upon. We do it
because we care about preaching and want to test it against Scripture and
its proper Focus in Christ. We do it because standing in the pulpit, 6
feet above contradiction, is a dangerous place for someone to be
(especially a young male / recent convert - those who tend to populate
the preaching groups I’m thinking about).
Well
then, why have I never joined a preaching group until being asked to lead
one recently?
One
answer: pride. Submitting myself voluntarily to the “pat, pat,
stab” critique on a weekly basis was never my idea of fun. I told
myself “I’m not sure I fit the mould of what is expected of a sermon and
I’m not sure I want to submit to that mould.” But perhaps that
translates better as “I know best what a good sermon is and aint nobody
gonna tell me how to do it.” There’s definitely a good dollup of
that going on.
But then,
there are people I’d take critique from. It’s never easy I know,
but there are some who I would welcome rifling through my sermons to
shake ‘em up good and proper. But there’s something I’ve never
quite trusted about the preaching groups that have been available to me
in the past.
Top of
the list of things I mistrust has to be this: Preaching for the
sake of critique is extremely dangerous ground. (Note well the
italicized phrase, I don’t want to be misheard here).
I still
remember the first time I learned that preaching groups existed in which
people wrote talks not for the sake of public worship or their
youth group but for the sake of critique within the group. I can
remember blinking in total disbelief and asking the person to clarify
what he’d said at least 12 times.
The idea
of a sermon written for the benefit of 9 other hot-prots with clip-boards
and a 21 point check-list makes my head spin. The thought
that these groups, run according to this dynamic, would nurture a
generation of such preachers gives me cold sweats. Really it does.
Hear me
on this. Critique for the sake of preaching is a good and godly
thing. Preaching for the sake of critique is treacherous.
I’ve
written elsewhere on preaching
itself as the word of God, but if this is the case then there is a
spirituality and an authority to preaching that means the forms of
critique to which we submit it should be carefully considered.
Imagine,
for instance, that the standard of public intercessory praying at your
church was pretty poor. Imagine that you decided to do something about
it. You invite all those who pray publicly at your church to a few
sessions that you’re running. Now imagine that these sessions
consisted of asking each member to get up and pray out loud using
prayers they’d written in advance. We’d listen in, pen in
hand, marking the prayers according to a pre-determined
criteria. Good idea?
But you
say - preaching is not the same. Well, perhaps not exactly.
But perhaps it’s a lot closer to praying than you think.
I’m
rambling really. Let me just list ten dangers for preaching groups
off the top of my head. These are dangers mind - they are not
inevitable:
- Preaching itself is
not considered according to its proper nature - a divine encounter
- With this spiritual
nature minimized, the preaching itself takes on a more cerebral tone
(see Spurgoen quote)
- The preacher is
sorely tempted to preach for critique rather than for the
Lord and for the congregation
- The listeners are
trained in standing over rather than sitting under the word
- Preachers are taught
to pretend that they’re communicating to real people (and actually
that can be how a lot of live preaching sounds too - could there be
a link?)
- Check-lists for
critique become old wineskins that will only accommodate old wine
- Therefore we learn to
preach according to the check-list
- The audience for the
sermon becomes extremely narrow
- Not only is it
possible to be unaffected by the word (as we concentrate on its
delivery), we can even be trained in such an innoculation. A
skill that transfers beyond the preaching group.
- Praise for sermons
becomes professionalized and tempered “Thanks,
that was helpful.”
Can you
think of more?
Well what
can be done?
Here are
some pointers I’ve given to our group that I’m hoping to emphasize and
re-emphasize as we go.
- Make sure you preach
what you’ve prepared to real people. It could be to
your sunday school, your spouse, your best friend, I don’t care -
but preach it to someone who doesn’t have a clip-board. And
prepare it with that audience in mind. This is
non-negotiable. We are not preaching for the sake of critique.
- Let the preacher
themselves tell you their criteria. If they say for instance:
‘I’m just wanting to highlight a single verse or a single word from
this passage’, then assess things according to that. Now you
can discuss what makes a good criterion at another point - but
don’t judge people according to check-lists that won’t necessarily
fit.
- First thing I ask
after the sermon is delivered is addressed to the preacher:
What spoke to you most from the word in preparation.
- Next thing I ask is
to the listeners: what struck you most from the word that’s just
been proclaimed.
- At that point we
discuss how the word has impacted us - we spend time being
hearers and receivers of the word
- Only then do we
discuss ways that the preacher has blessed us in the particular
manner that they brought it home.
- Critique comes in the
form of assessing the preacher against their own criteria.
- In the spirit of Spurgeon,
both its didactic and its emotional aspects are up for discussion.
- We give praise to God
for His word and for His preacher.
- We give praise to the
preacher and thank them for how they’ve blessed us
In an
ideal world we’d do all this by watching a video of the talk given in its
true setting, but that’s often unrealistic.
Now some
of you will say - that’s what all preaching groups are like,
why are you so fearful of them. I don’t know. Am I being
too cautious about preaching groups?
.
Posted in evangelicalism, preaching | Tagged evangelicalism, preaching | 5 Comments »
30 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I checked
my spam the other day and found great encouragement:
Well I think you are a
genius and the post is marvelous.
Brightened
my day no end. The fact that it came from a man calling himself
“Penis Enlargement” is neither here nor there. I have instructed my
filter to allow all such positive comments in future.
.
Posted in blogging | Tagged blogging | No Comments »
29 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Anyone
else sick of the whole ‘Christ in the OT’ debate? Man… some people just
go on and on.
I’m
announcing a new hobby horse - Christ in the NT. In fact I think
this is where you really see a preacher’s Christ-centredness. We’ve
had the rule drummed into us by now - Thou shalt ‘bridge to Christ’ at
the end of an Old Testament sermon. But does this ‘bridge’ come
from convictions regarding Jesus the Word or is it simply a
preaching convention that we slavishly follow?
Well you
can probably guess at the answer by listening to a preacher’s New
Testament sermons. Now I fail at this all the time but I think the
challenge for all of us is this: Is Jesus the Hero of the sermon on the
mount or Mark 13 or the gifts passages or James? And the issue for
this mini-series - what about the parables?
Last
time I looked at Matthew 13:44-46. Who the man? Jesus the
Man. He seeks and finds us and in His joy He purchases us.
All praise to Him. As Piper likes to say ‘the Giver gets the
glory’ and in this parable (contra Piper’s own interpretation of
it) Jesus’ glory is on show as He gives up all for His
treasured possession - the church.
In this
post we’ll look briefly at the Good Samaritan: Luke
10:25-37
First
notice this: the teacher of the law asks ‘Who is my neighbour?’
This prompts the story. At the end of the story Jesus asks Who was
neighbour to the guy left for dead? (v36). So now, think
about this: With whom is Jesus asking us to identify? The
priest? Levite? Samaritan? No. Not first of all. First
of all we are asked to see ourselves as the man left for dead. And
from his perspective we are to assess who is a good neighbour.
Here’s the first clue - we’re meant to put ourselves in the
shoes of the fallen man.
Why do I
say ‘fallen’? Well the man’s fallenness is triply-underlined in
v30. He “goes down“ from Jerusalem (this earthly
counterpart of the heavenly Zion). He’s heading towards the
outskirts of the land (Jericho) which is due east of this mountain
sanctuary (echoes of Eden). This would involve a physical descent
of about a thousand metres in the space of just 23 miles. If that
wasn’t bad enough, the man “falls” among robbers. He’s stripped,
plagued (literally that’s the greek word), abandoned and half-dead.
That’s the man’s precidament and Jesus wants us to see it as our
predicament. So what hope do we have?
The priest?
Nope. The Levite? No chance. What about a ‘certain
Samaritan’ (mirroring the ‘certain man’ of v30)? He’s not at all
like the religious. In fact the one who ‘comes to where the man is’
happens to be someone who’d equally have been shunned by the
priest and Levite!
Yet this
Samaritan ‘had compassion’ (v33). In the New Testament this verb,
which could be translated ’he was moved in his bowels with pity’, is
used only of Jesus. (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Mk. 1:41;
6:34; 8:2; 9:22; Lk. 7:13; 10:33; 15:20) In every narrative passage Jesus
is the subject of the verb and the three parables in which it’s used are
the merciful King of Matthew 18 (v27), here and the father in the Two
Sons (Lk 15:20). More about that in the next post.
Well this
Good Samaritan comes across the man left for dead and for
emphasis we are twice told about him ‘coming’ to the man (v33 and
34). The Outsider identifies with the spurned and wretched.
Now
remember whose shoes we are in as Jesus tells this story. We are
meant to imagine ourselves as this brutalized man. Now read v34:
He went to him and
bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his
own beast, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he
took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. `Look after
him,’ he said, `and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra
expense you may have.’
Now I
don’t have to tell you what these things mean. You’ve got blueletterbible - you can do
your own biblical theology of oil, wine, etc. But remember you’re
meant to be putting yourself in the position of this fallen man, left for
dead, unaided by religion, healed by an extraordinary stranger and
awaiting his return. Are you there? Have you felt those
depths and appreciated those heights? Well then, now:
You go and do likewise.
(v37)
Don’t first
conjure up the character of the good samaritan. First be the
fallen man. First experience the healing of this Beautiful
Stranger. Then go and do likewise.
Or… leave
Jesus out of it. Spin it as a morality tale and end with “Who was
that masked man? No matter - just go and do likewise.”
See how
important ‘Jesus in the NT’ is?
.
Posted in ethics, gospel,
hermeneutics, parables | Tagged ethics, gospel, hermeneutics, parables | 13
Comments »
28 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Not sure
it ever happened (happy to be contradicted), but what a good illustration
as heard in this morning’s sermon by Neil Green (my vicar).
Abraham
Lincoln was once at a slave auction. A young girl was being sold,
naked but for her shackles. Lincoln was so distressed by the
thought of her being bought by any of the rabble present that he bid for
her himself. As the price went up and up, Lincoln continued to
outbid the rest and eventually he paid top dollar for her. The girl
was brought to Abe, petrified of what a man who paid so much would want
with her. Lincoln took off his great black cloak and clothed
her saying ‘You’re free.’
The girl
couldn’t believe it. She said ‘You mean I can go?’
He said
‘Yes’.
‘I can
marry anyone I want?’
‘Yes.’
‘I can
work anywhere I like?’
‘Yes’
‘I can go
anywhere I please?’
‘Yes.’
‘Then,’
she said, ‘I will go with you.’
.
Posted in freedom, sermons
| Tagged freedom, illustrations, sermons | 3 Comments »
27 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
So what
are these parables about?
Matthew
13:44-46: “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field,
which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all
that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a
merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great
value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.”
I
remember John Piper taking quite a long time (in Desiring God??)
to argue that the man is us, the treasure is Christ and so we should
joyfully give up all for Him. In fact I often read or hear Piper
returning to these parables and this interpretation of them. I
think it’s at least emblematic of three Piper distinctives:
1)
treasuring Christ
2) joy as
the atmosphere and motivation of our wholehearted service.
3) the
gospel is not about Christ making much of us but freeing us to make much
of Him
Now I
have learnt as much from John Piper as I have from any contemporary
Christian leader and I thank God for him. Funnily enough though, it
was his own arguments concerning the parables that convinced me of the
other interpretation. That is, the seeking man is Christ (just
as Christ is the man throughout Matt 13), the found treasure is the
church (eg Ex 19:6) and the world is the field (just as the world is
the field throughout Matt 13). Perhaps what tipped the balance most
for me was the thought: if these were two parables about us finding
Christ (rather than the other way around) they would be the only parables
of their kind. Elsewhere it is always we who are lost and Christ
who seeks and saves.
If this
second interpretation is correct then it’s about Christ giving all to buy
the world so as to possess His church. He is the great Seeker and
He is the great Treasurer. He is the great Rejoicer and He is the
great Sacrificer of all.
What
happens when we go with the Piper interpretation? We become the
great seekers, we are the ones who treasure, we are the great rejoicers
and the ones who sacrifice all. The weight is thrown back onto our
shoulders. Now to encourage us in this gargantuan work, this
sustaining power is held out to us: We are told to prize and value and
esteem and treasure and glory in the inestimable value of Christ.
In that joy will we find the strength to give all for the possession of
Christ. But we are assured that this is the way it has to be
because the gospel is definitely not about Christ making much of
us. It’s about us being freed to make much of Him. In fact I
think it’s this conviction (grounded in Piper’s views of the
self-centred divine glory) that underlies his interpretation of the parables.
What do we
say to this?
Well,
first, just read the parables in context. Shouldn’t we assume
that the main Actor of the chapter remains the same?
Second,
ask questions about the gospel. Isn’t Christ meant to be the active
one? Aren’t we the ones acted upon? The lost who are
found? And don’t we love because He first loved us?
Third,
ask questions about the nature of God’s glory. In the radical
othercentredness of the triune life, isn’t God’s eternal glory precisely
in making much of the Other? Isn’t it entirely fitting that this
immanent love spills over in the economy of grace such that God is indeed
glorified in His self-emptying exaltation of His people? When we
understand the trinitarian glory of God, don’t we then realize just how
glorifying it is for Christ to make much of us? (And even to do so
when people don’t respond!)
Fourth,
ask questions about the nature of the Christian life. Sustaining
joy is a wonderful thing, but doesn’t it flow from receiving Christ’s
electing, sacrificial love first? Doesn’t it overburden the
Christian to put them in the role of the electing, sacrificing seeker?
Just some
questions. Let me state again, I’m a Piper fan. I’ve listened
to hundreds of talks, read loads of his books. Once I even
described myself as ‘a big fan’ to his face (bowel shudderingly
embarrassing!).
It wasn’t
even my intention to write about Piper. This post was meant to be
the introduction to a mini-series on Christ in the parables. Well,
it is that too. This is part one. Christ is the man. He
is the merchant.
There.
Point made.
Up next,
the Good Samaritan, then the Two Sons.
.
Posted in hermeneutics, parables, pastoral theology, trinity
| Tagged hermeneutics,
parables, pastoral theology,
trinity | 11 Comments »
26 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
He doesn’t blog as often as some,
but when he does he’s up there with my absolute favourites. Andy
Mason is consistently thought-provoking, Christ-centred, biblical,
pastoral and stuffed full of grace through and through. He’s been
blogging more than usual this month - check it out!
On the
subject - what golden nuggets am I missing as I plod around the
blogosphere? Have a look at my blogroll and see if you think there
are any glaring omissions - always glad to be pointed to the good
stuff.
(btw I’m
sure you’re all grown up enough to know that I don’t always agree with
those on my blogroll. I think it’s healthy to read beyond our own
theological circles. Maybe that’s why some of you read me!)
.
Posted in other blogs | Tagged other blogs | No Comments »
24 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
In
this post I’ve been thinking about how we tend to pray before
evangelistic efforts.
Often the
prayers we say will sound something like:
‘Lord,
open hearts in advance of your gospel. Prepare people now so that later
we will come across those upon whom your Spirit has worked.’
If this
is how we think then we’re basically conceiving of the gospel as a
necessary instrument to salvation but it’s not really at the heart of the
action. The action happens in some prior (wordless)
event. The gospel word merely comes as confirmation of a
previous display of divine power - it’s not the power itself.
On this
view, the gospel is like a barcode gun.
We zap a
hundred people and - glory! - we discover that five had been slipped
the right barcode in advance.
The
gospel here is confirmatory of a change that has happened
elsewhere. As I’ve said, it reveals a prior power. It’s not
the power itself.
But
there’s another way to see the gospel.
The
gospel is like a magnum!
The
gospel is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). Proclaiming
the good news is unleashing divine power. We fire off a
hundred rounds of the gospel and a hundred people have felt the
power of God - whether for their salvation or their greater condemnation.
The
gospel does not merely confirm a prior mark placed on a person. The
gospel makes the mark!
So as you
go out into the world with the gospel, let this affect your confidence,
your reverence and your prayerfulness: It’s not a barcode gun you
carry - it’s a magnum.
.
Posted in evangelism | Tagged evangelism | 2 Comments »
23 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
From this sermon
on Luke 12:1-12…
What is
the most common command in the Scriptures?
Fear
not. Do not be afraid. Hundreds of times in the whole bible - the
message is repeatedly given “Don’t worry.”
But we
do. All the time. About everything.
I bet if
I asked you to make a list of things you were worried about at the
moment, you could reel off at least five without thinking about it. If I
gave you enough time you’d fill a sheet of paper with worries. We
are fearful people. And Jesus knows us. So He keeps on
persisting with this teaching, till maybe some of it sinks in.
In Luke
12 we are told not to worry 6 times:
4 “I tell you, my
friends, do not be afraid
7
…Don’t be afraid
11 “When you are
brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry
22 “Therefore I tell
you, do not worry about your life
26 … why do
you worry?
32 “Do not
be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to
give you the kingdom.
The
repetition tells you - we’ve got a problem with fear. But it also
tells us, Jesus has a solution to fear.
But
Jesus’ solution to fear is different to our gut reactions to fear.
We
usually have one of two gut reactions to fear. One reaction is to
take the Nike logo to heart - Just Do It. You’re afraid, so what,
just do it. Notice that Jesus doesn’t tell us that.
Everytime
He says ‘Don’t be afraid’ He gives us a reason not to be afraid. And in
this chapter it’s always one of two reasons. He says ‘Don’t worry,
God is very powerful.’ Or He says ‘Don’t worry, God loves you very
much.’ He’s very powerful, He’s very loving - those are reasons not
to worry and Jesus wants those truths to sink down into our hearts until
the worry goes. So Jesus does not say ‘I don’t care
if you’re afraid, just do it.’ Jesus wants to address our fears, He
wants us to examine them and to replace them with a confidence in His
Father’s power and love.
The other
reaction we have to our fears is simply to run from them. If our
first reaction is the stiff upper lip, this reaction is the cowardly
retreat. Our fears dominate our lives so that we never do anything
scary and we just live very dull lives, never risking anything.
Sometimes
I’ve spoken about fears and people have said to me ‘I don’t fear
anything. I’m not the kind of person that gets worried.’ My
next question is - What risks do you regularly take? When do you
make yourself vulnerable to others? How do you engage with and
serve this broken world? When have you tried to get new initiatives
off the ground? How often do you back a cause that won’t
necessarily be popular? When do you take moral stands? And this is
the one that really bites: How often do you speak up for Jesus even
when it won’t be popular?
Inevitably
the answers to those questions are - I don’t. A person who says
they have no fear is almost always a person who is very controlled
by fears. They live a life of humdrum mediocrity, with very few
highs, very few lows, they don’t speak out for Christ, they don’t stand
up for Him, they don’t give their hearts and their service to others,
they surround themselves with safety and comfort and in fact every aspect
of their life is controlled by fear. The cowardly retreat from fear
is very common. It’s in all of us. It’s what stops us from
being the radical disciples that Jesus calls us to be.
We’re not
the people we want to be because of our fears. It’s not that we’ve
looked at the way of Jesus and said ‘I’d be perfectly happy doing that, I
just don’t really fancy it.’ We’ve looked at it and said ‘I can’t
do that - I’m petrified of living that life.’
And
that’s why Jesus keeps coming to us saying - ‘Follow me and don’t be
afraid’. He doesn’t say ‘Follow me and stuff your feelings’.
And He doesn’t say ‘Don’t bother following me if you’re scared.’ He
commands both: ‘Follow me and don’t be afraid.’
And this
puts us onto one of the deepest truths about fear. Freedom from
fear does not come by staying safe. Freedom from fear comes as you
put yourself in danger. It’s so counter-intuitive which is why we
so rarely experience freedom from fear. We try to find freedom from
fear by avoiding all conflict and danger. But you don’t find peace
there - not God’s peace anyway. You find God’s peace on the front
lines. God’s peace comes in war. Freedom from fear comes as
you take up your cross daily and follow Jesus to Golgotha.
.
For more,
go to my
sermon on Luke 12:1-12
.
Posted in sermons | Tagged sermons | 4 Comments »
23 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Check
out this poem by D. Gwenallt, translated by Rowan williams - h/t Ben
Myers
It’s
called “Sin”
Take off the business
suit, the old-school tie,
The gown, the cap, drop the reviews, awards,
Certificates, stand naked in your sty,
A little carnivore, clothed in dried turds.
The snot that slowly fills our passages
Seeps up from hollows where the dead beasts lie;
Dumb stamping dances spell our messages,
We only know what makes our arrows fly.
Lost in the wood, we sometimes glimpse the sky
Between the branches, and the words drop down
We cannot hear, the alien voices high
And hard, singing salvation, grace, life, dawn.
Like wolves, we lift our snouts: Blood, blood, we cry,
The blood that bought us so we need not die.
Wow!
.
Posted in poetry, sin
| Tagged poetry, sin | 1 Comment »
22 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Bobby has moved to blogspot.
He describes himself as pre-mill but “a half-step away from being a
committed amillenialist.” He’s asked the question about how
a-millers view the modern state of Israel.
I gave an
ill-considered half answer. What about others? Dan Hames
I’m looking in your direction? Or post-mills? I’d love to
hear other views on this. So why not go on over and share the wealth.
Play nice
though!
.
Posted in Israel, other blogs | Tagged Israel, other blogs | 11 Comments »
22 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
We’re in
the middle of a mission at the moment (prayers always welcome!).
One of the things we’re doing is door-knocking our neighbourhood and
we’ve seen people turn to the Lord even on the door-step. Praise
God!
In our
morning meetings there seems to be one kind of prayer that recurs more
than any others - that God would prepare hearts so that when we arrive
they are open to the gospel. Now I’ll give a hearty Amen to all
such prayers and, in His grace, God may well grant this. But when
we think about hearts opened, wouldn’t it be better to pray that the word
itself will open hearts, conquer unbelief, awaken faith? Is it
possible that we’re separating word and Spirit by conceiving of
evangelism in these terms? Is there a danger that the power is thought
of as separate from the gospel and not as the gospel
itself? (Rom 1:16).
I think
I’d rather pray, “Lord, though the people we meet be stone-hearted, blind
and lost in sin and blackest darkness, bring life and immortality to
light through your gospel. May your word do its almighty work and
bring life from the dead.”
I’d
certainly rather conceive of evangelism in those terms. When we
tell the gospel we’re not basically hoping that some have previously
enjoyed God’s power. Rather, we’re going with the power of
God which is unleashed upon all, every time we speak of Christ.
.
Posted in Holy Spirit, evangelism, gospel
| Tagged evangelism, gospel, Holy Spirit | 5 Comments »
20 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Do you
ever wonder, like
this blogger, if Jesus would actually like you? Not whether
some abstract principle of grace covers you. But the question, How
would the radical Jesus of the bible deal with you?
I mean
the Guy’s fierce. Totally uncompromising, pure. No
double-standards, no tolerance for double-standards. He sees you to
the bottom. He knows your heart. One sentence from His lips
will expose you to the world.
More than
this He’s walking the road to Golgotha and there’s only one way to follow
- take up your cross and join Him. On the way, confess His name to
the world, stand behind His words, own Him to His deadliest enemies. Love
your would-be killers, pray for your persecutors. Got money?
Give it away. Got possessions? Sell them. Let nothing
hinder you. Don’t settle your affairs first, don’t even bury your
father. Follow.
Yikes.
Now
think. Who is surrounding Jesus, following along the Golgotha
way? The religious keen-beans right? The professionally
moral? No chance. Those guys are walking away conspiring to
kill Him.
Who is
flocking to Jesus? Sinners and tax collectors. They run
to the Holy One of Israel - the One who could throw them body and soul
into hell.
Try this
as a test: Read the last ten verses of Luke 14. In it Jesus
turns to the crowds and says:
If anyone comes to me and
does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers
and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. And
anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple…
any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
Now read the
first verse of Luke 15 (and remember that chapter divisions are not part
of the original Scriptures):
Now the tax collectors and
sinners were all gathering round to hear him.
Huh??
Shouldn’t the ’sinners’ be running for the hills? How can Jesus
turn up the discipleship temperature to nuclear and at the same time have
the most notoriously immoral people draw near??
Well
perhaps these words from Jesus will help. They might just be my
favourite:
“It is not the healthy who
need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but
sinners.” (Mark 2:17)
Jesus is
not the Health Police - enforcing wellness, punishing the sick!
He’s the Doctor. The sick do not run from Him but to
Him. It’s the ‘healthy’ who run away. The ‘righteous’ cannot
bear His presence. Ostensibly they worry about Jesus’ reputation -
eating with sinners. In reality it is their reputation at stake -
eating with the Doctor. For to share His company is to admit to a
deep spiritual sickness and to abandon the ‘healthy’ facade.
Yet for
the sick, they have abandoned the healthy facade. And
they’ve come to realise that their sickness does not prevent them from
coming to Christ. Their sickness is why they come to
Christ. And so they come and find in Jesus a Doctor for Whom no
disease is beyond His healing power.
Jesus is
the Doctor for sick sinners. And this understanding is at the heart
of the question ‘How does the radical Jesus of the bible deal with
me?’ Not as the Health Police but as the Doctor. He calls me
to Himself in all my sin - in all my inability to
follow.
So
Christ’s radical call to discipleship goes out. If I’m seeing
things clearly I know three things:
1) Jesus
is right, that is the way.
2) I have
no chance of treading that path. None. Zero. Squat.
3) Jesus
is the Doctor - He and He only can take what is natural to me
(desertion!) and turn it into discipleship.
In this
way I answer Christ’s call. I draw nearer to the One who
commands, not because I recognize in myself the strength to
answer His call. But I recognize in Him the power to
redeem my weakness. It’s not about seeing health in us. It’s
all about seeing healing in the Doctor.
In the
future (when I’ve got some time) I’ll look at Christ’s actual
healings as demonstrations of just this dynamic.
.
Posted in gospel, grace,
pastoral theology, sin
| Tagged gospel, grace, pastoral theology,
sin | 3 Comments »
18 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
UPDATE:
A letter
from Orissa
UPDATE: Go here for more news on the
persecution of Indian Christians
UPDATE:
The
latest from Gospel for Asia
I got
this by text on Thursday night:
“Please
pray for Pastor Paul Thangaia (I think it’s spelt Paul Thangiah - Pastor
of Bangalore’s largest church - 12 000 strong). RSS
planned to kill him. They have already burnt 20 churches yesterday. They
plan to destroy 200 churches in Orissa. BJP has
also planned to kill him and 200 pastors in the next 24 hours.”
Gospel
for Asia suggest the following prayer points for the situation in
general.
· Ask God to specially assign
His angels to watch over and protect His people, evangelists, pastors and
church leaders in these areas
· Pray that police and
government officials will bring the violence under control immediately.
· Pray that God will strengthen
the church with courage, boldness, strong conviction and faith in the
Lord to stand firm for His name during these days.
· Pray that the enemies of
the Gospel will be visited by the love of the living and true God and
that a great number of them will turn to Him.
· Pray for the suffering
Christians to receive justice and favor in this hour of crisis.
KP Yohanan recorded this three days ago:
If anyone
knows more, please do comment with links. And let’s pray.
.
Posted in prayer request | Tagged prayer request | 3 Comments »
17 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
The other
night I was talking to someone about my latest hobby horse (personality
types). To my shame I found myself using the past tense
about Jesus.
Now there
are many appropriate ways of doing that: e.g. “Christ died for sins, once
for all.” But when we’re talking about Christ’s character,
how horrible to find yourself describing Him merely in the
past tense. Certainly His encounters with people in the Scriptures
(whether with Adam or Jacob, Elijah or Nicodemus) show us
brilliantly what He was like. But, but, but… It’s
all to the end of showing us who He IS.
Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, today and forever. (Heb 13:8)
Who He is
in His word is who He is right now as He encounters you by His
Spirit in the pages of Scripture and the words of your brothers and
sisters. The same Jesus addresses you today with the same
character and in the same power.
It’s been
a real joy preparing a sermon on Mark 1:40-2:17 for this Sunday.
Jesus cleanses the leper, forgives the paralytic and dines with the tax
collector. That’s what He was like. That’s what He is
like.
We the
unclean, the weak, the sinful, the outcasts, the shamed - we are the same
as them. And He is the same as then.
Do you
recognize yourself in the leper, the paralytic and the tax
collector? Then Jesus is saying to you right now:
I am
willing, be clean.
Son,
Daughter, your sins are forgiven.
I have
not come to call the righteous but sinners.
Jesus
Christ is now to you what He was to them. You can
stake your life on it.
.
Posted in christology, pastoral theology |
Tagged christology, pastoral theology
| 1 Comment »
16 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Codepoke
made this comment on my last post on “personality
types“
Still conflicted. :-)
If the Spirit has gifted
you as a pastor and you torture yourself trying to prophecy, you have not
benefited anyone. Some are eyes and some are feet. When the eye tries to
do its part in the body by being walked on, good things do not happen to
the eye or to the body. Taking guidance from a foot, savoring our food
with our hands, and balancing the checkbook with our tongues would all be
egalitarian but not spiritual.
Yes it’s possible to err
with the personality message, but it’s possible to err with spiritual
gifts too. It makes no more sense to throw the one out than the other.
If Jesus made the evergreen
and the deciduous tree, should the deciduous tree feel guilty for not
being always green? And if Jesus made one man an NF and the other an SJ
will He iconoclastically make both into the “perfect” neutral
personality?
Good
points!
Let me
make a couple of clarifications:
1) The
trinity tells me that difference in no way compromises one-ness /
equality. One of my hobby horses is to allow the Persons to be
considered in all their distinctiveness and not let them be dissolved
into some common essence. Humanity made in the image of this God
will wonderfully reflect these distinctions. Difference is not at
all a bad thing!
2) There
is definitely such a thing as natural temperament - ie a way that this
Trinue God has made me. Pre-fall and post-return we will still be
gloriously different from one another and should not bemoan this fact but
rejoice in it. The ‘perfect’ personality is certainly not ‘neutral.’
3) There
are definitely different Spirit-given gifts that do not work against
unity but are in fact an expression of our unity - even in all our
distinctness. (cf 1 Cor 12)
Posts
like this one have me banging the drum for all these points.
4) There
are spiritual gifts that specially equip certain people to serve the body
in particular ways.
5)
Having said this, we all have certain responsibilities to uphold even if
we don’t have that gifting. Some have the gift of service (Rom
12:7) but all should serve. Some have the gift of ‘contributing to
the needs of others’ (Rom 12:8) but all should give. Some have the
gift of evangelism (Eph 4:11) but all should play their part in
evangelism. Some have the gift of administation (1 Cor 12:28) but
all have admin to do, etc.
6) I can
bring my giftings and differentness to bear in a very rich way upon the
tasks I’m called to do. I will serve differently to you, give
differently, evangelise differently and administrate differently - all to
the glory of God. And the church should definitely not seek to do
those things in a monochrome way.
7) I
recognize in myself advantages to being laid back when it comes (for
instance) to admin. If my deadline is Friday and an emergency comes
up Wednesday afternoon it does not phase me in the slightest. In
fact I’m pretty cool when Thursday goes up in smoke too. I know
that I can work close to the deadline and that does free me to serve
elsewhere with less distraction / guilt / pressure earlier in the process.
I also recognize that for larger projects those with the gift of
administration can serve me by setting me mini-deadlines along the way
and getting me to be more forward thinking. In this example we’re
all doing admin but we’re doing it in line with our different
giftings. Great!
But…
8) I’m
not sure Jesus made me ‘ENFP’. In fact I’m pretty sure He
didn’t. I’ve read school reports from Australia (where I lived
until I was 15) and I was hard-working, diligent, organised, focussed etc
etc. When I moved to the UK I found that I was ahead of the school
curriculum by at least 18 months in every subject. I also found
that it really, really was not cool to work hard in the UK. So
I stopped. I then went to a tertiary institution whose unofficial
motto was “Effortlessly superior.” And that pretty much defined the
personality idol that I sought. Throbbing behind ENFP for
me is this counterfeit motto: ‘Effortlessly superior.’ I’m not
purely and simply ENFP, I know in myself that I seek after such a
persona, attempting to justify myself before this false god. (I am
an appallingly sinful, proud young man and I’m aware that my experience
will not be the same as others. But on the off chance that there
are other who sin in these kinds of ways I offer these cautionary thoughts.)
9)
I certainly had the experience (and I know others have as well) of
filling out my Myers-Briggs test and being aware that my answers
conformed as much to an ideal that I nurture as they did to genuine
reality. This is what I mean about our personality types being
aspirational. There’s a big part of me that wants to
say ‘I’m not an admin person.’ And this has nothing to do with
my organizational abilities. It is purely a kind of snobbery that
says ‘Admin is not rock and roll.’ Certain tasks do not conform to
the image I have of myself. And so I let them drop and I justify it
saying ‘I am not…’
10)
ENFP is not who I am. ENFP has a great deal to do
with sinful choices I have made in order to navigate life according to
false views of identity, justification, true life. I certainly do
have a God-given temperament and I certainly do have particular spiritual
gifts but I wouldn’t equate that with my Myers-Briggs type. Not at
all.
Your
example, codepoke, of doing admin in a different way from your gifted
daughter is pretty much the perfect example of what I’m wanting to
say. You are well aware that just because Myers-Briggs calls you
‘NFP’ does not excuse you from being faithful in the tasks God has given
you, rather your differentness gives you a distinct and valuable way
of doing that. And it certainly will involve, at many points,
handing off things to others in the body who are gifted for it.
If we’re
mature (like codepoke - I mean that!) we’ll handle this with humility and
joy! Humility because we confess that these things are
great things to do but that I am desperately inadequate for them.
Joy because I rejoice in the giftings of others and the Spirit-given
unity we have in Christ’s body.
If we’re
immature (like me!) we’ll handle that with pride and/or despair.
Pride because deep down I’m saying ‘I’m not that kind of person (whose
abilities I don’t greatly value anyway).’ Despair because I’d
really like to be omnicompetent and not need help.
I’m sure
I’ve overstated things in my usual soap-box style. But you’ll be
aware by now that these issues lie close to some pretty strong idols for
me - hence the vigourous tone and lack of nuance. Correction
and criticism always very welcome (he said in a very non-ENFP kind of
way).
.
Posted in church, gifts,
pastoral theology |
Tagged church, gifts, pastoral theology
| 12 Comments
»
15 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
In
talking about ‘personality
types’ and how they
play out in the day-to-day, I’ve been particularly interested in how
aspirational these really are. “Out-going, big-picture, laid-back,
last-minute” is not simply how I’m hard-wired (although there is
something to that). But much more, it’s a fantasy
construct that I’ve hit upon - an ideal persona in which I seek identity
and life. In other words, an idol.
I was
reading Psalm 135 the other day:
15 The idols of the
nations are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. 16 They have
mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see; 17 they have ears,
but cannot hear, nor is there breath in their mouths. 18 Those who make
them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.
It got me
thinking - if we become like our idols then for every ‘personality
type’ there lies behind it an idol-personality - some ‘ideal’
persona. Our natural temperaments might not be a million miles from
these personas but very often we will work hard to fit ourselves into
these moulds. For some “Dependable, unflappable” is their ideal
projection. For others “never-plays-by-the-rules, unpredictable” is
a more attractive idol. But neither of these are simply
given, natural, neutral personalities - to a large degree they
are chosen. And chosen as an identity by which we avoid
the thorns and sew together our fig-leaves.
In all
this it becomes obvious that what we think of Jesus will be both a reflection
of, and the source of, our own personality. Since Jesus
is, at base, the greatest desire of our redeemed hearts, these
things will be mutually informing - our apprehension of Him and His
transformation of us. (cf 2 Cor 3:18)
This
alerts us to two things. First - the the dangers of fitting
Jesus into our own mould. I will always be tempted to confuse
Jesus with my personality idol. If I’m ENFP because deep-down
I desire that persona above all others, I will naturally want to see
Jesus fit that type. It will be all too easy to view Jesus through
that grid.
But
second, this shows us the way out of these false personas.
Namely, sticking close by the biblical Jesus and allowing Him to
break down the idols of our hearts. This will happen in two ways -
I will see that Jesus is so much greater than what’s good about my ‘type’
and He’s completely different to all that’s bad.
If I
think I’m a really intense person, Jesus is infinitely more
so. Can I stare down the risen Christ of Revelation 1 whose eyes
blaze with fire? If I think I’m cool under pressure, Jesus is
infinitely more so. Could I ever act the way Jesus did the night
before His godforsaken execution?
On the
other hand, if I’m laid-back then I should study hard the zeal of
Jesus. If I’m rigid I should admire the flexibility of Jesus.
If I’m shy I must be challenged by the boldness of Jesus. If I’m
loud I must heed the gentleness of Jesus. etc etc
Renounce
your ‘type’, pick up the bible and allow Jesus to be the iconoclast of
‘personality’.
.
Posted in pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology | 2
Comments »
14 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here’s an
example of how we shape our own “personality
types” which then shape us.
I went to
bible college saying very strongly both outwardly and inwardly “I’m not a
linguist.” Why would I say such a thing? Well not on the basis of
terrible school grades or any nightmare disputes with snooty French
maitre d’s. When it boils down to it, my problem is this: language
learning requires simple hard work - learning declensions and
conjugations and endless vocab. Basically I’d far rather invest my
time finely tuning some doctrine essay than learn a list of irregular
verbs. The pay-off simply seemed much greater. After all I’m a
big-picture, artsy kind of guy. I’m not a linguist. (Note well the strong
sense of a cultivated identity driving things).
So what
happened? Well the indicative “I’m not a linguist” translated (as
indicatives always do) to action. In this case: retreat from languages
into other areas that I found naturally easier. So my efforts in
languages were very ordinary. And guess what? So were my grades. So what
did I conclude? “I’m not a linguist.” These things really do become
self-fulfilling.
Surely I
should have been telling myself: “I am a linguist.” The Lord has called
me to be a teacher of His word and therefore He has equipped me to be the
linguist I need to be. Whether I’ll wow people with my brilliance in the
subject is an entirely different (and irrelevant!) matter. The fact is,
when it comes to languages no-one gets away without hard work and no-one
gets to play their ‘personality type’ as an excuse to retreat from it.
From the indicative of ‘By the Lord’s strengthening I am a linguist’
ought to have flowed the imperative ‘Be the linguist He’s called you to
be.’ Instead I retreated into my type.
I’m
fighting a similar battle at the moment with an extremely deep-seated
self-identification “I don’t do admin.” Is this some morally neutral,
hard-wired fact of my ‘personality’? No, it’s a sinful pattern that I’ve
fed for years. Any help gratefully received.
.
Posted in pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology | 18 Comments »
13 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
From the
ridiculous to the sublime.
I’ve
posted quite a few long-winded reflections on faith in the past.
(And how we shouldn’t reflect too much on it!) Here,
here,
here and
here.
But
they’re all summed up and vastly surpassed by one paragraph of Stott’s
Romans commentary:
“Further
it is vital to affirm that there is nothing meritorious about faith, and
that, when we say that salvation is ‘by faith, not by works’, we are not
substituting one kind of merit (‘faith’) for another (‘works’). Nor
is salvation a sort of cooperative enterprise between God and us, in
which he contributes the cross and we contribute faith. No, grace
is non-contributory, and faith is the opposite of self-regarding.
The value of faith is not to be found in itself, but entirely and exclusively
in its object, namely Jesus Christ and him crucified. To say
‘justification by faith alone’ is another way of saying ‘justification by
Christ alone’. Faith is the eye that looks to him, the hand that
receives his free gift, the mouth that drinks the living water. ‘Faith…
apprehending nothing else but that precious jewel Christ Jesus.’
(Luther’s Galatians). As Richard Hooker, the late
sixteenth-century Anglican divine, wrote: ‘God justifies the believer -
not because of the worthiness of his belief, but because of His
worthiness Who is believed.’ (John Stott, The Message of Romans,
IVP, 1994, p117-118).
Isn’t
that brilliant?
He goes
on a bit later…
“…The
antithesis between grace and law, mercy and merit, faith and works, God’s
salvation and self-salvation, is absolute. No compromising mishmash
is possible. We are obliged to choose. Emil Brunner
illustrated it vividly in terms of the difference between ‘ascent’ and
‘descent’. The really ‘decisive question’, he wrote, ‘is the
direction of movement’. Non-Christian systems think of ‘the
self-movement of man’ towards God. Luther called speculation
‘climbing up to the majesty on high’. Similarly, mysticism imagines
that the human spirit can ‘soar aloft towards God’. So does
moralism. So does philosophy. Very similar is the
‘self-confident optimism of all non-Christian religions’. None of
these has seen or felt the gulf which yawns between the holy God and
sinful, guilty human beings. Only when we have glimpsed this do we
grasp the necessity of what the gospel proclaims, namely ‘the self
movement of God’, his free initiative of grace, his ‘descent’, his
amazing ‘act of condescension’. To stand on the rim of the abyss,
to despair utterly of ever crossing over, this is the indispensible
‘antechamber of faith’.” (John Stott, The Message of Romans,
IVP, 1994, p118. Brunner quotes from The Mediator)
.
In the
debates on justification - don’t ever lose those two paragraphs!!
.
Posted in faith, gospel
| Tagged faith, gospel, quotes | 5
Comments »
11 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Perhaps
most ironic of all is the worship leader’s opening prayer - a desire to
honour the Lord.
Suggestions
please for the absolute worst aspect of these ten minutes. There’ll
be some competition I tell ya.
“Jack
Black’s” hair-do
The sock
spinning
“Everybody!
You’re not spinning anything!”
The song!
“Hands in
the air like you just don’t care”
“The Holy
Ghost Hoedown”
Starting
a love train
“Mess us
up! Mess us up! Mess us up!”
The
2Unlimited synth solo at 8:10
“Give Him
Glory”
“We love
the Lordy”
If
anyone’s speechless, just leave the comments form blank.
.
Posted in humourous, worship
| Tagged humourous, worship | 15 Comments »
11 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Penicillin.
arf
arf.
But
seriously folks… Nick Cornell, fellow Eastbourne curate, asked us last
night at our joint prayer meeting: What do you give to a people who already
have everything?
Because
Ephesians 1:3 says we are that people.
Blessed be the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every
spiritual blessing in the heavenly places
We have
it all. So what does God our Father give to His children who
already have everything? Ephesians 3:14:
14 For this reason I bow
my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on
earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant
you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being,
17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith - that you,
being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend
with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may
be filled with all the fullness of God.
That’s
what God gives His children who have everything. A deeper
understanding of what they already have.
Isn’t
that a brilliantly simple and powerful description of the Spirit’s
work?
Good one
Nick. Somebody give that man a blog.
.
Posted in Holy Spirit, devotional, sermons
| Tagged devotional, Holy Spirit, sermons | No
Comments »
9 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Part of
my ordination training involved doing the Myers-Briggs
personality test. Now I realise that this is not strictly
mandated by the Pastoral Epistles, but on the other hand it was a good
old giggle. (See
mildly amusing prayers for the 16 personality types here.)
I came
out quite strongly as ENFP which means I’m an inveterate procrastinator,
big-picture, no-detail, scatter-brained, last-minute, wing it with a smile
and talk my way out of it later kind of guy. At this point all the
ISTJs (the opposite to me on all four spectrums) are waking up to why my
blog really bugs them. (Myers-Briggs did actually help me
understand my bible college experience - the majority of Anglican
ministers I trained with were ISTJs).
But already you’re
probably sensing what everyone should know about these ‘personality
types.’ They’re not neutral. They describe real patterns
alright - and extremely hard-wired patterns too. But a lot of what
they describe are patterns of sin. A good part of each of the 16
‘personality types’ simply identify chosen, self-protective schemes that
enable us to navigate a cursed world along paths of least
resistance. Whether we buy into the ‘loud’ or the ’shy’ persona,
the ‘organized’ or ’shambolic’, we’re basically doing the same thing -
finding a way to make life work apart from Christ. By some
combination of retreating
from the thorns and sewing our fig leaves we hit upon a style of
relating that minimizes pain and maximizes self.
Now we
cluster together in different groups of sinners because there are
natural contours to our make-up and unique events shaping our development.
And it’s important to say that those internal and external differences
are not in themselves sinful. The new creation will not be
monochrome! And different gifted-ness is not at all something to be
ironed out in the name of Christian maturity. Our goal is not the
absence of difference but the harmony of God-given distinctives.
But
still, granting that there may be good and genuine reasons for some of
the following, isn’t it a problem when we flinch from serving Jesus by
making such claims as…
‘I’m just
not an extrovert.’
‘I’m not
a morning person.’
‘I need
order/control.’
‘I’m not
good with authority/structure.’
‘I’m not
a people-person.’
‘I don’t
really do organization.’
Others to
add??
Even as
we think of these deep-seated statements of identity it should be clear
that they’re not just descriptive. They are also very strongly
aspirational. I got that sense even as I took the Myers-Briggs
test. So many of the answers I gave were actually the answers that
I thought the artsy, laid-back Glen should give. In fact it was
almost exactly like doing the Star Wars personality test where I tried my
hardest to come out as Han Solo (but ended up as Princess Leia. My
wife was the Emporer - but that’s another post). The point is our reactions
to events are partly innate but also strongly determined by the persona
we’d like to hide in.
So who’s
identity are we hiding in and why?
I have been crucified with
Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in
the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
himself for me. (Gal 2:20)
Since, then, you have been
raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is
seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things
above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is
now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your
life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Col
3:1-4)
.
Posted in pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology | 11 Comments »
8 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
These are
not the outskirts of Eden. **
Yet my
defaut mode is to think exactly this. I wake every morning with
peace in the land, money in the bank, food in the cupboard. I
shower in clean drinking water, go to my rewarding job, drink coffee from
the other side of the world. I’ve lost none of my siblings,
none of my close friends. In fact all death seems to be
sealed off in a sanitised compound, far from my everyday
consciousness. I have no major illnesses (that I know
of). I blog / text / download / watch the latest banal
distraction. I preach with virtually no expectation
of opposition and people even thank me for bringing them the
gospel.
So this
is the garden of Eden right? At least an outer suburb, surely?
I heard Rick McKinley once comment
that news footage of atrocities looks very different in the west to other
places. In the aftermath of a bombing in Palestine, the crowds are
grieving. They know what to do in these situations, they’ve seen it
all before. And they cry, they wail, they mourn the
dead. In the aftermath of a tragedy in the west what are the
expressions of the onlookers? Shock, disbelief,
incomprehension. And the whole sense conveyed is ‘How could this
happen? These are the outskirts of Eden, right?’
Well,
no. We’ve actually been exiled from the Lord’s presence and the very
ground beneath our feet trembles under the weight of a divine
curse. Thorns and thistles grow up for us.
Interesting to note that preposition in Genesis 3:18 - these thorns that
mar all our efforts to fill and subdue the earth are not randomly placed
in creation. They are intentionally pointed at us.
The Lord rigs the whole creation for frustration (Dan Allender’s
phrase). Our relationships are bent on violence and
destruction. Even, and especially, our life-giving activities
(filling and subduing and child-bearing) are shot through with
excruciating pain and disappointment and we live under an ominous
death-sentence. Dust we are, and to dust we will return.
So that
curse is crashing down on my head daily - and on the heads of the people
I love. But because I think I’m in a suburb of Eden, here’s how I
respond. I retreat from the thorns and I piece together my fig
leaves.
Put it
another way - I refuse to engage in the painful toil involved in the
Lord’s work and instead I invest in whatever I think will make life
work. Under the ridiculous delusion that I’m entitled to Eden’s
ease, I take pain as a sign that I’m not where I’m meant to be (since I
believe I’m meant to be in Eden). So I shield myself from this pain
- be it the frustration of admin, the vulnerability of opening up to
people, the risks of leading through change. And I seek life
in other ways - through my plans, ingenuity and hard graft (my fig
leaves). All this assumes that I’m basically in the Garden (at
least in the outskirts). I tell myself there’s no reason for me to
engage in pain, and every possibility I can make this world
work. But this is not Eden and I must not be shocked by
the thorns nor retreat from them. Neither should I think that I can
press through them to life. Equally I must not cover myself in my
own righteousness, nor I think that life exists in such efforts.
Dante had
the words “Abandon all hope ye who enter here” written above the gates of
hell. Actually the words above this land east of Eden
could say something pretty similar: “Abandon all hope ye who live here -
except for Christ.” There is no hope for us, no hope for making
life work, no hope for avoiding the curse. There is Christ
only. Nothing we put our hope in will work. Not
finally. But we engage in His work, in all its pain. We
renounce our own coverings and trust in Christ alone. And we wait
for the new heavens and the new earth - for that is the home of
righteousness.
……………………….
** btw
I’m using ‘Eden’ as a shorthand for ‘the Garden of Eden’ -
Paradise. I realise that the Garden was in Eden - a larger
area (cf Gen 4:18). So I’m begging a little artistic license here.
.
Posted in pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology | 3 Comments »
7 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
.
… TO OTHER CHRISTIANS!
.
Here’s my
ill-considered overstatement of the issue: Our problem is not that
we aren’t telling the gospel to our pagan friends. It’s
that we don’t tell the gospel to our Christian friends!
When’s
the last time you looked another Christian in the eye and said ‘Mate
you’re a sinner. I know you have struggles, I know you’re tired
but, deep down you’re wicked! That’s your real problem. But
Mate - you’re clothed in the righteousness of Christ, carried on His
heart before the Father, rejoiced over in the presence of the
angels.’
I don’t
mean, When’s the last time you talked about the toughness of the
Christian life, or the state of the nation’s morals or the soundness of
certain bible teaching etc etc. I’m talking about eye-balling your
brother or sister and speaking God’s word direct to them - His blood was
for you, you are clean!
We all struggle
to muster up the courage to evangelise non-Christian friends and
family. But I wonder whether a significant part of our difficulty
is that we’re not even used to speaking the gospel to people who should
welcome it!
.
Posted in gospel, grace,
pastoral theology |
Tagged gospel, grace, pastoral theology
| 14 Comments »
6 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
The post
is about something else, but I liked this from NT professor Ben Witherington.
[A]
student… came up to class one day frustrated and said “I don’t know
why I need to do all this research, and writing and studying of the NT.
Why I can just get up into the pulpit and the Spirit will give me
utterance.” I rejoind: “Yes, you can do this, but it is a shame you are
not giving the Holy Spirit more to work with.”
.
Posted in Holy Spirit, preaching | Tagged Holy Spirit, preaching | 1 Comment »
4 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Are we
really post-modern after all? Actually isn’t the West incurably
modernist? Isn’t post-modernism just ultra-modernism
anyway? And who gives a flying rip? All these thoughts
jostled for prominence as I read the first five pages of the Times
this afternoon. I’ll let you guess which thought won.
Here’s
what brought on this A-level philosophizing. On page 2 the
Editor comments on the pundit-confounding fall in oil prices. He
writes:
Wayward
forecasts have been part of the human condition since at least the Oracle
at Delphi. People hunger for insight into the future; numerous methods of
forecasting, from the statistical to the mystical, aim to satisfy that
need. The painful truth is that the only non-trivial predictions that can
be made confidently lie in the natural sciences. In human society, there
is no equivalent to Newton’s laws of motion and gravity.
Now I
stopped doing science when my physics teacher said there were
exceptions to laws he’d just spent two years beating into us. I was
outraged that, having concocted and then memorized my ridiculous
mnemonics, they proved to be more like helpful suggestions than
laws. So I don’t know much - but something in my brain was
registering puzzlement as I read this afternoon.
First,
are Newton’s laws really such a bedrock of absolute certainty?
Second, what does it say about a person when they opine ‘Life’s full of
uncertainty, but one thing we know: F=ma’? It certainly is
painful but is it really true that ‘the only non-trivial
predictions that can be made confidently lie in the natural
sciences’?? You can see why all those modernism / post-modernism
questions were getting raised.
Well two
pages after Newton was set forth as the only Rock on whom we can depend,
Oxford Physics Professor, Frank Close said this:
At
the beginning of the 20th century, science could explain almost all
physical phenomena then known. Isaac Newton’s laws of mechanics described
the heavens; the Industrial Revolution both inspired and was driven by
thermodynamics; and Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves explained
light. The atomic nucleus, relativity and quantum mechanics were not yet
in the lexicon, but soon would change everything.
As
the 21st century begins, a similar story might be told – of far-reaching
theories with tantalising implications, and of ambitious experiments with
the potential for discoveries beyond our present imaginings.
So
apparently everything has changed since Newton. Our Rock
has gone. But don’t worry, this is a new century and this time
we’ll definitely get it right. How? Well now we have the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which begins smashing particles next
week. Frost’s article on the LHC was entitled: Journey
back to the beginning of time is nearly complete
The
article is full of this strange mixture of confident assertions and
admitted bewilderment. See, for instance this:
Why are
there three spatial dimensions; could there be more? If dimensions beyond
our ken are revealed at the LHC this would be one of the greatest
cultural shocks of all. Our theories work if everything is massless and
flits around at the speed of light, yet if it were so we could not be
here. How did mass emerge; what indeed is it?
We know
how the seeds of normal matter emerged in the relatively cool afterglow
of creation. However, it appears that “normal” matter is but 1 per cent
of the whole; we are but flotsam on a sea of “dark matter”, whose
existence has been inferred from theoretical cosmology but remains
undetected. What that dark sea consists of, how it was formed, why there
is any matter at all rather than a hellish ferment of radiation, are
unknown.
Now as I
said, I’m no scientist but is science really fit to answer the “why
three dimensions?” question? What kind of scientific
answer would it be that didn’t instantly beg more? In the first
paragraph we are told that the scientists’ theories ‘work’ upon
assumptions that should have rendered life impossible. In the
second paragraph we are told that their theories lead us to posit a
hundred times as much matter as scientists actually detect.
Well
alright then! Now I can understand why such hype over
LHC. This thing had better produce the goods!
I am
cheered though by the optimism of those involved. The article
finishes on this confident note:
“What
actually took place in that long-ago dawn, only nature knows. Soon humans
will too.”
I mean
Close had just told us that finding the origin of the universe (time
zero) was like finding ‘the end of the rainbow’ but still, you’ve got to
admire the passion for scientific endeavour.
The other
article on page four was just as confident. It was entitled:
Mysteries
of the Universe will be solved, starting next Wednesday
It said
things like:
“The
mountains of data produced [by LHC] will shed light on some of the
toughest questions in physics. The origin of mass, the workings of
gravity, the existence of extra dimensions and the nature of the 95 per
cent of the Universe that cannot be seen will all be examined. [ed:
Apparently the Times Science Editor has closed the dark matter gap by
another 4%. Someone should tell the professor!] Perhaps the
biggest prize of all is the “God particle” - the Higgs boson. This was
first proposed in 1964 by Peter Higgs, of Edinburgh University, as an
explanation for why matter has mass, and can thus coalesce to form stars,
planets and people. Previous atom-smashers, however, have failed to find
it, but because the LHC is so much more powerful, scientists are
confident that it will succeed.
I do
genuinely love the enthusiasm. What a quest! Here are people
convinced that they will find this dark matter (and maybe they will!),
convinced they will find the ‘God particle’ (and maybe they will!).
But their investment in the existence of such entities is explicitly
that their world-views just don’t work without such unproved
phenomena! They need these unobserved and often unobservable things
to be true or else their theories fall apart.
Don’t let
anyone tell you that science deals in hard fact while religion
deals in blind faith. We are all in the business
of ‘faith seeking understanding.’ This is how Anselm described
theology in the 12th century. But I hope we can see it’s also how
science works. We believe and we move forwards on the basis of
those beliefs. We find confirmation as we go. But as
we set out we don’t have in our grasp that which faith seeks. Instead our
intial faith is grounded in the internal cogency of its object. For
the scientist this object is the self-authenticating explanatory power
and even elegance of the existing theoretical paradigm. For the
Christian it is the self-authenticating Word of God.
None of
this is to posit some false antithesis between science and religion
- the very opposite. The theologian can and should do science
and the scientist is already doing a kind of theology (just with a
different logos - a different object of faith).
But
here’s the point - both the scientist and the theologian begin from
the foundation of faith. From there the faithful follower
explores and articulates that faith and tests it against its
object. So it is with theology, so it is with science. The
proper method for both is the same.
So much
so that as I read the scientific optimism for LHC I couldn’t help but
think of that biblical verse:
“Faith is
the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”
(Hebrews 11:1)
What
differs is not the method. What differs is the object of
faith. To put it all too simplisitically (but I think with some
explanatory power!): the majority of the scientific establishment trusts
in the logic of humanity. The theologian trusts in the Logos of
God.
.
Posted in apologetics, science,
theological method |
Tagged apologetics, science, theological method
| 3 Comments »
4 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Must
remember this Spike Milligan quote next time I preach from Ecclesiastes:
“All I ask is the chance
to prove that money can’t make me happy.” (Spike Milligan)
.
Posted in quotes | Tagged quotes | No Comments »
3 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok,
another little example of engaging with non-Christian world-views.
This is from a wedding sermon I gave a few weeks ago. The great
majority of the congregation were not Christians. The couple asked
me to speak from 1 John 4:7-12. I’ll quote a part of the sermon and
then make some comments. (Just so you know I’ve tweaked the last
paragraph since giving the sermon.)
…………….
Why is
virtually every film, every TV show, every novel, every pop song obsessed
with people falling in love and getting together? If they’re not
obsessed with falling in love and getting together, they’re obsessed with
falling out of love and drifting apart. You can’t get around it:
this kind of committed, mutually self-giving relationship consumes our
culture and consumes our hearts.
Why?
Why do all the songs say ‘Love is the greatest thing’?
Craig and
Debbie know. That’s why they chose this reading from the
bible. Why does the world say ‘Love is the greatest thing.’??
Because God, the greatest thing, is love.
That’s
the famous phrase from our reading. Verse 8: “God is love.”
Coming into church this afternooon you may not have known any verse of
the bible - now you know one. “God is love.”
God’s not
just in a long-term relationship. God is an eternal
relationship of committed love. God the Father, God the Son and God
the Holy Spirit love one another, uphold one another, pour their life
into one another from eternity past to eternity future.
The
committed love of marriage is a faint picture of the incredible love that
binds the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Whether you
believe in Him or not, whatever concept of God you’ve brought to church
this afternoon, allow it to be shaped by God’s own word. God is
love.
God
doesn’t just do love. God is love. His very
existence is an existence of love. Love is the very stuff of
His being. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are who they are because
they are constantly giving and receiving love.
Why do
the songs say love is the greatest thing? Because the greatest
thing, God, is love. To put your finger on the ultimate pulse of reality
you will find the committed love of these three Persons. Of course
the whole world sings of love. How could it not?!
But
here’s the terrible tragedy. The world doesn’t know why love’s
the greatest thing. And so the world is left with this groundless,
abstract thing called love. It becomes a mere feeling
for us to praise and magnify, and, in all probability, to watch slip
through our fingers. Love, without this grounding in God,
becomes only a sentiment to be admired. But if that is all that love
is, then today is robbed of it’s meaning. If love is just a
feeling, we may well smile at the happy couple, we will praise their
participation in this grand myth called love. But then we’ll
go home wondering if there’s any real substance to it all. But to
all that, the bible says Perish the thought!! Love has a
grounding. As verse 7 says “Love comes from God”. That’s why
Craig and Debbie want us to think about these verses. The God
who is love will breathe meaning back into that old cliche that ‘love
is the greatest thing’. And in doing so He will provide a
foundation not only for Craig and Debbie’s marriage but for all of our
lives. So let’s pay attention to these verses for the next couple
of minutes…
……………….
Four observations.
First,
the Christian can take upon their lips non-Christian sentiments and use
them truly. But in doing so we commandeer those propositions and
press them into a quite different service. So ‘love is the greatest
thing’ on the lips of a non-Christian means what? Well it could
mean many things but at the end of the day it effectively boils down to
‘love is God.’ Love itself becomes the object of worship. But
what does ‘love is the greatest thing’ mean on the lips of a
Christian? Well in the kind of context I tried to give in the
sermon, it becomes testimony to the entirely different truth
‘God is love’.
Secondly,
I really mean it when I wonder out loud How can the world not sing of
love? I am happy to draw attention to this universal sentiment that
‘love is the greatest thing.’ But I will tell the non-Christian
that he or she doesn’t really know why it’s their sentiment. And
that even the terms of that sentiment are distorted into falsehood.
‘Love is God’ seems a hairs-breadth from the truth, in fact it’s idolatry.
And idolatry is not a stepping stone to true worship.
Thirdly,
none of this depends on agreeing with a non-Christian definition of
love. It’s not a case of saying ‘Hey, you love love, I love love,
everyone loves love. Lemme show you the best love.’ We can’t
do that because verse 10 describes love in terms that are completely off
our natural radar screen. According to God’s word, love is bloody,
sacrificial, atoning death. And that for enemies.
I’ve never found the non-Christian who will agree to that definition
of love in advance! We simply do not share a common understanding
of love from which we can argue to divine reality.
Fourth,
I’m very fond of that kind of phrase: ’Allow yourself to be
told…’ I don’t know where I first picked it up but it’s kind of my
whole theology of revelation. Preaching (but in fact all speaking
of Christian truth) is declaring with divinely delegated authority:
‘Allow yourself to be told something you do not know, could never
anticipate and will never have under your belt… Put
yourself in the path of this meteor from above… Receive something
that you absolutely do not already have in your grasp.’ It is news
that we tell. Revelation. I try to have my rhetoric shaped by
that.
.
Posted in apologetics, evangelism, marriage, preaching, sermons
| Tagged apologetics,
evangelism, marriage, preaching, sermons | 2 Comments
»
2 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here’s an
evangelistic talk I gave last year. I’m giving a version of it
again in a fortnight so any critique would be gratefully received
(especially in light of our recent discussions). It was given at
the half-way point of a pub quiz…
……………………………………………………
I don’t
really think this quiz is fair. I’m not doing half as well here as
I do in London quizes. I think it might have something to do with
my mobile phone reception. I tell you - the blackberry has
trasformed the pub quiz has it not? Not so much a quiz as an
internet research challenge.
But I’m
sure that no-one here would do something so under-handed!
I’m
Australian - I just say that because you might listen in and think I have
an accent. You’d be wrong, I don’t have an accent - you have the
accent. I speak perfectly normally. I’ve lived here in
the UK for about 12 of the last 14 years… give or take the odd
deportation.
I have
to say though that Australia and England share a common love of quizzes.
We’re all trivia lovers.
I
love trivia. When I was growing up my favourite book was
called ‘the Big Book of Amazing Facts.’ And it was full of all
sorts of trivia like the fact a squid has three hearts and a sheep has
six stomachs and all polar bears are left handed and if you folded a
sheet of paper 20 times you’d reach the moon but of course you can’t
because you can only fold a piece of paper 7 times. All those sorts
of trivial facts fascinated me.
And
trivia fascinates us as a culture. We’re a very
prosperous culture and a very safe culture today. In the history of
the world we have never lived at a more prosperous time or a safer time
and on planet earth there are few places that are richer or more secure
than right here, right now. And in the absence of great life or
death issues, our culture loves to stare at its own navel.
And so
our best selling books are Sudoku puzzles and cook books and trivial
lists called miscellanies. When you look to TV all our prime-time
programmes are diets and cooking programmes, make-overs, celebrity
nannies and reality TV. Of course reality TV is just trivial TV
isn’t it. Dull, lifeless, drab and excruciatingly boring. We
are fascinated with the trivial.
Now it’s
fine to like trivial books and trivial tv, and it’s fun to test our
trivia knowledge. But wouldn’t it be a tragedy if
you got to the end of your life and the verdict on it was
“Trivial”! That would be a very great tragedy.
But the
scary thing is - all it takes to live a trivial life is for you
to try very hard and be very productive and very successful at irrelevant
things. That’s all it takes to waste your life - simply to
‘major on the minors’ as the Americans say. If you work hard at the side
issues in life, your life is trivial. If you miss the main thing in
life, you could be very industrious, very determined, very successful
even but you would have utterly wasted the life God’s given you. I
don’t want it said of anyone here on the Day coming that really matters -
‘your life was trivial. You missed the main thing.’
I
want us to think about four words from the Bible this evening. They come
from a letter in the New Testament written by the Apostle Paul. He
writes to Christians and he says to them:
CHRIST
IS YOUR LIFE. Christ is your life.
In 1998
my mother bought me a T-Shirt she’d bought at a London
market. The T-Shirt had a cricket bat and a cricket ball on it, and
it just said ‘Cricket is Life: The rest is mere details.’
This is
because, at the time, cricket consumed my life. I was never happier
than when chasing a small red ball around a park. Cricket was the
driving passion of my life and every other priority in life had to give
way. Friends, girlfriends, certainly school and university study -
they all very much took a back seat, because cricket was my LIFE - the
rest was mere details…
Now you
are thinking - what a trivial pursuit - cricket! Is there anything
more boring?
Groucho
Marx once went to a cricket match at Lord’s and halfway through the match
he turned to his host and said “And when will the actual game
begin.” Cricket is dull. Cricket is trivial. But it was
my life.
Do you
know what I have to show for my years devoted to cricket? Any
cricket fans here may know of Wisden which is the
cricketer’s almanac recording the more serious games of cricket that take
place in the world. There have been 144 editions of the Wisden
cricketing almanac and they each hold over a thousand pages. I am
on one of those pages. Halfway down p886 of the 136th
edition of the Wisden cricketing almanac my name appears in 6-point
font. And it’s mis-spelt. That’s what I have to show for
years and years of obsessive devotion to cricket. You know what
that means for those years - they were trivial.
And you
know how I felt when I hit a level of cricket that was just too good for
me and I got dropped from the team? I wanted to die. Cricket
was life and when I failed at cricket I didn’t just fail at a sport I
failed as a person. That’s how it felt. Because
cricket was my life.
Whatever
you devote yourself to has the power of life or death over you. So what
about you? What’s your trivial obsession. I’ve told you mine, now
it’s your turn, let’s get up one by one… What’s your life?
What’s on your T-shirt? What do you day-dream about, when you’re
doing the washing up or standing in the supermarket queue or the last
thought at night. What do you think ‘if only I had that then
everything would be ok.’ What is it in your life that you think,
‘if I lost that, I wouldn’t want to live.’ That’s your life.
And that thing - whatever it is - has the power of God over you. If
it comes through for you it feels like life, if it fails you, it feels
like death. What’s on your t-shirt? What is your life?
It might
be something much more noble than cricket. I’m sure it is!
Perhaps it’s your job, perhaps it’s your friends, perhaps it’s your
spouse or your family. But whatever it is - your life
orbits around that thing. But let me assure you there is nothing on
earth strong enough to take the gravitational forces you’re putting on it.
Family, friends, loved ones will all fail you - they’ll either let down
or they’ll get sick and die. But one way or another, if they are
your LIFE, your world will come tumbling down.
Our Bible
verse says there’s only one thing that ought to be your life.
CHRIST IS YOUR LIFE.
But
wait. Maybe you don’t think Christ is strong enough to be the
centre of your world. Perhaps you don’t think this Galilean
carpenter would make a very good life!
Well the
bible insists He is far more than a Galilean carpenter.
In the
book where this verse is found it says this. “ALL THINGS
WERE MADE BY CHRIST AND FOR CHRIST”
Jesus is
not just the founder of Christianity. Jesus is the founder of the
universe. He is not just 2000 years old, He was there in the
beginning. Everything came FROM Jesus and it is all FOR
Jesus. The Bible insists that Jesus is our Creator and He is the
Goal of all things. “All things were made by Christ and for
Christ.”
How can
we get our head around that? Imagine this. Imagine a child
blowing a bubble through a bubble ring. That’s a bit
like creation. Because God kind of blows the bubble of creation out
through Jesus Christ. A bubble ring defines and shapes the bubble
and Jesus Christ defines and shapes the universe. All things were
made by Him and for Him.
You might
have all sorts of questions about that. That’s fine, Christ Church
exists as a place where you can ask those questions and get
answers. But that’s what the Bible says - “All things were made by
Christ and for Christ”. You were made by Christ
and for Christ.
Therefore
the BIG question about whether you’re living a trivial life is
this: Are you FOR Jesus Christ? Are you FOR
Him? Do you know Him, do you know Him as your goal, the meaning of
your life, are you for Him? If you’re not then you might be doing a
thousand good things - but you’re not involved with the main thing.
The main thing is Jesus. Christ is your life… the rest is mere
detail.
Imagine
you were invited to Buckingham palace for tea with the
Queen. You come back and all I want to do is ask you about what she
was like, what she said, was she nice, was she bored, was Philip there,
did he offend anybody?? Imagine you come to me and say, “I couldn’t
be bothered with the Queen or any of them. But, my gosh, let me
tell you about the tea!”
I don’t
care about the tea, and you shouldn’t either. You’re invited to the
palace to meet the Queen. And you exist on planet earth to meet
Christ. Christ is your life - if you’re missing Him you’re in grave
danger of living a trivial life.
When I
failed at cricket - that was a gift from God. He showed me that I
was trying to find LIFE in a place it was never meant to be found.
He showed me I was living a trivial life. He used this massive
disappointment to make me realise the MAIN thing in life.
But what
about you? What is your driving passion?
Most of
my wife and my friends are not Christians. And we have seen with
them at least three different driving passions. The first
passion was obvious - we met at university and so what did we talk about
when we got together? Parties. We’d tell each other the best
parties we’d been to, how drunk everyone got, the drugs everyone
took. Parties were life.
Eventually
my friends stopped partying so much. Why? Did they get religion or
something? No, they’d just found a new driving passion - it was
called career. Then every time we met up they’d brag about how many
hours they were working. They’d say ‘I work 60 hour weeks. I work 70
hour weeks. I go to work in a nappy just to save on bathroom
breaks.’ It got ridiculous.
But you
know, eventually they’re getting over their workaholism. How?
They’ve got new will-power? No they’ve got a new passion. And the
new passion is family. So now they’re up to their eye-balls in
nappies and competing with the other mum’s over who’s the cutest,
smartest, most likely to marry a footballer. Now ‘Family is life,
the rest is mere details.’
But
the point is this: No-one ever gives up on one driving passion
without being convinced that there is a better driving passion on offer. No-one
gives up the ‘My job is my life’ t-shirt without being assured that there
is a better t-shirt with a better life to put on.
For me,
it took a time of great depression to realise, my life wasn’t
working. I’d tried the academic success t-shirt, I’d tried the
sporting success t-shirt, I’d tried the women t-shirt. And they all
failed me. All of those things are GREAT in their own place.
Friends, relationships, family, job, sport, success they’re all great in
their own way - but they are not life. And what it took was for me
to pick up the Bible and meet Jesus Christ in it. In Jesus I found
a centre to my life big enough to take the weight of my hopes and
expectations.
You’ll
only make Christ your life if you see Him in all His glory. And the
Bible is a book that shows off the glory and the wonder of Jesus. It tells
you that Jesus MADE the universe AND He stooped down to become a
man. It tells you He rules over all creation AND He humbles Himself
onto a bloody cross. It tells you He is worthy of all praise and
service AND He comes and serves us. You’ve never met anyone
like Jesus. But you need to meet Him - He needs to be the centre of
your life. So why not come along to Christ Church tomorrow morning.
Why not commit to coming to church and finding out who this Jesus
is. Find out why He is the central figure of all history.
Find out why the calendar revolves around HIS birth. Find out why
He commands more allegiance than any other human figure. Come and
meet Jesus Christ and then everything else falls into place - friends,
family, work, play. Your life will find it’s true order when Jesus
is at the centre.
Well
those are just a few thoughts from me. I hope you’re enjoying your evening
and that you enjoy your trivia. Trivia’s fun, but I hope our lives
revolve around someOne far more worthy.
.
Posted in evangelism, sermons
| Tagged evangelism, sermons | 4 Comments »
1 September, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok, so we’ve
noted the danger of fiting Jesus into a pre-fab system of
truth. We don’t want to do that. But Missy has asked the
$64 000 question. It’s basically this: What do we do when speaking
to a non-Christian - isn’t it desirable at least sometimes to bring
Christ to them according to their preferred programme??
I’m not
going to be able to answer this very well. But I’m just going to
give some thoughts as they occur and then I’d love if others chimed in
with how they go about this.
My first
thought is this: If we’re doing evangelism then we are necessarily
relating Christ to non-Christian thought-forms. Even if all we do
is read out the sermon on the mount it will be heard from within
a pre-existing mindset. What’s more it will be heard as remarkably
similar, if not completely continuous, with human philosophies.
Think about it. We all live in a universe made by, through and for
Christ and which proclaims Him in every detail. Everyone is working with
the same conceptual raw materials and can do no other than come up with
some re-arrangement of Christian truth. When the pure stuff is
brought to bear on discussion people will say ‘Yeah, yeah. That’s
just like X.’
But is
it? And is it ever true to say to a person ‘You know it is
just like X. And I’ll add Y and Z to your X and we’ll build towards
saving knowledge of Christ.’
Well
let’s think about the nature of truth. Paul says we find truth in
Christ - hidden in Him in fact (Eph 4:21; Col 2:3). Jesus says
He is truth (John 14:6) and even goes so far as to say that
God’s word (which He also calls ‘truth’) when not related to Him, leaves
people in terrifying ignorance. (John 5:39f; 17:17).
Truth is
relative. It stands in strict relation to Christ the Truth (good
name for a blog I reckon). His subjectivity is the one
objectivity. What is there outside of Him in Whom all the treasures
of wisdom and knowledge are hidden? Rearrangements of Christian
reality yes - but because of that re-arrangement they are rendered
blasphemous falsehoods. The true test of a proposition is not its
conformity to an abstract notion of reality or reason or scientific
law. The true test is its relatedness to Jesus.
It is
simply not the case that discrete parcels of truth lie around the
universe largely intact. It is even less true that sinful humanity
has some capacity (or inclination!) to assess these propositions,
divorced as they are from Christ. It’s outright Pelagian heresy to imagine
that such ‘discrete propositions’ and such ‘objectively assessed’
truth will lead a person to Christ. Christ leads us into the
truth. Study of abstract truth does not lead us to Christ.
Now, what
about non-Christian philosophies? Can a Christian take a sentence
from Homer (either Simpson or the poet!) on their lips and use it to
testify to Christ? Of course! But in doing so they have
vindicated Christ not Homer. They have not given testimony to
the rightness of that proposition in its own context. They
have commandeered it and pressed it into Christ’s service - the service
it should have always rendered. This is precisely the language of 2
Corinthians 10:5 - taking every thought captive to make it obedient to
Christ.
In this
verse Paul paints the picture of these renegade ‘thoughts’ that have gone
AWOL from Christ. We arrest them and press them back into the
Lord’s service. But what we don’t do is grant these thoughts a
civilian existence, as though they’ll do the Lord’s service no
matter what uniform they’re wearing. No. Either they’re in
obedience to Christ (explicitly wearing the uniform) or they’re
a pretension setting itself up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor
10:5).
Ok, but
now we’re back to the inescapable problem. Here is a non-Christian
with all their presupposed notions of truth that can only lead them
to error. Now here comes Christ the Truth. And we’ve already
conceded that the non-Christian cannot but hear Christ according to their
presupposed notions. So what do we do?
Well
here’s one tempting response. Simply oppose everything they
say. They buy into post-modernism - we counter with
modernism. They’re comfortable with irrational claims - we respond
with rationalism. They say ‘truth is relative’ - we insist ‘truth
is absolute.’ They indulge in immorality - we preach
morality. Well you may well get a discussion going. But have
you brought them to Christ? Or to the 1950s?
Tim
Keller ministers among the groovy lefties of Manhattan. What’s his
approach? Traditional religious values? No, as he likes
to say the bible is not left wing or right wing - it’s from
above. Whatever we say into these debates must make that clear.
Another
thought. Jesus did not come onto the world stage addressing
‘universal human concerns’. He wasn’t born into the Areopagus as
the Ultimate Philosopher. He did not open with: ‘We all know
the truth about relationships, money, power etc. I’ve come to bring
you the ultimate experience of these.’ No. He comes
specifically and almost exclusively onto the Jewish scene, addressing
Jewish hopes and concerns. He comes as Messiah into a very
specific, encultered setting which He had been meticulously
preparing for Himself for centuries. A people had been formed, a
law had been given, a land, kings, prophets, priests, the
Scriptures. And the understanding, ideals, hopes and problems of
this people are actually quite strange to the natural ear.
They
worried about ceremonial cleanness and atoning sacrifice; about land and
exile; about Sabbath and the throne of David. They were a
particular people with particular patriarchs and a particular God called
Yahweh who was (and is), among other things, their
tribal
deity.
They were concerned about His particular promises - His covenant - and
their particular fulfilment. The Jesus-shaped hole at the heart of
Israel was a very peculiar shape indeed - at least to modern
sensibilities. It is, in many ways, very different to
what contemporary evangelists consider as the Jesus-shaped hole of today’s
‘enquirer’.
And so when
the LORD incarnate comes as His own Prophet, He does a couple of peculiar
things that we modern evangelists don’t really do. First He comes
in fulfilment of the Scriptures. All the Gospel writers do this but
Matthew especially introduces Jesus as the fulfilment of the Old
Testament. Here is the One at the centre of this history
and this people and these hopes. Do we
present Jesus like that?
The other
peculiar thing Jesus does is to begin by saying ‘Repent and
believe the gospel.’ That’s not His punchline - that’s His
opener. ‘Repent and believe the gospel’ He commands. And then
He unpacks the life of the kingdom. On those terms He
speaks of relationships, money, power etc. First the beatitudes -
the gatehouse to the kingdom - then a description of this kingdom life.
What
would evangelism look like that followed this pattern? Something
like this I think: “You’ve been speaking to me about love / freedom /
fear / power / addiction / sexuality / abortion / capital punishment /
healthcare / education / the state / animal rights / whatever.
Jesus has a lot to say on those issues but I’m going to have to back up
from our discussion and give you a bird’s eye view. Let me give you
the bible’s view on X in three minutes.” If your friend isn’t
willing to do this then they’re not willing to have a serious discussion
anyway. Present your biblical theology of the issue with Jesus at
the centre. Now Jesus is your non-negotiable. He is the
vantage point from which you address the subject. He is not in question
- everything else is. Even use language like “For the sake of
argument, work with me on this. I’m describing Christ’s universe -
He made all things, He came into the world to reconcile them etc
etc… Doesn’t that explain perfectly what we find when it comes to
X?’
What you
don’t want to do is say ‘X is absolutely true. Now please
investigate Jesus and I hope you find that He fits the criteria already
established by X.’ I find Karl Barth’s warning on this particularly
salient:
The great danger of apologetics
is “the domesticating of revelation… the process of making the Gospel
respectable. When the Gospel is offered to man, and he stretches out his
hand to receive it and takes it into his hand, an acute danger arises
which is greater than the danger that he may not understand it and
angrily reject it. The danger is that he may accept it and peacefully and
at once make himself its lord and possessor, thus rendering it inoccuous,
making that which chooses him something which he himself has chosen, which
therefore comes to stand as such alongside all the other things that he
can also choose, and therefore control.” (II/1, p141)
More
Barth quotes here.
Anyway
I’ve got a few more things to say but I’ve rambled on too long.
Maybe a worked example or two would help. Perhaps that’s what I’ll
blog next.
But I’ll
leave it there for now. What do you think?
.
Posted in apologetics, evangelism, theological method |
Tagged apologetics, evangelism, theological method
| 15 Comments »
31 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’ve promised
Missy a post on engaging with non-Christian beliefs and I’ll definitely
get to that. But Dan’s
recent post made me think again of this quote from Steve Holmes:
‘Our
task is not to tell people that they must believe in Jesus, but so to
tell them of Jesus that they must believe in Him.’
I’ve
blogged it before and I’ll blog it again. I think those are words
to live by for preachers.
.
Posted in preaching | Tagged preaching | No Comments »
30 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Making
faith about anything other than [the Word of God] is to turn faith into a
work, and making it perilous ground for Christian assurance
Really
very good post by Dan.
.
Posted in faith, other blogs | Tagged faith, other blogs | No Comments »
28 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
An
interviewer once suggested to Barth that he followed a christo-centric
principle in his theology. Barth was not impressed. He
insisted that he had no interest in a christo-centric principle. He
was interested in Christ Himself.
Whether
Barth always achieved that is another matter (who does?). But at
least he identified the danger with which all theologians (i.e. all
Christians) must reckon. Is Jesus Himself our Lord, or have we
tamed the Lion of Judah making Him serve our real theological
agenda?
Let me
play devil’s advocate and describe four popular ways you can turn Jesus
into a mechanism to serve some abstract theological concern.
(Please do add others in the comments).
1) A
general ethic of inclusion
2) A
general doctrine of universalism
3) A
general object of devotion
4) A
general concept of grace
.
1)
A general ethic of inclusion
You know
the kind of thing - “Jesus identified with the outsider, the persecuted,
the marginalised. He opposed the religious and those who would
condemn or exclude.” Take the aforementioned generality, apply it
to your cause celebre and, presto, one all-purpose inclusion
ethic. NB: Best not to pry too closely into Jesus’ particular
ethical pronouncements nor the Scriptures He claimed could not be broken.
.
2)
A general doctrine of universalism
Here, as
with the other examples, it is vitally important to think of
Jesus in abstraction. Again, do not pry into the actual
teaching of Christ, especially His words concerning judgement, but think
only of Christ as Cosmic Reconciler. Now that you’ve turned Him
into a principle, theologize away on the inevitability of universal
salvation. After all the universal Creator has taken universal
flesh and wrought a universal victory. Keep it in universal terms,
in the abstract. Don’t get too close to the Person of Jesus -
it’s the principle of reconciliation you want.
.
3)
A general object of devotion
Take a
prolix puritan, set them to work on some devotional writing, give them
Song of Songs as their text and wait for the treacle to flow.
Delight in the mystical union. Let the particularity of the One to
Whom we are united be swallowed up in the general enjoyment of that
union.
Or
take a modern worship leader strumming tenderly, synth strings in
the background, congregation swaying. Wait for the effusions of
ardour - mountains climbed, oceans swum to be near to… Who? Jesus
of Nazareth? Or some ideal Love? Is this praise to
Jesus? Or praise to praise? What’s missing? Very often the
actual Jesus is missing. This is key. Make sure that
you abstract Jesus from His words and works. Do not think in
concrete terms. In fact it’s best not to think. Simply
imagine Him as ‘The Highest Object of Our Hearts’ and just enjoy the
gush.
.
4)
A general concept of grace
This
one’s very seductive, I’m always falling for it so I know whereof I
speak. Define yourself as ‘a believer in grace’. Define the
gospel in terms of this abstract principle - grace. Speak of the
love of God. Even speak of the sin of man. But only speak of
the Jesus who reconciles the two as a handy instrument - an instrument of
Grace. That’s the main thing - Jesus fits into this grace
paradigm. That’s why we love Him.
When
anyone asks what Christianity is - tell them: ‘It’s not works!
People think it’s works, but it’s not!’ And when they say ‘Ok,
alright, calm down. Tell me what it is,‘ don’t tell
them it’s Jesus. And definitely don’t introduce them to the
walking, talking actual Jesus. That’ll only distract them from
your excellent grace-not-works diagrams. Major on the whole
grace-not-works principle. And if they ever want to receive this
principle into their own lives (after all your diagrams make a lot
of sense) tell them to accept ‘grace’ as a free gift and they’re
in. They may well struggle to understand what receiving a concept
actually looks like or whether they’ve done it properly (or at
all). They may well question whether their intellectual assent
to your diagram really has decisive eternal significance. But
whatever you do, don’t point them to the Person of Jesus. Grace is
the thing.
.
In all of
these examples Jesus is called on to serve a pre-existing theological
programme. He may be treated with the utmost respect. He may
be considered the very chief Witness or the Exemplar par excellence. But
He is at your service, not you at His.
Beware
fitting Jesus into your pet theological programme. We do it all the
time but He resists all efforts to turn Him into a principle. The
Truth is a Person and will not be abstracted.
.
Posted in ethics, grace,
theological method |
Tagged ethics, grace, theological method
| 7 Comments »
27 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
As
Tim’s allegory amply (and alliteratively) affirms
.
Posted in other blogs | Tagged other blogs | 2 Comments »
27 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Back from
holidays now. While away I was very tickled by this from Saturday’s
Guardian.
.
One Million
Tiny Plays About Britain by Craig Taylor
.
Two
old women finish their tea at a cafe in Lichfield. One holds the bill…
Anna Oh, you. Now
don’t be so utterly ridiculous.
Eva
I insist. I insist, my dear.
Anna
Absolutely not and I won’t hear another word from silly old you.
Eva
Well, I won’t hand it over.
Anna
You give it to me right now.
Eva
I won’t. I won’t, and that’s the end of it.
Anna
I can’t have you paying for this, can I?
Eva
You paid for the last tea.
Anna
And that was nearly a year ago, silly.
Eva
Exactly. Just put that wallet away now, you troublemaker.
Anna
That’s enough. Give it to me.
Eva
I’m going to pay and that’s that.
Anna
Then I’m putting some money in your purse.
Eva
You’re going nowhere near my purse.
Anna
I need to say thank you.
Eva Then a simple
thank you’s enough.
Anna
You know how I feel about this, dear.
Eva
Well, fair is fair.
Anna
I don’t believe it is fair, if you don’t mind.
Eva
Then you can take me out for a nice meal next time, can’t you?
Anna
This is my treat.
Eva
It is completely my treat and I want to pay. The end.
Anna
No. [Pause]
Eva
Now sit down. I’m just going to put it on my credit card and we’ll go
on with our lovely afternoon.
Anna
Tell me how much it is.
Eva
And we’ll see the dahlias out in Biddulph.
Anna
I’ll sit right here then. I’ll just sit.
Eva
Well, you’re being silly.
Anna
You’re being silly.
Eva
I don’t want your money. A simple thank you is fine.
Anna
I’d like to give you some money.
Eva
Just say thank you now. Just say it.
.
The anger
is palpable.
And
notice that their civility isn’t actually a cover for their rage - it is
precisely the vehicle for it. Far from hiding their hostility,
their manners are the menacing thing. They will kill each
other with ‘kindness.’
But what
is this ‘kindness’ that they hurl at each other?
‘Fair is
fair.’ ‘I want to pay.’ ‘I don’t want your money.’
They may
as well say ‘I don’t want your friendship.’ For what friendship is
founded on ‘fairness’ and ‘payment’? No these are not the words of
friends. And this is not a demonstration of good manners.
Here their manners are their weapons. And they destroy
themselves and each other by them.
What is
the essence of this ‘friendship’? What throbs away at the heart of
this ‘civility’? It is their refusal to receive in
gratitude. The turning of gift into duty. A determination to
achieve what can only be given.
And by
this mentality, however cultured, they despise the gratuity of God’s little
pleasures and they despise each other. Here is the clenched fist in
the presence of grace. It is the deepest perversion of all our
natures.
And it’s
all amply illustrated by two old ladies in a tea shop.
.
Posted in grace, sin
| Tagged grace, sin | 2 Comments »
26 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will
automatically post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at
work or doing something important, resist the urge to click. You
may be mired in mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
And
here’s my favourite Flight of the Conchords tune.
Think
I’ll use this in marriage prep for couples from now on. Good for
setting ‘Business Time’ expectations!
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | 5 Comments »
25 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will automatically
post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at work or doing
something important, resist the urge to click. You may be mired in
mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Flight of
the Conchords rock. Here’s my second favourite song from them
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | 2 Comments »
24 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on holiday.
My blog is my friend. So it will automatically post
silliness at regular intervals. If you are at work or doing
something important, resist the urge to click. You may be mired in
mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Mitchell
and Webb are good. Better on Peep Show, but this sketch tickled
me. I promise you’ll get a warmer welcome from All Souls.
Even with your internet-assembled philosophy…
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | 3 Comments »
23 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will
automatically post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at
work or doing something important, resist the urge to click. You
may be mired in mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Bill
Bailey’s Love Song.
.
Also…
Couldn’t embed this one
- but it’s my favourite Bailey: A tribute to Chris De Burgh
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | No Comments »
22 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I feel
terrible that I haven’t linked before to Jacky Lam’s tour de force in the
making. Check out this christological commentary on the whole
bible (3 books down 63 to go!). He’s taking a break from blogging
while in mainland China, so now’s your chance to catch up on Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus. Hugely
stimulating stuff.
Dan Hames has revamped his website
which looks to be an excellent resource.
Brilliant
short piece on God’s Sovereignty by Paul Blackham here.
The most excellent Tim Vasby-Burnie seems
to be blogging more regularly here.
Check out
posts on confession,
healing and small groups and the
latest on Todd Bentley.
Also Pete
Myers has posted a couple of things concerning our Christ in the OT
discussions here
and here.
.
Posted in other blogs | Tagged other blogs | No Comments »
22 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Just
watched The Tudors (episode
4, series 2). Baby Elizabeth was baptized.
Now here’s
my question. The triune name was pronounced over the child and it
got wet. Was that baby (the ‘actor’ not the historical
figure) baptized? I’m not hugely up on sacramental
theology. What would the Roman Catholic Church say?
Luther? Calvin? What about a covenant objectivist FV type
position?
Just
wondering.
.
Posted in sacraments | Tagged sacraments | 2 Comments »
22 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will
automatically post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at
work or doing something important, resist the urge to click. You
may be mired in mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Dylan
Moran is my very favourite stand-up. Go see Monster now if you
haven’t. In the meantime enjoy these clips.
.
Dylan Moran in Australia (crowd sceptical!)
.
Stay Away From Your Potential
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | No Comments »
21 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will
automatically post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at
work or doing something important, resist the urge to click. You
may be mired in mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Steve
Martin was once very funny. Tis true dear reader!
Here’s a great song from his wild and crazy years.
.
And here
is one of his finest cinema moments
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | No Comments »
20 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will
automatically post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at
work or doing something important, resist the urge to click. You
may be mired in mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Demetri Martin is extremely funny. Here’s a few examples (Warning:
there is the odd swear word).
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | 1 Comment »
19 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on holiday.
My blog is my friend. So it will automatically post
silliness at regular intervals. If you are at work or doing
something important, resist the urge to click. You may be mired in
mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
Surely
you know Jack
Handey’s Deep Thoughts???
I’d say
he’s a very strong (if quiet) influence on lots of contemporary American
humour.
Here’s
some of my favourite aphorisms.
- It’s funny how a
loving, close-knit family can be torn apart by something as simple
as a pack of wild dogs.
- Most people don’t
realize that large pieces of coral, which have been painted brown
and attached to the skull by common wood screws, can make a child
look like a deer.
- If trees could scream,
would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they
screamed all the time, for no good reason.
- If you ever drop your
keys into a river of molten lava, let’em go, because, man, they’re
gone.
- Contrary to what most
people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion
or the tiger or even the elephant. It’s a shark riding on an
elephant’s back, just trampling and eating everything they see.
- Sometimes you have to
be careful when selecting a new name for yourself. For instance, let’s
say you have chosen the nickname “Fly Head.” Normally you would
think that “fly Head” would mean a person who has beautiful
swept-back features, as if flying through the air. But think again.
Couldn’t it also mean “having a head like a fly”? I’m afraid some
people might actually think that.
- If you saw two guys
named Hambone and Flippy, which one would you think liked dolphins
the most? I’d say Flippy, wouldn’t you? You’d be wrong, though. It’s
Hambone.
- Laurie got offended
that I used the word “puke.” But to me, that’s what her dinner
tasted like.
- We used to laugh at
Grandpa when he’d head off and go fishing. But we wouldn’t be
laughing that evening when he’d come back with some hooker he picked
up in town.
- If I ever get real
rich, I hope I’m not real mean to poor people, like I am now.
- I can picture in my
mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us
attacking that world, because they’d never expect it.
- Whenever I see an old
lady slip and fall on a wet sidewalk, my first instinct is to laugh.
But then I think, what is I was an ant, and she fell on me. Then it
wouldn’t seem quite so funny.
- Laugh, clown, laugh.
This is what I tell myself whenever I dress up like Bozo.
- A good way to
threaten somebody is to light a stick of dynamite. Then you call the
guy and hold the burning fuse up to the phone. “Hear that?” you say.
“That’s dynamite, baby.”
- If you go
parachuting, and your parachute doesn’t open, and you friends are
all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be to pretend you
were swimming.
- Children need
encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a
lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling.
- If you’re in a war,
instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those
small pumpkins. Maybe it’ll make everyone think how stupid war is,
and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.
Some
other crackers:
- If they ever come up
with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the courses should be
Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something.
- Sometimes when I feel
like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I’ll
go over to the persons house and ring the doorbell. When the person
comes to the door, I’m gone, but you know what I’ve left on the
porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of it’s head
with a note that says “You.” After that I usually feel a lot better,
and no harm done.
- Sometimes I think you
have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t
know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to.
Then on the way out, slam the door.
- If your friend is
already dead, and being eaten by vultures, I think it’s okay to feed
some bits of your friend to one of the vultures, to teach him to do
some tricks. But only if you’re serious about adopting the vulture.
- Most of the time it
was probably real bad being stuck down in a dungeon. But some days,
when there was a bad storm outside, you’d look out your little
window and think, “Boy, I’m glad I’m not out in that.”
- I hope that after I
die, people will say of me: “That guy sure owed me a lot of money.”
- If you want to be the
most popular person in your class, whenever the professor pauses in
his lecture, just let out a big snort and say “How do you figger
that!” real loud. Then lean back and sort of smirk.
- I wish I would have a
real tragic love affair and get so bummed out that I’d just quit my
job and become a bum for a few years, because I was thinking about
doing that anyway.
- I think my new thing
will be to try to be a real happy guy. I’ll just walk around being
real happy until some jerk says something stupid to me.
- Here’s a good trick:
Get a job as a judge at the Olympics. Then, if some guy sets a world
record, pretend that you didn’t see it and go, “Okay, is everybody
ready to start now?”.
Check
them all out here.
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | No Comments »
18 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some people get their friends to guest post while they’re on
holiday. My blog is my friend. So it will
automatically post silliness at regular intervals. If you are at
work or doing something important, resist the urge to click. You
may be mired in mirth for quite some time. Enjoy.
.
The
screen writers strike had one good consequence. These guys turned
their hand to a video blog.
Doogie
Howser turns bad. Glorious!
Danger - 45 minutes of
completely unproductive mirth.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | 1 Comment »
18 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here’s a
Trinity Sermon of mine on Galatians 4.
.
Posted in sermons, trinity
| Tagged sermons, trinity | No Comments »
18 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Off on holiday now for 9 days. Some frivolity is about to be
posted automatically by the blog. If you want something more
theological to chew on, here’s a few older posts on the trinity issues
that have been coming up recently.
.
Avoiding a Fourth
No (good)
trinitarian theologian wants to have a fourth thing - a divine substance
considered apart from the Three Persons. But it’s important to be
aware that this error (effectively having a quaternity) has two
versions. There is a vulgar quaternity and a more insidious one.
The
vulgar one looks like this:
Here is
the “shamrock” trinity - three bits growing out of an underlying
stuff. In practice this is, roughly, how many unthinkingly view the
trinity. Such a vulgar quaternity is rightly rejected by
theologians. It can be seen immediately that the ‘Godness of
God’ is considered at a completely different level to the three Persons
in their roles and relations. What makes God God is fundamentally
impersonal attributes that may be expressed in the Persons but
not constituted by their mutual inter-play. So we can safely reject
this version of things.
But I
find that many theologians, having rejected the vulgar quaternity,
congratulate themselves prematurely. There is also the insidious
quaternity to be dealt with. There is another way of having a
fourth…
Fundamentally
this error consists in conceiving of the one God separately to a
consideration of the three Persons in communion. Recently I read a
theologian say “God is both one and three - both a person and a
community.” This is an example of the insidious quaternity.
One-ness and Three-ness are laid side by side to uphold a belief in the
equal ultimacy of one and three. Yet the one-ness of God is
conceived of as a uni-personal one-ness - that is, it is separately
considered to the multi-personal three-ness. One and Three
were not mutually interpreting truths but instead the ‘one God’ is
thought of in non-communal (that is, non trinitarian) terms.
This is
the approach taken by by so many doctrine of God text books where De
Deo Uno (on the One God) is addressed prior to De Deo Trino
(on the Trinity). Yet, unless the two section are
integrated at the deepest levels then there is grave danger of a fourth
thing - i.e. “God plus Trinity” or “God apart
from Trinity.“
When this
theological method is followed, often (not always but most times) section
one unfolds such that the Three Person’d interplay takes no meaningful
part in the discussions of the attributes. Yet, typically, these
attributes are asserted to be the virtue by which God is
God. On this view it is still possible to discuss the ‘Godness
of God’ without reference to the perichoretic life of the Three.
Here One-ness and Three-ness are considered to be non-competing
perspectives on the same God. This effectively means that it
is possible to speak in non-triune terms about the living
God. ’God’, then, is not the same thing as ‘the Three Persons
united in love’.
This is also
a quaternity. Just a more insidious one.
And the
only way I can see to avoid this fourth thing is to side with
the Cappodocians: God’s being consists without remainder in the
Three Person’d perichoresis .
The
one-ness of God is not a simple divine essence but the very unity of
the Three. The being of God is not an underlying substance (contra
the vulgar quaternity). But nor is it a separately conceived
essence (contra the insidious quaternity).
Rather God’s being is the very communion by which the Three are
One.
Trinity
is not a perspective on the one God. Rather the only God there
is is trinity. And the only way to conceive of Him is in
triune terms. ‘God’ is ‘Trinity’. Unless this strict
identity is maintained a fourth enters in.
Thus we
must never conceive of the one God in any other terms than trinitarian
ones. (Re-write the text-books!). God’s being is in His
communion (to use Zizioulas’s phrase). His One-ness is in His
communion. And (let’s not forget) His Three-ness is in His
communion - the Three are only who they are in this eternal perichoresis.
To put it another way: God is love.
Therefore
let’s guard against a ‘fourth’ whenever it threatens. Let’s reject
the vulgar quaternity, but let’s also reject the insidious
quaternity. And if people call us ‘extreme social trinitarians’ or
‘tritheists’ or whatever, let them. The dangers on the other side
are far greater.
.
Now… Two great
questions we asked of this
post when it was originally put up.
First,
How do we avoid seeing ‘love’ as a fourth?
My
answer:
I guess
there’s inevitably a third kind of ‘fourth’ (if that’s not too
confusing). But I hope it’s a benign fourth. By that I mean, there will
always be some virtue by which you conceive of the Three as belonging
together. What I’m suggesting is that the one-ness is an already inherent
unity *of* the Three rather than a one-ness brought in to unify the
Three.
When we
study the Persons, this involves us unavoidably in the communion by which
the Persons are who they are. (The Son is Son because begotten by the
Father etc etc). So on my view, the Three are Three by the exact same
virtue that the Three are One - their mutually constituting eternal
relations. In this way love is really not outside the Persons any more
than the Persons are outside the Persons. They themselves have their
‘hypostasis in ekstasis’. They are who they are in going outside
themselves and into the Others. There is not a glue in between the
Persons called ‘love’ (that would start to look like a fourth) but rather
(mysteriously) they are IN one another! And to this mutual indwelling we
give the name perichoresis and say that this is the virtue by which they
are One. But really we haven’t introduced an added element to the Three.
This perichoresis is intrinsically part of who the Three are already.
One-ness (on this view) is simply a description of how we find the Three
(that is, that they are united).
On the
other hand, the kind of (cancerous) fourths I’m opposing are ones where
the virtue by which the Three are One is gained by looking apart from the
Three. On these views it is possible to speak of the One God without
speaking of the Persons in their mutual relations. One-ness is not at all
the unity of the Three but something else (subsistence in the simple
divine essence or whatever). This is most certainly a cancerous fourth.
I guess
it boils down to this: I’m proposing a one-ness *of* the Three. I’m
opposing a one-ness underneath or apart from the Three. One-ness for me
is a description of who the Three are. One-ness for many western
trinitarians seeks a unifying concept beyond the Three.
The great
virtue of the eastern methodology is that the answers to the three key
trinitarian questions are all the same:
By what
are the Three divine? The relations in which they stand to one another.
By what are the Three distinct Persons? The relations in which they stand
to one another.
By what are the Three One? The relations in which they stand to one
another.
The
eastern trinitarian never looks away from the Three to discuss either
deity, difference or one-ness. All trinitarian theology is then
descriptive of how we find these Three in the Gospel. Therefore there is
no foreign concept of one-ness to be brought in apart from what we find
studying the Three in the Gospel.
Wish I
could articulate better “what is this earth thing called love?” (as the
Star Trek alien would say), but I think ‘hypostasis in ekstasis’ is about
as good as it gets in theology! It’s not an extra thing added to the
being of the Persons but the very essence of their out-going,
inter-penetrating, self-emptying existence. And it’s this
“Person-in-outgoingness” that defines who the Persons are *and* what the
Oneness is.
.
The second
question was two-fold. It asked whether we shouldn’t just
see inseparable operations as that by which the Three are One. It
also questioned the eastern emphasis on incomprehensibility.
My
answer:
Inseparable
operations *is* communion/perichoresis/mutual-relations as seen in God’s
economic activity (that is His outward works in creation-redemption).
You’re right to mention ‘asymmetry’ in this as the cause of the ‘outflow’
of these relations into creation. So the Father always works through the
Son and by the Spirit. The initiation is with the Father, the execution
is with the Son, the empowering and perfection of it is with the Spirit.
Again, everything God does is from the Father, through the Son and by the
Spirit. This is the inseparable operation of the trinity and it is simply
the outflow of the mutual life of the Persons.
Thus to
say ‘inseparable operations’ is *not* to say ‘we encounter only a
singularity in creation and redemption’. It is, rather, to say ‘we
encounter the Three working in perfect unity.’ The doctrine of
inseparable operations is often cast as “we only see one, but behind that
one there are Three.” That is the very opposite of the case. A true
doctrine of inseparable operations says “we see Three in the economy, but
they are utterly united in these acts.”
Therefore
I’ll have to disagree with your statement:
“from the
outside we receive grace from the one God, without the trinity being
clear until we can actually be drawn into that divine community when
Christ came in the flesh”
So I
don’t think it’s a case of ‘from the outside’ seeing only One and then
getting drawn into Three. Instead on the outside we see Three and then by
the ‘two hands of the Father’ (Irenaeus’ phrase) we get drawn into the
triune life (which is a life of one-ness - not singularity but
communion).
You have,
though, identified my chief beef with the eastern side:
“They
seem to especially concerned about the incomprehensible nature of God,
which seems to make it quite difficult to talk about trinity in the way
you do.”
Yes
indeed. This is the problem with the east (which I’ve hinted at
elsewhere). They are not really sold on the whole “The economic trinity
reveals the immanent trinity” - which, for me, ought to be a basic tenet
of revealed theology. For me, and more usually for the west, what you see
in God is what you get. If He’s revealed as Father sending Son and Father
*and* Son sending Spirit, then that’s a revelation of the deepest depths
of the triune life. For the east, they have the immanent trinity lying
mysteriously behind the economic trinity. What you see aint necessarily
what you get.
So it’s
not a case of east = good guys, west = bad guys. It’s a case of being
mature enough to take the best of both. From east I take the methodology
of Three first. From the west I take the maxim “the economic trinity is
the immanent trinity.”
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, theological method, trinity
| Tagged Doctrine of
God, theological
method, trinity | No Comments »
18 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Off on holiday now for 9 days. Some frivolity is
about to be posted automatically by the blog. If you want something
more theological to chew on, here’s a few older posts on the trinity
issues that have been coming up recently.
.
Oneness and Threness
I
remember a friend asking me what I thought God was doing before the
creation of the world. I answered “They were enjoying one
another.” He looked very quizzical and then said, “….Oh! You
mean the Trinity!” I remember thinking “Well yes, what god
were you thinking of?”
Yet many
will think of God in ways that are divorced from the lively interaction
of Father, Son and Spirit. What about you? How do you
think of God’s pre-creation life? His OT activity? His work
in providence? His divine attributes? Do you naturally and
enthusiastically conceive of these as the out-flow of the mutual
relations of Persons? Is your account of these shaped by
triniarian inter-play? Or do you try to conceive of these as, to
all intents and purposes, unitarian activities to which we add
trinitarian nuances (when we discuss salvation).
Another
way of asking this is - how do you think about the relation of Oneness
and Threeness in God.
Is it
like this? (Forgive the very amateur graphics/formatting)
Here,
Oneness is defined as the substrata - the substance of God underlying the
Persons. The fundamental truths about God are cast in unitarian
terms. To this is added multi-Personal
considerations. Is this how you consider the interplay of Oneness
and Threeness?
Or what
about this view:
Here
Oneness and Threeness are laid side by side. We consider ’De
Deo Uno’ and De Deo Trino’ but separately. We can
even subscribe to phrases like “the equal ultimacy of the One and
the Three.” Yet what we mean by this is a commitment to hold two
fundamentally incommensurate doctrines of God together. It can even
foster a refusal to let the Threeness of God define the Oneness.
Here the One God is not constituted by the relations of the Three -
Oneness is something else (divine simplicity, aseity etc etc). And
the Three do not find their particular identities in the Oneness
communion. No. Instead Oneness and Threeness remain
unco-ordinated. It’s a tri-unity by forcing One and Three together
not because the ‘tri’ and the ‘unity’ mutually inform one another.
But what
about if we saw things like this…
Here the
Oneness is precisely the mutual relations of the particular
Persons. And these particular Persons find their identity in the
communion that is God’s Oneness. “God’s being is in His
communion” (John Zizioulas). The Three are three in their
Oneness (not considered apart from it). The One is one in the
Threeness (not considered apart from it).
This is truly
a trinity. Here the ‘tri’ and the ‘unity’ are maintained
from precisely the same perspective. Here is a real ‘equal
ultimacy of the One and the Three.’
The
benefits of such a perspective? Many - I hope to blog on many more
in the fulness of time. But for now (since we’re in the middle of a
series on mission) - we see that our doctrine of God, whether considering
‘De Deo Uno’ or ‘De Deo Trino’ is always a doctrine of the interplay of
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is always an investigation of the
economy of salvation in which the Three are disclosed. It is always
‘Gospel’ theology. The God of missions is a Gospel-alone God who is
served in the world by a Gospel-alone mission.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, theological method, trinity
| Tagged Doctrine of
God, theological
method, trinity | No Comments »
18 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Off on holiday now for 9 days. Some frivolity is about to be
posted automatically by the blog. If you want something more
theological to chew on, here’s a few older posts on the trinity issues
that have been coming up recently.
.
God is not revealed in His
Twin
This
should be very obvious, but we easily forget it. Even in the verses
that most directly uphold the full and complete revelation of the Father
in the Son, the differentiation of Father and Son are also
prominently in view:
“Anyone who has seen me
has seen the Father” (John 14:9)
“The Son is the radiance
of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all
things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins,
he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Heb 1:3)
“He is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” (Col 1:15)
“…see the light of the
gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God… For God, who
said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our
hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Christ.” (2 Cor 4:4-6)
The
Father is perfectly revealed, not by His Twin, not by a Clone, but by
Someone who is His Complement. The Father is revealed in His Son,
the Firstborn, His Image, His right-hand Man-Priest. Self-differentiation
is at the heart of God’s revelation. Jesus is not the same as His
Father and yet fully reveals Him. More than this - this difference is of
the essence of the divine self-disclosure. Self-differentiation in
communion is the being of God - all of this is perfectly
revealed in, by and through Jesus of Nazareth.
Now to
say that Jesus is other to His Father is not an Arian position. On
the contrary this is a determination to see Jesus’ revelation as a full
disclosure of the life of God. It was Arius who would leave us
short of full revelation in Jesus. Here we are embracing the
otherness of Father and Son as the very deepest revelation of the divine
nature. It is because of His equality with the Father that
Christ’s otherness must be taken as part and parcel of the divine
revelation. Because Jesus fully reveals the divine life by
speaking of Another, thus He is not obstructing our view of this
Other. Rather the interplay of He and the Other are
constitutive of the divine life which He reveals. Arius is refuted
at the deepest level, and all by heeding this simple truth: God is not
revealed in His Twin but in His Son.
This
should be so obvious and plain and yet so many take their opposition of
Arius in precisely the opposite direction. Their first and fatal
move is to maintain that homo-ousios commits us to three-fold
repetition. They assume Father and Son are identical from the
outset - all in the name of Nicene orthodoxy (of course ignoring ‘God from
God…’). Now when they approach the eating, sleeping, dying, rising
Jesus they must account for these differences while upholding that the
Father and Son possess identical CVs. What to do with the
discrepancies? Simple. Ignore the fact that Nicea pronounced
the homo-ousios on Jesus of Nazareth and instead attribute all
discrepancies to a human nature that is distinct from His divine
nature. The cost of such a move? Immediately, the otherness
of Jesus is not revelatory of the divine nature, in
fact it impedes our view of God. To see Jesus is suddenly not
to see divine life, but merely human. We have in fact lost the one
Image, Word, Representative and Mediator of God. Jesus of
Nazareth has become, to all intents and purposes, homoi-ousios with the
Father. Question marks hover over everything we see in Jesus as to
whether or not we should attribute this to the divine life. We have
returned to Arius’s problem via another route - we are left short of full
revelation in Jesus.
Now if we
took seriously the fact that God is not revealed in His Twin but in His
Son we would be saved from all of this. Christ’s humanity neither commits
us to an eating, sleeping, dying, rising Father, but nor does it distance
us from a true revelation of God. Instead Christ’s eating reveals a
Father who provides in our frailties, His sleeping reveals a Father
who protects in our weakness, His death reveals a living, judging Father,
His resurrection reveals a justifying, reconciling Father. We
see into the very heart-beat of the eternal trinity when we see
Jesus of Nazareth in all His glorious humanity.
And all
because we have remembered the simple adage: God is not revealed in His
Twin, but in His Son!
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, christology, theological method, trinity
| Tagged christology,
Doctrine of God, theological method,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
In response to my Christ in the OT
posts, Pete
Myers posted this. We
then interacted here and here.
I then
posted these ten propositions on Trinity, revelation and the Old
Testament:
.
1. Revelation in Christ is revelation in the
distinct Person of the Divine Mediator
.
2. Our doctrine of God goes awry if we begin
without a conscious acknowledgement of the triune interplay. God’s
attributes are a spin-off of the triune life, not the identical CV of
each Person.
.
3. There is no such thing as pre-supposition-less
exegesis.
.
4. The trinity is not a proposition to be revealed
about the living God. Trinity is not one more truth among other
divine truths. Trinity is who He is and the dynamic by which all
revelation occurs.
.
5. In its own context and on its own terms the OT
must be understood as a dynamic multi-Personal revelation. OT
saints who failed to see this did not ‘partially understand’ the
revelation - they misunderstood it.
.
6. The Angel of the LORD is the pre-incarnate
Christ. His identity as God from God is as clear in the OT as His
incarnate identity is in the New.
.
7. Psalm 45 is a good example of a Scripture
that assumes a multi-Personal doctrine of God even in its own context.
.
8. The administration of Gentile inclusion is not a
‘model’ of progressive revelation. The administration of Gentile
inclusion is the new thing.
.
9. Calvin and Owen believed in divine simplicity.
(I have serious reservations about the doctrine - see here) But they managed to avoid the more dangerous
aspects of it because they insisted upon Christ-mediated
revelation.
.
10. The One is not more ultimate than the
Three. Neither is the immanent something different to what we see
in the economic.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 1 Comment »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
1.
Revelation in Christ is revelation in the distinct Person of the Divine
Mediator
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 2 Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
2.
Our doctrine of God goes awry if we begin without a conscious
acknowledgement of the triune interplay. God’s attributes are a
spin-off of the triune life, not the identical CV of each Person.
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
3.
There is no such thing as pre-supposition-less exegesis.
.
. Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
4.
The trinity is not a proposition to be revealed about the living
God. Trinity is not one more truth among other divine truths.
Trinity is who He is and the dynamic by which all revelation occurs.
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
5.
In its own context and on its own terms the OT must be understood as a
dynamic multi-Personal revelation. OT saints who failed to see this
did not ‘partially understand’ the revelation - they misunderstood it.
See
this post here,
and my next two posts - 5 and 6.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
6.
The Angel of the LORD is the pre-incarnate Christ. His identity as
God from God is as clear in the OT as His incarnate identity is in the
New.
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those fixing
to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
7.
Psalm 45 is a good example of a Scripture that assumes a multi-Personal
doctrine of God even in its own context.
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
8.
The administration of Gentile inclusion is not a ‘model’ of progressive
revelation. The administration of Gentile inclusion is the new thing.
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
9.
Calvin and Owen believed in divine simplicity. (I have serious
reservations about the doctrine - see
here) But they managed to avoid the more
dangerous aspects of it because they insisted upon Christ-mediated
revelation.
Both of
them refused to say ‘Because God is simple any revelation of any aspect
of God’s nature will reveal the Whole.’ The both were crystal clear
that revelation must happen in Christ as eternal Mediator (and be appropriated
knowingly in the Person of the Mediator).
See here for examples
from them both.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
14 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You may know that I (sporadically but vigourously!) bang the drum for
Christ the eternal Mediator being the deliberately revealed,
consciously known object of faith in the Old Testament. Here are some
posts on the issue.
Pete Myers read it and posted this. And our further discussions are here and here.
By way of some kind of response, here are ten
propositions that circle around some of the issues. (Fabricius
eat your heart out).
For those yawning right now, hold on for some grand hilarity next
week - I’m on holidays and will post only frivolity. For those
fixing to flex their theological muscles, remember to play nice.
.
10. The
One is not more ultimate than the Three. Neither is the immanent
something different to what we see in the economic.
.
.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 2 Comments »
11 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Channel 4
screened the first of Make
Me a Christian last night. Haven’t seen it yet. But
here’s one reviewer’s reaction:
The infuriating thing will
be if some of the group think happier lives can only be achieved through
Jesus, rather than, say, empathy and courtesy and not being fat / crying
/ shagging all the time.
btw I’ll
give you one guess which newspaper!
Anyway, here’s
the gist of their gripe: ‘You Christians can have your Jesus, I’ll stick
with my empathy and courtesy.’
First
notice what diminished values they are. Not love and sacrifice -
empathy and courtesy. (Reminds me of a parishioner telling me
we need to preach more ‘tolerance’ from the pulpit. I told him we’d do no
such thing. We would preach what Jesus preached - to love our
enemies and pray for those who persecute us. How ridiculous is the
virtue of ‘tolerance’!)
But
notice most of all the self-righteousness. They haven’t rejected
Jesus in favour of license. They’ve rejected Him in favour of
law. Their own law to be sure, but law nonetheless.
Even the
most ‘lawless’ can actually be seen seeking their own righteousness by
their own power according to their own law. Hitler was a
non-smoking, vegetarian, tee-totaller. He had his own struggle with his
own rules by which he would be righteous.
In this
sense the vast majority of people are legalists. Only the truly
despairing, depressed and suicidal have actually given off the quest for
a righteousness of their own. And note too that such people have
also given off their quest for freedom and happiness. I’m just not
sure that there is a category of licentious people who are not also
legalists. Am I wrong on this?
If not,
what would this mean? Well it should remove from us any desire to
give people God’s law as the proper guide for their self-righteous
instincts! The problem is not merely and not mainly that the law by
which they are seeking to justify themselves is faulty. To justify
themselves by the right law is even worse! The Jew who sought to
justify themselves by God’s law is not less but more culpable in
His sight (Romans 2-3).
The gospel
must be the answer. The gospel is not, ‘Try doing things this
way’. The gospel is ‘It is finished!’ Now that will
humble. That will drive the world down to contrition and brokenness
because our real drive is not an abstract lawlessness but a craving to
establish ourselves, justify ourselves, to make a name. Jesus, in
being our righteousness, strips us of our fig leaves of empathy and
courtesy. Our deepest social, ethical and
environmental concerns are filthy rags. He calls us to
renounce this ‘righteousness’ and be clothed only in Him.
That’s
far more offensive than telling people the right laws by which to
self-justify. I wonder which route the Channel 4 team will
take? I think I can guess.
.
UPDATE:
Read
Marcus’ blog here or Daniel
Blanche - seems like my fears are founded!
.
Posted in culture, gospel
| Tagged culture, gospel | 6 Comments »
9 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Check out
this Bonhoeffer quote. H/T Ben
Myers.
“It is wrong to assume
that on the one hand there is a word, or a truth, and on the other hand
there is a community existing as two separate entities, and that it would
then be the task of the preacher to take this word, to manipulate and
enliven it, in order to bring it within and apply it to the community. Rather,
the Word moves along this path of its own accord. The preacher should and
can do nothing more than be a servant of this movement inherent in the
Word itself, and refrain from placing obstacles in its path.”
—Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship (Bonhoeffer Works
Vol. 4; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), pp. 227-28.
Or as
Barth would say (speaking of the Spirit), the Lord who speaks is the Lord
who hears.
Preachers
are not bridge-builders bravely standing in the hermeneutical gap between
then and now. (How much homiletics depends on exactly this
assumption??) The living word is indeed alive (not just capable of
liveliness!). The Spirit is at work making His word lively,
relevant, applied or whatever other actions the modern preacher is encouraged
to take into their own hands!
.
Posted in preaching, revelation | Tagged preaching, revelation | 2 Comments »
9 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Had to
chuckle at this from Jonny Long’s
Grace4Life webiste:
In case
you can’t quite make it out, it’s
- The Helmet of Pride
- The Sword of the
Tongue
- The Shield of
Defensiveness
- The Belt of
Self-Protection
- The Breastplate of My
Own Righteousness
- The Shoes of Busyness
Which is
your favourite?
Any to
add?
.
Posted in ministry, pastoral theology |
Tagged ministry, pastoral theology
| 2 Comments »
8 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Bobby
writes here about the dangers inherent in confessionalism
I
particularly liked this phrase:
I’m not saying that our
various traditions and confessions aren’t important, but that “our” stake
in those confessions is unimportant.
It’s so
true that we have a stake in our theological positions
and Christian labels. We find identity in the alignments we
make within the body.
This is
what can make Christian blogging so darned nasty at times! Let’s be
honest - there’s a lot of unChristian-ness on Christian blogs.
Why? Well a lot of it is because we’re not just discussing ideas out
there. We have a stake in our positions. We justify
ourselves through our theology. We have bought into our tribe and
our tribal identity. We know where we stand in the world because we
wear the colours… And this bozo over here is flying a different
flag. And it’s so hard to hear what they say because they’re not
dressed up as one of you. It’s easier simply to shout out ”You’re
a blue tribe, I’m a red tribe.” But what has that achieved?
Only to re-inforce our party-spirit, to demonize and to distract our
attention from the actual content of our Christian witness.
Paul
faced exactly this with the Corithians:
“I am of Paul”
“No, no, I am of Apollos” (1 Cor
3:4).
The “I”
is very prominent here. We beat our chests and find strength in our
parties.
And
Paul’s answer?
“You
are Christ’s!” (v23) “And in Him, Paul
and Apollos are yours! (v22).
When you
understand you don’t belong to Christian teachers or factions but to
Christ, there’s a tremendous liberation. I’m not a “red tribe”
man. I belong to Jesus. “The LORD is my banner” (Ex
17:15)
And free
from the need to beat my tribal drum I can see Paul and Apollos and
Cephas for who they are - just servants of Christ. I don’t belong
to them, they belong to me. Everything they say is mine in
Christ. All their good stuff doesn’t belong to them, it belong
to Christ and in Christ it’s mine.
We don’t
have a stake in our theological positions. We belong only to
Jesus. Every other position belongs to us.
21 So then, no more
boasting about men! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or
Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are
yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. (1 Cor
3:21-23)
Here’s
a sermon of mine on exactly this point: 1 Corinthians 3
.
Posted in other blogs, pastoral theology, sermons,
theological debate |
Tagged sermons, other blogs, pastoral theology,
theological debate
| 1
Comment »
7 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
How
should we respond to sin in our lives?
One
response is to think ‘Come on Glen, I’m better than that.’
Another
is to think ‘Come on Glen, Christ is better than that.’
The first
may produce a very moral life. But the devil is more than happy to
concede to you a Christ-less morality. Self-righteousness is a far
muddier swamp than unrighteous living. I am not better than my
sin. I am not even better than the foulest evil I’ve imagined.
Instead,
when I sin I am revealed as the person I’ve always been. Psalm 51:5
has often struck me. Here is David with blood on his hands.
Yet his confession is that the man who committed adultery and murder is
the man he had always been.
We think
when we’ve sinned that it was just a blot on our otherwise acceptable
record. The word of God says our sins simply express the person we
have always been (Matt 7:17f). My gross sins are not ‘out of character’ -
they are me with the hand-brake off.
No sin
can shock me. Not my own, nor the sins of my brothers and sisters
who confess to me. If the blood of God was shed for my sin
(Acts 20:28) - then my sin is infinitely heinous. No, I’m not
better than sin. But Christ is.
This is
true in two senses.
First
it’s true in the sense that Christ is more desirable than sin. In
the wilderness of temptations, Satan can only offer me a bucket of
salt. Christ always stands before me with living waters (John 4:10;
7:38; Rev 7:17). The father of lies tells me life is found in
this sin. Jesus tells me it’s a broken cistern that can hold no
water. Only His waters are truly life-giving. (Jer 2:12-13) I
forsake even my precious sins because I have learnt that Jesus is more
desirable.
But
Christ is better than sin in another, much more important, sense. For He is
the good person that I fail to be. He is the reality that
stands before the holy Father - not my sin.
My sin,
though it clings to my bones and sinks to the depths of my heart, does
not define me, Christ does. When the Father looks to find me, He
does not look in the record that stands against me (Ps 130:3; Col
2:14). He looks to His Beloved Son and finds me
hidden there.
Which
means even as the diseased tree of my flesh produces in me the very worst
fruit, Christ is my Plea, my Status, my Righteousness. Even as the
chief of sinners, even in the act of my worst rebellion, Christ - the One
who is infinitely better - defines me and not my sin.
So Christ
is better in both these senses. But - and here’s where this
post has been heading - without being utterly convinced of
this latter sense, the former sense could easily lead to a Pharasaism not
unlike the ‘I am better than sin’ response.
How so?
Well if I
respond to sin simply by saying ‘Jesus is more desirable’ it
basically throws me back on myself. I am left with my own heart and
its ability to desire Jesus. The work of annihilating sin becomes
simply my work of destroying my heart idols. The work of
liberation is simply the work of my affections desiring Christ with
sufficient ardour. Where is the locus of this redemption? Me.
Now do my
heart-idols need crucifying? Yes. Do I need Christ uppermost
in my affections? Yes. But by golly, if I found it hard to
reform my outward behaviour - how hard is it going to be to reform my
inner world??! Impossible.
So, you
say, that’s why we need the gracious work of the Spirit and diligently to
employ the means of grace, etc, etc. Well… there’s a time and a
place for that. But let’s think. If that’s our bottom
line, doesn’t it sound exactly like the Catholic view of grace?
”It’s all of grace” says the Catholic ”… supernatural, infused
grace worked in us, with which we cooperate, making us better and better
over time.” Doesn’t that sound very similar to “We fight sin by
enflaming our affections for Christ - flames stoked by the Spirit via His
means of grace”?
It’s not
that there’s no place for the ‘Christ is more desirable’ approach.
It’s that we must recognize it’s true place - i.e. after we’re assured of
the extrinsic work of Christ. “Grace” is not basically a
supernatural empowerment to work at my salvation or to enflame my
Christian affections. “Grace” is the work of Christ alone
on behalf of sinners who contribute nothing. (This is similar
to the points I made here
- grace is not so much the bread David provides as the victory David wins).
Therefore
my first reponse to sin is this - even in the very midst of sin, Jesus
has been carrying me on His heart before the Father. Even ensnared
in the darkest selfishness, the Spirit has been calling ‘Abba’ from
within me. Even as my heart desired worthless idols, the Father
loved me even as He loves Christ.
This is
the truth that really changes us. It reveals to us that not even
our sin can separate us from the love of God in Christ. We realize
again that our darkness is not a locked basement to the Lord. Even
our self-willed rebellion cannot remove us from His embrace. We sin
in His face - this drives us down in contrition. And at the same
time He is lifting us up to the Father.
The truth
that really changes us is that our lives are not our own. Jesus has
taken possession of us in spite of ourselves and wills to do us eternal
good. The Spirit of sonship is already praying ‘Abba’ in you.
The affections you are so keen to enflame are already ablaze - and that,
even as you quench Him!
Now surrender.
Now be conquered. Now receive what is entirely beyond
you. And see if you don’t love Him with renewed and supernatural
vigour! But don’t begin with your heart for Christ. Begin
with His heart for you.
We
love because He first loved us. 1 John 4:19
.
Posted in ethics, pastoral theology, sin
| Tagged ethics, sin, pastoral theology
| 6 Comments »
6 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I know
what you’re thinking. You’re thinking ‘Where’s Glen been the last
few days? Why has he abandoned us? For where else can we go
to find such pithy and incisive theological tid-bits??’
Where
else indeed dear reader!?
Unless of
course you’ve been reading here
and here
where I’ve been responding to some thoughtful critiques of my Christ in the OT
views. Watch these spaces for responses to the responses.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, other blogs, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, other
blogs, trinity | No Comments »
4 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’m preaching through Jonah this August. Every
service is all-age so I’ve dredged up a song I wrote a couple of years
ago. Here’s how it sounds (click here for a
rough recording). And here are the words - the kids sing
(shout!) all the bolded words:
.
Verse 1:
God said ‘GO – to Nineveh
All those baddies I want to win-over.’
Jonah said ‘NO – not Nineveh
All those people are terrible sin-lovers.’
God said ‘GO!’
Jonah said ‘NO!’
The storm went BLOW
Jonah said ‘THROW!’
And down he GO!
Into the Depths of the
Sea!
Verse 2:
God said GO – to a giant fish
Save my prophet before he gets smelly
The fish said OH what a lovely dish
Swallowed him whole so he lived in his belly
God said GO!
The fish swam LOW
Through the FLOW
Jonah said WHOAH!
And down he GO!
Into the belly of the
fish!
Verse 3:
Jonah said OH – what a mess
I’ve done things my way I must confess
I’m so LOW – I could die
But even now God hears my cry
Jonah said ‘OH
You’ve brought me LOW
I’m sorry SO
Save my SOUL.’
And up he GO
Spat up onto the beach.
Verse 4:
God said ‘GO – once again
Nineveh needs your word to repent.’
Jonah said ‘OH – alright
I’ll tell them there’s Woe if they don’t get it right.’
So Jonah said WOE,
Cos God says ‘NO’
The people went ‘OH!
We’re sorry SO
Save our SOUL!’
And God saved every one!
Verse 5:
Jonah said ‘NO – I guessed
God would have mercy if they confessed.
‘God’s so SLOW to judge
He loves to forgive, never bears a grudge.’
God said ‘GO!’
Jonah said ‘NO!’
But God changed ROLE
He washed their SOUL
Whiter than SNOW
Cos God’s the best
preacher of all!
Posted in Old Testament, creative | Tagged creative, Old Testament | 2 Comments »
2 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Dave K has asked some
excellent questions of my
last post on this issue. Here they are in full.
Afterwards is my attempt to address them.
I’ve been musing on this
post over the last day. This is what I have been wondering:
This is clearly right, in
many passages NT writers read Jesus in OT passages saying YHWH, as well
as ascribing him the same attributes, relationships etc as YHWH in the
OT.
But how do you deal with
the psalm in which David says ‘The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right
hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’? The NT writers here
interpret ‘my lord’ to be Christ and, at least in Heb 1, ‘the LORD’ as
‘God’. In a way I expect you would draw on what you say that ‘there is
more than one Person called LORD’. But is there a danger here that we
flatten the relationship between the two persons and lose the clear
emphasis of the bible that Jesus receives his authority from the
Father. So while he is never called the Son of the LORD, he is called the
Son of God.
Also I wonder if there how
you would demonstrate that in the OT ‘most often “Lord” refers to the
Son’. To me it seems that this is far from clear, and while it is clear
that ‘more than one Person called LORD’ in the OT, it is not so clear
that you can always confidently identify which person is being referred
to. In fact, often it seems that the Trinity and one person of the
Trinity is in view.
Thirdly, how confident can
we be that NT references to Jesus as lord are primarily about identifying
with YHWH, and not the Davidic messiah? Both are obviously in view but,
again, it is a lot more murky to me than you I think.
Dave
…nervous that his
attachment to the murkiness is diluting Jesus’ claims, but still
struggling with the revelation of the Trinity in the OT.
Let me begin
by trying to say a bit better what I said quite obscurely in my last
post.
To say
“Jesus is the Son of the God of the Old Testament” is technically
true. The Father (and the Spirit) were equally active in the OT
and, just as in the NT, Jesus has always been Son of God Most High.
However it must give us pause for thought that Jesus is never
called “Son of the LORD.” Instead He is consistently called
LORD. I believe that Jesus and the Apostles are telling us not
simply that “Jesus is ontologically equal to the God of Israel” but that
“Jesus is and always has been the God of Israel.” ie not just
“Jesus has the same status, dignity and attributes as Yahweh” but that
“He is and always has been Yahweh. Here is the One who brought the
Israelites out of Egypt etc” (cf Jude 4,5)
Some
further thoughts in no particular order:
- There could be a
number of reasons why NT says Jesus is the referent of OT passages
saying YHWH.
1) The second Person of the trinity was not the original referent but He
is equal to the original referent (”"God”") and so deserves the
title.
2) The second Person of the trinity was the original referent.
I
go for number 2) because:
A) I find
the second solution much more straightforward (to be honest I find the
first solution really quite strange.)
B) I
think the pre-existence of Jesus is not just a ‘being’ issue but a
‘doing’ issue. John 5 says Jesus has been working from the
beginning with His Father. I just find it odd to say the Father was
the hero of the OT while Jesus only becomes the hero in the second
half. I’m not sure that takes His pre-existence (and equal deity)
seriously enough as an equality of doing as well as being.
C) I see
number 2 taught in places like like Hebrews 1 (”About the Son He says…”)
Basically
I think that either 1) or 2) could, once assumed, account for the NT data
but that actually 2) is taught. I can’t think of where 1) is
taught.
| 
