|
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.
- The equation of
“Jesus is Kurios” as “Jesus is YHWH” seems to me the most obvious
meaning if we simply let the bible interpret the bible. (I
don’t know about you but I get frustrated when commentators
immediately go to Caeser Kurios as the equivalent of Jesus is
Lord. As though the Roman Empire is a more important
interpretive context than the OT!?)
Certainly,
as you note, the NT cites OT references to YHWH and applies them straight
to Christ. I think the ‘I AM’ statements also function as
straightforward claims to being YHWH (see esp John 8:56-58).
To say
that ‘Lord’ could simply refer to the ‘Davidic Messiah’ begs the
question about how the Israelites were to understand the High Priest at
God’s right hand (see the points below). Certainly people like
Philo called him the ‘deuteros theos’ - the second God! And Jesus
considered the Adonai of Ps 110 to be a far more exalted title than
Davidic King (Mk 12:35-37).
At the
end of the day I think that a person reading the Septuagint would get a
pretty good idea of what kurios meant (6818 times YHWH!) When they
turned to the Gospels they would be introduced to John the Baptist who
prepared the way for the LORD (ho kurios) who was this man called
Jesus. And as they kept reading they’d see ho kurios now eating at
a Pharisee’s house (Luke 11:39) etc etc. And on they’d
go. I propose that if they were reading it according to its natural
sense they would simply exclaim: “The Lord God of Israel is among us”
- As for how to prove
that “Lord” refers predominantly to the Son, I’d say, first of
all, that’s virtually undisputed when it comes to NT. But
I also think the NT teaches a similar expectation for reading the
OT. When 1 Cor 8:6 says “for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” OT
usage (esp Deut 6:4) is almost certainly in view.
But I
suppose you’re only likely to be persuaded that LORD is mostly used of
the Son in the OT if you agree with my take on Christ in the OT.
Basically I’d say that the One Word and Image of God Most High has been
the eternal Mediator of all the Father’s business (John 1:18). He
is the One walking in the garden, the One who appears to Abraham, who
wrestles with Jacob, who brings Israel out of Egypt etc etc. It takes
70 chapters of the bible before we are brought to the Unseen LORD on
Sinai, yet we have been led by the Appearing LORD throughout. It is
He who has been revealing the divine name to us, even as this name has
been given Him by the Father (Ex 23:21). Given that this
is just the same dynamic as the NT then in both testaments
my default supposition is that ‘Lord’ refers to the Son unless proved
otherwise. Following this pattern, there’s many passages that I’m
confused about in the OT. But there’s also a few in the New
too. (What’s going on in 2 Cor 3:16-18??)
- I hear you on not
flattening the distinctions between Persons! I’m the last
person to want to do that! And the truth that Jesus is fully
divine in His obedience to / dependence upon the Father is
a glorious truth (with much gospel comfort actually - maybe that’s
for another post).
But
I also think that this truth is as much an OT as a NT truth.
So, it’s as
the Angel sent from the LORD (Ex 3:2) that He is the great I AM
(v14) who will bring people to God (v12)
It’s as
the Most Excellent of Men that the Bridegroom Warrior is anointed
King by God, His God (Psalm 45:6-7)
It’s as
the Priest at God’s right hand that He is Lord. (Psalm 110)
So I
affirm absolutely that His deity includes and is expressed in His
dependence and difference from the Father. I would add that this is
the OT’s teaching as much as the New. And I also affirm that it’s
technically true that Jesus is Son of the LORD who is the Father (since
all three Persons can take that name). But the real issue is
whether the Sent One of the Gospels is claiming to be the Sent
One of the Torah. This is my claim.
Jesus is
the LORD who remembers meeting Abraham (John 8:56-58), who led
Israel out of Egypt (Jude 4,5) and who appeared to Isaiah (John
12:40,41). He’s not simply closely related to the
God of Israel. He is the God of Israel. And there’s no better
way for the NT to affirm that than to simply say Jesus is LORD.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, hermeneutics | Tagged christology, covenant continuity,
Doctrine of God, hermeneutics, Old Testament | 7
Comments »
1 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
No other
preacher has had a bigger impact on me. Not only theologically but
also in terms of what preaching actually is.
The
sermon invariably begins ‘In the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ The
preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.
Immediately
he states the passage. It’s the Scriptures that define the event.
The
conclusion is always “Therefore to God the Father, God the Son and God
the Holy Spirit be ascribed all the glory, all the power, all the
majesty, all the honour, all the praise and all our love, now and
forever, Amen.” The whole thing is worship.
In
between, the content is exposition (most often verse by verse) and the manner
is strongly declarative, strongly devotional and strongly Christ
focused. Perhaps most refreshing of all, the over-riding tone
of the sermon is a child-like enthusiasm for Christ and the Scriptures
that is far removed from the
world-weariness of many military-briefing-style preachers.
I’ve
linked to some of my favourite Blackham sermons on my new “Other Sermons”
page. (It’s a tab at the top). I’ve also put “My sermons” on a
page, but do yourself a favour and work your way through these other
sermons - awesome stuff.
.
Sermons
from All Souls, Langham Place
Sermons from
Tarleton Farm Fellowship
Some
Favourite sermons:
Genesis
3:1-15
“What
of those who have never heard?” Colossians 1:15-23
“Why
isn’t good good enough?” Philippians 3:1-11
Luke
7:11-16
Daniel
3
2
Peter 3:11-18
Ephesians
3:14-21
Ephesians
6:10-24
Other
talks and lectures:
“Faith
in Christ in the Old Testament”
Five
talks on the Cross
.
Posted in preaching, sermons
| Tagged preaching, sermons | 3 Comments
»
1 August, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Just a
brief point about my recent posts on the tribal deity of Israel (here,
here
and here).
In those
posts I assumed that the LORD of the burning bush was the very One
who became incarnate of the virgin Mary. Just to say,
that wasn’t sloppy grammar or fuzzy thinking (I don’t think!).
To many of you the point is obvious but I’ve read enough biblical
theology around the place to know that other views abound. So often
you hear things like: “Jesus is the Son of the one the OT calls
Yahweh.” Now in one sense that is true. In the OT, the Father
often goes by the name of Yahweh, just as in the NT He often goes by the
name Lord. But most often ‘Lord’ refers to the Son - this is true
in both testaments.
Jesus’
claim, and the claim of the NT, is that He is Yahweh (in
Greek ‘kurios’), the God of Abraham, the God of the burning bush (e.g.
John 8:56-58). Now the God of the burning bush is the
Sent One from Yahweh (’The Angel of the LORD’ Ex 3:2) and so clearly
there is more than one Person called LORD. But Jesus, the
Sent One of the Father, claims to be the One who calls Himself I
AM.
Nowhere is Jesus ever
called the Son of the Lord. Everywhere Jesus is
called the Lord.
I just
mention this because it seems to me that many, wittingly or unwittingly,
dilute the claims of Jesus in the Gospels. But we must be aware of
how radical Jesus’ claims are - He’s not simply saying ‘I am the Son of
the God of the Old Testament.’ He’s saying ‘I am the God of the Old
Testament.’ The implications are many but I said I’d be brief, so
there you are.
For more
see Christ in
OT.
.
Posted in Old Testament, christology, theological method |
Tagged christology, Old Testament, theological method
| 6 Comments »
30 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Tim VB put me onto this 9 week course
about Gospel Centred Living
which is freely available here. It looks great. They draw
on material from World Harvest Mission - their Gospel Tranformation
and Sonship courses.
To give you a flavour of these, here is the blurb about the Sonship
course:
Sonship: Live the theology
you believe!
Many of us understand the
faith intellectually, but our hearts have not quite kept up with our
heads. Sonship is designed to help you take some of the
glorious theological truths of the gospel - truths that you may know in
your head - and apply them to the nitty gritty reality of daily life.
You’ll find that as the
gospel re-makes you, there is greater joy and desire to share the
wonderful news of God’s lovingkindness with others.
I have to
say I’ve been very impressed by what I’ve seen so far.
One thing
that struck me was this testimony found
here in the Sonship course. It illustrates brilliantly a truth
I’ll remark on at the end:
One day when I was very
young, I saw my older sister hanging up my father’s white business shirts
on the clothesline to dry. I was suddenly filled with the urge to hang up
one of my daddy’s white shirts. He was my daddy too, and I was his
daughter; I loved him in my childlike way and wanted to express it. I couldn’t
reach the clothesline-it was too high, but I saw a wheel barrow in the
yard and its handles were just the right height for me. I didn’t notice
how rusty it was and I rather joyfully clothes pinned the wet shirt to
the handles.
When my dad got home and saw
the shirt on the wheelbarrow, he became very angry with me and punished
me severely for ruining his shirt. I had not realized the impact that
event and others like it had made on me. However, as I was repeatedly
convicted during the Sonship conference for not believing God concerning
his delight in me and in the gracious nature of my relationship with him,
this memory returned to me. Now, you cannot hardly get through 24 hours
of a Sonship conference without realizing that your own heart is as
murderous as anyone else’s-so I wasn’t primarily focusing on only being
the innocent victim of my father’s cruel anger.
As I remembered these
scenes from the past, I saw that through the years I had not been
believing that my Father in heaven was any different than my earthly
father. I had not been listening when he described himself. In short, I
hadn’t been believing the gospel, that by faith in Christ and his perfect
atoning sacrifice, he now loves me, and is forever for me and delighted
in me. In Christ, he has made me beautiful and pleasing to him forever.
So the next morning I told
our counselor that I thought I was beginning to understand. I told him
the memory and said that I guess if the Father saw me standing next to
the wheelbarrow with the ruined shirt on it, he would forget the shirt
and hug me. “You still don’t understand fully,” Jeff said. “God would not
overlook the shirt, but take it, put it on, and wear it to work. And when
someone commented on the rust marks, he would say, ‘Let me tell you about
my little girl and how much she loves me.’” I was overwhelmed with that
realization.
What a
brilliant picture of the gospel! Not just overlooking the shirt -
wearing the shirt and celebrating his daughter!
Often we
think of the gospel as God overlooking our sin, tolerating our presence
and simply relenting from judgement. We are left in the law court,
the not-guilty verdict is passed and we’re just relieved to have avoided
hell. But can such a gospel change our hearts? Somewhat, I’m
sure.
But the
good news is not that God allows us to live in the suburbs of His
presence. We are adopted, indwelt, sung over, glorified, rejoiced
in. Letting the Father love us in Christ is the kind of
‘overwhelming’ that truly changes.
.
Posted in gospel, grace,
pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology, gospel, grace | 4 Comments »
30 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
We’ve
been considering the logic of the OT arguments for the true God.
The argument is not: Think about who the true God is - the true God is
actually Yahweh. The argument is: Think about Yahweh (encounter
Him, see Him at work, trust Him) - Yahweh is the true God.
The former
argument assumes we know who the true God is and then gets us to re-shape
our view of Yahweh around that. The latter argument invites us into
relationship with the tribal deity of Israel and then makes us re-shape
our views of the true God around Him.
Of course
the scandal of identifying Israel’s tribal deity as the true God is
ratcheted up several million notches with the incarnation. It’s not
just that the God of Abraham is the living God, it’s that the Seed
of Abraham is the living God! Yahweh shows up among us as an
itinerant Nazarene Rabbi. He is not just God in a concrete
relation, He is God as a concrete human. Not only the God of Israel
but an Israelite. Nonetheless His claim is not diminished - this Jewish
man, born of Mary is the LORD of Israel.
And again
His identity as the LORD is seen in His concrete work of redemption.
“When you have lifted up
the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM.” (John 8:28)
How is
the true God known? Look to this particular, historical
event. Look at this act of infinitely costly service for my
people. Look to my redemption.
Yet how
often in evangelism do we do things the other way around? We either
assume that people know ‘God’ in the abstract or we actively try to prove
to them some kind of ‘God’ in the abstract (the First Cause, the Moral
Legislator, the Fine-Tuning Creator). And then we try to
say to them, “Jesus is actually this abstract ‘God’.” To which
people usually frown, cock their head and set about doing the mental
gymnastics required to squish the Son of Man into this pre-fab
abstract-deity mould.
How many
testimonies run along the lines of, “I always knew God and then the
preacher convinced me that Jesus fitted the bill of the
God-I-had-always-known.” When this happens both ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’
are going to get majorly distorted.
Let’s
instead resolve to tell people, “Whatever you thought God was like, allow
the LORD of Israel, the Son of God, to recalibrate all God-thoughts.”
As Lord
Byron once said, “If God isn’t like Jesus, He ought to be.” That’s
exactly right - that’s the logic of the bible: Jesus must shape all
God-thoughts. Our ‘God’ must be determined entirely by what we meet
in the pre-incarnate LORD and the incarnate, crucified and risen Son of
Man.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, theological method |
Tagged Doctrine of
God, Old Testament,
theological method
| 1 Comment »
28 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Where is
the decisive revelation of the name of Israel’s tribal deity? Mount
Sinai:
12 [The Angel of the LORD]
said, “But I WILL BE with you, and this shall be the sign for you,
that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you
shall serve God on this mountain.” 13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come
to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has
sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to
them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE”. And He said,
“Say this to the people of Israel, “I WILL BE” has sent me to you.’” 15
God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the
God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be
remembered throughout all generations. (Exodus 3:12-15)
Some
observations:
1. The
name Yahweh is taken by many scholars to be the nominal form of the first
person verb “I WILL BE”. (i.e. Yahweh is what we call Him,
“I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE” is what He says about Himself). Thus
the burning bush represents His own unpacking of the name of Yahweh.
2. This
unpacking of His own name is not His handing over to us of some
interpretive maxim by which we can understand Him. Emphatically it
is the LORD holding onto His own prerogative to self-disclose.
The possibility for knowing the LORD is not delivered over to man - He
holds onto it forever. He will always be the One to intepret
Himself. We must continually come to Him for knowledge of
Him.
3. The
future tense is probably the better translation of what’s usually
rendered “I AM” - it’s exactly the same Hebrew as v12 “I will be with
you…” It’s therefore not a static thing. It’s not basically
the claim to be self-existent, it’s something much more dynamic.
4. It’s
ironic that people use the ‘I AM’ as itself a proof-text for presupposing
their own classical attributes of God (like His aseity or
whatever). The whole point of this name is that He defines who
He is in contrast to every human definition - even (and
especially!) the most philosophically sophisticated. “I will be Who
I will be - not who you say I am.”
5. We
must never forget the context of His self-identification - decisive
historical action. Involvement. Redemption. Exodus. He
will be who He will be in salvation. He drops His name
into conversation first in verse 12 and it’s in the form of a
promise: “I will be with you.“ And He follows
verse 14 with the reassurance that He, the LORD, is the God of your
fathers - the tribal deity of Israel.
All in
all, Yahweh’s declaration that He is the great I AM is not the
same as Him claiming to be Unoriginate. For some the “I AM” is
equivalent to some divine attribute of self-existence, as though it’s the
Hebrew form of “I am the Ground of all Being.” It is not
as though the philosopher who has thought of the unmoved Mover has
thought of Yahweh. Not at all. The I AM is met only
as the Redeemer of His particular people. He is met in
the context of promise, in the context of covenant. He is met
as the tribal deity of Israel - in this way He proves His
unassailable right to define Himself.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, theological method |
Tagged Doctrine of
God, Old Testament,
theological method
| No Comments »
25 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
This week
I was reading Jeremiah 10 on the difference between Yahweh and
idols. It struck me that the prophet doesn’t argue the way we often
do. We usually say ‘There are idols that are tribal deities of the
nations, but the living God is not like that. The living God is the
uncreated Creator. (Oh and the uncreated Creator happens to be
Yahweh).’
Jeremiah
does something different. He certainly plays up the worthlessness
of the foreign idols (v1-9). But then he says:
But Yahweh is the true
God; He is the living God, the eternal King.
Note that
his argument is not “the true God is Yahweh.” Rather he argues
“Yahweh is the true God.” In other words he doesn’t assume some
notion of deity and then says Yahweh fits the bill. Instead he
says, in effect, “You know the tribal deity of Israel? The One from
the burning bush? He’s the true God.”
He does
it again in verse 16. After continuing the worthlessness-of-idols
theme, Jeremiah says:
He who is the Portion of
Jacob is not like these, for He is the Maker of all things, including
Israel, the tribe of His inheritance–the LORD Almighty (Yahweh
Sebaoth) is His name.
Note the
particularity of this statement. The tribe of Jacob will inherit
their God called Yahweh Sebaoth, and He in turn will inherit them.
This tribal deity who is strongly (and it seems exclusively!) linked to
his particular people - He is the Maker of all things.
Interesting!
Think of
how He definitively reveals His name to Moses at Sinai. The Angel
says to Moses “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob. At this Moses hid his face,
because he was afraid to look at God.” (Ex 3:6). If we were writing
Exodus 3 we’d have Moses hiding his face because the LORD says, “I am God
the Unoriginate, the Infinite, the Transcendent and Immense.
But no, the LORD says “I am your people’s God, your dad’s
God, the God of that guy Abraham and his family.” The living God is
made known as the tribal deity of Israel. He is revealed in His
covenant approaches towards particular people in concrete historical
situations. And from within that particular frame - as Jacob’s
Portion - He reveals Himself to be the true and living God.
So often
we conceive of the direction of argument as this:
“You know
God ?? Well that tribal deity Yahweh is actually
God.”
Instead
it’s:
“You know
that tribal deity Yahweh? Well He’s God.”
The
former argument forces Yahweh into a procrustean bed.
The latter argument makes us reconfigure everything we thought we knew
about ‘God’ since we’ve met Him as the covenant-LORD.
I’ll look
at some implications of this next time…
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, theological method |
Tagged Doctrine of
God, Old Testament,
theological method
| 5 Comments »
23 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I was
once in a preaching seminar with 15 other young guns. We were being
taught by someone you might call a living legend. One session
I remember was on how to preach Romans 3:21-30. The point came when
the living legend asked us what we thought the application should
be. Now aside from my various misgivings about application I reasoned to
myself that if an application was there in the passage it was probably
worth flagging that up. I looked down and sure enough I saw what I
thought was a pretty clear “”application”" of Paul’s teaching:
Where then is
boasting? It is excluded. (v27)
So I
stuck up my hand and suggested that the application might be
humility. More particularly it seemed that, since Christ had
taken the work of salvation entirely into His own hands (and out of
ours), we ought gladly to shut up about ourselves, our morality, etc
etc.
“Wrong!”
said the preacher. “The application should be ‘Repent!’”
“Oh”, I
said. “Why?”
I
immediately regretted asking ‘why.’ Dagnammit we’re evangelicals,
we’re supposed to preach repentance, it’s union rules. Besides, I
don’t want to appear soft in front of the 15 other young guns and
this living legend! The living legend was more than a little irked
by my question and replied: “Because, dear boy, verse 23 says all have
sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Sin is the problem,
therefore I would have thought that repentance would be a very good
idea!!”
Those who
know me may be surprised to learn that I didn’t answer back to this
one. Oh I wanted to. How I did want to! But judging by
the alarm in the preacher’s voice and the mood of the room it felt wise
not to imperil my standing any further among such sound folk.
But
sometimes I fantasize about what would have happened if I’d said what I
really thought. The fantasy goes something like this:
I stand
slowly, deliberately, with all the solemnity of the lone,
faithful prophet. All eyes are upon me as I bellow with
righteous ardour:
“Sin is not the
problem! S i n i s n o
t t h e p r o b l e m !!!“
All hell
breaks loose. Outrage. Pained howls. Torn garments.
Hurled stones. I am immovable in the midst of the storm.
“… Sin is
not the problem… God’s wrath at sin is the
problem! No… better… God’s wrath at us
in our sin - that’s the problem!”
At once
they are felled by Truth as by lightning. Cut to the heart, the
stones drop to the floor first, then the men. One by one they slump
to the ground, the hand of the LORD heavy upon them. In breathless
awe they ask: “Brave herald, what is this teaching you bring us? It
resounds from the very heights of Zion against our presumption and
folly.”
Sporting
a fresh cut across my chiselled jawline, I am otherwise unruffled.
Ever magnanimous I continue:
“Dear
friends” (the dust in the air has now leant a husky tone to my rich,
commanding voice). ”Dear friends, let us not define our predicament
so anthropocentrically.”
I leave
this dread word hanging in the air. The mere mention of
‘anthropocentric’ elicits groans from the already contrite
gathering. Here was their shibboleth used against them. It
stung. Yet they could not deny that they were indeed guilty of
this greatest of liberalisms.
“I
commend you friends…” They look up nervously - could there yet be
grace for them? “…While many have merely scratched the itch of the
modern age, you have refused to pander to felt needs. You have proclaimed
the problem of sin and for this I commend you.” I pause. “And
yet… and yet… you have defined the problem so poorly, so slightly.
You have defined the problem from below. If we define the problem as
something lying in our hands then aren’t we at least suggesting that the
solution is in our hands? But in fact the problem is above
us - just as the solution is. The problem is not fundamentally
our sin, the problem is the Lord’s wrath upon us.”
“What’s
the difference?!” cries out one of the younger preachers, “Our sin, God’s
wrath, it’s all the same…” He is hushed by the living legend who
slowly shakes his head. It is clear now how wrong he has
been.
He
stands, still shaking his head, unable to look at me or the others. Eventually
he speaks, “Glen’s right. He’s always been right!” The living
legend looks like he’s been hung from the ceiling on meat hooks. As
though in great pain he exclaims, “You must understand… We faced
such terrible dangers in preaching. We still face such
dangers. I wanted, we all wanted, to resist the
me-centred pulpit. I was so sick of hearing about ‘filling the
Jesus-shaped hole in your life’. I couldn’t stand the invitations
to ‘let Jesus into the passenger seat of your life’. I wanted people
to turn. I still want people to turn.”
I put a
re-assuring hand on his shoulder. He meets my eye for the first time and
continues. “I just thought, if we can show them that ‘fulfilment’
isn’t the issue - that sin is the issue, well then maybe they’d
come to their senses. Maybe they’d see their errors and turn from
them.” I give a look to the living legend, he nods, “I know, I
know, that’s the problem.”
“What’s
the problem?” asks one of the young guns.
The
living legend sighs deeply and turns to the others. ”It puts
the focus on us. If we just preach sin and repentance the whole
focus is on us.”
“It’s
anthropocentric” mutters a young gun, latching onto his favourite
word. He looks around to see if anyone else has noticed his
firm grasp of the issues.
“I don’t
get it” pipes up another, “I thought sin and repentance was
God-centred preaching? Isn’t that what you taught us??”
The
living legend is speechless. I break the silence. Crouching
down to their level, I ask, “If we simply preach sin and repentance how
exactly is God at the centre? He may well be over and above our
conceptions of sin and repentance - but how is He in the middle? In
such a sermon isn’t God actually on the periphery? He’s hardly
the principal Actor!” At this stage the one who muttered
‘anthropocentric’ is nodding in the way failed quiz show contestants nod
when they’re told the right answer.
I go on,
“It’s like our passage from Romans 3. Sin is certainly there!
Sin is certainly a problem. I mean we’ve been told from verse 9
that all are under sin. And we’ve been told in verse 20 that
observing the law will never get us out from under this condition.
But given that this is the case, wouldn’t it be strange if Paul then told
us that ‘repentance’ was this new work that was better than the old
Mosaic works? Actually Paul doesn’t mention any of our works in
this passage, not our obedience, not our repentance. No, what does
Paul point us to? Verse 25, the blood of Jesus - a propitiation for
our sins. Now we all know what propitiation means right?”
Young
noddy blurts out “A sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath!!” I
gesture with my hands, trying to calm his wild-eyed enthusiasm.
“Ok, yes.
Well done. It turns away God’s wrath. Because that’s the real
problem. The problem is, chapter 1 verse 18, the wrath of God is
being revealed from heaven against us. It will culminate in,
chapter 2 verse 5, a day of wrath. And Paul is at pains to say
we all deserve it, we are all unrighteous and there’s nothing
moral and nothing religious we can do to turn aside this
wrath. We are helpless. BUT, a righteousness beyond us has
come. And He is the sacrifice who turns away
God’s wrath. Through His redemption we are justified
freely. That’s the gospel. That’s what we preach.
And who is at the centre of this story? Not us. Him.”
“So we
shouldn’t preach sin and repentance?” asks another.
“Of
course we should. But those are comprehended within a much
more profound perspective. Wrath and redemption are the deeper
truths. You know I’ll bet that all the sermons you hear are
about committed sin and sanctification? You know
the kind. ‘God says: Don’t do X, we all do it, let’s ask His help
to stop.’ Where are the sermons that major on original sin
and justification? Why don’t we plunge them to the depths
and then take them to the heights? Why all this middle of the road
stuff that puts us at the centre?”
A couple
of young guns knowingly mouthe ‘anthropocentric’ to one another.
I
continue “Take Islam. It’s a classic religion of repentance.
God remains far above, it’s down to us to clean up our act. In fact
all human religion is man justifying man before a watching god. But
the Gospel is God justifying God before a watching humanity. He
takes centre-stage and we need to move off into the audience to watch Him
work salvation for us. Christianity is not a religion of
repentance, it’s a religion of redemption. And that’s quite a
difference don’t you see?”
As I
speak, the young guns have been picking themselves off the floor one by
one. The room has been won to the side of Truth. I look
upon them with fatherly benevolence.
“So now
friends - now that you know these things: What would be a good
application of Romans 3?”
In unison
they reply “Humility!” And for a moment all is right with the
world.
Until,
that is, the harmony is shattered. One of the young guns, no doubt
provoked by my impossible smugness, speaks up:
“Hey, if
humility is so important, how come you’re so proud?”
The mood
of the room takes a decisive turn. Another piles in “And
how come you’ve been dreaming us up for the last 10 minutes to feed your
ego.” Here’s where the fantasy turns pretty nasty.
“What
kind of egotist spends his time winning theological debates in his
head??”
“Yeah,
debates he never actually won in the real world!”
Another
pipes up: “I think I know ‘Where then is boasting?’ - he’s rstanding in
the middle of the room!!”
At this
point the fantasy is basically unsalvagable. So then, I hate to do
it, but sometimes you just have to pull rank.
“Quiet
all of you! This is my fantasy. Either you submit
adoringly to my theological genius or you can get out now.”
Faced
with those options they instantly choose non-existence. One by one
they vanish, though somehow their looks of betrayal and disgust seem to
linger on.
“You’ll
be back” I say to the departed phantasms. “Pretty soon I’ll need to
feel right about something else and you’ll be right back in my
imagination, bowing to my unquestioned brilliance.
“Ha!” I
say. The laughter echoes around my empty head.
.
Posted in gospel, grace,
preaching, repentance, salvation, sin
| Tagged gospel, grace, preaching, repentance, salvation, sin | 8 Comments »
22 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
The means
of grace (things like preaching and sacraments) are meant to be just
that. Means by which the grace of God reaches
down to us. I’ve been reflecting recently that often we try to
absolutize the means of grace so that they become not means but ends in
themselves, and not grace (i.e. His initiative) but works (i.e.
ours!).
And then
we divide over whatever our chosen ‘means of grace’ might be.
So the
danger for the catholic is to see the eucharist not as a means of God’s
encounter with man but rather the moment in which they make God manifest (ex
opere operato - by doing it, it is done). When the ritual
is performed well/reverently/at all, Christ’s presence is enjoyed. Christ
is not present through the sacrament but rather the performance
of the mass is Christ’s presence. The mass becomes the point.
The
danger for the charismatic is to view the singing of spiritual songs in
the midst of the congregation not as a means of grace but as the time
when ‘God’s in the house’. When the band are playing well, God shows up -
ex opere operato. In that case God is not present in and
through ‘worship’ but ‘worship’ is equated with the divine
presence. Worship becomes the point.
The
danger for the evangelical is to see preaching not as a means of grace
but as the action we perform whereby we guarantee a
divine speech act. The Proclamation Trust
states ‘When the bible is taught, God himself speaks.’ Now I want
to draw the strongest possible link between preaching and God’s speaking
(see long paper here)
but let’s get the order right. He graciously speaks through
our preaching, we cannot bring Him down through our correct
exposition. The danger is that simple exposition of a
biblical passage or theme is itself the encounter with God - ex
opere operato. Preaching becomes the point.
Yet
surely, Christ is the point. And the Lord’s supper and worship and
preaching are ways that Jesus can and does make Himself known to
us, among us and in us. Yet He will not be brought down by our
performance of these acts. They are His means (note means) of
grace (note: grace!). He always remains free in His self-giving
- in the bread and wine, in our corporate life, in His word.
That’s
why it’s often great to hear a catholic preaching well, or an evangelical
leading ‘worship’ or a charismatic presiding at the Lord’s table.
For then, they are less tempted to see the simple operation of this act
as the point but as a means of making Christ known - He is the point.
.
Posted in grace, worship
| Tagged grace, worship | 5 Comments
»
17 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
If you
ever say Amen it’s usually a response to what someone else has
said or prayed, right?
And it’s
usually after what they’ve said, right?
And only
if it’s really good do you repeat it: ’Amen, Amen!’, right?
So it’s
an affirmation that someone else has just spoken truth (Amen is straight
from the Hebrew for truth).
But when
Jesus comes along, what does He do? He gives Amens to His own
sayings: 30 times in Matthew alone! And in John’s Gospel He
gives a double-Amen to 25 of His own teachings!
e.g. Amen, Amen I say to
you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life
(John 5:24)
What’s
Jesus doing by prefacing His teaching with ‘Amen, Amen’? Well let
me put words to what this means. Jesus is basically saying:
“You
don’t stand in judgement on my word. I won’t even wait for your
Amen. Your Amen could only ever be the faint echo of my own
Amen! You do not and cannot stand in judgement on my word.
Before you’ve even heard a syllable of it, I tell you on my own
authority that this is truth. This
is the only authentication or approval these words ever could or should
have - my own. This is true because I say it, not because you have
some vantage point from which to assess these words. Let my Amen
recalibrate everything you consider to be truth. You
must simply accept my words as the gold standard of truth because it
is I who speak them. In short: It doesn’t matter what you think
- this is the truth, deal with it!”
Who
speaks like this? Only God’s Faithful and True Amen (Rev 3:14).
Imagine
if our bible reading, our theology, our apologetics, our Christian
obedience was shaped not by whether we thought, in all good
conscience, we could give our Amen to Christ? What if we stopped
trying to assess Christ’s word with our Amens and instead simply received
His Amen in glad submission?
May we
hear His word in the Spirit in which it was spoken - as truth itself.
(John 17:17)
.
Posted in apologetics, bible,
pastoral theology, revelation, theological method |
Tagged revelation, theological method,
bible, pastoral theology,
apologetics | 6 Comments »
16 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
This is
the last in our series looking at various doctrines through the lens of
the David and Goliath story. (The other four stones were: preaching, grace,
faith
and election)
Here we
consider why it is that the concept of reward is not
counter to the doctrines of Christ alone, grace alone and faith alone.
So let’s
ask: Why do people consider the concept of reward to be a potential
threat to the doctrines of grace? Well, often the argument runs
something like this:
- Grace means that
everything is a gift
- If everything’s a
gift then there’s no room for merit (you can’t earn gifts)
- Reward is based on
merit (otherwise it’s not reward it’s just random)
- Therefore, grace
means there’s no room for reward.
But is
this really the definition of grace with which we want to begin?
The whole burden of this series has been to show that Christ - our David,
our anointed Champion - needs to be at the heart of our thinking.
And so we saw that preaching is not simply lifting our eyes to some
general divine battle plan but focussing us on the King who wins the
battle for us. Grace is not basically God’s empowering of our
work but something completely outside ourselves - the victory of our
Champion. Grace is, at heart, Christ’s work for us, to which
we contribute nothing. Grace alone is effectively just another way of
saying ‘Christ alone.’ It is the affirmation that the victory is secured
by Christ without us having lifted a finger to help.
Now with
this definition of grace - is there room for reward? Well
yes. Think of how the Israelites plundered the Philistines
When the Philistines saw
that their hero was dead, they turned and ran. Then the men of
Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines
to the entrance of Gath and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn
along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron. When the Israelites returned
from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp. (1 Sam
17:51-53)
On the
basis of David’s victory they plunder the Philistines. Without
the victory they would all have died. In victory none of them could
claim credit for securing it. But in response to it, some will have
chased hard, killed many and brought back much plunder. At the same
time it’s conceivable (though we’re not told and I don’t think this
happend) that some may simply have gawped in wonder at the victory of
David and barely moved an inch. Both kinds of soldiers win the
day. Some participate in the victory more fully. That’s
really the very simple point I want to make with this post.
Again it
emphasises that faith is not synonymous with inactivity! We get
these strange ideas about faith since we’re used to playing
off faith against works all the time. We say things like ‘I’m
not saved by my works, I’m saved by my faith’ - which is a really unhelpful
way of framing things. It makes it sound like faith is the one
meritorious work (an internal mental act) that I summon up to earn
salvation. The message becomes - “Don’t do works (external physical
acts), do faith (internal, mental acts)!” And then we get our
knickers in a twist worrying that any external, physical acts are
necessarily worksy. But no.
Think
about Numbers 13. The spies come back from the promised land with
grapes like basketballs. Caleb and Joshua say “We should go up and
take possession of the land” and the people stay put. A distinct
lack of physical activity. Perhaps they were worried about earning
the promised land! Was this a rejection of works and an instance of
faith? No it is utter faithlessness through and through. Not
going up is faithless in Numbers 13 and going up is faithless in Numbers
14. Why? Because of the LORD’s promise. He promises
success in the first instance and failure in the second. Their
response to the promise is what constitutes the faith/works divide.
Inactivity can be utter unbelief. Tremendous striving can be pure
faith.
Faith is
receiving the promise appropriately. In Anders Nygren’s phrase,
faith is being conquered by the gospel. In 1 Samuel 17 terms, faith
is looking at the giant fall and understanding who it is who’s won - your
brother and king. From faith - which is simply looking
away from self to the Victorious King - may flow all kinds of things like
cheering (emotions) and plundering (good works). And if you’ve
really seen the victory it’s pretty hard to see why you wouldn’t cheer
and why you wouldn’t plunder. But cheering and plundering doesn’t
win the battle - the king does. “Faith” is just another way of
directing our attention away from ourselves (even away from our joyous response
to salvation) and fixing it solely on the Saviour. The fruit of
this faith will come forth in all manner of affections and works
which are the organic outflow of the work of Christ alone. In 1
Samuel 17 terms the plunder comes from:
- the victory of the
king alone
- is empowered by the
bread of David (v17ff)
- and is the natural
overflow of praise which necessarily attends seeing the victory
aright.
Now
Christ expects us to go hard after reward. Otherwise, why dangle it
in front of us?? (e.g. Luke 19:17!!) But just as we’re
expected to rejoice, so too with pursuing reward, we simply do not have
the resources in ourselves. Nor is it an abstract providence that
grants us divine energies to rejoice and to plunder. Rather it is a
focus again on the Champion, our Brother, that will produce both the
shout and the charge into enemy territory.
So having
looked again at our triumphant King… Go in war to love and serve the
Lord.
.
Posted in faith, gospel,
grace,
pastoral theology, works
| Tagged faith, gospel, grace, pastoral theology,
works | 3 Comments »
14 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Recently
I was reading John 1:1-18 with some international students who knew next
to nothing about Christianity. I was bracing myself for all sorts
of questions about the trinity and the incarnation. Actually they
understood these quite easily. (After all how difficult is the sentence
“God is a loving relationship of three Persons” or “the Word became
flesh” - these concepts are only difficult if you’re committed to a whole
other raft of theistic suppositions!). Here is what they really
struggled with:
The light shines in the
darkness but the darkness has not understood it
Now one
issue is the translation of the word for “understood”. katelaben
could be translated ‘lay hold of’, ‘take possession of’ or in the
cognitive sense of “understand” as the NIV has it. Perhaps the English
word “grasp” straddles these meanings nicely? “The darkness has not
grasped the light.”
But
however you translate it, you have this conceptual riddle: if light
shines how come there’s darkness??
Well
there might be some reasonable explanations like, maybe the Light is not
very strong. Well no, the Light is Jesus Christ - the Light of the
cosmos! (v9-10).
Ok, well
perhaps the Light is not shining in the right place? No - the Light
shines directly in the darkness, the darkness that is humanity in its
unbelief (v4-5).
Hmm, well
maybe the Light only shines on some but not on others, leaving the
darkness unenlightened? No, “the true Light gives light to every
man.” (v9).
This is
the riddle: the Light really shines and shines directly into the
darkness. John even says the Light enlightens every man.
Yet the darkness remains. Somehow the darkness does not receive the
omnipotent Light of the cosmos.
These
international students were stumped. And actually so was I.
This should have struck me many times, but it took their fresh pairs of
eyes to see what is really a very great question: How can
omnipotent Light shine and darkness remain?
If this
doesn’t strike us, it really should. And we must resist the urge to
smoothe the problem away. The text does not let us off the hook -
either saying “He doesn’t really shine” or ”It’s not real
darkness.” No, He really shines and there’s really darkness.
In fact
this has been a riddle from day one. Literally.
3 And God said,
“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the
light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5
God called the light “day”, and the darkness He called “night”. And there
was evening, and there was morning–the first day.
Though
verse 2 told us of ‘darkness’ and ‘the deep’ (abyss), the Word of God
brings a triumphant light. Yet this light does not extinguish the
darkness. Instead there is a separation of light and
darkness. How strange! We think of light swallowing up
darkness - illuminating it, removing it. Yet what we see
is two realms separated. The light is clearly superior but the
darkness is not obliterated.
Recently
2 Corinthians 5 has come up on two blogs I read regularly - Baxter’s
Ongoing Thoughts and Halden’s
Inhabitatio Dei. In particular the emphasis has been on the
fact that “God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ.” (2 Cor
5:19). I heartily agree. But I took issue with what I see to
be the loss of any category for ongoing
darkness/alienation/separation. Paul goes on in the next verse to
explain his ministry of reconciliation - he urges people “Be reconciled
to God.” Paul goes around this (in one sense) reconciled world and
urges people (with a passive imperative - interesting grammar no?!) to be
reconciled. Why? Because the light shines but (somehow!)
darkness remains.
And this
makes the darkness not less outrageous but more. The sin
of those in the dark is not that they haven’t had the light or not
pilgrimmaged towards it. Their sin is that they are being
enlightened minute by minute and yet walk in darkness. Think of Paul
in the Areopagus - he tells the Athenians that they live and move and
have their being in God - He is not far from them at all!!!
(v27-28). And yet they must repent (v30-31) because judgement is
coming. This is the great problem - not that they have sinned
against a ‘god over there.’ Rather, they have rejected the God in
Whom is their very life. The light is shining, they are (in one
sense) living in God. And yet this makes their darkness all
the more appalling.
How can
we be godless, given how God has lifted the whole creation to Himself in
Christ? How can we shout our ‘No’ to God given His omnipotent ‘Yes’
in Christ? This is an outrageous conceptual problem. But it
is, even more, an outrageous moral problem. It must not be
rationalized or wished away. God really was reconciling the world
to Himself on the cross. He really has said Yes to all creation.
The true Light really does enlighten everyone. Yet somehow humans
remain godless, they shout their defiant ‘no’, they love and remain in
and perpetuate the darkness.
Sin is
insanity. There simply is nothing reasonable about it. We must
remember this as we go about our ministry of reconciliation. (2 Cor
5:18-20). At the most fundamental level, there’s nothing credible
about unbelief. Let’s not conduct our evangelism as though there
is.
We are to
urge the people of this reconciled world to be reconciled. How
can they not be!? That should be the flavour of our
evangelism. How can you not be enlightened by Him who is
shining with Almighty power?? That urgency and
incredulity and insistence and even moral outrage should characterize our
ministry. Christ shines - how can you not be
enlightened?? Christ is given to you - how can you not receive
Him?? Christ has reconciled the world - how can you not be
reconciled??
.
For an example of
what preaching like this might sound like - here’s an evangelistic
Christmas carol talk on Isaiah 9. The concluding challenge in particular
is shaped by these kinds of thoughts.
.
Posted in gospel, judgement, salvation, sermons,
sin
| Tagged gospel, judgement, salvation, sermons, sin | 11 Comments »
9 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
What
is church like?
Is it a jacuzzi?
Cosy?
Relaxing? A chance for you and your nearest and dearest to recharge
the batteries?
Or is it…
A waterfall?
Scary?
Exciting? Expansive? Never safe?
Or is it…
and here’s my new word for the week…
A jacuzzerfall
Here we
see the blessings of our close fellowship in Christ flowing out and
blessing the whole world.
9But you are a
chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to
God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of
darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a
people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received
mercy, but now you have received mercy. 11 Dear friends, I
urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful
desires, which war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives
among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may
see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1
Peter 2:9-12)
This is
what church is like - a jacuzzerfall. (Now go and use the word this
week)
And here’s a sermon I
preached on Sunday on the subject.
.
Posted in church, sermons
| Tagged church, sermons | 6 Comments »
8 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok so
you’ve probably all seen this a million times but I’ve only just stumbled
across it. And oh how I did laugh…
.
Plenty more hilarity from
Adam Buxton here
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | No Comments »
7 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I was
reflecting today that in the last fortnight I’ve received four pearls of
wisdom from four Anglican bishops. That’s right, I said Anglican
bishops.
The first
pearl came from retired Bishop John Taylor who spoke at our ordination
retreat. He told the story of a pastoral visit to a very ill woman
in hospital. It represents brilliantly what I think pastoral
practice (and good evangelism) boils down to. Here’s how I remember
his re-telling:
I told her God’s grace was
for her - even for her.
She said “No, it couldn’t
be, you don’t know what I’ve done.”
I told her “Christ said
‘The healthy don’t need a doctor, the sick do. I’ve not come to
call the righteous but sinner.’ It really is for you.”
She said “No.”
I said “Yes!”…
…Eventually she received
Christ.
Brilliant!
The word from beyond comes, contradicts and finally comforts. It
perfectly encapsulates my understanding of ministry.
.
The next
pearl comes from my Bishop of Chichester in his charge to us priests
prior to ordination. He spoke about public worship:
It is fundamental for
biblical faith that God is the subject and not the object of the
liturgy. In [OT] Temple worship, it is God who reveals himself, his
presence, his name, his will. The cultus was not a kind of magical
conjuring up of a compliant deity but the place at which by thankful
remembrance of what God has done in the past God himself has the opening
to disclose himself again, here and now, to renew faith and secure its
transmission to the next generation… it is something which lies in God’s
own hands…
…Let me finish by
trying to draw together a few scattered strands of this charge.
First, I would like you to remember always that true worship is not
something we do, but a moment in which God discloses himself to us.
Second, I would like you to remember that both praise of God and
thanksgiving for his actual gifts are central to authentic worship and
third, I would like you to remember that worship has an important role in
reconvincing people of his concrete, actual, historical acts of mercy so
that they can become effective witnesses to those who do not
believe. And finally, I would like you to remember that if our
worship is genuine, it can be a powerful witness to both those who
believe and those who do not yet believe, that God is real and has been
among his people.
We do not
pull God down (through our faithful preaching, our good music or our
sacramental practice). These things, in God’s good pleasure, are a
means of His grace. The direction of the arrow is DOWN.
.
Next
pearl was from my area Bishop, Wallace Benn who preached at my
ordination. His passage was John 21:1-19. He spoke of the
importance of feeding the sheep (v15-17) and of the sure expectation of
suffering in ministry (v18-19). But first and foremost he drummed into
us the vital importance of ‘maintaining your love relationship with the
Lord’ (v15-17).
.
Finally,
Douglas Milmine - former Bishop of Paraguay - was at my ordination.
He’s been ordained since 1947, been a bishop for 35 years and
absolutely brim full of the joy of the Lord. Just minutes before
the ordination service he said to us in the vestry:
I’ve only one regret in my
ministry - that I didn’t save more souls. That’s the only reason
we’re here - saving souls.
Go
bishops!
.
Posted in Anglicanism, evangelism, pastoral theology, worship
| Tagged evangelism, pastoral theology,
worship, Anglicanism | No Comments »
6 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
One of my very favourite
blogs from one of my very favourite bloggers. Back after a break
with some thought provoking stuff, especially considering our discussions
of faith and election here.
Go say hello.
.
Posted in other blogs | Tagged other blogs | 1 Comment »
3 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »
2 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Israel
did not elect David. Not even his nearest and dearest wanted David
as king.
In 1
Samuel 16 we see the choosing of this king. Yet it is not man’s
choice but God’s.
The LORD said… “I have
chosen one of [Jesse's] sons to be king…”
Samuel saw Eliab and
thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.” But
the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height,
for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks
at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the
heart.”…
Jesse made seven of his
sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen
these.”…
Then the LORD said, “Rise
and anoint [David]; he is the one.” So Samuel took the horn of oil and
anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the
Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power.
Here is
the LORD’s election. Not the firstborn Eliab, whose name (My God is
Father) was clearly very well suited to the post of Christ! The
LORD rejects what man chooses.
His
choice always confounds human wisdom. We choose the rich and
powerful. He chooses the lowly and lifts them up. This is
just what we have been taught by Hannah’s prayer at the beginning of the
book:
e.g. He raises the poor
from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; He seats them with
princes and has them inherit a throne of honour. (1 Sam 2:8)
How does
this work out? Hannah goes on…
“It is not by strength
that one prevails; those who oppose the LORD will be shattered. He will
thunder against them from heaven; the LORD will judge the ends of the
earth. “He will give strength to His King and exalt the horn of His
Anointed.” (1 Sam 2:10)
The LORD
chooses His Anointed - His Messiah or Christ - and strengthens Him in
order to shatter the proud and powerful. And Chapter 16 has shown
us that even this choice has been counter to human intuitions. The
Israelite electorate did not choose David, the greatest Israelite
kingmaker, Samuel, did not choose David, his brothers did not choose
David. The LORD chose David. And He anointed him “in the
presence of his brothers.”
This is
both a judgement and a comfort for David’s brothers. It is a
judgement - they are not the chosen ones. They have been passed
over by the LORD. He has searched their hearts and found them
wanting. This must have been a bitter disappointment to them.
But, at the same time, there is great comfort. Immediately these
brothers have been made royalty! Though in themselves they are not
chosen, in their brother they belong to the royal household. This
election has thrust them down and brought them back up.
Now if
chapter 16 was the LORD’s choice of David, chapter 17 shows David
choosing himself for his people. In chapter 17 David comes to the
front lines but already his brothers have forgotten or dismissed his
identity. They were there when he was anointed and they must have
known Hannah’s song - the anointed one would shatter the enemy (1 Sam
2:10). But again, David is not man’s choice. He is not
even the choice of his own brothers. (1 Sam 17:28)
In the
end David takes matters into his own hands. On the basis of the
LORD’s election, David basically chooses himself for Israel.
He convinces Saul to let him fight (v33ff) and effectively goes in Saul’s
place (Saul being the Israelite’s giant (1 Sam 9:10) and the natural
human choice for Champion).
The
chosen king chooses himself to the post of Champion, no thanks to any
human support. He even rejects the armour of Saul and single
handedly defeats the enemy. No Israelite could say on that day ‘I
knew David could do it!’ Not even his own brothers could say ‘I
cheered him on.’ His own arm worked salvation for him. And it
was not even for a willing people. He went into battle for
those who had rejected him.
The
victors on that day in the valley of Elah were not those who had
previously backed the right champion. They couldn’t even claim to
have voted for David. They were simply those who found themselves,
contrary to all their previous doubts and denunciations, caught
up in the victory of another. Dismay had turned to praise as they
saw the LORD’s chosen king who had chosen himself for
them. The stone the builders had rejected had become the
capstone and - suddenly, unexpectedly - it was marvellous in their eyes
(Ps 118:22).
.
Previous
posts in this series have looked through the lens of David & Goliath
to consider preaching,
grace
and faith.
In each case we have seen the temptation to approach these subjects
without the Anointed King at the centre. In such a vision, the
battle scene simply boils down to an anaemic vision of the sovereignty of
God and the eventual victory of His people. But without an explicit
Christ-centred-ness, what are we left with?
Well,
preaching becomes simply the rallying cry to soldier on. Grace
becomes simply God’s sovereign empowerment for battle. Faith
becomes our work in trusting this sovereign God against all odds.
But all of this (ironically since this vision usually seeks to be
“”God-centred”") focuses on ourselves. For where do we look in
this version of preaching? To ourselves and our soldiering
abilities - Are we faithful to His military briefings? Where do we
look in this version of grace? To the (sovereignly empowered) works
that God has wrought through us. And so evidences of grace are
found where? In us. And where do we look in this version of
faith? We test our own believing state, looking for this internal
mental act within. Without Christ-centred-ness at the heart
of it, even ”"God-centred-ness”" will turn us in on
ourselves.
And this
is also true in the realm of election. Just as preaching, grace and
faith should be turning us away from ourselves and explicitly to Christ,
so election must be focused on Him. I do not find grace or faith in
me - I find it in Christ. Similarly I do not find election in
myself, I find it in Christ.
Election
is God’s choice of Christ (and His choice to fight for us) in spite of
our doubts and denunciations. Election is the gospel for Christ is
the Elect One.
Election
is the Father’s choosing of Christ contra to all our rejection of Him (Is
28:16; 42:1; 1 Pet 1:20). If I ask myself whether I am choice in
God’s eyes the answer can only be a resounding No. In myself I am
repugnant, reprehensible, reprobate. But in Christ I share His
chosen status - I share His royal name, I share His family relations, I
share His victory. Election focuses us on Christ and only on
ourselves when considered in Him.
Election
(like grace or faith) becomes a dark truth whenever we turn our eyes to
ourselves. How quickly faith evaporates when we examine it - for
faith is essentially looking away to Christ. Election is the
same. Election is neither hidden in myself, nor is it merely
hidden in an inscrutible divine will - election is hidden (and therefore
revealed) in Jesus. Notice that phrase from 1 Samuel 16:13 -
‘Samuel anointed David in the presence of his brothers.’
Election does not simply occur in the divine counsels of eternity.
Election is disclosed as it really is in Jesus Christ. The electing
Father declares His eternal choice to all as He points us to the One who
tabernacled among us:
“Here is My Servant, Whom
I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him
and He will bring justice to the nations.” (Is 42:1)
Election
is laid bare whenever we look to Jesus. The eternal choice of God
is on view in Christ. To lay hold of this Elect One is to lay hold
infallibly and eternally upon the election of God. It lies outside
ourselves, but precisely because of this it lies in the safest place for
us.
So where
do we fit in all this? Well where did we fit in with ‘grace’ or
‘faith’? Simply put, we found ourselves the happy recipients of
them. We found ourselves rejoicing in the victory of Christ when
we saw Him. It’s no different with election. At one
time we doubted and denounced Him, now we trust and exalt Him and find
ourselves (like David’s brothers) benefiting from His chosen
status. And so all those who look away from self, who look to Jesus
and say a belated but grateful ‘yes’ to God’s choice of king, they find
themselves participating in the chosenness of their Champion. Their
choice has done nothing. His choice has done everything. They
do not look to themselves to understand their election since it really
doesn’t reside there. It resides in Christ - the Elect One of God.
It’s been
a lengthy post already but I don’t think I can do better than to quote
Spurgeon once again. This is perhaps my favourite quotation on the
whole topic:
“Many persons want to know
their election before they look to Christ, but they cannot learn it thus,
it is only to be discovered by ‘looking unto Jesus.’ If you desire to
ascertain your own election; after the following manner shall you assure
your heart before God. Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty
sinner? Go straightway to the cross of Christ and tell Jesus so, and tell
Him that you have read in the Bible, ‘Him that cometh unto me, I will in
no wise cast out.’ Tell Him that He has said, ‘This is a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners.’ Look to Jesus and believe on Him, and you
shall make proof of your election directly, for so surely as thou
believest, thou art elect. If you will give yourself wholly up to
Christ and trust Him, then you are one of God’s chosen ones; but if you
stop and say, ‘I want to know first whether I am elect’, you ask what you
do not know. Go to Jesus, be you never so guilty, just as you
are. Leave all curious inquiry about election alone. Go
straight to Christ and hide in His wounds, and you shall know your
election. The assurance of the Holy Spirit shall be given
to you, so that you shall be able to say, ‘I know whom I have believed,
and I am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed to
Him.’ Christ was at the everlasting council: He can tell
you whether you were chosen or not; but you cannot find it out any other
way. Go and put your trust in Him and His answer will be - ‘I have
loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have
I drawn thee.’ There will be no doubt about His having
chosen you, when you have chosen Him.” (‘Knowing,
brethren beloved, your election of God.’ Morning and Evening, July
17. 1 Thess 1:4.)
.
Posted in Spurgeon, election, salvation | Tagged election, salvation, Spurgeon | 5 Comments »
1 July, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
This is
pause for thought…
Central to these questions
is the puzzle about the new proposed structure. I am sure the GAFCON
organisers are as horrified as I am to see today’s headlines about ‘a new
church’. That doesn’t seem to be what they intended. But for that reason
it is all the more strange to reflect on what the proposed ‘Primates’
Council’ is all about. What authority will it have, and how will that
work? Who is to ‘police’ the boundaries of this new body – not least to
declare which Anglicans are ‘upholding orthodox faith and practice’
(Article 11 of the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’), and who have denied it
(Article 13)? Who will be able to decide (as in Article 12) which matters
are ‘secondary’ and which are primary, and by what means? (What, for
instance, about Eucharistic vestments and practices? What about women
priests and bishops?) Who will elucidate the relationship between the 39
Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, on the one hand, and the 14
Articles of GAFCON on the other, and by what means? It is precisely
questions like these, within the larger Anglican world, which have proved
so problematic in the last five years, and the ‘Declaration’ is actually
a strange document which doesn’t help us address them. Many at GAFCON may
think the answers will be obvious; in some clear-cut cases they may be.
But there will be many other cases where they will not. It is precisely
because I share the officially stated aims of GAFCON that I am extremely
concerned about these proposals, and urge all those who likewise share
that concern to concentrate their prayers and their work on addressing
the issues in the way which, remarkably, GAFCON never mentioned, namely,
the development of the Anglican Covenant and the fulfilment of the
recommendations of the Windsor Report. I am delighted that many of the
bishops who were at GAFCON are also coming to Lambeth, where their help
in pursuing these goals will be invaluable.
In particular, though,
there is something very odd about the proposal to form a ‘Council’ and
then to ask such a body to ‘authenticate and recognise confessing
Anglican jurisdictions, clergy and congregations’ – and then, as an
addition, ‘to encourage all Anglicans to promote the gospel and defend
the faith’. Many Anglicans around the world intend to do that in any
case, and will not understand why they need to be ‘recognised’ or
‘authenticated’ by a new, self-selected and non-representative body to
which they were not invited and which will not itself, it seems be
accountable to anyone else. Of course, within the larger global context,
not least in North America, I can understand the perceived need for
something like this. I know how warmly the proposals have already been
welcomed by many in America whose situation has been truly dire. But I
also know from my own situation the dangerous ambiguities that will
result from the suggestion that there should be a new ‘territorial
jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, in
those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or
are preventing its spread.’ Sadly, as I suspect many at GAFCON simply
didn’t realise, that kind of language has been used, in my personal experience,
to attempt to justify various kinds of high-handed activity. It offers a
blank cheque to anyone who wants to defy a bishop for whatever reasons,
even if the bishop in question is scrupulously orthodox, and then to
claim the right to alternative jurisdictional oversight. This cannot be
the way forward; nor do I think most of those at GAFCON intended such a
thing. That, of course, is the risk when documents are drafted at speed.
Read the whole
thing here
.
Posted in Anglicanism | Tagged Anglicanism | No Comments »
29 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’m about
to be ordained presbyter in the Anglican Church (in about 90
minutes!) It’s heartening to know I’m joining guys like these!
Here’s the final statement of the GAFCON conference.
Some
extracts:
We, the participants in
the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing
Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its
mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia)
of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common
mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its
members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel
in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the
Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future. We are a
fellowship of Anglicans, including provinces, dioceses,
churches, missionary jurisdictions, para-church organisations and
individual Anglican Christians whose goal is to reform, heal and
revitalise the Anglican Communion and expand its mission to the world.
Our fellowship is not
breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful
Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of
Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed
in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy
Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of
the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such
doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book
of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to
this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and
return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic
see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily
through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the
above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the
Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.
I like
this conclusion too:
The meeting in Jerusalem
this week was called in a sense of urgency that a false gospel has so
paralysed the Anglican Communion that this crisis must be addressed. The
chief threat of this dispute involves the compromising of the integrity
of the church’s worldwide mission. The primary reason we have come to
Jerusalem and issued this declaration is to free our churches to give
clear and certain witness to Jesus Christ.
If
there’s a bee in our bonnet - it’s that Christ is not being proclaimed
clearly and distinctly enough. Everything else that’s objectionable
in these controversies flows from this crucial point.
.
Posted in Anglicanism, pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology, Anglicanism
| 9 Comments »
28 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Continuing on the Spurgeon quotes… Here is
today’s devotional from morning and evening and it’s a doozy!
It’s very reminiscent of a
recent post on faith as looking outside ourselves to Christ.
But, as ever, Spurgeon says it best. Drink it in!
“Looking unto Jesus.”
–Hebrews 12:2
It is ever the Holy
Spirit’s work to turn our eyes away from self to Jesus; but Satan’s work
is just the opposite of this, for he is constantly trying to make us
regard ourselves instead of Christ. He insinuates, “Your sins are too
great for pardon; you have no faith; you do not repent enough; you will
never be able to continue to the end; you have not the joy of His
children; you have such a wavering hold of Jesus.” All these are thoughts
about self, and we shall never find comfort or assurance by looking
within. But the Holy Spirit turns our eyes entirely away from self: He
tells us that we are nothing, but that “Christ is all in all.” Remember,
therefore, it is not thy hold of Christ that saves thee–it is
Christ; it is not thy joy in Christ that saves thee–it is
Christ; it is not even faith in Christ, though that be the instrument–it
is Christ’s blood and merits; therefore, look not so much to thy hand
with which thou art grasping Christ, as to Christ; look not to thy hope,
but to Jesus, the source of thy hope; look not to thy faith, but to
Jesus, the author and finisher of thy faith. We shall never find
happiness by looking at our prayers, our doings, or our feelings; it is
what Jesus is, not what we are, that gives rest to the soul. If
we would at once overcome Satan and have peace with God, it must be by
“looking unto Jesus.” Keep thine eye simply on Him; let His death, His
sufferings, His merits, His glories, His intercession, be fresh upon thy
mind; when thou wakest in the morning look to Him; when thou liest down
at night look to Him. Oh! let not thy hopes or fears come between thee
and Jesus; follow hard after Him, and He will never fail thee.
“My hope is built on
nothing less
Than Jesu’s blood and righteousness:
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly lean on Jesu’s name.”
Posted in Spurgeon, faith
| Tagged faith, Spurgeon | No Comments »
27 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Lest
anyone feel left out by my last post on ordination vows, this was today’s
reading from Spurgeon’s
Evening and Morning - we all have a holy calling!
”Let every man abide
in the same calling wherein he was called.”—1 Corinthians 7:20.
Some persons have the
foolish notion that the only way in which they can live for God is by
becoming ministers, missionaries, or Bible women. Alas! how many would be
shut out from any opportunity of magnifying the Most High if this were
the case. Beloved, it is not office, it is earnestness; it is not
position, it is grace which will enable us to glorify God. God is most surely
glorified in that cobbler’s stall, where the godly worker, as he plies
the awl, sings of the Saviour’s love, ay, glorified far more than in many
a prebendal stall where official religiousness performs its scanty
duties. The name of Jesus is glorified by the poor unlearned carter as he
drives his horse, and blesses his God, or speaks to his fellow labourer
by the roadside, as much as by the popular divine who, throughout the
country, like Boanerges, is thundering out the gospel. God is glorified
by our serving Him in our proper vocations. Take care, dear reader, that
you do not forsake the path of duty by leaving your occupation, and take
care you do not dishonour your profession while in it. Think little of
yourselves, but do not think too little of your callings. Every lawful
trade may be sanctified by the gospel to noblest ends. Turn to the Bible,
and you will find the most menial forms of labour connected either with
most daring deeds of faith, or with persons whose lives have been
illustrious for holiness. Therefore be not discontented with your
calling. Whatever God has made your position, or your work, abide in
that, unless you are quite sure that he calls you to something else. Let
your first care be to glorify God to the utmost of your power where you
are. Fill your present sphere to His praise, and if He needs you in
another He will show it you. This evening lay aside vexatious ambition,
and embrace peaceful content.
Many,
unhelpfully, reserve the word ‘calling’ for a particular burden felt for
ordained ministry. This is not the sense of the word in the
bible. 1 Corinthians begins with the one calling which embraces us
all:
God… has called you into
fellowship with His Son Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor 1:9)
Chapter 7
embellishes upon this - some were called when single, some when married,
some when slaves, some when free, some when circumcised, some when
uncircumcised. Our call was not to these positions.
Rather, in these positions we are called to Christ.
And Paul is keen that we live out our calling in the position we find
ourselves.
So
remember - whether paid by the church or by your firm, whether
working in the home or at school, you are called. Called to
fellowship with Christ. Called to live out this fellowship
in the place where you are. The church pastor could prove
a total failure in living out this calling. The Christian dentist
could witness to hundreds in their “secular” job.
There’s one calling - a call to fellowship with Jesus. So “Let your
first care be to glorify God to the utmost of your power where you are.
Fill your present sphere to His praise.”
.
Posted in Spurgeon, ministry, pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology, ministry, Spurgeon | No Comments »
26 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Right now you can read live blogging of GAFCON and the
EMA. I give you live blogging of the Chichester diocese
ordination retreat 2008!
On Sunday I’m being ordained into the presbyterate. In the Anglican
church we’re ordained first as Deacons and then, usually the following
year, as Presbyters (or “Priests”). I’ve been reflecting on my
ordination vows - which are weighty indeed. Here is an extract
from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (this is right at the heart of the
Church of England’s doctrinal basis which consists of the Book of Common
Prayer, the Thirty Nine Articles and the Ordinal).
The bishop says this:
“Now again we
exhort you, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye have in
remembrance, into how high a Dignity, and to how weighty an Office and
Charge ye are called: that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and
Stewards of the Lord; to teach, and to premonish, to feed and provide for
the Lord’s family; to seek for Christ’s sheep that are dispersed abroad,
and for his children who are in the midst of this naughty world, that
they may be saved through Christ for ever.
“Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how
great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of
Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood.
The Church and Congregation whom you must serve, is his Spouse, and his
Body. And if it shall happen that the same Church, or any Member thereof,
do take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the
greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue.
Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of the Ministry towards the
children of God, towards the Spouse and Body of Christ; and see that ye
never cease your labour, your care and diligence, until ye have done all
that lieth in you, according to your bounden duty, to bring all such as
are or shall be committed to your charge, unto that agreement in the
faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age
in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in
religion, or for viciousness in life.
“Forasmuch then as your Office is both of so great
excellency, and of so great difficulty, ye see with how great care and
study ye ought to apply yourselves, as well to show yourselves dutiful
and thankful unto that Lord, who hath placed you in so high a dignity; as
also to beware that neither you yourselves offend, nor be occasion that
others offend. Howbeit, ye cannot have a mind and will thereto of
yourselves; for that will and ability is given of God alone: therefore ye
ought, and have need, to pray earnestly for his Holy Spirit. And seeing
that ye cannot by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work,
pertaining to the salvation of man, but with doctrine and exhortation
taken out of the Holy Scriptures, and with a life agreeable to the same;
consider how studious ye ought to be in reading and learning the
Scriptures, and in framing the manners both of yourselves, and of them
that specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same
Scriptures; and for this self-same cause, how ye ought to forsake and set
aside, as much as ye may, all worldly cares and studies.
“We have good hope that ye have well weighed these things
with yourselves, long before this time; and that ye have clearly
determined, by God’s grace, to give yourselves wholly to this Office,
whereunto it hath pleased God to call you: so that, as much as lieth in
you, ye will apply yourselves wholly to this one thing, and draw all your
cares and studies this way; and that ye will continually pray to God the
Father, by the mediation of our only Saviour Jesus Christ, for the
heavenly assistance of the Holy Ghost; that, by daily reading and
weighing the Scriptures, ye may wax riper and stronger in your Ministry;
and that ye may so endeavour yourselves, from time to time, to sanctify
the lives of you and yours, and to fashion them after the Rule and
Doctrine of Christ, that ye may be wholesome and godly examples and
patterns for the people to follow.”
And here are some of the vows we will take regarding the Bible - this
time taken from the Common Worship ordination service which we’ll be
using…
Bishop: Do you accept the Holy
Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation
through faith in Jesus Christ?
Ordinands: I do so accept
them.
Bishop: Will you be diligent in
prayer, in reading Holy Scripture, and in all studies that will deepen
your faith and fit you to bear witness to the truth of the gospel?
Ordinands: By the help of
God, I will.
Bishop: Will you lead Christ’s
people in proclaiming his glorious gospel, so that the good news of
salvation may be heard in every place?
Ordinands: By the help of
God, I will.
Bishop: Will you faithfully
minister the doctrine and sacraments of Christ as the Church of England
has received them, so that the people committed to your charge may be
defended against error and flourish in the faith?
Ordinands: By the help of
God, I will.
It’s pause for thought to consider that those bishops about to meet
at the Lambeth Conference have at least three times publicly
signed up to this understanding of ministry and the bible. They’ve
made vows just like this before God and man - once as Deacon, once as
Priest, once as Bishop. Anglicans may not always live true to their
calling - but this missional, gospel-centred, word-based ministry is the
essence of true Anglicanism.
.
Posted in Anglicanism, ministry | Tagged Anglicanism, ministry | 3 Comments »
22 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
We’ve
looked at Preaching
and Grace,
now we examine Faith through the lens of David and
Goliath.
One of
the most significant ‘light-bulb’ moments for me in the last couple of
years has been to hear Alan
Torrance and Mike Reeves
say in different contexts basically the same thing. Namely this:
the reformers did not speak of salvation by ‘faith alone’ so much as they
spoke of salvation by ‘Christ alone.’ So Torrance maintains that
John Knox, when he used the word ‘alone’ would attach it most often to
‘the blood of Christ’ rather than ‘faith’. Reeves says
something similar about Luther - he would speak of salvation by ‘God’s
Word alone’, more than by ‘faith alone’. Did both reformers both
believe in ‘faith alone’?? They staked their lives on it. So
why make the distinction?
Well
think about these two ways of answering this question: Are we saved
by our works?
Answer
1: No, we’re saved by our faith
Answer
2: No, we’re saved by Christ’s work
Now which
answer better refutes works salvation?
The
trouble with answer 1 is that is readily gives the impression that faith
is the one work that merits salvation. It seems to privilege
‘faith’ as the one property we must possess over and above those other
properties called ‘works’. So we say, “It’s not my works
that save, it’s my faith.” Faith becomes a thing.
But as Matt Jenson reminds us Faith
is Nothing. (If you haven’t read Jenson’s short little article,
stop wasting your time on this post and get over there).
Far
better to say Answer 2: “It’s not my works that save me, it’s Christ’s
work.” Our salvation lies outside us, in Jesus.
On a
related note, this has some bearing on that little question we ask in
evangelism: Why should God allow you into His heaven? The standard
wrong answer is ‘Because I did good things.’ But all too often the
standard ‘right answer’ is, ‘Because I believed in your Son.’ I
much prefer the answer I read at De
Regno Christi:
I’ll bow and be silent.
Then I’ll hear a voice,
“Father, he’s mine.”
H/T Tim
Our
salvation lies outside of ourselves. Therefore if we trumpet ‘faith
alone’ as a way of elevating this saving property called ‘faith’ which is
my own meritorious possession… well, that’s pretty yuck. It
makes faith into a work - the one truly saving work.
Now if
you buy into that kind of understanding, what view of faith and works
will you have? You’ll say ‘works are external, physical acts’ and
‘faith is an internal, mental act.’ And you’ll say, God has
rejected external, physical acts (works) but desires internal, mental
acts (faith). But let’s ask, Is it possible that my external,
physical acts are instances of faith in the world? Surely
yes! On the other hand, Is it possible that my internal, mental
acts can betray exactly the kind of works righteousness condemned in the
Scriptures? Absolutely.
So how
does David and Goliath help?
Well the
Israelites were full of internal mental acts prior to David’s
victory. They might range from things like ”Yikes, what’s the
quickest way to go AWOL” to the much more respectable sounding, “Bring
Goliath over here, I’ll win the day.” (No-one did seem to
think this, but it was a possibility). Now both those mental
acts would have been faithless. Even if someone thought
“I’ll defeat Goliath in the Name of the LORD” it would be faithless, for
to do so would be to step into shoes that only the Anointed King can
fill. Such mental acts are still works since they displace the
Champion with something else.
On the
other hand, once David has defeated Goliath, there are some very concrete
external acts going on (v52). They shout aloud and chase down the
defeated Philistines. Yet for all their physicality, these acts are
simply expressions of faith. In fact the person who remains
physically unmoved by David’s victory is almost sure to be the person who
has not seen the victory, or has not understood the connection between David
and them. Such a person has no faith.
‘Internal’
does not equal ‘faith’ and ‘external’ does not equal ‘works’. What
counts is the victory of David. Has David’s victory for me been
understood and received? That’s the question that lies at the fault-line
between faith and works. Any expression of a ‘yes’ to that question
(whether internal or external) equals faith. Any expression of a
‘no’ to that question (whether internal or external) equals works.
Let’s put
it one more way: ‘Faith alone’ is really another way of saying, ‘I
did not help David one little bit, but I get all the benefits.’
‘Faith’ does not put the spotlight on me (and my emotional/spiritual
state). ‘Faith’ is all about putting the spotlight on Christ.
‘Faith alone’ is an expression that secures ‘Christ alone’ in my
subjective appropriation of salvation. Just as ‘Grace alone’ is an
expression that secures ‘Christ alone’ in God’s objective offer of
salvation.
Ok, I’m
repeating myself lots now. Why hammer on at this? Well here’s
one pay-off. The quest for more faith is not an inward
journey! I don’t find faith in me. I find faith when I forget
all about faith and simply focus on my Champion. I find myself in
the state of believing not by trying to believe but by simply seeing and
appreciating the work of Christ. And from this the emotions
(shouting!) and the works (plundering!) will flow as true expressions of
faith. As Robert Murray McCheyne once said to a woman he
counselled, “You don’t need more faith, you need more Christ.”
.
Posted in faith, gospel,
grace,
pastoral theology |
Tagged faith, gospel, grace, pastoral theology
| 4 Comments »
18 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’ve
begun looking at the story of David and Goliath as a lens through which
to view five different doctrines:
- Preaching
- Grace
- Faith
- Election
- Reward
In
my last post we saw that preaching is not like a military
briefing to troops on the front line. It’s the war correspondent
heralding the victory of Another to an otherwise
hopeless people. It’s about His victory for us, not ours for
Him - this should be the heart-beat of our preaching.
Now I
want to think a little bit about grace.
It’s
interesting in 1 Samuel 17 that David brings bread to his brothers from
his father’s house, Bethlehem - the house of bread (v17). Now
if this constituted our whole conception of grace then what would we
have? We’d have, typologically, Christ bringing His people heavenly
provisions so that they can win their battles. Grace would be
construed as the sovereign gift that empowers our efforts to
achieve the victory. Yet, this conception of ‘grace’ is seriously
deficient:
- it makes David’s
victory at best incidental
- it throws all the
emphasis onto our battles (no matter how much David’s bread is
praised!)
- without David’s
victory, David’s bread may as well have been poison.
David’s
bread only makes any difference in the light of David’s victory.
Once their Champion has won, then the bread is useful, empowering them to
plunder the Philistines. But grace is first and foremost the victory
of David on behalf of his people. His provision is a secondary
grace that only gains efficacy from his vicarious triumph.
Yet how
often do we operate with a basic conception of ‘grace’ as,
effectively, providence that empowers our efforts. I
remember when I first became a Christian writing out a short gospel
presentation on a sheet of A5. It ran something like this:
- God is sovereign and
all sufficient
- Therefore no one can
give Him anything
- Therefore we can’t
earn our salvation
- Therefore He must
give it to us
- Therefore what God
requires of us He also provides in us
- In this way He
sovereignly works salvation in us
- This is what we mean
by ‘grace’
Is it?
What’s
missing from my presentation? How about Jesus? How about the
whole darned gospel?
If this
presentation were true then God could save us by working anything
in us . As long as He empowered it, salvation could be a matter
of pilgrimmages to Bognor Regis, life-long abstinence from toast and
self-flagellation with rancid eels. So long as you claimed that
such acts were ‘empowered from on high’, it would still be ’all of
grace.’ Apparently. Even if the pilgrimmages were required daily -
you could still claim that such activities were the work of God in
us to achieve what He also required.
But I
hope we can recognize that this is far from what the bible means by
‘grace.’ ‘Grace’ is not simply another way of describing some
abstract ’sovereignty’. Grace is another way of declaring the
victory of Christ to which we contribute nothing. The two are very
different.
How about
we fix the last three bullet points from the above presentation:
· Therefore what God requires
of us He also provides in Christ
· In this way He sovereignly
works salvation in Christ
· This is what we mean by
‘grace’
Grace is
the victory of our Anointed King on behalf of a people who are fainting
with fear and about to desert. It’s not bread to help you win
the day. Not first and foremost. It’s something entirely
outside yourself and it happened on a hill called Golgotha. Living
by grace is not first and foremost looking to sovereign provisions.
First and foremost it’s looking to the cross.
.
Posted in faith, grace
| Tagged faith, grace | 18 Comments »
14 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here’s the sermon
from last week. Where I say stuff like this…
Does your heart long for marriage?
Verse 2 and verse 9 tell us, we, the people of God, will enjoy the
ultimate marriage. We will share a relationship with Jesus that
will make current experiences of marriage seem like the pale imitations
that they are. Do you long for intimacy? How
about v4: God will wipe away every tear from your eyes. We say
cruelly to each other: “Dry your eyes mate.” The living God says to
us - ‘Bring your tears to Me, I will wipe them away.’ Who in your
life has wiped away your tears – I guarantee they’ve been very close to
you. Our relationship to the Father will be that close. Do
you long for good health? Verse 4 again: No
more death, crying, mourning or pain. Do you long for satisfaction?
How about verse 6: Drinking without cost from the spring of the water of
life. Do you long for a sense of achievement?
Verse 26 speaks of bringing glory and honour from the nations into the
city. There will be industry and creativity and success and
achievements in the new creation and we will bring that great stuff into
the city for the glory of Jesus and He will love to receive it.
Whatever you’re looking
for, marriage, intimacy, health, satisfaction, achievement, if you’re a
Christian you won’t miss out. Let your heart rest in that.
Do you want to travel the
world, do you want to see the sites? You can wait you
know. We’ll go together if you like, we can take our time about
it. Do you feel like you need to get every experience you can out
of life, because it’s so short. You have time you know. Let
your heart rest in this future hope. It is the spirit of Babylon that
says ‘Get all you can now. Build your city here. Beg, borrow
and steal for the present.’ The Spirit of Christ says ‘Wait for
God’s city, it will be worth it.’ …
Preaching
on the final chapter tomorrow. Just need to write it. The
sermon that is. Not keen on adding to ‘the words of this prophesy’
(Rev 22:18)!
.
Posted in sermons | Tagged sermons | No Comments »
12 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Could you
be the next apprentice at my church - All Souls, Eastbourne?
We can offer training through the South
Coast Ministerial Training Course and plenty of hands-on
experience. Great church, great people - join us! (btw
we’re looking to hire more than one).
Send me
an email if you’re interested.
.
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
10 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You’ve
all wondered what David’s five smooth stones represent (1 Sam
17:40). Now I bring you the definitive answer…
Not
really, I just have some reflections on David and Goliath and there
happen to be five of them…
- Preaching
- Grace
- Faith
- Election
- Reward
But
first, let’s remind ourselves of the story. (Read it
here)
So here we are (verses 1-3) the uncircumcised Philistines facing off
against the ranks of Israel.
There came out from the
camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height
was six cubits and a span. (v4)
Over nine feet tall. Most of us would be eye-to-navel with
him. The tallest man I know (6 foot 9) wouldn’t even be
eye-to-nipple! Even his coat of armour (verse 5) was 55kg or
8½ stone. And he’s from Gath which tells you:
1) He’s probably Nephilim. (Look up Gath and Anakites – you do
the requisite mathethatical calculations). In which case he’s
literally super-human. Literally a super-hero – or super-villain
more like. In the person of Goliath heaven and earth is united
against the ranks of Israel. But secondly…
2) Gath means ‘wine-press’. And here we see Goliath
crushing the LORD’s vineyard. Israel is the vine and Goliath is the
vine crusher. Watch him crush them, vv10-11:
And the Philistine said,
“I defy (reproach) the ranks of Israel this day. Give me a man, that we
may fight together.” When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the
Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.
The word ‘dismayed’ means literally ‘shattered’ and Israel has been
constantly told ‘Don’t be dismayed by the nations.’
(Deut 1:21; 31:8; Josh 1:9; 8:1; 10:25). Instead God would dismay
(shatter) the nations - how? Hannah tells us at the beginning of 1
Samuel:
Those who oppose the LORD
will be shattered. He will thunder against them from heaven; the LORD
will judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to His King and
exalt the horn of His Anointed.” (1 Samuel 2:10)
Through the Messiah, the LORD would shatter all opposition. In
1 Samuel 2 we see world-wide realities - judgement to the ends of the
earth. Hannah looks ahead to the victory of the LORD Jesus.
But in chapter 16 we see little David anointed as king. And here in
chapter 17 we see this little king picture for us the victory of the
Anointed One.
We see him in verse 12, fresh from his father’s house, the house of
bread – Bethlehem – bringing bread to his brothers. But David’s
provision and sustenance would mean nothing without his victory.
Let’s consider his victory. From verses 38-40 we see him reject
the armour of Saul - his victory would not be with worldly strength but
in weakness - that the Name of the LORD be seen in all its power.
Then David said to the
Philistine, “You come to me with a sword and with a spear and with a
javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of
the armies of Israel, whom you have reproached. (v45)
With a single blow David kills the giant (v50) and then takes his
head (v51 - cf Gen 3:15; Hab 3:13). In a second the Israelites are
turned from shattered men to shattering victors. Now, in the
certainty of their king’s victory (v52) they shout and advance,
shattering the adversaries of the LORD and plundering their camp.
Now… What’s that got to do with preaching?
A good preacher is like a war correspondent on the
front lines of this battle. You survey the
scene – and it’s bad. An evil, super-human opponent. Fear and
despondency in the ranks and you just can’t win. But then!
You announce, from among you – the anointed king, your champion. He
is small and looks so weak but, yowsers he is handsome! (v42; 1 Sam
16:12). What courage He has as He fights for us. What
confidence He has in the Name of the LORD. And look people, look –
even through His weakness He defeats the enemy – killing him with his own
weapon.
And as the herald of victory you declare:
“We’ve won! Our champion has triumphed! Shout aloud!
Praise your Champion! Rejoice in song! And advance into your
week knowing that the enemy is decapitated – you have the victory in your
Messiah. Charge into your week in the name of the Anointed King….
And then come back next week when you’ll be dismayed and terrified
all over again.”
And each and every week you herald the bad news that is very bad and
the good news that is beyond triumphant. And bit by bit the troops
begin to really love their King and they begin to walk in the kind of
freedom and victory that He’s already won for them. That’s good
preaching.
Bad preaching is not like that. A
bad preacher is like a battle-weary soldier briefing the troops
and saying
“It’s tough out there people but, hey, if battle-weary soldiering has
taught me anything it’s that we’ve got to be tougher. That David – he’s
an example to us all – a model soldier. Let me give you some advice
that I learned direct from David: When you use a slingshot, you have to
get a firm base with the legs and then… it’s all in the wrist.
“Three points for you to take with you – after all this is a military
briefing – you’re here for practical tips. Point 1: remember whose
army you are. Don’t let the side down. Point 2: Remember the
techniques I’ve taught you, and Point 3: if you’re struggling for
motivation – do it for David! God bless, and ‘be careful out
there.’”
Do it for David?? Do it for David?? David did it for
you!! And He did it for you when you were shattered and
terrified. Our congregations need gospel preaching.
Our congregations need to hear the victory of Christ proclaimed week
after week after week. We don’t need more combat skills – we need
more Christ. If you take your eyes off the champion your eyes
either go on Goliath or on your paltry combat skills – either way you’ll
end up dismayed, shattered, terrified.
I hear so many sermons that simply crush the vine. They do
Goliath’s job for him.
When you preach, preach about our Champion. Tell them about His
fight, His sacrifice, His victory. Make them shout, make them sing,
make them see brave, beautiful, loving, strong Jesus once again.
And the weaker the troops, the more dismayed, the more disobedient,
the more they look like deserting and making shipwreck – herald the good
news. Christ has triumphed for the weakest and the worst of
them.
Preach the Gospel friends.
.
Some other relevant posts on preaching:
Preaching
of the Word of God is the Word of God
Preaching
evangelistically
What
is “applied preaching”??
A long
(20 000 word) paper on Karl Barth and preaching
Posted in faith, gospel,
grace,
preaching | Tagged faith, gospel, grace, preaching | 10 Comments »
4 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
As far as
I can tell, 1 Kings 18:4 is the best Scriptural warrant I can find for
bible colleges (Americans read “Seminary”):
While Jezebel was killing
off the LORD’s prophets, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden
them in two caves, fifty in each, and had supplied them with food and
water.
Away from
all that troublesome ministry with its attendant persecution, the hidden
prophets were fed and watered by Obadiah the first Principal of a
Theological College. No doubt they spent their time fiercely
debating the issues of credo-circumcision, the validity of women
prophets and evidentialist apologetics to a post-Yahwistic mindset.
I’m being playful of course (not with an endearing playfulness mind. More
a sharp, abrasive playfulness, the kind of playfulness no one likes -
that kind of playfulness.)
Anyway it
must be admitted that bible college can be a breeding ground for
all sorts of nonsense. But then we must take responsibility for how
the college experience is enjoyed/handled/endured. Here are 45
ways to waste your theological education by Derek Brown. Painful
reading. Painfully close to the bone. H/T Between Two Worlds.
.
Posted in theological education
| Tagged theological
education | 13 Comments »
3 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Further
to the previous two posts (here
and here),
I just came across these two quotes from ‘Jesus
in Trinitarian Perspective’ edited by Fred Sanders and Klaus Issler:
“Chalcedon already
provides us with Christology in trinitarian perspective, and makes no
sense without presupposing the Trinity.” (p15)
“At the center of the open
space marked out by the boundaries of Chalcedon are two things: the
apostolic narrative of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
and the confession that this person in the gospel narrative is an eternal
person distinct from the Father, yet fully divine. What stands in the
middle of the Chalcedonian categories is the biblical story of Jesus,
interpreted in light of the Trinity” (p. 25).
Haven’t
read the book, but that sounds like the kinda thing I’m banging on about
- Nicea comes before Chalcedon.
Does
anyone know if the book’s any good? Sounds promising to me.
Fred
Sanders also has some helpful looking posts here
on christology.
.
Posted in christology, theological method, trinity
| Tagged christology,
theological method,
trinity | No Comments »
2 June, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
It’s
common to see a link between christology and our approach to the
bible. There are limits to this but also benefits. Our
approach to both Christ and the bible requires us to encounter something
fully human which nonetheless is the Word of God. Christology can
therefore teach us a great deal about how the bible as fully human can
nonetheless be a fully divine revelation.
In
my last post I discussed christology. Namely,
the (chronological and methodological) priority of Nicea
over Chalcedon. What this means is that we must linger long over
Nicea’s declaration that Jesus (born of a virgin, crucified under Pontius
Pilate) is of one being with the Father (homoousios). The
Man Jesus exists wholly within the triune relations which constitute
God’s being. Whatever else Chalcedon protects - it does not
protect Christ’s humanity from that Nicene homoousios.
The fully human Jesus is a full participant in this divine nature.
In this way we protect against a Nestorianism which always threatens to
divorce the humanity from the divinity.
What we
can then say is this:
- Nestorianism is
rejected: In Jesus’ humanity (and not apart from it)
God is revealed. To put it another way: As the Man
Jesus (and not in some other realm of locked-off deity) He
brings divine revelation and salvation.
- Adoptionism is
rejected: It is not the case that the humanity comes
first and is then taken up into deity. The Word became
flesh, not the other way around!
- Docetism is rejected:
It is not the case that the humanity is an unreal facade
which we must push beyond to get to the real (divine) Jesus.
What
would this mean when applied to biblical interpretation (i.e.
hermeneutics)? Given our OT focus in the
last few posts - what would it mean in particular for OT
interpretation?
I suggest
it means this:
- Nestorianism is
rejected: In the humanity of the OT (it’s immediate
context, complete Jewish-ness, thorough Hebrew-ness) its divine
Object (Christ) is revealed. As the prophetic
Israelite Scripture that it is (and not in some other locked-off
realm of meaning) it is Christian, i.e. a proclamation of Christ.
- Adoptionism is
rejected: It is not the case that a lower-level of Jewish
meaning comes first and is then added to as it’s adopted as
Christian Scripture (by the NT). From the beginning, at the
very roots of its being, the OT is Christian/Messianic. It is
not first Hebrew Scripture and then Christian revelation rather it
is Christian revelation that presupposes and brings about the Hebrew
Scriptures.
- Docetism is
rejected: Having said all this I’m in no way denying the
distinctly
Israelite/Hebrew/pre-Gentile-inclusion/Mosaic-administration ways
in which the Christ is proclaimed. In its own context and on
its own terms the OT will proclaim Christ to us. We do not
ignore contemporary details - rather we take them very seriously as
that in which Christ is made known.
If the
christological analogy holds and if this christology is right then I
think we need to rule out certain brands of hermeneutics. In
particular we should be wary of any theory of interpretation that
separates out Jewish-ness and Christian-ness in the OT.
On a
similar note, I recently found a
great short article on this hermeneutical issue by Nathan Pitchford. His
argument is that the reformers’ notion of the literal meaning of the text
was not something different to its christological meaning. It was
the christological meaning. You can also check out his excellent OT
series here.
.
Posted in christology, covenant continuity, hermeneutics | Tagged christology, covenant continuity,
hermeneutics | 11 Comments »
28 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here’s
a christological motto to live by: Nicea comes before Chalcedon.
What do I
mean by this? I’m glad you asked.
It’s
common in christological debates to begin by thinking of the Council of
Chalcedon, 451 AD (btw I’m not guaranteeing the quality/accuracy
of the wikipedia links). There a two-nature christology was
hammered out in which
We
confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to
be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change,
division, or separation (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως,
ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως; inconfuse,
immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabilter).
And so,
typically, thinking on the Person of Christ begins with a consideration
of these two natures, humanity and divinity, which subsist in the one
Person without confusion or change (upholding the integrity of Christ’s
genuine humanity and divinity) and without division or separation
(upholding the unity of His humanity and divinity in one Person).
Yet is this really where our thinking should begin?
Chalcedon
is pretty universally regarded as a good ring-fence - defining the bounds
of orthodox christology. But ring fences do not make good
foundations!
So where
should we begin? Well note that Nicea comes before
Chalcedon. It was in 325 AD that the Council of Nicea considered the identity of Jesus of
Nazareth. And crucially Nicea declared what the Scriptures clearly
teach - that Jesus of Nazareth is ‘of one being with the Father’ (homoousios).
Now here’s the crucial thing - Nicea does not simply say ‘the eternal
Son’ is ‘of one being with the Father.’ This is of course true, but
Nicea says more than this. It is the Jesus who was born of the
virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, who is declared
homoousios with the Father.
Let me
diagram it. Nicea does not simply say this:
Instead
Nicea makes the bold but necessary assertion that Jesus of Nazareth is a
full participant in the divine nature:
Now why
do I say that this was a necessary assertion from Nicea? Well,
starkly put, who cares if the eternal Son is God if we can’t say the same
of Jesus of Nazareth! It’s Jesus of Nazareth who says ‘If you’ve
seen me you’ve seen the Father.’ (John 14:9) It’s Jesus of Nazareth
who says ‘Son your sins are forgiven.’ (Mark 2:5) It’s the Man
Jesus who lives our life and dies our death. If salvation is truly
from the LORD then it has to be Jesus ‘born of the virgin Mary and
suffered under Pontius Pilate’ who is declared fully God. Nicea
necessarily and clearly does this.
And what
does this mean? It means that before we’ve even gotten to Chalcedon
we’ve affirmed that the Person of Jesus who is fully man and fully God
exists entirely within the circle of divine fellowship which constitutes
the being of God. Jesus the Man is of one being with the
Father. If we could not affirm this then the revelation of Jesus
would not be the revelation of God (contra John 14). If we could
not affirm this then the salvation of Jesus would not be the salvation of
God (contra Mark 2). But no, Jesus and the Father are one - not
simply ‘the Son’ and the Father.
Why am I
labouring this? Well I have a sneaking suspicion that the
christology story most people have in mind is a little different.
My fear is that people think the order of things goes something like:
1) we all
know what divine nature is (some kind of essence probably!)
2) then
(at Nicea) we insist that there is a trinity of Persons who we ought to
confess as divine (and therefore in equal possession of this God-stuff)
3) then
(at Chalcedon) we turn our attention to this pesky issue of how Jesus
(who looks very different to our assumed conception of God-stuff ) is
made up of God-stuff and man-stuff. And it’s pretty freaky, and a
mystery, but hey orthodoxy demands it so we’d better confess it.
It’s
caricature obviously but does that kinda vibe resonate with anyone
else? It’s a theological journey that treads this path:
Being of God (divine nature) => Trinity
=> Christ (two nature christology).
Or to put
it even more crudely: “We all know God’s essence is a load of ‘omni’s;
then (weirdly enough) we affirm that these omnis are parcelled out
equally among Three Persons and then (strangeness of all strangenesses)
we declare that one of the Three not only has a God-nature (defined
by these omnis) but also a man-nature (that’s really very unlike His
God-nature as defined by the omnis).” I confess that I have seen a
lot of this kind of thinking in my own theology in the past. And
it’s pretty awful to be honest.
Here’s
what Chalcedon looks like when you’ve forgotten the crucial assertion of
Nicea:
Here the divine
nature of Jesus is thought of as that which is homoousios
with the Father. But on this way of thinking, the human
nature (contra Nicea’s insistence) is not. And of course
you’ve then introduced massive problems. Not only is there a
humanity to Jesus that is not considered fully God but this humanity
actually gets in the way between us and God. Jesus in the
incarnation has concealed rather than revealed God. And what we’re
left with is a whole set of tricky questions about how this God-nature
and man-nature can really co-exist in the one Person without sounding
like Jesus is a double-headed monster.
But…
Nicea comes before Chalcedon. This is not just true
chronologically, it should also be true in our theological method.
Nicea teaches us that our doctrine of the being of God; the trinity; and
christology must be held together. These three concepts must
mutually inform each other or else all three will be
misconstrued. The Being of God is the relationship of the
Three. And these Three are One not only as Father, Son and Spirit
but equally (and crucially) as Father, Incarnate Son
and Spirit. In this way divinity, trinity and
christology are held together. Go
here for another post of mine on Nicea.
The
divine nature is precisely the communion of the Three - a communion that
is in no way compromised by the incarnation. Jesus is fully God
because He is the Son of the Father and the Anointed
One with the Spirit. It is no wonder that He is so often identified
as ‘The Christ, the Son of God.’ Christ’s deity consists in these
relationships and is never diminished by taking flesh. Thus His
full humanity in no way contradicts His full deity. The Man Jesus
exists fully and without remainder within the circle of divine life.
Chalcedon upholds the full integrity of Christ’s humanity, the complete
perfection of His divinity, the absolute unity of His Person. What
Chalcedon does not say, and what it must never be made to
say, is that there is a humanity to Jesus that is beyond the divine
homoousios. Nicea has for all time assured us that the Man Jesus is
within the circle of triune fellowship which is the divine
nature.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, christology, theological method, trinity
| Tagged christology,
Doctrine of God, theological method,
trinity | 14 Comments »
25 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Preached
on Revelation 19 tonight. Really enjoyed it. Jesus is always
more than we can grasp…
He has a name written on
Him that no-one knows but He Himself (Rev 19:12)
Here’s
the sermon (audio now uploaded).
.
Posted in sermons | Tagged sermons | No Comments »
25 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
My wife
has long taught Sunday school children that sin is a power called the ‘Me
Me Monster.’ But I’ve never seen it expounded so hilariously…
H/T Justin Taylor
Posted in humourous, sin
| Tagged humourous, sin | 3 Comments »
22 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
The End?
Ok time to bring these
thoughts to a close (for now).
For links to the 14 posts
in this series go here.
For the full text
of the 14 posts go here.
Let me
finish with a plea from the heart of true doctrine… Jesus is the
Word of God. He is not the best Word. He is not the
ultimate Word. He is not the seal of series of improving
words. He is the Word. There is no knowledge of God that is
not mediated through the Son. Please consider these foundational
verses.
In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with
God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him
nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-2)
No-one has ever seen God,
but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him
known. (John 1:18)
He is the Image of the
invisible God, the Firstborn over all creation. For by Him all
things were created (Col 1:15-16)
The
context for these verses is not incarnation. The Word became flesh
long after the Word was. The Son has been the revelation of God
from before the creation of the world. Incarnation does not make
Jesus the Word, rather the pre-existing Word became flesh. At the
risk of sledge-hammer repetition: Jesus is the Word and Image of God
prior to incarnation. He has always been the one Way, Truth and
Life. To be ignorant of the Son pre or post-incarnation is to be
ignorant of God.
Consider
additionally these crucial passages:
Jesus answered, “I am the
way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through
me. (John 14:6)
”All things have
been committed to me by my Father. No-one knows the Son except the
Father, and no-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the
Son chooses to reveal him.” (Matt 11:27)
Christ in
the OT is not an irritating hobby horse that some people ride and we wish
they didn’t and would let us alone ‘cos we all get to Jesus in the
end’. It’s about the identity of Jesus. Is He the revelation
of God or is He something less?
Is solus Christus
true in revelation just as it is in salvation or is it a case of ‘Jesus
and…’? Are there other ways? Other truths? Or does Jesus
retain for Himself all the glory?
Ok so what are your
thoughts on this issue? Boring? Irrelevant? Untrue? Are
my arguments overstated? Unworkable? Old hat? Garbage? What?
Over to you…
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, theological method, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
theological method
| 4 Comments »
20 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here are
some more Revelation sermons I’ve preached recently.
Revelation
13-14 (recorded afterwards at home)
Revelation
15-16
Revelation 17-18
I’m
preaching the last four chapters in the next month (So all you pre
and post millers have about a week to convince me before I preach
chapter 20!)
Posted in revelation, sermons
| Tagged revelation, sermons | 2 Comments »
19 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Preached
on money on Sunday. Here’s
the sermon - Matt 6:19-24 was the text.
Here
are some other sermons on money that have helped me. Check them
out, but be warned:
These sermons could
seriously harm your wealth (i.e. your earthly treasure !)
.
Mark
Prentice on Matt 6:19-24 (seriously awesome)
John
Piper on Matthew 6:19-34 - part one and part two.
Tim
Keller on Radical Generosity (2 Cor 9:6-15), Treasure vs Money (Matt 6:19-34), Grace and Money (Acts 4:32-37), Two Men with Money (2 Kings 5:13-19; Luke
19:5-10)
Anything
by KP
Yohannan (Update: links now work!). Why
not start with Christ’s Call part one and part two. Or how about Investing Your Life in the Harvest part one and part two
And once
convicted - why not give to Gospel
for Asia. I dare you to find a better kingdom investment!
Posted in pastoral theology, sermons
| Tagged money, pastoral theology,
sermons | No Comments »
15 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Baptism
strikes me as a good instance of how we all need to have a rich and deep
theology. To answer the question ‘Should I baptize my child?’ will
require some pretty serious considerations of the nature of faith and
salvation and church and covenant and OT/NT relations etc. I hazard
to suggest that those who say “You have your theology, I just have my
bible” simply couldn’t come up with an argument for paedo or
credo baptism without some kind of systematic considerations.
You might
have guessed (being an Anglican and a covenant theologian) that I believe
in baptizing infants in Christian households. I digress into this
issue here
in a sermon on Genesis 17. To put it briefly I believe
that OT saints were to circumcize all in their households (on the 8th
day) as an entrance into the covenant community. They were meant to
grow up from within that covenant community as full members. But
for that very reason they were urged to inwardly own the outward sign of
their belonging and to have a circumcized heart (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer
4:4). Without this they forgo all the benefits of
the outward sign and will in the end be treated as not simply
uncircumcised but as covenant-breakers - a fearful position to be in. In
this sense I believe in baptizing infants in Christian households.
I do think Col 2:11-12 makes the link between circumcision and baptism
though not directly but through Christ. I believe it is the NT sign
of belonging to the covenant people. In this sense it is
appropriate to baptize youngsters, to proclaim the gospel promises over
them, to treat them as full members of the church and to urge them as
they grow up to own the meaning of their baptism inwardly (a baptism of
the heart). That kinda thing.
Anyway,
there’s a guy in our congregation who wants to talk through who we
should baptize. Anyone got any suggestions for some good books
we could look at? (From any perspective)
Posted in baptism, covenant continuity, theological method | Tagged
baptism, covenant continuity,
theological method
| 9 Comments »
14 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok, let’s
continue with this issue of the NT’s handling of the Old.
If we
take the reformation cry of sola Scriptura at all seriously we
must allow the Bible to interpret the Bible. Historical-grammatical
hermeneutics, archaeology, even the most careful exegesis conducted by
the best scholarship must all bow to God’s own word. He determines
His meaning. He is the only fit witness to Himself.
Yet, in
contemporary Biblical studies it is commonly said of New Testament
writers that they re-interpret the meaning of Old Testament
Scripture. Thus, it is asserted that an Old Testament passage can
be shown conclusively to mean one thing via a thorough application of
historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and then when Jesus or an
Apostle quote from it they invest it with a new Christological
meaning. Diligent exegesis yields one reading, the New Testament
gives another. Yet rather than bow to the Apostles and re-think
their methods of exegesis, these Bible students assert without any New
Testament support that these two meanings co-exist in the text.
Thus it is routinely suggested that Jesus and the Apostles did not
faithfully exegete the Hebrew Scriptures (defined by contemporary models)
but rather, with special license from the Holy Spirit, made Christological
assertions that are not derived from exegesis itself. Their
treatment of the Old Testament is therefore not to be emulated.
What we primarily learn from their handling is the audacious apostolic
authority invested in them.
But what
if we were to take Jesus and the Apostles as our models in the Christian
life? (radical thought!). If we do that we’ll see that the New
Testament does not model a two-level exegesis of the
kind: ‘David said ‘X’, but now we can re-read this through Christian eyes
as ‘Y”. The New Testament simply says Abraham met Christ (John
8:56). It states boldly that Isaiah saw Jesus (John 12:41).
It asserts that David looked ahead to the resurrection and spoke
explicitly of Christ (Acts 2:31). It declares that Christ saved the
people out of Egypt and accompanied them in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4,9;
Heb 11:26; Jude 5). The New Testament does not say
‘Abraham had an experience which we can now re-interpret as ‘meeting
Christ”. It does not say ‘Isaiah saw a vision which
Christian eyes know to be Jesus’. It does not say,
‘David looked to types of Christ later fulfilled in His Person’. It does not
say, ‘retrospectively we can see signs and types of Jesus of which the
Israelites were unaware but which manifested a Christ-like presence in
their midst.’ Yet how often is the OT handles in this way?
If you
continue, I’ve listed a number of New Testament texts which handle the
Old Testament. Just see the way New Testament writers read the
Old. Only the Bible can teach us to handle the Bible. If we
do not read the Old Testament the way these men did - we are wrong.
We must change. Let these examples challenge our own reading of the
Scriptures.
Continue
Reading »
Posted in Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, hermeneutics, revelation | Tagged christology, covenant continuity,
hermeneutics, Old Testament, revelation | 8 Comments »
12 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
By the
way, I’m collecting all the posts in this series into one page - Christ in OT.
Now I’d
like to share one more reason
why I think this stuff matters . It’s this:
When we
see that the OT is already a witness to Christ before and even without
the NT then we see that the prophets aren’t idiots and the
apostle’s aren’t weirdos!
It’s
important to counter this notion because I suspect it lurks just beneath
the surface of all our thinking. So easily we think of the prophets
as groping around in a sub-Christian darkness. And married to
this idea is the one that the apostles, when interpreting the prophets as
illuminated Christian witnesses, are doing something really weird.
But no, the prophets aren’t idiots and the apostle’s aren’t weirdos!
You will
have noticed that I haven’t really mentioned the NT at all in these
posts. My argument is not that the Old Testament is truly Christian
because Jesus and the Apostles give us a new hermeneutic with which to
re-read the Hebrew Scriptures. My argument is that the Christian
meaning (that is, the messianically focussed trinitarian meaning) is
the intention of the original authors and the understanding of the
faithful saints.
Thus
when, for instance, Paul says: “That Rock was Christ” ( 1 Cor 10:4)
it’s not audacious apostolic authority that’s allowing him to re-read the
history of Israel!! It’s the fact he’s a believer who simply takes
the Hebrew Scriptures seriously. When Jude says “Jesus saved the
people out of Egypt” (v5) it’s not some fancy telescoping of redemptive
stories, it’s just the plain fact that Jesus actually led the people out
of Egypt. When John says “Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke
about Him.” (John 12:41) it’s not because he’s retrospectively awarding
to Isaiah an encounter with Jesus. He’s just explaining the plain
fact that Isaiah actually saw His glory (Isaiah 6!) and wrote the rest
of his prophesies about this King who was high and lifted up (cf Isaiah
52:13).
New
Testament handling of the Old is not a novel Christianization of an
otherwise sub-Christian text. It’s simply stating the
obvious. Which means - thank GOD! - that the Apostles can
actually teach us how to handle the bible. This is so important
because many want to claim that Apostles are doing weird things which
cannot be copied. The argument (much caricatured!) runs something
like this:
- When I read OT
passage X, I don’t immediately see it as refering to Jesus
- Instead I think the
assured findings of the grammatical-historical method yield a
sub-Christian meaning. i.e. it refers to David or Solomon or
‘God’ in the abstract.
- Then I come across
Jesus or an apostle who simply asserts that X is speaking of Christ
- At this point I have
two options
- A – I can say
“I was wrong about X all along.” I can confess the paucity of
my passion for Christ and the foggy-ness of my spiritual
vision. I can admit that my presuppositions in reading the OT
are not those of Jesus and the apostles and I can
repent. Or…
- B — I can say
“I was right about X all along” and hold onto my sub-Christian
reading of X which is given no expression anywhere in the Old or
New Testaments. I will assert that my sub-christian
understanding of X is in fact the intended meaning of its author!
And then I will claim that Jesus and the apostles add an unintended
Christian gloss.
- I will probably not
even consider A (it shocks me how rarely “A” occurs to the people I
talk to!) and will, at the speed of thought, plump for B. My
justification? I will proffer one of two quotations with
an almost biblical assurance: Either, “The New is in the Old
concealed. The Old is in the New revealed,” or “They spoke
better than they knew.”
- If challenged on the
Scriptural warrant for this view I’ll mumble something about 2 Cor
1:20 or 1 Peter 1:10-12
Well
let’s look at those Scriptures:
19 For the Son of
God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and
Timothy, was not “Yes” and “No”, but in him it has always been “Yes.” 20
For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ.
And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.
(2 Cor 1:19-20)
Notice
here that Paul claims “In Him it has always been Yes.” I
never see v19 quoted with v20 when used in these debates. The
promises of God find their Yes in Jesus Christ - and always have!
Let’s
look at the other oft-quoted passage:
10 Concerning this
salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you,
searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to
find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them
was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories
that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were
not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have
now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the
Holy Spirit sent from heaven. (1 Pet 1:10-12)
Astonishingly,
people - intelligent godly people - can quote this verse to support the
view that the prophets didn’t know what they were talking about.
But look at what these prophets knew. They knew the Spirit of
Christ in them, they knew the sufferings of Christ and the glories that
would follow, they knew that they weren’t serving themselves - they
weren’t prophesying simply about contemporary events but knew they spoke
of future gospel events. What did they not know? The time and
circumstances. There they were, full of the Spirit, fixed on
the coming Christ - His sufferings and glories - they just didn’t know
when it would happen. They would have been asking “Is this the
time?” “Are these the circumstances into which the Messiah will
come?” How on earth you get from this verse to “They didn’t know
what they were talking about” is truly beyond me.
So please
let’s see that the prophets weren’t idiots and neither were the apostles
weirdos. Jesus and the apostles are not weird examples of a
specially mandated NT exegesis which is off limits for us. When we
get this straight then they are seen truly as fellow exegetes with
the prophets, laying bare the intended and understood meaning of the
prior Scriptures and showing us how it’s done. Because if
Jesus and the apostles don’t teach you how to do hermeneutics, who
will??
I heard
of a hermeneutics professor who told his students that the Apostle Paul
would have failed his class. Well that’s just backwards. It’s
Paul who should have been teaching him. But actually that’s very
typical of how many people think. They know how to do
exegesis (the text critics have taught them well). Paul doesn’t
match up so he must be doing something weird - let’s sideline him, claim
that we mustn’t follow the apostle and keep going with our
own interpretive techniques before adding Paul’s stuff as a weird
extra. But no, we must be taught everything in the Christian life
including and especially how to read the Scriptures. Let’s not call
them weird. The Scriptures never claim that Jesus
or the apostles are specially mandated in their interpretations.
They never ward us away from following
them, quite the opposite. They never claim to be
going beyond what Moses and the prophets were saying (Acts 26:22).
So please
don’t buy into “The prophets spoke better than they knew.”
What about this for a crazy idea - “They knew what they were talking
about.” Doesn’t that make a bit more sense?! Doesn’t that
give you greater confidence in reading them!? The prophets were not
idiots. And the apostles were not weirdos.
Posted in Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, hermeneutics, revelation | Tagged christology, covenant continuity,
hermeneutics, Old Testament, revelation | 6 Comments »
11 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Quotes from Church History
continued…
JOHN OWEN
Genesis 3
… a revelation was made of a distinct person in the Deity, who in a
peculiar manner did manage all the concernments of the church after the
entrance of sin. (Works, vol 18, 216)
He by whom all things were made, and by whom all were to be renewed
that were to be brought again unto God, did in an especial and glorious
manner appear unto our first parents, as he in whom this whole
dispensation centred, and unto whom it was committed. And as, after
the promise given, he appeared ‘in human form’ to instruct the Church in
the mystery of his future incarnation, and under the name of Angel, to
shadow out his office as sent unto it and employed in it by the Father;
so here, before the promise, he discovered his distinct glorious person,
as the eternal Voice of the Father. (ibid, p220)
Genesis 18
Neither is there any ground for the late exposition of this and the
like places, namely, that a created angel representing the person of God
doth speak and act in his name, and is called Jehovah; an invention to
evade the appearances of the Son of God under the old testament, contrary
to the sense of all antiquity, nor is any reason or instance produced to
make it good. (ibid, 225)
Genesis 19:24
…in this place it is Moses that speaketh of the Lord, and he had no
occasion to repeat ‘The LORD’ were it not to intimate the distinct
persons unto whom that name, denoting the nature and self-existence of
God, was proper; one whereof then appeared on the earth, the other
manifesting his glorious presence in heaven… There is therefore in
this place an appearance of God in human shape, and that of one distinct
person in the Godhead, who now represented himself unto Abraham in the
form and shape wherein he would dwell amongst men, when of his seed he
would be ‘made flesh’. This was one signal means whereby Abraham
saw his day and rejoiced; which Himself lays upon His pre-existence unto
His incarnation, and not upon the promise of His coming, John 8:56, 58.
(ibid, 225)
Genesis 32:24-30
From what hath been spoken, it is evident that he who appeared unto
Jacob, with whom he earnestly wrestled, by tears and supplications was
God; and because he was sent as the angel of God, it must be some
distinct person in the Deity condescending unto that office; and
appearing in the form of a man, he represented his future assumption of
our human nature. And by all this did God instruct the church in
the mystery of the person of the Messiah, and who it was that they were
to look for in the blessing of the promised Seed. (ibid, 225)
Exodus 3:1-6
He is expressly called an “Angel” Exod. 3:2 – namely, the Angel of
the covenant, the great Angel of the presence of God, in whom was the
name and nature of God. And he thus appeared that the Church might
know and consider who it was that was to work out their spiritual and
eternal salvation, whereof that deliverance which then he would effect
was a type and pledge. Aben Ezra would have the Angel mentioned
verse 2, to be another from him who is called ‘God’, verse 6: but the
text will not give countenance unto any such distinction, but speaks of
one and the same person throughout without any alteration; and this was
no other but the Son of God. (ibid, 225)
That the faith of
all believers, from the foundation of the world, had a respect unto him
[Christ], I shall afterwards demonstrate; and to deny it, is to renounce
both the Old Testament and the New. (Christologia, VIII)
From the giving of
that promise [Genesis 3:15] the faith of the whole church was fixed on him
whom God would send in our nature, to redeem and save them. Other way of
acceptance with him there was none provided, none declared, but only by
faith in this promise. The design of God in this promise–which was to
reveal and propose the only way which in his wisdom and grace he had
prepared for the deliverance of mankind from the state of sin and
apostasy whereinto they were cast, with the nature of the faith and
obedience of the church will not admit of any other way of salvation, but
only faith in him who was thus promised to be a saviour. (ibid)
JONATHAN EDWARDS
From ‘A History of the
Work of Redemption’
When we read in
sacred history what God did, from time to time, towards His Church and
people, and how He revealed Himself to them, we are to understand it
especially of the Second Person of the Trinity. When we read of God
appearing after the fall, in some visible form, we are ordinarily, if not
universally, to understand it of the Second Person of the Trinity… John
1:18. He is therefore called the image of the invisible God - Col 1:15 -
intimating that though God the Father be invisible, yet Christ is His
image or representation, by which He is seen.
It is now revealed to Abraham, not only that Christ should come; but
that he should be his seed; and promised, that all the families of the
earth should be blessed in him.
Thus you see how much more fully the covenant of grace was revealed
and confirmed in Abraham’s time than ever it had been before; by means of
which Abraham seems to have had a clear view of Christ, the great
Redeemer, and the future things that were to be accomplished by him.
The main subjects of these songs were the glorious things of the
gospel; as is evident by the interpretation that is often put upon them
in the New Testament: for there is no one book of the Old Testament that
is so often quoted in the New, as the book of Psalms. … here Christ is
spoken of by his ancestor David abundantly, in multitudes of songs,
speaking of his incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension into
heaven, his satisfaction, intercession; his prophetical, kingly, and
priestly office; his glorious benefits in this life and that which is to
come; his union with the church, and the blessedness of the church in
him; the calling of the Gentiles and the future glory of the church near
the end of the world, and Christ’s coming to the final judgment.
All these things, and many more, concerning Christ and his redemption,
are abundantly spoken of in the book of Psalms.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | No Comments »
10 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Quotes from Church History
continued…
MARTIN LUTHER
All the promises of God
lead back to the first promise concerning Christ of Genesis 3:15.
The faith of the fathers in the Old Testament era, and our faith in the
New Testament are one and the same faith in Christ Jesus… The faith
of the fathers was directed at Christ… Time does not change the
object of true faith, or the Holy Spirit. There has always been and
always will be one mind, one impression, one faith concerning Christ
among true believers whether they live in times past, now, or in times to
come. (Luther’s Commentary, Gal 3:6-7)
JOHN CALVIN
John Calvin’s three essentials to be borne in mind when reading the
OT:
“First, we hold that
earthly prosperity and happiness did not constitute the goal set before
the Jews to which they were to aspire… Secondly, the covenant by which
they were bound to the Lord was supported, not by their own merits, but
solely by the mercy of the God who called them. Thirdly, they had
and knew Christ as Mediator, through whom they were joined to God and
were to share in His promises.” (II.10.2).
“Holy men of old knew God
only by beholding Him in His Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I
mean that God has never manifested Himself to men in any other way than
through the Son, that is, His sole wisdom, light and truth. From
this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others drank all that
they had of heavenly teaching. From the same fountain, all the
prophets have also drawn every heavenly oracle that they have given
forth. (IV.8.5)
For Christ not only speaks
of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: ‘This is eternal
life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he
has sent’ [John 17:3]… From this it follows that no worship has ever
pleased God except that which looked to Christ. (II.6.1)
Even the Old Covenant
declared that there is no faith in the gracious God apart from the
Mediator… The law plainly and openly taught believers to seek
salvation nowhere else than in the atonement that Christ alone carries
out. I am only saying that the blessed and happy state of the
church always had its foundation in the person of Christ… So, then,
the original adoption of the chosen people depended upon the Mediator’s
grace. Even if in Moses’ writings this was not yet expressed in
clear words, still it sufficiently appears that it was commonly known to
all the godly. For before a king had been established over the
people, Hannah, the mother of Samuel, describing the happiness of the
godly, already says in her song: “God will give strength to his king and
exalt the horn of his Messiah” [1 Samuel 2:10]… Therefore David proclaims:
“Jehovah is the strength of his people, the saving power of his Christ”
[Psalm 28:8]… From this it is now clear enough that, since God cannot
without the Mediator be propitious towards the human race, under the law
Christ was always set before the holy fathers as the end [objectum] to
which they should direct their faith.(II.6.2)
The hope of all the godly
has ever reposed in Christ alone.(II.6.3)
Faith in God is faith in
Christ. God willed that the Jews should be so instructed by these
prophecies that they might turn their eyes directly to Christ in order to
seek deliverance… apart from Christ the saving knowledge of God
does not stand. From the beginning of the world he had consequently
been set before all the elect that they should look upon him and put
their trust in him… God is comprehended in Christ alone… So today
the Turks, although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the
Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute
an idol in place of the true God. (II.6.4)
The fathers, when they
wished to behold God, always turned their eyes to Christ. I mean
not only that they beheld God in his eternal Logos [sermone], but also
they attended with their whole mind and the whole affection of their
heart to the promised manifestation of Christ. (Commentary, John 1:18)
There is no other way in
which God can be known but through Christ, who is the image and pattern
of his substance… Although
Jews, Turks, and other infidels boast that they worship God the Creator
of heaven and earth, yet they worship an imaginary God: however obstinate
they may be, they follow vague and uncertain opinions instead of truth;
they grope in the dark and worship their own imagination instead of God.
In short, outside of Christ, all religion is deceitful and transitory and
every kind of worship ought to be abhorred and condemned. (Commentary,
Isaiah 25:9)
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 4 Comments »
9 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here are
some now updated quotations about Christ in the OT from
heavy-weights in church history. In this post we’ll look at
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Next post we’ll look at Luther and
Calvin, then finally John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. I’ve been very
selective, not wanting these posts to go on too long. There are
more at my site.
And check out Dev’s collection of Justin quotes here.
JUSTIN MARTYR
Jesus, as we have already
shown, while He was with them, said, “No one knoweth the Father, but the
Son; nor the Son but the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal
Him.” The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the
Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was
indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly
charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with
knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son
is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the
Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also,
being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared
in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the
other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before
said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for
the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at
nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer
death. (First Apology, chapter LXIII)
And where it has
been said, ‘O God, give Thy judgment to the king,’ since Solomon was
king, you say that the Psalm refers to him, although the words of the
Psalm expressly proclaim that reference is made to the everlasting King,
i.e., to Christ. For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and
Angel, and Man, and Captain, and Stone, and a Son born, and first made
subject to suffering, then returning to heaven, and again coming with
glory, and He is preached as having the everlasting kingdom: so I prove
from all the Scriptures (i.e. the OT). (Dialogue with Trypho XXXIV)
IRENAEUS
The Holy Ghost, Throughout
the Old Testament Scriptures, Made Mention of No Other God or Lord, Save
Him Who is the True God. Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy
Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and
absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they
have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling
over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all
creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord
said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies
Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father
addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and
subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly
Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them
by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the
Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and
brimstone from the Lord out
of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been
talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their
wickedness. (Against All Heresies, III.6.1)
With regard to Christ, the
law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born
of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared
from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by
the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence,
the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the
Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man;
that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws;
Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among
prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father;
God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark]
along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac,
and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and
the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince
of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King
for ever and ever. Amen. (Fragment LIII)
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 5 Comments »
6 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok, here are 10 11 reasons this matters. (Dev’s
reminded me of an absolutely crucial one). I’m not going to
spend very long elucidating any of them. I’m sure they’ll become
rants of their own in future posts:
Why it’s important to see the Hebrew Scriptures as
already and inherently a messianically focussed trinitarian revelation:
- To make sense of the OT text. I’m not
sure how many passages I’ve quoted in the last 7 posts, maybe
40? More? I really don’t think I’ve been monkeying around
with the texts, but I do think that these passages get a serious
stream-roller treatment when people read them as uni-Personal
passages. Let’s release ourselves from a basically unitarian
hermeneutic of the OT because when you take these texts seriously
they burst such arbitrary bonds
- Identifying Christ in Scripture is pretty
fundamental! To fail to correctly identify Christ in Scripture
is a spiritual error, and a serious one at that.
- Christ is not simply the best Word of
God. He is not the ultimate revelation of God or the
seal of a series of improving revelations of God. He is the
one Word and Wisdom and Image and Way and Truth of God. The OT
is a fundamental test case about whether we believe this, or whether
Christ is just the ‘cherry on the cake.’
- We refocus on the main point of
the incarnation - not new information but salvation!
- The Old and New Testaments really belong
together. And they don’t belong together simply because both
are revelations of “grace”. I hope to post on this in the future
but proclaiming “grace alone” without such grace being the
natural outcome of “Christ alone” empties grace of its gospel
character.
- What is Faith? Key question. If we
are to emulate father Abraham’s faith are we simply to emulate
the fact that he was trusting? Isn’t the Object of
faith the decisive issue? We stand shoulder to shoulder
with Abraham, Moses and Isaiah not because we are all believers per
se but believers in the Christ.
- Jewish evangelism! We do not
tell the Jew that they’re basically right about their interpretation
of the Scriptures but please allow us to add a meaning Moses had no
idea about. If they believed Moses they’d believe in Jesus for
he wrote about Jesus.
- Other religions. Let us block off
entirely the claim that other religions can know God apart from
Christ. It’s not unusual in debates on that issue for people
to claim “Of course it’s possible to know God apart from Christ - OT
Israel was in just that position.” No they weren’t!
There never has been a revelation of God apart from Christ.
- The Trinity really is the foundational truth
about God. It is not a nuance to be added to a simple
doctrine of the one God as taught by Moses and the Prophets.
All revelation of God has always been trinitarian.
- Personal distinctions in the Trinity go all
the way down. By this I mean that Christ’s difference to the Father
is not simply a function of the incarnation. Often times
people see the differences between Jesus and His Father as only the
result of Jesus having taken flesh. And it is a very simple
step from there to a Nestorianism that says the human nature of the
Son is separate from the divine nature. But no,
prior to incarnation the Sent One from the LORD is a distinct Person
who nonetheless has the Father’s Name dwelling in Him (Exodus
23:21). It has always been ok for the Divine Servant to be
distinct from the LORD, we don’t need to assign all differences
we see in Jesus to His human nature.
- Here’s a crucial one from Dev:
“Refocusing Scripture on Jesus rather than on self. Therefore living
for Him and not using Him to get on with my own life.” If the
law is about you - what kind of Christian life will you lead?
If Psalm 15 is about you, how will you cope? If David slaying
Goliath is a type of your battles - what’s the moral?
But if the law describes Christ and His righteousness… If Psalm 15
is about Him… If David is Christ defeating the head of the house of
the wicked and winning victory for the people of God… then we are
put in our right place. We confess “I am not the righteous one
described in the law, but a sinner.” “I am not the Blameless
One, but I have taken refuge in Him.” “I am not the victorious
King, but He has won my victory for me.” (I may have
misconstrued Dev’s point horribly - sorry about that, but that’s
where my rant has led me.)
There are others but 10 11 is a nice round number. I’m
sure others can add more. What say you?
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 7 Comments »
5 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Download this sermon. Close your eyes, raise
your hands and worship the ascended King of Glory!
By the
way if I die, I want all my blogroll entries to be replaced by Dev’s blog
- it’s brilliant stuff. Go check it out.
.
Posted in ascension, other blogs, sermons
| Tagged ascension, other blogs, sermons | 4 Comments »
5 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Might be
worth a little mini-post on Psalms.
It would
be tempting to highlight “particularly Messianic” Psalms and say “There,
see, Jesus is spoken of here and there in the psalter.” But I’m not
sure that’s right. I once told a friend I was helping preach
through an 8 week series called “Jesus in the Psalms”.
He said “Right, so you’ll get through Psalms 1-8, when are you going
to do the other 142??” I was chastened! That’s absolutely
right. It’s not like Messianic Psalms form a sub-division of the
psalter: like there’s imprecatory Psalms, Psalms of lament and messianic
Psalms. You’d never think of having the ‘God Psalms’ as a sub-category!
Christ is not a sub-category of Christian revelation or experience.
And
that’s the real danger with all of these posts I’ve been writing.
I’ve been quoting specific passages in the OT to show that
messianically-focussed trinitarian faith is plainly taught there. But
I don’t want to give the impression that it’s only in those
passages. Rather those passages are meant to show us the dynamics
that are inherent to the whole of the Scriptures.
Think of
the doctine of sola fide (faith alone) for instance. There
are a number of passages that we can readily turn up to demonstrate its
truth. And a paper on sola fide will spend time going through those
specific passages, but not so as to prove that sola fide holds
in those cases alone. We look to the specific passages to show that
this pattern holds for all God’s dealings with man. And it holds
even for those parts of the Scripture which opponents may erroneously
claim refutes it. It’s like this with solus Christus
(Christ alone). We look at the specifics to demonstrate a divine
dynamic which holds for all Scripture.
So as we
think about Christ in the Psalms we’re not going to pick out messianic
mentions here and there. Instead we’re going to look at Psalms 1
and 2 and see how these model for us what to expect in the rest of the
Psalter.
Psalms 1
and 2 are often called the gateway to the Psalms. They belong
together for many reasons not least the “blessed”s at the beginning and
end. Just as with the Sermon on the Mount, the “blessed”s tell us
exactly who is in on what’s about to be
discussed. In the Sermon on the Mount, the “blessed”s tell us who’s
in the kingdom which Jesus describes. In the
Psalter, Psalms 1 and 2 tell us who’s in on the worship of the living
God. And who is the blessed man??
Well He
is an ‘ish - a representative man. In fact He is the Man.
This is an audacious claim. (I rarely even claim to be a
man!) Verse 2 says He is a night-and-day Bible-meditator,
which makes Him a king (cf Deut 17:18-20; Josh 1:8).
Verse 3, He is also like a tree (think ‘Branch’ or ‘Root’ or ‘Vine’ -
kings are described like this). Not only this but He can
make others become prosperous (causative hiphil stem).
This one
Man, this definitive Man, is contrasted in v4 to the many wicked. The
Psalm does not begin by comparing righteous people to wicked people but
rather The Righteous Man is contrasted with the wicked masses. Then
(presumably through the Man/Tree-of-Life causing many others to prosper
like Him) we hear about other righteous ones (v5-6).
When we
turn to Psalm 2 we see the Man given more names. The LORD’s
King (v6) is here called “Anointed One” (Messiah, v2), and “Son”
(v7). Though He is raged against, He will be poured out on Zion
(v6) and publicly vindicated by the Father (v7) before claiming universal
rule. (v8-9) All must love and take refuge in Him - both Judge and
Saviour. (v10-12)
Here is
the gateway to the Psalms. We ought not to rush into the Psalter
without stopping here and asking who is welcome in the Psalter. And
the answer is: “Blessed is the Man… and Blessed are all who take refuge
in Him.” We must be rightly related to Christ to be welcome in the
worship of the living God. He, supremely, is the
Scripture-meditating, righteous, flourishing, tree-of-life-like
Worshipper. But as Calvin comments on Psalm 22:22, He also
is the heavenly choir-master who tunes our hearts to sing God’s
praises.
Now what
implications does this have for how we read the rest of the
Psalter? Well one big help we have received in this, the gateway,
is that we’ve been introduced to the four main characters in the
Psalms. Here we have:
(1) the LORD;
(2) the
Christ, the Blessed Man;
(3) The
Righteous who take refuge in Him; and
(4) The Wicked
who oppose Him.
All
the Psalms are about the interaction of these four groups. In some,
like Psalm 1, the Blessed Man is shown before the LORD and then the
righteous and the wicked are contrasted. In some, like Psalm 2, the
righteous complain to the LORD about the wicked and then He reminds them
about the Blessed Man, Christ. In some we have simply the words of
Christ. In others we have the words of the LORD to Christ. In
some we simply have the words of sinners like us taking refuge in
Him. But all of the Psalms are about the inter-relation of these
four groups. And they all work together to speak to us of Christ.
Let’s be alert to that as we read the Psalms, they are related to Christ.
Here’s a
sermon manuscript of mine on Psalms
1 and 2
And
here’s Mike Reeves on Psalm 1 and on Psalm
15 and on Psalms
in general- brilliant stuff!
Next post
I’ll get down to the implications of all this…. (promises, promises…)
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 8 Comments »
1 May, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok lets
look at a few more key OT passages.
Here’s a
favourite of a friend of mine who uses it on Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained down
burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD out of the heavens.
This even
works in the New World Translation:
Then Jehovah made it rain
sulphur and fire from Jehovah from the heavens
Having
turned it up in their Watchtower bibles my friend asks: “To which Jehovah
are you witnessing, the one on earth or the one in the heavens??”
Brilliant.
Because
as even the New World Translation admits, it is the LORD (Jehovah!)
who appears to Abraham in Gen 18:1, who along with two angels (cf Gen
19:1) eats the food Abraham and Sarah prepares (18:8). While
Abraham intercedes with this LORD the two angels go onto Sodom (Gen
19). In verses 1-23 we see the angels get Lot out of
Sodom and then… The LORD rains down judgement from the LORD out of
the heavens. This raining down is in the hiphil stem - it
is not a reflexive. The LORD who ate with Abraham now judges Sodom
with fire from the LORD from heaven. To which LORD do we
witness? Here we are presented with two divine Persons working in
concert. The Father has entrusted all judgement to the
Son!
Another
one that works in JW bibles is Exodus 33. Here we see in the same
chapter two Persons called LORD. First, parenthetically, Moses
tells us what used to happen in the tent of meeting (Ex 33:7-11).
Moses used to take a tent
and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of
meeting”. Anyone enquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting
outside the camp… The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man
speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his
young assistant Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
The
narrative has been following events on top of the mountain but here Moses
deems it necessary to tell us about his previous face-to-face encounters
with the LORD in the tent. This is so that we get the full
importance of his meeting with the LORD on the mountain. Because this
Person says to Moses unequivocally:
“You cannot see My face,
for no-one may see Me and live.” 21 Then the LORD said, “There
is a place near Me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When My
glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with
My hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove My hand
and you will see My back; but My face must not be seen.”
Now Moses
has gone out of his way to lay side by side these two
incidents: Face to face fellowship with the LORD in the tent and
then a meeting with the LORD on the mountain who says His face must never
be seen. I haven’t had the chance to do this yet, but the next JW
that comes knocking will definitely be asked, “To which Jehovah are you
witnessing? The face-to-face Jehovah or the unseen Jehovah??”
Interestingly
Moses had been asking the LORD on the mountain who would go with the
Israelites. He is told ‘My Presence (Face, paniym) will go
with you.’ (v14, cf Deut 4:37; Ps 51:11; 139:7; Isaiah 63:9). Moses
considers this essential. Unless the Presence of the LORD continues
to deliver them he prefers to rot in the desert. Later, when the
unseen LORD declares His Name (Ex 34:6-7), Moses understands that the
Name of the unseen LORD is in the promised Presence of the LORD
(cf 23:21). He realizes that in the Angel who has delivered them
they already have the fulness of deity in their midst. And so,
satisfied, he says:
“O Lord, if I have found
favour in Your eyes,” he said, “then let the Lord go with us.” (Ex 34:9)
The
unseen Lord delivers them through the Lord in their midst who is His
Presence and Angel in Whom dwells His name and nature.
When we
get to Isaiah we see that his vision of the LORD’s future deliverance is
patterned upon this trinitarian exodus:
7 I will tell of
the kindnesses of the LORD, the deeds for which He is to be praised,
according to all the LORD has done for us–yes, the many good things He
has done for the house of Israel, according to His compassion and many
kindnesses. 8 He said, “Surely they are My people, sons who
will not be false to Me”; and so He became their Saviour. 9 In
all their distress He too was distressed, and the Angel of His Presence
saved them. In His love and mercy He redeemed them; He lifted them up and
carried them all the days of old. 10 Yet they rebelled and
grieved His Holy Spirit. So He turned and became their enemy and He
himself fought against them. 11 Then His people recalled the
days of old, the days of Moses and His people–where is He who brought
them through the sea, with the Shepherd of His flock? Where is He who set
his Holy Spirit among them, 12 who sent His glorious arm of
power to be at Moses’ right hand, who divided the waters before them, to
gain for Himself everlasting renown, 13 who led them through
the depths? Like a horse in open country, they did not stumble; 14
like cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest by the Spirit
of the LORD. This is how You guided Your people to make for Yourself a
glorious name. (Isaiah 63:7-14)
Isaiah
looks back upon this trinitarian salvation and claims that the future
deliverance will be along the same lines. See for
instance Isaiah 48. Verse 12 introduces us to One who says:
I am he; I am the first
and I am the last
Read on
and the I AM says this:
And now the Sovereign LORD
(Adonai Yahweh) has sent Me, with His Spirit.
He is the
great I AM sent from the Sovereign LORD with the Spirit. In the
power of the Spirit, the I AM accomplishes the Sovereign LORD’s
salvation. And of course Isaiah has just told us that the Sovereign
LORD anoints One called ‘the Servant’ with His Spirit:
“Here is My Servant, whom
I uphold, My chosen one in Whom I delight; I will put My Spirit on Him
and He will bring justice to the nations.” (Is 42:1)
The
Servant and the I AM seem to be the same Spirit anointed Person.
Other Isaiah passages pick up the essential empowerment of the Spirit in
the work of the divine Servant.
A shoot will come up from
the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2
The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him–the Spirit of wisdom and of
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of
knowledge and of the fear of the LORD– 3 and He will delight
in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what He sees with His eyes,
or decide by what He hears with His ears; 4 but with
righteousness He will judge the needy, with justice He will give
decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the
rod of His mouth; with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. 5
Righteousness will be His belt and faithfulness the sash round His waist.
(Is 11:1-5)
The Spirit of the
Sovereign LORD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good
news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to
proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the
prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favour and the
day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, 3 and
provide for those who grieve in Zion–to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment
of praise instead of a spirit of despair.” (Is 61:1-3)
It is the
work of the Sovereign LORD’s Servant in the power of the Spirit to bring
about His cosmic redemption.
Ok,
enough for now. If you want to study some more why not just pick up
the book of Zechariah. All of it! Check out the Angel.
See how He is described, how He relates to another called LORD, how He is
called LORD and speaks as the LORD. See how the LORD says He is
sent from the LORD (eg 2:9,11) and… well, check it out yourself. It’s an
absolute treasure trove. And then just read the whole OT and see if
you don’t spot trinity everywhere! Once you put aside the
expectation of a monadic doctrine of God you release the OT from a
unitarian straight-jacket and allow it to speak as the Christian
revelation it has always been.
Next post
I’ll list some ’so what’ implications and then I’ll give some juicy
quotes from church history.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 5 Comments »
30 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
(I’ll get
back to the series soon, just thought I’d break things up).
I was
reading some very familiar words again:
Jesus then began to
teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by
the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be
killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and
looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he
said. “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of
men.” (Mark 8:31-33)
Here are
four shocks:
- The ‘things of men’
are satanic. To simply buy into the things of men (as opposed
to the things of God) is to be a conduit of Satan.
- Minding the ’things
of men’ is a simple matter of moving towards comfort and away
from the way of the cross. Satanism is simply the preference
of comfort to cruciformity.
- Peter’s sin is not
even that he desires his own comfort but that he attempts
to shepherd another away from the cross and towards comfort.
Peter thinks he is helping Jesus, in fact his encouragement to
self-protection is demonic.
- The ‘things of God’ is
Christ crucified. Think of the highest heights of deity - mind
the things of God - and what do you picture? Jesus says
picture Him bleeding for demons like Peter. That’s
what ’the things of God’ consist in. To shy from this is
to embrace the things of men and become a servant of Satan.
Posted in Cross, Doctrine of God, devotional, ethics
| Tagged Cross, devotional, Doctrine of God, ethics | 2 Comments »
29 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
This is
basically a repost of ‘The Trinitarian Old Testament’ from November last
year. I think it’s worth laying out the same material in the context of
this series. We are investigating the claim that the Hebrew Scriptures
themselves reveal on their own terms and in their own context the eternal
Son, our God from God, Jesus Christ. We are accustomed to thinking of
trinitarian formulations growing out of the necessity to confess the
deity of Jesus Christ. This is of course true. But we will see that this
is not simply a New Testament necessity. Once we confess the deity of the
Angel for instance we will also have to ensure that our confession of the
OT doctrine of God is similarly trinitarian. It is not the New Testament
that forces us to be trinitarian, it is Jesus. And Jesus, as this series
is demonstrating, is not confined to the New Testament. This is why we
now need to consider the trinity in the OT. In this post I will simply
(and very briefly) draw attention to 24 passages in which we see plainly
a multi-Personal revelation.
My point
is not that the OT betrays hints, shapes and shadows of triune
structure
My point
is not that NT eyes can see trinitarian themes in the OT
My point
is not that we go back as Christians and now retrospectively
read the trinity into the OT
My point
is not that the OT gives us partial suggestions of trinitarian
life that are then developed by NT fulfillment
My point is
that these texts read on their own terms and in their own context
(as the Jewish, Hebrew Scriptures that they are) demand to be understood
as the revelation of a multi-Personal God. The only proper way
to understand these texts is as trinitarian revelation. These texts are
either to be understood triunely or they are mis-understood - on
their own terms or any others! What I am setting out to do is to simply
open up the OT and show what is actually there. I have already
acknowledged that I have a dogmatic commitment to christocentric
revelation, but I hope to show that the OT texts themselves bear this
out.
Just
before we dive into the texts I would simply ask the reader to question
their own dogmatic commitments. I may be expecting to see a
multi-Personal God in the OT, but I assure you - you are expecting to see
a certain kind of God also. What is it? Are you expecting to see a
revelation of the one God? A uni-Personal God? Are you accustomed to
thinking of the OT God as equivalent to the God of the modern Jew?
Unitarian? Perhaps not, perhaps you recoil at the idea (I hope so). But
it’s worth all of us asking ourselves ‘What are our pre-suppositions?’ as
we read ‘In the Beginning.’ The “God” of Genesis 1:1 is a certain kind of
God. What do we assume about His being? What will we allow Him to be, do
and say as we read chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3…? Do we think it’s
“obvious” that the God of Genesis 1 is the uncreated Creator? Do we
assume that the God being revealed by Moses is basically the God of the
modern Jew? The philosophical theist? Something like the Muslim ‘God’?
Perhaps we think (as so many Christians do) that “the One God” is a
foundational doctrine to which trinitarian concepts are added? Perhaps
then we see the OT as portraying this basic ‘God’ before trinitarian
nuances are added?
I have
often had the experience of being criticised for bringing trinitarian
assumptions to the OT text when, at the same time, my Christian friend
was bringing equally strong and equally controlling assumptions to bear
themselves - assumptions that God (or His revelation) must progress from
primitive unitarianism to developed trinitarianism. Pre-suppositions are
inevitable. The issue is not ‘Who has purged themselves of all dogmatic
bias and is a pure biblical scholar!’ The issue is ‘Which
pre-suppositions can actually handle what’s on the page and which do
damage to the text?’ My contention is that the trinitarian
pre-supposition is the only one that makes sense of the OT data.
Ok. Here
we go - 24 Scriptures to consider:
- Genesis 1. Verse 1:
“In the beginning Elohiym… ” Here is the God to Whom we’re
introduced. A plural noun! One that takes a singular verb. The
grammatical oddity is meant to make us sit up and take notice. Our
plural God acts as one. And His plural counsel (v26) “Let us…” gives
rise to a united creation of a plural humanity - male and female to
image His own life.
- Genesis 3. The Voice
of the LORD God (v8) who comes to walk with Adam and Eve is also
the LORD God (v9)
- Genesis 16. The Angel
of the LORD (v9) is also LORD and God (v13)
- Genesis 18&19.
The LORD who appears to Abraham (18:1) is Judge of all the earth
(18:25), yet He excercises His divine prerogative in union with “the
LORD out of the heavens.” (19:24)
- Genesis 32. Jacob
wrestles with the Man (v24) who is the Angel (Hosea 12:4) who is God
(Gen 32:28,30)
- Genesis 48. The God
who is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is Shepherd and the
source of blessing (v15) is the Angel of God (v16).
- Exodus 3. The God of
the burning bush is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (v6) and the
great I AM (v14). He is also the Angel of the LORD (v2) and
will bring the people to worship God on the mountain (v12).
- Exodus 19. The LORD
on the mountain (v10) warns Moses that in three days the LORD will
come to the mountain (v11) and things will be very different then.
Sure enough, three days later, the LORD descends on the mountain
(v18) and then the LORD descends on the mountain (v20)!
- Exodus 33. Moses
meets face to face with the LORD in the tent of meeting (v11) but
the LORD on the top of the mountain he must never see (v20-22).
- Joshua 5&6. The
Commander of the LORD’s army (5:14) who fights for Israel to deliver
her is also the LORD who is worthy of worship (5:15; 6:2)
- Judges 2. The Angel of
the LORD brought them out of Egypt and established His
covenant with them. (v1-4)
- Judges 6. The Angel
of the LORD (v11-12) brings the LORD’s blessing (one who is
Sovereign LORD, v22). Yet the Angel, as another Person is Himself
the LORD (v14) with the same divine majesty (v22-24).
- Judges 13. God sends
the Angel of the LORD (e.g. v9) who is Himself God (e.g. v22). And
the Spirit fills Samson (v25)
- Psalm 2. The Son Whom
we are to kiss and find refuge in (v12) is the Anointed Son of the
Father through Whom is exercised all divine rule and authority.
- Psalm 45. The most
excellent of men who rules the nations as Champion and King is called
‘Lord’ by His bride and ‘God‘ by His God. (v6,7)
- Psalm 110. David
knows two Lords who converse in their rule of the nations. There is
the LORD and there is the Kingly Priest who is David’s Lord.
- Proverbs. The Wisdom
of God who creates (8:30) and gives new life (8:35) through granting
the Spirit (1:23) is also possessed by the LORD (8:22)
- Isaiah 9. The
government of God’s righteous kingdom will be on the shoulders of
the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of
Peace (v6). Yet He is One who is born and through Whom the zeal of
the LORD will accomplish His work (v7)
- Isaiah 48. The great
I AM, the first and the last who created the heavens and the earth
and who called Israel (v12,13) is One who is sent from the Lord GOD
along with His Spirit (v16)
- Isaiah 63. The
Saviour sends the Angel to save, yet they grieve His Holy Spirit
(v9-10)
- Ezekiel 34. The
Shepherd of Ezekiel’s prophesy will be the LORD Himself (v12-22),
yet this loving, kingly rule is exercised through the Prince, His
Servant David (v23-24) who does all that the LORD is said to do as
Shepherd and who rules for the LORD.
- Daniel 7. The
Possessor and rightful Ruler of the Kingdom that shall never pass
away is the Son of Man (v13,14) who inherits the kingdom from the Ancient
of Days (v9-12).
- Micah 2. The Shepherd
who will gather the remnant of Israel is the LORD (v12) who will set
at their head a King who is also called ‘LORD’ (v13)
- Zechariah 2. The One
Sent from the LORD Almighty (v7,9,11) is the LORD Himself to live among
the Israelites as the gentle, righteous, saving King of 9:9 (compare
with 2:10)!
In all
this my argument is not that these are hints of trinity but that
they are texts that can only ever be understood from the perspective of a
multi-Personal God. When two Persons called LORD are interacting in the
text (when we see plainly “true God from true God”) then an understanding
of God as uni-Personal is just dead wrong. It must always have been dead
wrong for it could never account for the Hebrew Scriptures as written.
The only
God there is is trinitarian and His revelation has always been such.
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
28 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
The Angel of
the LORD continued…
One more post
on the Angel, then we’ll look at some other multiple-LORD passages.
Check out
Judges 6:11-24:
11 The
Angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged
to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a
winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the Angel of
the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty
warrior.” 13 “But sir (Lord, Adonai),” Gideon replied,
“if the LORD (Yahweh) is with us, why has all this happened to
us? Where are all His wonders that our fathers told us about when they
said,`Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has
abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian.” 14 The LORD
turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out
of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?” 15 “But Lord (Adonai),”
Gideon asked, “how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh,
and I am the least in my family.” 16 The LORD answered, “I
will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites together.” 17
Gideon replied, “If now I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign
that it is really you talking to me. 18 Please do not go away
until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.” And the
LORD said, “I will wait until you return.” 19 Gideon went in,
prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without
yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought
them out and offered them to Him under the oak. 20 The Angel
of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them
on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so. 21
With the tip of the staff that was in his hand, the Angel of the LORD
touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire flared from the rock,
consuming the meat and the bread. And the Angel of the LORD disappeared. 22
When Gideon realised that it was the Angel of the LORD, he exclaimed,
“Ah, Sovereign LORD (Adonai Yahweh)! I have seen the Angel of
the LORD face to face!” 23 But the LORD said to him, “Peace!
Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.” 24 So Gideon
built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this
day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
As we saw in our last
post, the Angel proclaimed Himself to be the LORD who saved Israel out of
Egypt in Judges 2:1-5. Here the Angel is called ‘Angel’, ‘Lord (Adonai)’
and ‘LORD (Yahweh)’ interchangeably. Verse 14 is clearly
the same Character now ‘facing’ Gideon. His re-assurance to Gideon
concerns Himself: “Am I not sending
you?…I will be with you”. Gideon’s hope rests in this
Person: “If now I have found favour in your eyes, give me a sign that it
is really you talking to me.” (v17)
Here the Angel comes in a
particularly priestly way. He pronounces to Gideon the blessing of
Another called LORD (v12) and mediates Gideon’s sacrifice to
this LORD, v21. Not only is He priest – mediating the Father’s peace
to Gideon and Gideon’s sacrifice to the LORD – He also ascends in the
sacrifice. He is Lord and Priest and in a funny sort of way,
sacrifice. When Gideon sees this he really gets the identity of the
Angel (which was the point of this sign, v17).
When Gideon
realised that it was the Angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Ah, Sovereign
LORD (Adonai Yahweh)! I have seen the Angel of the LORD face to
face!” (v22) It is his expectation that seeing such a Figure should
result in death. This face to face encounter is clearly not
something mortals expect to endure when it comes to the Sovereign LORD (Adonai
Yahweh). God Most High on the mountaintop had told Moses:
“you cannot see my face,
for no-one may see me and live… my face must not be seen.” (Exod
33:20-23)
Yet in the same chapter Moses and Joshua are described as having
regular face to face encounters with the LORD in the tent of meeting (Ex
33:7-11). Within the OT there is a visible LORD who mediates the
business of the unseen LORD. On this occasion Gideon calls out in
alarm to the unseen LORD that He had seen the glory of the Angel. I
think it’s most straightforward to see the LORD of v23 to be the Angel
Himself, Christ. I won’t be very disappointed if proved wrong but
my reasoning is:
1)
In this incident it is the Angel who calls the unseen God, ‘LORD’ while
it is the narrator who calls the Angel ‘LORD’ or
‘Lord’. When the narrator wants to tell us he’s referring to the
unseen God he calls Him ‘Sovereign Lord.’
2)
The whole incident is modeling how it is the Angel who provides
peace for Gideon.
So, for me, v23 is Christ interposing on the basis of the sacrifice
(in which He ascended) and proclaiming Himself to be peace. You can
chew on that and let me know what you think.
Moving on to Judges 13 we see an extended passage about the Angel. In
v3 He appears to Mrs Manoah who consistently describes Him as a man (v6,
10) as does the narrator (v11). He comes again when God hears the
cry of His people and sends Him in response (v9). Just like with
Jacob, He is coy about His name (v18, cf Gen 32:29). But just as in
Judges 6, He ascends in the sacrifice to the LORD. At this Mr
Manoah exclaims:
“We are doomed to die!” he
said to his wife. “We have seen God!” (Judges 13:22)
His wife has more sense:
But his wife answered, “If
the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt
offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things
or now told us this.” (Judges 13:23)
The Angel is described as God. And the expectation is that to see
God is to die. And yet they do see God the Angel and Mrs Manoah
identifies the basis on which they can still be accepted: sacrifice.
I could go on about the Angel but perhaps you can follow up the other
references that I’ve listed
yourself. Let me just draw your attention to one more
passage. Because here we see that the Angel was set forth not
simply as the Mediator for Israel there and then, He was also trusted in
as the One who was to come – the Messiah.
“See, I will send my
messenger (malak), who will prepare the way before Me. Then
suddenly the Lord (Adonai) you are seeking will come to His
temple; the Messenger (malak, Angel) of the covenant, whom you
desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty (Yahweh of hosts).
(Malachi 3:1)
The messenger (Elijah/John
the Baptist, cf 4:5) will precede the coming of the Lord who is the
Angel. Here we see that the Lord who the people are seeking is the
Angel of the covenant. He is their desire according to Malachi 3.
Enough on the Angel.
Next post will be a re-working of a previous post on the trinitarian OT.
And for those who are wondering, I’ll also soon do a ‘so what’ piece
listing reasons this stuff matters!
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 4 Comments »
26 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
The Angel of the LORD continued…
Let’s look at the Angel in action in Genesis and Exodus.
His first appearance is to the Egyptian, Hagar:
Then the Angel of the LORD
told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” The Angel added,
“I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to
count.” The Angel of the LORD also said to her: “You are now with child and
you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard
of your misery… She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are
the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees
me.” (Gen 16:9-14)
Here the Angel speaks of another Person called the LORD who has heard
Hagar. This is typical in the OT - God hears and sends His Angel to
deliver. See Gen 21:17; Ex 2:23ff; Num 20:16; Judges 13:9 -
also similar is Dan 3:28; 6:22.
But even though the Angel is distinctly called of the LORD He can also own the name
‘LORD’ Himself. In verse 13 even the narrator calls the Angel
“LORD” and Hagar calls Him “the God who sees me.” He is from God
but He also is God - in fact He is the visible God for Hagar is
astonished that she has seen Him.
Read on to Genesis 22 and here we see that the Angel of the LORD is
the One who intercepts the judgement of father Abraham on his son.
But the Angel of the LORD
called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied.
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now
I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son,
your only son.” Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram
caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a
burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD
Will Provide. And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it
will be provided.” The Angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a
second time and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because
you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will
surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in
the sky and as the sand on the seashore.
Difficult to read these verses if you’re a unitarian! ‘Now I know that you fear God because you haven’t witheld your
son from Me.’ The Angel
clearly thinks the offering is to Himself and later in v16 He clearly
thinks that He is the LORD who will bless Abraham. But He also
clearly speaks of ‘God’ as another Person in the
equation. There’s much
more to be said about Genesis 22, but we must move on.
In Genesis 32, Jacob wrestles with a man (’ish) who is clearly a source of blessing
(v26) and is in fact God (v28). Jacob rightly identifies Him as
‘God face to face’ (perhaps best understood as a divine title?).
Why are we looking at this passage while considering the Angel?
Because of what Hosea 12:3-5 makes of this incident.
…[Jacob] struggled
with God. He struggled with the Angel and overcame Him; he wept and
begged for His favour. He found Him at Bethel and talked with Him there–
the LORD God Almighty, the LORD is His name of renown!
Hosea knows how it is that Jacob could actually wrestle with God and
see Him face to face. He knows that Jacob wrestled with the Angel. But Hosea also knows that
such a name is not a diminutive title for this figure. The Angel is
Himself the LORD God Almighty (Yahweh the
God of Hosts). What’s interesting is not only Hosea’s
high christology but also how OT saints thought through the issues of how
God is mediated. It was clear to Hosea, even though Genesis does
not mention the name, that Jacob wrestled ‘the Angel.’ OT saints
are able to make such distinctions and properly interpreted their own
Scriptures christologically centuries after the events and centuries
before the incarnation.
Moving on in Genesis we come to Jacob’s blessing of his
grandsons. Just as he sought the Angel’s blessing for himself (Gen
32:26,29) so now he wants the Angel’s blessing for Ephraim and Manasseh:
“May the God before whom
my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my Shepherd all
my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm–may He
bless these boys. (Gen 48:15-16)
Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? This is a massive
question today. Can we please have the courage to proclaim from
Genesis that Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is
the Deliverer God before Whom the patriarchs walked. The Angel is
God and Shepherd, Deliverer and the Source of all blessing. The
Angel is God from God and the One to Whom the patriarchs looked.
I can’t see a) any way around this, b) any reason you’d want to get
around this!
Let’s move on briefly to Exodus. And here again we see the
pattern whereby people call out to God, God hears (Exod 2:23-24) and in
response He sends His Deliverer. And who is the Deliverer?
2 There the Angel
of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses
saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So
Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight– why the bush
does not burn up.” 4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over
to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And
Moses said, “Here I am.” 5 “Do not come any closer,” God said.
“Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy
ground.” 6 Then He said, “I am the God of your father, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid
his face, because he was afraid to look at God. (Ex 3:2-6)
The Angel is Him who dwelt in the burning bush (Deut 33:16). He
is, v4, LORD and God and the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. Furthermore He is the great I AM (v14) who saves His
people. When Jesus claims to be I AM He isn’t (as many seem to say)
audaciously applying to Himself a title belonging to “”God”".
He’s saying - I’m ‘Him who dwelt in the burning bush.’ He’s not
just saying ‘I have the same name as Israel’s Redeemer, He’s saying - You
know the whole burning bush, plagues, Red Sea thing? That was me!’
Notice how in Exodus 3:12 the Angel says:
“I will be with you. And
this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you
have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this
mountain.”
The Angel will save a people and bring them to God. That is the
story of salvation. And does the Angel deliver on His
promise? Yes! He is the LORD who goes at their head:
By day the LORD went ahead
of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a
pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or
night. (Ex 13:21)
How do we know that this is the Angel?
Then the Angel of God, who
had been travelling in front of Israel’s army, withdrew and went behind
them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them
(Ex 14:19)
So the Deliverer is the Angel who is of
the LORD and who is the
LORD. Exodus 23:20-23 tells us how the Angel relates to the Most
High God: ‘My Name is in Him’ says the LORD on top of the mountain.
The Angel is the One the people should follow knowing that He has been
sent from the LORD on high with the very character of the unseen
God. To hear the Angel (v22) is to know the favour and salvation of
God Most High.
The Exodus was wrought at the initiative of God the Father hearing
His people’s cries for mercy. Out of His compassion He sent His
Angel to deliver His people and bring them back to the Mountain to
worship Him.
And just to drive home the point even further, let’s look at one last
reference. When all is done and dusted and Scripture looks back on
the redemption out of Egypt, who is it who takes the credit?
The Angel of the LORD went
up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led
you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said,`I
will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a
covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their
altars.’ Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? Now
therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will
be thorns in your sides and
their gods will be a snare to you.” When the Angel of the LORD had
spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud. (Judges
2:1-4)
At this point I feel like pulling a CS Lewis - when the Angel makes
such incredible claims, He’s either mad, bad or the LORD. So who is
He??
I hope it’s obvious. But I hope we also see that these things
are plain on their own terms and in their own context. I haven’t
needed to do any NT ‘re-reading’. I hope you see this isn’t a
conjuring act it’s simply taking these verses seriously. And
allowing them to say what they say without forcing them into a pre-fab
unitarian mould.
I think it’s clear (don’t you?) the Angel is clearly divine, clearly
Israel’s Deliverer, clearly trusted in. But also note - He is
also clearly distinct from another called LORD or God (we’ll see this
more and more as we go on). And He has His identity as the
Sent One (malak - Messenger). To see Him is to
be immediately drawn into knowledge of the Sender whose Name He
bears. His very being is defined by relationship to Another.
He is a divine Person who belongs to another divine Person.
Israel’s LORD is God from God.
And if this is true then the OT doctrine of God is nothing like the
modern Jew’s god, nothing like the philosopher’s god, nothing like
allah. The God of the OT is inescapably and irreducibly trinitarian
in nature and christocentric in focus.
One more post on the Angel to come and then we’ll look at some other
fun stuff.
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 13 Comments »
24 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Who is the Angel
of the LORD?
In my
last post I laid out my intention to show from the Old Testament that
Christ has always been the one Mediator between God and man.
I find the easiest
place to start in these discussions is with the Angel of the LORD.
If a person cannot see from Scripture that this is a title belonging to
Christ then the conversation will not get very far.
So I wonder whether you have a view?
Perhaps the first
thing to say is - don’t be thrown by the title. Angel (malak) just
means ‘Sent One’ or ‘Messenger’ (as most translations render it in
Malachi 3:1). So literally the Angel of the LORD is the One Sent
from the LORD. And already we should be hearing resonances with
Jesus’ self-descriptions. In John’s Gospel for instance Jesus is
described as the One Sent from God 40 times! That might be
significant!
The second thing
to say is that not every angel is The Angel. There are many created
angelic beings in the bible. But when Scripture speaks of the Angel
we know who we’re talking about. In the same way there are many
ones sent from God in a general sense. But when you talk about ‘the
One sent from the Father’ you are talking about Jesus.
But really the
proof is in the eating. So get a load of these verses.
Genesis
16:9-14; Genesis
21:17-20; Genesis
22:11-18; Genesis 24:7,40; Genesis
31:11-13; Genesis
48:15-16; Exodus
3:1-6; Exodus
13:21 <=> Exodus 14:19; Exodus
23:20-23; Exodus
32:34; 33:2 <=> 34:9; Num
20:16; Num
22:22-35; Judges
2:1-5; Judges 5:23; Judges
6:11-24; Judges 13:3-23; 2 Sam 24:16-17; 1 Kings 19:5,7; 2 Kings 1:3,15; 1 Chron 21:11-20; Psalm 34:7,9; Psalm 35:5-6; Isaiah 37:36; Isaiah 63:9; Daniel 3:28; Daniel 6:22; Hosea 12:4-5 <=> Genesis 32:24-30; Zechariah 1:9-19; Zechariah 3:1-10; Zechariah 4:1-6; Zechariah 12:8; Malachi 3:1
See also these verse where people are said to be
like the Angel and so are said to be like Christ:
1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam
14:17,20; 2
Sam 19:27; Gal 4:14
As you see the
Angel is not an insignificant figure in the Old Testament. I’m not
expecting you to check out all the references but thought it might be
useful to have them all together. Over the next few posts I’ll pick
out some key passages to highlight some fundamental truths. At
bottom this is where these verses take us:
·
The Angel is divine - He is very often called the
LORD and God, He speaks as the LORD, acts as the LORD and accepts
divine worship.
·
The Angel is distinct from another Person called
‘LORD’ or ‘God’ or ‘God Most High.’
·
The Angel acts on behalf of God Most High in
revelation and salvation.
·
The Angel is correctly identified by the OT saints
as a distinct, divine Person
·
He is feared, trusted and hoped for by the
faithful.
The Angel is God from God. Light from
Light. True God from True God. That’s clear from the biblical
portrait. To fail to see His identity is, I think, a real problem.
What always strikes me in discussions about
the Angel’s identity is that the Scriptures are so unambiguous in naming
Him LORD. I would go so far as to say that the Old Testament is
even clearer on the divine identity of the Angel than the New Testament
is on the identity of Jesus. But of course once we grasp who the
Angel is in the OT the NT pictures of Christ’s divinity become much more
apparent.
When Jesus claims to be the One sent from the
Father He is not merely defering to divinity - He is claiming it.
His divine identity in the New Testament is so much easier to see for
those who have already grasped it in the Old.
In the next post I’ll have a look at some of
the key Angel passages. Let me leave you with a Calvin quote who
sums up the history of Christian interpretation on this issue:
The orthodox doctors of
the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was
the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform
the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he
descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar
access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured for him the name
of the Angel; still, however, he retained the character which justly
belonged to him - that of the God of ineffable glory. (Instit. I.xiii.10)
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant continuity,
Doctrine of God, Old Testament, trinity | 8 Comments »
23 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
When we
confess that Jesus is our Substitute most people mean this:
Jesus
stands in our place - living the life we should have lived, dying the
death we should have died
I wonder
though how many also have this understanding of Jesus’ substitution:
He sits
on the bench for the first half before the Coach brings Him on as
match-winner in the closing stages.
I find
that many Christians, though believing in the pre-existence of Christ,
function with an understanding akin to this latter belief.
Though we
shout from the roof-tops the centrality of Christ, we affirm His
exclusivity, His supremacy, His full deity, in practice our gospel has
Jesus coming late to the game to solve a problem He’s had
nothing to do with. We insist that He is the crux, the ultimate,
the final, the greatest, the fulfilment but somehow lose that He is the
Beginning, the Author, the Logos, the Creator, the Head etc.
In such
theology Jesus becomes the Kappa and the Omega, the Middle and the
End. The foundations are laid. God is defined
(monadically). Humanity is defined (apart from the true Man).
The God-man relation is taken for granted (according to these Christ-less
definitions). Sin, law, wrath, sacrifice, blessings, hope etc are
slotted into place. And then Jesus comes to find His place within
this pre-fab mould.
But we
know this can’t be right. Jesus is not merely the cherry on the
cake. He is the flour, eggs, sugar, butter and everything else
besides. We know this because we have come to experience life in
Christ. And it is not the experience of
Jesus-the-bridge-to-something-else. He has not taken us by the hand
to another reality (heaven, glory, forgiveness, God), He Himself is our
all in all. All those other things find their meaning in Him
and only in Him.
Now it
seems to me there are three ways that this christocentricity can be
argued:
- Systematically
- From the New
Testament back
- From the Old
Testament forwards
Systematically
we point to verses like Matthew 11:25-30 or John 1:18 or Colossians 1:15
and say Christ is, was and ever shall be the one and only Mediator of the
Father in revelation and salvation. This, when grasped, opens our
eyes to see that all of history, all of theology and all of God to His
very depths is truly trinitarian and christocentric. Glory!
But of
course, people will soon ask you to show it from the bible. So
often people appeal to the New Testament. Jesus was constantly
saying things like He was the One who spoke with Abraham (John 8:56), He
was the One the prophets persecuted (Matt 5:11-12), He was David’s Lord
(Matt 22:42-45), He was the One who kept pursuing Jerusalem (Matt
23:37). Or Paul would say Christ accompanied Israel in the
wilderness (1 Cor 10:4,9), Hebrews insists Moses trusted Christ (Hebrews
11:26), Jude asserts that Jesus saved Israel out of Egypt (Jude
5). And this gets people excited. For a while.
And then
someone says: “Ahhh, with what freedom the Apostles imposed
christocentricity on the Hebrew Scriptures.” And all of a sudden
you get odd things asserted like: “It’s ok for Apostles to
retrospectively award a Christ-focus to the OT even though the Jewish
authors intended nothing of the sort.” And thus a rarely
substantiated but practically unimpeachable maxim is born: “They spoke
better than they knew.”
Rather
than rant polemically about the laughible paucity of Scriptural
warrant for this view, or the ethical conundrum of Apostles modelling
such dodgy hermeneutics or the logical absurdity of retrospectively
awarding Abraham or Isaiah or Israel an encounter with Christ I will
side-step a stomach ulcer and move to the third argument. Because
if I can show that the OT by itself proclaims Christ then all such
nonsense will be shown to be completely unnecessary.
So here’s
my assertion that I will seek to unpack over a long series of posts: The
OT on its own grounds, in its own context, according to its own intention
is a plain and understood revelation of Christ. I will seek to
argue that,
- Christ is active
pre-incarnation
- He is the Mediator in
Old Testament times as well as New
- He Mediates as a distinct
Person, divine and yet differentiated from God Most High
- He was trusted by
(the faithful) OT saints as their LORD and as the One who was to
come to save
- In this way the
object of saving faith has always been Christ
- And in this way the
experience of true faith has always been irreducibly trinitarian and
christological.
If Jesus
tarries I will, in my next few posts, have a look at the Angel of
the LORD passages before moving onto some other key multiple-Person OT
verses. I’ll look at the very natural way in which the NT picks up
on this. I’ll give quotes from church history and I’ll
draw out some implications.
And
having made such a commitment, I immediately wish I hadn’t. Ah
well, it’ll do me good to get it all off my chest!
.
Posted in Old Testament, christology, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged christology,
covenant
continutiy, Old
Testament, revelation,
trinity | 11 Comments »
20 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Praying
the Lord’s prayer recently I was thinking about what the prayer assumes
about the character of God: Father, in heaven, holy, etc. Then I
thought, what does it assume about the character of the one praying it?
Here are
some thoughts:
- Childlike
- Reverent
- Expectant
- Guileless
- Obedient
- No agenda of our own
- Desperate
- Dependent for all
things
- Confident of mercy
- Acknowledging sin
- Repentant
- Merciful
- Having a deep
appreciation of grace
- A follower
- Hating sin and
temptation
- At war with the evil
one
- Sheltering in the
Lord’s deliverance
Three
thoughts:
1) I want
to be this person.
2) Jesus has
made me this person (John 16:23-27) The Father regards me as
this very person, clothed in my Advocate. I not only pray in and through
Jesus but with Him.
3) Prayer,
resting in the intercession of Jesus, is what will make me more and
more live up to what I’ve already attained in Him.
.
Posted in devotional, pastoral theology, prayer
| Tagged devotional, pastoral theology,
prayer | 4 Comments
»
18 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Just wrote an essay for my post-ordination
training. It was on ‘ministerial formation.’ Anyway this is a little
biblical theology on the concept of formation that didn’t make it into
the essay…
The Living God is One who forms. He is the Potter, the yozer, who forms humanity, our hearts, our eyes, our spirit, our days, Israel, light, life, indeed the whole world. He does so by
degrees. And He does so along a trajectory of death then
resurrection.
In the beginning God created (bara) the heavens and the
earth. But, as the very next verse describes, this creation began
‘formless and empty’ (tohu wabohu). The Spirit, in
brooding power, hovers over a scene associated, throughout the
Scriptures, with judgement. Only then, by the power
of the Almighty Word is light, life and order brought to the
creation. By the Word the formless and empty world is formed (days
1-3) and filled (days 4-6). And this occurs in the context of a
judging Word – judging in two senses. First the Word separates –
light from darkness, dry land from waters etc. Second the Word
evaluates – ‘It was good.’ In this process the world is brought
gradually to shalom and ‘it was very good.’
The first creation narrative ends with this purpose clause in the
Hebrew:
tAf)[]l;
~yhiÞl{a/ ar”îB’.
Literally this means ‘God created (bara) in order to
make (asah).’ The word bara is used almost
exclusively of God’s creative activity. In the intensive (piel)
stem bara conveys the sense of cutting down, clearing a space. On the other hand asah
in the intensive (piel) stem can mean squeeze or caress. This tells us something
of the meaning of these verbs (which are here in the normal qal stem).
Taken together with the purpose clause contruct we see that God’s bara
activity prepares the ground for His asah activity. The
LORD begins creation by clearing a space for the purpose of continuing
His work upon that creation. He makes and then moulds. Again
we see that the LORD forms in stages. First the outline then the
filled out reality.
Humanity follows this pattern – first Adam is ‘formed’ from the dust
of the earth and the breath of the LORD. (Gen 2:7). Next Eve is
formed from the death-like sleep of the man. (Gen 2:21-24).
Out of this deep-sleep (tardemah) in which violence is done –
his side is pierced – he is raised up to consummation with bone of his
bones and flesh of his flesh. The formation of humanity was a
process and one which journeyed through darkness and pain before
something better resulted. It is not too much to say that even in
the first two chapters of the bible the process of formation is set
before us as one of death and resurrection.
This is the way of the LORD. His formation begins with raw
materials but is perfected in stages and through suffering. All
things in God’s economy are to be formed through death and
resurrection. The people of Israel as the seed of Abraham are
filled by Christ, the Seed of Abraham. The law is the form of the
covenant and is filled by the gospel events. The land (eretz)
from (Dead) Sea to (Mediterranean) Sea is filled by the whole earth (eretz!)
from Sea to Sea. Our bodies are seeds to be transformed in death
and resurrection to immortal glory (1 Cor 15:44). Ultimately all
this happens through the true Adam – the Last, Heavenly Adam. He
fills full Adam’s Headship over creation, He fills full the land, the
people, the law and through death and resurrection brings it all to
glory. Even the Son Himself is made perfect through
suffering. (Heb 5:8-9).
In all this we see that Eden is not the point. Adam is not the
point. Adamic humanity is not the point. Israel and its
worship is not the point. All these things are passed through death
and resurrection – from Eden and beyond to the New Jerusalem; from Adam
and beyond to the Heavenly Man; through Israel (and its worship) and
beyond to the Church of Jesus Christ. And so the Christian knows
two incontrovertible facts: First, all things are forward-looking. The
best is yet to come – in the process of formation we are optimists.
Secondly, the path to better things is through suffering. The road
to resurrection blessing always goes through the cross. In the
process of formation we will also be realists.
Posted in pastoral theology |
Tagged pastoral
theology | 6 Comments »
14 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’ve been
watching ‘Am I normal?’ – a TV programme about addiction. It asks whether
there is such a thing as addiction. What about gambling addiction? Shopping?
Sex? Food? Computer gaming? Are these addictions? Are they illnesses? Are
you born with them? Do you ‘catch’ them? ‘Suffer’ them? Are you helpless
before them?
One
doctor, author of the book ‘Addiction is a choice’ was, predictably
enough, against such an idea. He said things like ‘It’s simply a weak or
bad person making a bad choice…. There’s no such thing as an involuntary
behaviour. All behaviour is goal seeking behaviours… Our therapeutic
culture, instead of making moral judgments is making pseudo-medical
judgements.’
He
reminded me of reading Jay Adams – the pioneer of nouthetic (admonition)
counseling. Adams taught pastoral counselling at Westminster Theological
Seminary for many years. He says things like this in ‘Competent to
Counsel’
‘The idea of sickness as
the cause of personal problems vitiates all notions of human
responsibility.’ (p5)
He
doesn’t like this. He sees it as a straight choice between sickness and
sin:
‘Is the fundamental
problem of persons who come for personal counselling sickness or sin?’
(p17)
Adams
therefore goes for ‘sin’.
There are
advantages to this. If we are merely victims – sufferers of an illness
called ‘addiction’ then the problem and also the solution is out of our
hands. If the problem is ours – if we are sinners – then the solution is
also within our grasp. Sin is the problem. Repentance is the solution.
What I
find strange about Adams, and those who tend to follow him, is that he,
and they, are staunch Calvinists. They believe in the bondage of the will
(as do I). They believe, I’m sure, people like John Owen when he says:
“To suppose that whatever
God requireth of us that we have power of ourselves to do, is to make the
cross and grace of Jesus Christ of none effect.”
This is
such a touchstone of Calvinist thought it’s even the strapline of the
website ‘Monergism.’ It’s a wonderful quote. And it should be heeded in
all sorts of theological debates.
But it’s
not heeded when conservative Christians try to put our ability to be
moral at the heart of things. Something dangerous occurs when Christians
try to make ‘moral responsibility’ the centre of gravity in these kind of
discussions. To do so is to push the Saviour to the periphery. Owen saw
this. The doctrine of the bondage of the will, at its best, guards
against this. But conservative Christians tend to have a knee-jerk
reaction to the notion that sinful behaviours ever be classified as
addictions or illnesses. They are bad behaviours, bad choices.
Let’s
think very briefly about three Scriptures.
In
Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul brilliantly portrays our freedom and our bondage:
“As for you, you were dead
in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you
followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the
air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of
us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our
sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts.”
What’s
fascinating about these verses is that here we see our freedom to do what
we want is described as the very way in which we followed the devil. Our
so called freedom to gratify our lusts was precisely the bondage in which
we found ourselves.
The
second passage is John 8.
Everyone who sins is a
slave to sin… if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
Far from
saying ‘talk of addiction vitiates talk of sin’ isn’t Jesus here saying
that sin is addiction? Aren’t we enslaved to sin? Isn’t it a power over
us? Do we not find ourselves under its domination? And isn’t the solution
not for ourselves to gain mastery but for Christ make us His slaves?
Sin is a
power over us. The gospel of grace depends on this fact. Sin is a power
over us that is disarmed and replaced by Christ. We are beasts ridden by
the devil or Christ – this is where Ephesians 2 and John 8 have brought
us. Why would we want to put – why especially would Calvinists want to
put – human responsibility at the centre of the discussion??
Finally,
think of Luke 5:27-32 where Jesus meets and changes Levi. Jesus says:
“It is not the healthy who
need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance.”
Jesus
says our problem is BOTH. It’s not either sin or sickness – it’s BOTH.
Jesus calls sinners sinner. He calls Levi to repent and follow Him. But
in that diagnosis Jesus also reveals that He is the true Doctor of the
sick. Our therapeutic culture is not wrong to see us as victims of sin
(John 8:34). We mustn’t react against these trends and bellow out ‘we are
responsible moral agents, we can choose etc etc’ If we do that, so
quickly man comes right to the centre and the Gospel exits stage-left. We
become our own saviours from sin. But no, only Christ saves us from sin.
And He saves helpless, sick sinners.
We are
victims of a sickness called sin. That is absolutely biblical and true.
We are also culpable choosing agents – Ephesians 2 told us that the
gratification of our lusts was the essence of our bondage! They are both
true together. Jesus and Paul could handle bringing both sides of this
truth to bear. Liberals and conservatives fall off one side or other.
Christians must maintain: “I am a sick, wretched, poor, helpless sinner.
And I must repent. That is, I must confess my complete inability to gain
mastery over alcohol/drugs/food/pornography/gambling/whatever. I mourn
that I ever gave myself to such wicked masters in the first place and I
turn to Christ in faith as the only Master greater than these powers.”
.
Posted in pastoral theology, sin
| Tagged pastoral
theology, sin | 10 Comments »
9 April, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Hi all,
I’m on
holiday at the moment which is why no radio contact. Just thought
I’d let you know that at the local church I visited here in Wales there
was this enigmatic entry in the notice sheet:
Intercessor:
There will be no
Intercessor this week.
So if
things have been going a bit pear-shaped this week you’ll know why.
Jesus is taking a much earned post-Easter break. No intercession
till next week I suppose.
I’m being
mischievous you know…
Posted in mediation of Christ, prayer
| Tagged mediation
of Christ, prayer | 2 Comments »
24 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Hello
all, I’m moving house tomorrow. Apparently broadband won’t be up
and running at the new place for another two weeks (which will limit
my blogging opportunities)! But if you need your fix of ‘Christ the
Truth’ why not go to my
website.
Here’s
one of the more central pages which links to five papers I wrote on
doctrine of God stuff. It’s a series called the ‘God who is…’
I wrote these about 5 years ago for a church doctrine of God
course. I’d definitely change the third paper (too philosophical
(while trying to be anti-philosophical!)). But here it is for what
it’s worth. There are plenty of other sermons and papers on the site
too. Enjoy. I’ll be back blogging when I can….
.
THE GOD WHO IS…
Revealed in
Jesus
We meet
the Living God only in Jesus. He is the sole point of contact between God
and the creation. Theology cannot begin without Him nor continue outside
of Him. We must be radically and self-consciously Christ-obsessed. This
is the mark of Christian theology, distinguishing it from all human
philosophy and theistic supposition. Taking every thought captive to
Christ is the means by which we will defend true knowledge of God against
the countless philosophical accretions which threaten the Church. click here
for more
.
Three
Persons United
Our
Christian life begins when we meet the Father in the Son and by the
Spirit. The Christian life is, from first to last, a life lived in and by
the Three. The Trinity is not special information for the advanced
believer. The God we know is the Three Persons united in love. There is
no ‘more basic’ truth to God than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There
is no real God beneath or beyond the Persons. All talk of the Living God
must therefore be about the Persons. Understanding them and deepening our
fellowship with them in their relations and roles will be the very stuff
of our Christian lives. click here
for more
.
Bigger
than you think
Since God
is the Three Persons united, we must not imagine some fourth ’substance’
that is somehow more foundational than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We must not enquire into impersonal ‘attributes’ or ‘essences’ as though
they are the bedrock realities upon which the Persons are founded. We
understand God’s attributes only when we understand His Triune ways and
works as revealed in Jesus. We must not come to the Word of God with our
philosophical notions of God’s attributes and then fit the Persons into
these idolatrous moulds. As the Father reveals His character in the Son
and by the Spirit then we can see the power, love, wisdom etc of the
Living God. Allowing our doctrine of God to be shaped in this way will
open our eyes to a God who is bigger than we could ever conceive. click here
for more
.
Love
The
Living God is Persons in loving, committed relationship. His will for our
life is to be swept up into this eternal love affair and to be agents of
His love for the creation. If our doctrine of God is fundamentally
impersonal, our Christian lives will consist of duty-bound Pharisaism. If
we understand the Passionate God then our lives will begin to conform to
the total love of heart, soul, mind and strength which Jesus models and
commands. click here
for more
.
Proclaimed
by Moses
The
Scriptures do not introduce us to God and then to the LORD and then to
Christ and the Trinity. Revelation does not progress towards Christ - it
begins with Him. Moses and the Prophets proclaim the same Triune God as
Jesus and the Apostles. From Genesis 1, the Trinitarian Gospel of the
LORD-Messiah is front-and-centre as the focus of all Biblical revelation.
In this paper we will briefly run through Genesis and Exodus to see how
Christ is proclaimed as the One and Only revelation of the Unseen LORD. click here
for more .
.
Posted in Doctrine of God | Tagged Doctrine of God | 5 Comments »
23 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
It’s
common to hear people speak of the death of Jesus as simply
according to His human nature. This is insisted upon because it is
assumed that His ‘divine nature’ could have nothing to do with
death. It’s less common to hear the same people trumpeting the
resurrection as simply according to His human nature.
Why? Because the resurrection is tied in the closest possible way
to Christ’s divine identification:
He was declared with power
to be the Son of God, by His resurrection. (Rom 1:4)
God has made this Jesus,
whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
For many
it seems that the death of Jesus is quite a human thing.
And His resurrection something more divine. But this is wrong.
First,
Jesus death is considered similarly to be an identification of
Jesus’ divinity:
e.g. “When you have
lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM WHO I AM.” (John
8:28)
Second,
Jesus divinity is not spoken of as separate from His humanity at any
point, including (and perhaps especially) His crucifixion:
They… have crucified the
Lord of Glory. (1 Cor 2:8)
In a loud voice they sang:
“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and
wisdom and strength and honour and glory and praise!” (Rev 5:12)
Third,
the whole of salvation - incarnation, life, death, resurrection and
ascension - is accomplished by the Man Christ Jesus. And at the
same time He is never anything less than the eternal Word of the Father.
Fourth,
we just don’t have a high enough view of Man. Man is the true ruler
of the cosmos (Psalm 8). Man is the Head of creation. Seated
on the throne of the world is Man - and this has always been God’s
intention. Though Adam was a corrupted and corrupting king, even so
God showed the importance of man. God took Adam’s rule very seriously.
He tied the destiny of the whole creation to the actions of this
king. And now with Adam’s Lord - the true King, the heavenly
Man (1 Cor 15:47-49) - comes the restoration of all things:
Since death came through a
man, the resurrection of the dead came also through a man. For
as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive. (1 Cor
15:21-22).
Christ’s
work in reversing Adam’s failures could be nothing other than the work of
Man - true Man. And at the same time His triumph could be nothing
other than the triumph of God - redeeming, reconciling, ruling. To
be true Man can never be at odds with ‘the divine nature.’
The divine nature shines forth at its strongest in this Man - the Head of
the New Creation.
So this
easter rejoice in Man restored. Rejoice in the true King and
Head who summed up all your Adam-ness and put it away for good. He
rose up again as King, bringing His Kingdom with Him. His
resurrection renewed Himself, His people and the whole earth.
In the
meantime you have your flesh from Adam and your Spirit from Christ.
You are, for now, the scene of an almighty struggle. You
groan. Creation groans. The Spirit of God groans. But
when Christ is revealed so too will His Kingdom be
revealed. You and the whole earth will be reborn and renewed
under the rule of Man.
Praise
God
Posted in anthropology, resurrection | Tagged anthropology, resurrection | 1 Comment »
20 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
He began to be sorrowful
and troubled. Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow
to the point of death.” (Matt 26:37-38)
He fell with His face to
the ground and prayed. (Matt 26:39)
“Abba, Father,” He said,
“everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I
will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36)
Being in anguish, he
prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to
the ground. (Luke 22:44)
During the days of Jesus’
life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and
tears to the one who could save him from death (Heb 5:7)
”My Father, if it is
not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your
will be done.” (Matt 26:42)
Perhaps
no bible story has had more impact on me than the account of Jesus
praying in Gethsemane. It haunted my teenage years
especially. It said to me: ‘This is what honouring God looks
like. This is the epitome of religious devotion - overwhelmed to
complete prostration, loud cries and tears, commitment to the point of
death.’ And I attempted to emulate this. Not in practical,
daily ‘thy will be done’ service - no, no! Instead I would attempt
to re-enact Gethsemane. I’d sneak out of the house at night and
find somewhere really scary - a forest in dead of night was best.
And I would literally fall on my face and ask God to take my life, to
make me His servant, to do whatever He wished with me. (Of course I
imagined that His wishes would be awful, dark and painful).
Nonetheless Gethsemane had taught me that this was the way and so I’d try
(unsuccessfully) to work myself up into some kind of hyper-serious
state of emotional sincerity. I was massively aware that I was
falling short of offering the required… what? devotion?
gravity? sacrifice? Whatever was needed, I was painfully
aware of lacking it. But I made my dramatic teenage offering
and waited for the results. But no angel came to comfort me.
No spiritul blessing was poured out. No command from heaven.
Just an overwhelming sense that heaven was silent and my devotion
was clearly not sufficient to rouse Him.
And, over
time, my response to this was ‘God doesn’t want me, I don’t want
Him.’ I wandered from Him for years. But it was Gethsemane
that brought me back. Because all of a sudden I saw what should
have been most clear all along. I’m not at the centre of
Gethsemane! I’m sleeping with Peter, James and John.
I’m the weak, flesh-driven, good-for-nothing follower who cannot stay
awake even for one hour. But Christ! He prays to the
Father. He intercedes for His worthless, pathetic friends. He
offers to drink their cup. And suddenly it all fell into
place. Christianity was not about me burying my face in the dirt
for Him. He buried His face in the dirt for me. It’s not
about me stooping low enough to be worthy. It’s about Him stooping
lower still because I’m not. I don’t offer my life to a silent
heaven. The Man of heaven offers His life for a silent, sleeping,
sinful me.
Gethsemane
is good news. There’s so much more to be said. But perhaps
it’s said best by my favourite preacher on this my favourite
passage: Click
here for Mike Reeves on Gethsemane. Well worth the free
registration! Check it out.
.
Posted in Cross, devotional, sermons
| Tagged Cross, devotional, sermons | 3 Comments »
18 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
In
talking about Allah
as an idol the question comes ‘If Allah is a false god, does that
make him nothing? something? a demon?’ I think Paul might say yes
to all three questions:
“So then, about eating
food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the
world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called
gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and
many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom
all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.” (1 Cor
8:4-6)
Idols are
nothing says Paul. But then he goes on to say they are not just called
‘gods’ but are gods. And then in chapter 10 he says
pagan sacrifices are offered to ‘demons’. (1 Cor 10:20).
So are
idols nothing? something? or demons? It seems like Paul is saying
‘all three.’ How can that be? Well it’s important that we
take seriously the language of ‘gods’ (little ‘g’) and
‘demons’. (Ex 15:11, 1 Kings 8:25, Deut 10:17, Ps 82:1; Deut
32:16-21 - thanks Otepoti for these).
I think
false gods are demonic. Their ‘nothingness’ is not a non-existence but
rather an ontological lack. They are like a gaping hole - a nothing where
there should be a something. A hole is not non-existent but it does have
its existence in being a deficiency, a denigration. They are not unreal
or non-existent. They are just ‘nothing.’ Their whole power and being is
in being a negation.
Think of
how John describes light and darkness. Light is something. Darkness
is not something - certainly not like Light is something. Darkness
is not unreal or non-existent but it still depends on being not
light. On one hand it is a terrible power (a fearful something). But in
another sense it is nothing - its whole existence is an existence in
negation. I think idols are like this.
But again
this is not to say the forces behind these dumb idols are impotent. Far
from it - they have a fearsome dark power. Think of Deut 32
“16 They made him jealous
with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. 17
They sacrificed to demons, which are not God–gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear. 18 You
deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you
birth. 19 The LORD saw this and rejected them because he was angered by
his sons and daughters. 20 “I will hide my face from them,” he said, “and
see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children
who are unfaithful. 21 They made me jealous by what is no god and angered
me with their worthless idols.”
Here
these gods ‘recently appear’. They are ‘no god’ and ‘worthless
idols’ but nonetheless they are ‘gods’ - ‘demons’ even. Can we say
then that objects of worship that are not God are nothing in themselves
but become spiritual realities when worshipped. Demonic forces
(which, again, are ‘dark’ forces - having their being in negating what is
True) inhabit dumb idols when we invest them with power.
When we seek life in what is dead it is not a neutral spiritual issue -
the powers of darkness are involved.
So
yes, idols are nothing. And something. And demons.
What say
you?
.
Posted in evil, idolatry, sin
| Tagged evil, idolatry, sin | 4 Comments »
16 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Today I
listened to this talk by Robert
Reymond addressed to men in the ministry. If you are a minister
of the word, listen and be humbled. If you know a minister of the
word, listen and learn how to pray for them.
The talk
finishes after 47 minutes, the Q&A afterwards isn’t particularaly
illuminating, but that 3/4 of an hour is holy fire! Now I know I’ve
spoken against completely identifying holiness with ‘the
quiet time’ and there’s a bit of that here, but do yourself
a favour and listen in.
.
Some
wonderful quotes which he used:
Robert
Murray McCheyne on the congregation’s greatest need:
My people’s greatest need
is my own personal holiness.
.
A prayer
of Luther’s:
Lord God, You have
appointed me as a Bishop and Pastor in Your Church, but you see how
unsuited I am to meet so great and difficult a task. If I had lacked Your
help, I would have ruined everything long ago. Therefore, I call upon
You: I wish to devote my mouth and my heart to you; I shall teach the
people. I myself will learn and ponder diligently upon You Word. Use me
as Your instrument — but do not forsake me, for if ever I should be on my
own, I would easily wreck it all.
.
John
Newton on the terrible dangers of pride:
While human nature remains
in its present state there will be almost the same connection between
popularity and pride, as between fire and gunpowder: they cannot meet
without an explosion, at least not unless the gunpowder is kept very
damp.
Posted in ministry, pastoral theology, sermons
| Tagged ministry, pastoral theology,
sermons | 2 Comments »
15 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
These are
thoughts that I’ve been sharing over at Between Two Worlds on a post
called Is
the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammed?
My
answer? Of course not. Here are some points in no particular
order:
1) Let’s
let Allah define himself:
“He does not beget nor is
he begotten.” (Sura 112)
The Quran
defines the god of Islam explicitly as not the God of the Bible.
Let’s respect Muslims enough to let them define who their god is. He is
not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We honour their faith by speaking of
Allah as another god - that is how Allah defines himself. From our
perspective we cannot speak of Allah as anything other than an idol -
anything else fails to take Muslim faith on its own terms.
2) Can
anyone really imagine the prophets addressing the Edomites, Philistines
etc saying ‘Yahweh is very much like Baal/Molech/Asherah’??! Never!
The
question for the nations is not ‘Do you believe in God?’
But ‘What god do you believe in?’ Whether you’re evangelizing in
north Africa or north America “God” cannot be assumed. In fact
“God” is the least obvious word in our evangelistic encounters. How
on earth do we get to a position where people make it the point of
commonality!
.
At this
point a commenter replied that the ‘Baal’ analogies do not work
because Allah is thought to be ‘the transcendent Creator’ and not simply
a power within the world. He claimed that a Muslim convert
would have to repent of many beliefs but not his belief in ‘God as
infinite transcendent Creator.’
To this I
replied…
3) We
don’t say “Baal is called ‘Lord’ and receives worship therefore no
convert from Baalism needs to repent of their notions of Lorship or
worship.” Of course they will have to repent of all of
this. So then why would anyone claim that a belief in the
‘infinite transcendent Creator’ is of a different order?
Fundamentally I see this as committing two errors. It is to say…
A)
‘Transcendent Creator’ is more foundational to God’s being than His
triunity.
B) The
Muslim means roughly the same as the Christian when speaking of the
‘Transcendent Creator’
I
strongly disagree with both.
A)
i) If God is transcendent Creator you’ve made Him dependent
on creation.
A)
ii) It is a position that leads to Arianism. Athanasius complained
that Arius’ error was to conceive of God as Unoriginate and then
to consider trinity. On this trajectory he could never affirm the
homo-ousios of One whose being was ‘ek tes ousia tw patri‘ (out
of the being of the Father). Similarly if your conversation with a Muslim
begins with some ‘bedrock’ notion of transcendence before introducing
them to Jesus it will necessarily mean introducing them to one
who is less than the transcendent one. You’ll have shot yourself in the
foot from the very beginning. Let’s not define Jesus out of full deity
before we’ve even begun. We therefore must not begin on the Arian
trajectory of affirming transcendent Creator first - Jesus will not come
out very well from such a starting point!
B) Only
the God who exists as Himself in relations of otherness can
actually have a relationship with creation in which we can know Him as
transcendent. ‘Transcendent Creator’ is dependent on trinity (not the
other way around). The Muslim account of transcendence is completely
confused (as is every unitarian account). Allah is a prisoner of his
‘transcendence’ - by definition cut off from any relationship
with it (whether transcendent or immanent).
‘Transcendent
Creator’ is neither the foundational nor a shared understanding of the
living God. And it’s not desirable that it should be.
.
At this
point my interlocutor (rightly) suspected I was denying the possiblity
of true philosophical reflection on divinity apart from Christian
revelation. He claimed I was being overly Barthian ;-)
I replied with these points…
4) In
terms of theological method, “Christ alone” is not a Barthian
novelty! It’s difficult to think of a more crucial verse in the
history of the church for theological method than Matthew 11:27: “No-one
knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to
reveal Him.”
To this
let’s add John 1:18; 14:6 and Colossians 1:15. To this let’s add the
continual Scriptural witness that we are blind, dead, enemies of God
unable to know Him apart from His Word to us. (e.g. Ps 14:2; 2
Cor 4:4; Col 1:21). These plain and central truths cannot be evaded
by crying ‘Barthian’!
5) Nicea’s
“The Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” was a deliberate and
crucial choice of order. Triunity precedes creation. Of course it does -
unless we want to define God as dependent upon creation.
6) Even
Jews who have the Scriptures do not know the Father if they reject the
Son. (cf ALL OF JOHN’S GOSPEL!)
7) To go
over a previous point - there are tremendous Arian dangers of
considering ‘Creator’ more foundational than trinity. Once you have
assured your Muslim friend that she really does know God and that the God
she knows is definitionally the infinite, transcendent Creator, do you
really think you’ve helped her towards faith in Jesus of Nazareth?? Have
you not just given her every reason to reject divine honours (thus
defined) being attributed to Christ. Won’t she simply thank you for
confirming her own doctrine of God which by definition
precludes Jesus from being anything more than a prophet??
Athanasius
rightly said ‘the only system of thought into which Jesus Christ will fit
is the one in which He is the starting point.’
The Rock
upon which we build is nothing and no-one else but Christ. Let’s be
clearer on this whether we’re evangelizing Muslims or our friends in the
pub. They do not know God and besides - why would we want to
confirm for them a sterile, non-relational doctrine of God in the first
place?? Let’s tell them, ‘The god you had thought existed was
not God - let me tell you about the living God who is unlike anything
you’ve imagined. His name is Jesus and He blows your god out of
the water!’
.
Posted in evangelism, islam,
theological method, trinity
| Tagged evangelism, islam, theological method,
trinity | 12 Comments »
14 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Human
religion is man justifying man before a watching god.
The gospel is God justifying God before a watching humanity.
.
Posted in gospel | Tagged gospel | 2 Comments »
13 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
In
thinking of Substitutes
for the Spirit I was surprised at how many I came up with. But
then again, we all know what the Scripture says is the antithesis to the
Spirit. Therefore we know that susbtitutes for the Spirit can be summed
up in one word - flesh. Thus we know
- These substitutes
will be with us from cradle to grave
- They will stick to us
like skin to our bones
- They will pervade
every area of life
- They will be selfish
alternatives to everything the Spirit is trying to lead us to
- They will seem far
more natural than the Spirit-led path
- They will appear as a
counterfeit Spirit-led path - (not every spirit is from God!)
In fact
they will appear as the seemingly harmless desire to serve myself -
whether in moral or immoral ways. And so they are
at war with my soul. (1 Pet 2:11). It’s often occured to me
that maturity in the Christian life consists largely of identifying these
desires of the flesh as precisely that.
We can
identify Spirit-led passions. They will be:
- Christ-centred
- Word-based
- other-focussed
- cross-shaped
How
are we to identify fleshly thinking? Ephesians 4:22 is interesting:
You were taught, with
regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is
being corrupted by its deceitful desires
Three
questions occur to me regarding the ‘old self’ / flesh:
- What are the desires
of your flesh? What exactly is the ‘old self’ telling you
about what you need / what you should pursue?
- How is this old self
deceiving you? Phrase the desire as a blatant lie: e.g. “Your
identity/worth/righteousness lies in people thinking you’re
funny/attractive/clever/’helpful’.”
- How has this fleshly
existence corrupted you? Think how ugly it has made you.
Always,
though, the underlying pursuit/lie/corruption of the flesh is my attempt
to establish a righteousness of my own. (Phil 3:1-11).
Ultimately the flesh tells me to be justified before heaven and
earth on my own account. Therefore the power which alone is
able to mortify my flesh is the gospel. Because the gospel tells me
‘Before and apart from any works, I am clothed in Christ. My whole
identity, status, reputation, past, present and future is taken out
of my hands and hidden entirely in Christ.’
I was 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)
To
live by this gospel word is to live by the Spirit. And it is to
crucify the flesh.
.
Posted in pastoral theology, sin
| Tagged pastoral
theology, sin | 2 Comments »
12 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
We have
endless substitutes for the actual, dynamic, personal presence of the
Spirit in our thinking. Here’s a sketch of just a few off the top
of my head.
Of
course, many or all of these are means by which the
Spirit works. Yet if they are cut off from the Source they
have no life in them:
.
Doctrine
of Omnipotence
An
a-topic, abstract power is assigned to God, equivalent to a similarly
ill-defined notion called ‘sovereignty’. This is all rather than the
active and immanent Person who is God’s Power - the Spirit of Christ.
.
Doctrine
of Omnipresence
‘God is
everywhere’ becomes a substitute for the indwelling personal presence of
the Spirit
.
Doctrine
of Omniscience
This
happens, for instance, when the living nature of the Spirit-breathed Word
is replaced by a doctrine of God’s omniscience in the original authorship
of the Bible. What is side-lined is a doctrine of the Spirit as the
Dei loquentis persona (God speaking in person). Instead
the spotlight falls on God’s omniscience in inspiring the text thousands
of years ago such that it would speak to every generation. A
fossilization of the living word?
.
Assurance
found in moral performance.
Romans
8:16 says ‘the Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are God’s
children.’ Few preachers I hear teach that we should seek our assurance
in the fellowship we have with the Spirit. Usually we’re encouraged
to look to our works.
.
Fellowship
of believers
The
fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ (2 Cor 13:4) is not a Spirit-generated
church-fellowship! Yet so many take it in this way. No, just as the love
of God is an enjoyment of God in His love and just as the grace of Christ
is an enjoyment of Christ in His grace, so the fellowship of the Holy
Spirit is fellowship with the Spirit!
.
‘Now
but not yet’.
We often
speak of this age (truly) in terms of absence and in-between-ness. We
live in between the comings of Christ. This is all absolutely correct and
vitally important. But let’s not forget the presence! This is the age of
the Spirit. The Spirit’s presence is the ‘now’ in the
‘now-and-not-yet’. Let’s remember Jesus said ‘It is for your good I
am going away… if I go I will send Him to you’! (John 16:7).
.
Fruit of the Spirit
At one
time I was praying through the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians 5 and
using these nine characteristics as a moral checklist. I confessed
my lack of fruit and prayed for more. One day I was doing
this and got a picture in my mind of the Holy Spirit coming to my
door laden with a big basket of fruit and me saying to Him ‘Thanks
Spirit, just leave the fruit and I’ll see you later.’ I was praying
for fruit when I should really have been praying for the Spirit
Himself. These fruit grow organically from a relationship with
Him. Let’s desire Him and not simply His gifts.
.
Application
in preaching
So much
preaching advice assumes that it’s the preacher’s job to bridge the gap
between text and congregation. Surely it is the Spirit’s work to
drive home the Word to our hearts! How often preaching is thought
to really live when the preacher ‘applies’ the text to Monday
morning and the ‘nitty-gritty’ of life. Yet the Spirit, in living
power, makes the Word alive and applies it to our lives in ways more
nuanced, powerful and incisive than any preacher could.
.
Human
advice
In the
realm of guidance
.
Human
aptitude
In the
realm of gifts
.
Apologetics
In the
realm of evangelism
.
Strategy
In the
realm of Kingdom-work
.
Oratory
skill
In the
realm of preaching
.
Grammatical-historical
method.
Text
critical tools give the meaning of the Bible, not the Author Himself
.
Any more
we can add to the list?
.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Holy Spirit | 18 Comments »
11 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
“Fear not, little flock,
for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” (Luke
12:32)
We think
of ourselves as battle-weary soldiers, securing the kingdom for a
grudging commanding officer. The Good Shepherd calls us little sheep who
are given heaven and earth by a happy and generous Father!
Now if
that doesn’t revolutionize our prayers, nothing will!
.
Posted in devotional | Tagged devotional | 5 Comments »
9 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
It’s been
very sobering to study the wrath of the Lamb this week (Rev 6:16).
Here are seven thoughts (of course seven!) that occurred to me this
week while preparing to preach Revelation 6:
- This is not so much
the anger of the great king against rebels. This is much much worse.
This is the anger of the Lamb who was slain to save rebels.
This is the anger of the meek and humble Saviour who stretched out
His arms to a disobedient and obstinate people. This is the anger of
the One who longed to gather His children under His wings but they
were not willing. This is the anger of the bloody sacrifice who
poured out His life just to redeem and forgive such people. Those
who will be sent to hell have not only rebelled against a mighty
King, they have trodden on the slain Lamb. They have spurned their
only Saviour, who wept and sweated and bled for them. They have
hated and trampled on Christ crucified. And they will
not stand on the great day of His wrath.
- The great day of His
wrath comes after a long wait (Rev 6:17). He is indeed ’slow
to anger’. (Ex 34:6; Num 14:18; Neh 9:17; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 145:8;
Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3; cf Rom 3:25; 2 Pet 3:9) And
both the anger and the slowness are good things. It would be
terrible if the Father or the Son flew off into a rage without
warning. But it would also be terrible if they never got
angry - the evil of this world, and particularly the evil of
rejecting Christ is damnable. So His wrath is a very good
thing.
- We are meant to draw
nearer to the wrathful Lamb, not flee further from Him. It is
the unbelievers who run from the Lamb in His anger (v15-17),
it’s the believers who run to Him. (Cf Psalm
2:12). As we read of His wrath we are tempted to draw back,
but instead we should press closer, ask, seek and knock even
more. His anger should in fact make us draw nearer - if we do,
we will find Him to be our Refuge.
- Anger is not the last
word. Revelation 6 clears the way for Revelation 7.
“Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will
heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds.
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore
us, that we may live in his presence.” (Hosea 6:1-2)
- It’s vital to see
that the Father is not the only One angry at sin! Sometimes we
can imagine that the cross is an angry Father being placated by His
Son who really isn’t that bothered about sin. “Jesus
loves you, don’t mind the Father, He’s cranky!” It’s at this
point that people suppose that true trinitarian theology is opposed
to penal substitutionary atonement. But no the Father and Son
are not divided in their attitudes to sin. The Son is Christ
precisely because He loves righteousness and hates wickedness (Ps
45:7). Rev 6:17 speaks of ‘their’ wrath - Jesus is just as
angry at sin as the Father. And He suffers in Himself the fullness
of His own divine anger at sin.
- Chapters like
Revelation 6 show us just how intense Christ’s sufferings were. Here
is the magnitude of the wrath which Jesus faced on the cross. The
Lamb faced His own divine anger at sin - an anger that shakes the
creation to its very foundations. When we read of Jesus sweating
blood in the garden of Gethsemane and overwhelmed with sorrow to the
point of death, He is feeling in Himself the dread of all those who
say to the mountains ‘Fall on us and hide us.’ After studying
Revelation 6 we should have a bigger picture not only of judgement
day but also the cross.
- We are tempted to
measure hell by our sins. Passages like this tell us to measure our
sins by hell. (Spurgeon used to say this often). What do
I mean? We tend to think of our sins as trifling matters and then we
read about the terrible judgement of God and think it’s over the
top. That’s backwards. We should read about the terrible judgement
of God and then think - that’s what my sin deserves. Don’t measure
hell by your sins, measure your sins by hell. And then rejoice that
the Lamb intercepted His own wrath and hid you under His altar, the
cross. (Rev 6:9)
.
Posted in judgement, revelation | Tagged judgement, revelation | No Comments »
6 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
This
never made it into my sermon ‘Why the Cross?‘
It’s a side thought raised by the question why God doesn’t simply
forgive us…
Forgiveness
is always costly. Whenever people say ‘Why doesn’t God simply forgive?’ I
often wonder what they mean by the word ‘simply’. Anyone who says
forgiveness is simple has clearly never tried it. Forgiveness is always
painful, costly, messy, heart-wrenching. Forgiveness always involves
sacrifice.
Look at
this verse from Proverbs:
Proverbs 15:1 A gentle
answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Have you
ever been in an argument where you’re exchanging harsh words with
another. And, as this verse describes it, anger is being stirred up and
stirred up and stirred up. In that situation what is it like to answer a
person with genuine gentleness? They speak harsh words to you - what’s it
like to answer with gentleness. It is painful, it is hard, it is a
sacrifice. It is not just water off a duck’s back. It’s not a simple
matter of forgiving and forgetting - it involves sacrifice.
And this
proverb describes it is as a sacrifice. You see the phrase ‘turns away
wrath’ is a special phrase in the bible that’s almost always associated
with sacrifices. It’s sacrifices that turn away wrath - anger is turned
away from you because it’s turned on the sacrifice. And this verse says:
if you’re in an argument and you answer someone gently it’s like being a
human sacrifice. If we’ve ever tried it, we know that’s how it feels.
Forgiveness is always sacrificial.
And
nowhere is this more true than at the cross. In the bible, the cross is
described as the place where Jesus turns away God’s wrath. At the cross
the wrath of God is turned away from us and turned onto Jesus. So think
of the cross as the place where all our harsh words against heaven are
met by the gentle answer of Jesus. His grace heals and restores us but
it’s costly to Him. The cross is the costly, sacrificial forgiveness of
God. But there really is no forgiveness that’s not sacrificial.
Think of
it from another angle. When Jesus tells us to pray ‘forgive us our
sins as we forgive those who sin against us’ the prayer literally is
‘forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.’ Our
sins are like debts. Now if you cancel someone’s debt - that’s great for
them. But the debt doesn’t just vanish. There’s still a cost - it just
means that now you bear the cost, rather than them. It still hurts, it’s
still costly, it’s still sacrificial to forgive.
So again,
think of the cross as the place where all our debts to God are cancelled
- it’s wonderful for us. It’s massively costly to God - He absorbs the
debt, He makes Himself liable, He pays off our arrears. That’s the cross.
It is free and full forgiveness for us, but it is a costly, sacrificial
forgiveness, for God. Because all forgiveness is sacrificial.
.
Posted in Cross, forgiveness, sermons
| Tagged Cross, forgiveness, sermons | 3 Comments »
4 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
“I watched as the Lamb
opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living
creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” I looked, and there
before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a
crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” (Revelation
6:1-2)
Is the
first horseman Jesus?
- He comes at the head
of his own judgements
- He rides a white
horse (Rev 19:11)
- He’s given a crown
(divine passive?)
- He conquers
emphatically (overcoming, He overcomes) - cf esp Rev 2:26f; 3:21;
5:5 and 17:14
Or is he
a counterfeit Jesus - conquering in a bad way?
- The beast also
conquers (Rev 13:7)
- The beast also is
‘given power’ to do so (Rev 13:7)
- The powers of evil
often mimic (and distort) the good (the beast speaks like the Lamb -
13:11; the dragon has a seven-fold crown - 12:3)
- Christ is not among
the four horseman of Zech 1:7-11 - He is the Angel of the LORD to
Whom they report (but that’s for another post ;-))
Or
is he something else?
I am
truly undecided on this. So let me ask two questions:
1) Who
the heck is the first horseman of the Apocalypse?
2) If I’m
still asking this question on Sunday (not unlikely!) what should I say
from the pulpit?
One thing
I’m not keen on saying is ‘It’s not really important, people can get too hung
up on biblical details, especially in Revelation, let me tell you a story
about a missionary instead.’
Anyway,
any help gratefully received!
.
Posted in bible, help,
preaching | Tagged bible, help, preaching | 10
Comments »
3 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Read this
at Inhabitatio Dei. How awesome is that?!
And
if you haven’t already read Halden’s
beliefs page, check that out too. Refreshing stuff.
Posted in other blogs, trinity
| Tagged other blogs,
trinity | 7 Comments »
3 March, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I posted
recently on the
importance of trusting the Son of God in hard times, not simply the
sovereignty of God. These thoughts have arisen again as I’ve
been preaching on Revelation 4 and 5 recently. It’s pause for
thought to see John weeping aloud in the very throne room of God! (Rev
5:4) Heaven without Christ is hell!
Good
thing the elder in heaven didn’t comfort the way we ordinarily do… “Do
not weep, haven’t you seen the throne? It is very
impressive isn’t it?” John has seen the throne. He is
weeping in the face of it! No the comfort for John is the
Lion-Lamb - Christ. He is the One who turns weeping into cosmic
praise. Let’s make sure our comfort is similarly
Christ-focused.
Here
are my sermons on Revelation 4
and Revelation
5 if you’re interested.
.
Posted in pastoral theology, sermons
| Tagged pastoral
theology, sermons | 6 Comments »
29 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’m
preaching on Revelation 5 on Sunday. Really looking forward to
it. I’ve taken the opportunity to read Jonathan Edwards’ famous
sermon on Christ as the Lion and the Lamb: “The Excellency of
Christ.” In it his thesis is that the Lion-ness and Lamb-ness of
Jesus represent…
“…an admirable conjunction
of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ.”
I enjoyed
much of the sermon.
I was
also dis-heartened by much of it.
Why?
Well
Edwards does not crudely assign all Lamb-ness to Christ’s human nature
and all Lion-ness to His divine nature. But that’s often the flavour
of things. And so he says things like this:
In the person of Christ do
meet together infinite glory and lowest humility. Infinite
glory, and the virtue of humility, meet in no other person but Christ.
They meet in no created person, for no created person has infinite glory,
and they meet in no other divine person but Christ. For though the divine
nature be infinitely abhorrent to pride, yet humility is not properly
predicable of God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, that exists only in the
divine nature, because it is a proper excellency only of a created
nature. For it consists radically in a sense of a comparative lowness and
littleness before God, or the great distance between God and the subject
of this virtue. But it would be a contradiction to suppose any such thing
in God.
Do you
see how straight away Edwards has a pre-formed conception of what
humanity and divinity are like - a conception that sits ill with the
Glorious-Humble God-Man! The essence of glory and humility are
decided in advance of considering the Lamb at the centre of the
throne. (Ironic given that this is a sermon on Revelation
5!). If Edwards was determined to have Christ define glory and
humility, the direction of the argument would be very different.
Now if
Edwards’ logic is followed (humility is only proper to creatures) then
what we have is a divine nature for which humility is impossible.
How then can Edwards see Christ as humble? Well it must be
only according to his human nature. To ask whether the Person of
Christ is humble would receive the answer - according to His human nature
yes, but according to His divine nature, no. This opens up two
problems.
- Christ’s humanity and
divinity are conceived in completely contradictory ways.
(Nestorianism)
- Christ is not really
humble. 2 Corinthians 8:9 ought to read: “You know the grace
of our LORD Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, He opened up
another bank account with no money in it at all… so that we
through His (only apparent) poverty might become rich.”
Edwards’
next point is this …
In the person of Christ do
meet together infinite majesty and transcendent meekness. These
again are two qualifications that meet together in no other person but
Christ. Meekness, properly so called, is a virtue proper only to the
creature. We scarcely ever find meekness mentioned as a divine attribute
in Scripture, at least not in the New Testament.
Now it’s
very telling Edwards should want the New Testament to speak of
the divine attribute of meekness. Surely the decisive argument
against his position - the argument against which he must guard - is
that, pre-incarnation, the LORD is spoken of as meek. And the truth
is, He is spoken of as meek - 2 Sam 22:36; Ps 18:35; Ps 45:4. What’s
strange is that Edwards goes on to quote Psalm 45 to prove Christ’s majesty
(v4), failing conspicuously to spot His meekness proclaimed in
the very same verse! Now here is an OT description of the God Messiah -
and He is majestic and meek. It is not His humanity per se that
makes Christ meek. In His pre-incarnate Person He is already meek.
In this way we see that the incarnation is a revelation not a
concealment.
Let’s
look at one last quote:
In Christ do meet together
self-sufficiency, and an entire trust and reliance on God, which
is another conjunction peculiar to the person of Christ. As he is a
divine person, he is self-sufficient, standing in need of nothing. All
creatures are dependent on him, but he is dependent on none, but is
absolutely independent. His proceeding from the Father, in his eternal
generation or filiation, argues no proper dependence on the will of the
Father. For that proceeding was natural and necessary, and not arbitrary.
But yet Christ entirely trusted in God…
Now where
does Edwards get the idea that the Son (at any point) relied on Himself?
(From Calvin yes, but where in Scripture!) There is perhaps no statement
about His own identity that Christ makes more frequently than that He
depends on His Father. Are we to believe that this is a new state of
affairs (again the incarnation concealing rather than revealing)? Do we
imagine that the One eternally in the bosom of the Father was eternally
self-sufficient?
Edwards
echoes the distinction Athanasius made between begotten and made - that
His begotten-ness was a matter of nature, it was not a matter of will
(which would imply ‘making’). But saying the eternal generation was
natural and necessary does not get Edwards off the hook regarding the
Son’s dependence. He is still, as the creeds say ‘God from God’?
Is that not genuine and on-going dependence? Does He not receive His life
and being from the Father? And does not the Father depend on the Son to
be Father? Etc etc.
All this
is a playing out of a non-trinitarian concept of aseity that’s defining
Edwards’ concept of ‘divine nature.’ Here are some problems:
- Jesus is not defining
the divine nature. Rather a divine nature different to what is
revealed in Jesus is pre-supposed.
- Jesus is not defining
human nature. Rather a human nature that excludes the glory of the
exalted Priest/King/Prophet is assumed.
- This divine nature is
defined not in relational terms but in terms of aseity (i.e.
self-sufficiency)
- Jesus therefore fits
poorly into the pre-fab mould of divinity - the bits left over are
ascribed to ‘His humanity’.
- What we see in the
Man Jesus is not properly thought of as divine!
- There are extra
‘bits’ to Jesus when considered from above and below. From below, we
look at the Man Jesus, yet this is not all of Jesus. There’s an
extra bit of divinity that is not like the human Jesus we see. From
above, God is one with Jesus except for an extra bit of humanity
that is not like the God He’s revealing.
Now it’s
ironic that all of this is based on thoughts from Revelation 5. Because
here we read
“You are worthy… for you
were slain.” (Rev 5:9,12)
It’s the
death of Christ that causes His worship. It’s His very Lambness that we
will praise into all eternity. Revelation 5 tells us to accord all divine
honours to Jesus not in spite of but because of His death as a human
sacrifice. The deity of Christ does not exist apart from His Lambness but
is most brightly manifested in it.
Therefore
there are no extra bits to Jesus. His divinity is precisely in His
being as the Lamb (and the act this implies). His humanity is not
locked off from His being as God. There is not 6 feet of insulation
between Jesus of Nazareth and divine life. Jesus is divine.
Even as He is Jesus in all His Lamb-ness.
And He
is, in all His Lamb-ness the revelation of the Father. Our
notions of God should not lie behind glass in pristine majesty.
They are laid bare at the rugged cross.
So, yes,
Christ’s excellency does indeed consist in an admirable conjunction
of diverse excellencies. But these excellencies are true to the
very depths of His Person, true to the depths of eternity, true to
the very depths of God.
Worthy is
the Lamb
.
Posted in christology, sermons
| Tagged christology,
sermons | No Comments »
28 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’ve been
very blessed by stumbling across the sermons of Victor Shepherd on
the web.
Here’s a
thought of his prompted by Revelation 5:5:
Then one of the elders
said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root
of David, has triumphed.”
Here’s
what Shepherd says:
I think that what a pastor
must have above everything else is a conviction concerning Christ’s
victory; a conviction so deep in him that it goes all the way down to his
DNA, and he exhales it upon his people both explicitly and implicitly
even as it seeps out of every pore. A pastor has to be convinced
unshakeably of Christ’s victory if he’s profoundly to support and sustain
his people.
.
Posted in ministry | Tagged ministry, pastoral theology,
sermons | No Comments »
27 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I
preached on ‘Why the Cross?’ on Sunday. Thanks to
all who gave help to this sermon.
In the
end I guess I did a version of an old style law-gospel talk.
Basically it ran - sin is very serious, thank Christ for
atonement.
Now I’m
aware that such a shape to preaching has both a long pedigree and a
number of dangers. The dangers of this kind of preaching seem to me
to be:
- Sin tends to
be defined merely as transgression and almost never considered
christologically
- It can sound like
there’s something called ‘Justice’ which forces God to punish sin
- It can sound quite
impersonal (even if you accept Christ it can be more ‘Whoopee I have
a pardon’ rather than ‘Hallelujah I have the Son!’)
- All in all, it can
be, ironically, less than christocentric
But
bearing in mind these pit-falls, there is much to commend such an
approach. And I had a go!
Check it
out here
if you like.
Do you
think my fears of law-gospel preaching are
unfounded/insurmountable/irrelevant?
.
Posted in Cross, humourous, preaching, sermons
| Tagged Cross, preaching, sermons | 2 Comments »
26 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Two funnies
that have made me chuckle this week:
.
Hilariously
tragically true:
http://xkcd.com/386/ H/T: Missy
.
Now read
all about St Simon the Fool. Beautifully
silly
.
Posted in humourous | Tagged humourous | No Comments »
25 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
A friend
of mine recently posed this statement for discussion
“Five
sessions of 5 pairs spending two hours door-knocking is better spent
having 5 pairs having neighbours round five times in a season” Discuss.
Some
responses:
- Good thought!
See especially here where Rory Shiner discusses Gospel
intentionality as a good ‘third way’ between cold-contact and
friendship evangelism. He (like my friend) has been very
impressed by the Crowded House churches.
- The personal
investment involved in such hospitality is often far greater than
the fear factor involved in door-to-door. In this sense door-knocking,
though appearing to be the more impressive, can often be
more of a cop-out.
- A deep sharing of
life is surely a far superior context for sharing the
faith!
But
having said that
- The context for
sharing my faith is, fundamentally, not my friendships down here
(though clearly that is ideal). More fundamentally though, the
context for sharing the faith is resurrection, pentecost and
second coming. Christ is risen - this is my authority to speak of
Christ. The Spirit has been poured out - this is the
power to do so. He is coming - this is the urgency.
I realise my friend would not wish to disagree with this but
it’s still good to remember what is at root my authorisation for my
speaking.
- There are millions in
this country alone who don’t have Christian friends (at least
Christian friends who are willing to share their faith).
Friendship evangelism will not reach them. (Rory’s proposal
linked above speaks to this - gospel intentionality seeks to reach a
wider network of people than those we already know).
- If it’s a question of
‘effectiveness’ - stranger evangelism ‘works’. I will post figures
from Bridge
Builders when I have them confirmed. But I know also from
personal experience that people are converted through these
efforts - this is precisely what we expect given the point
above regarding resurrection, pentecost and second coming.
- Think of the
beginnings of the Salvation Army or David Wilkerson (Cross and
Switchblade) - there was no bridge upon which they built their
ministry apart from the declaration of the word. Now they
committed themselves to those who responded and very meaningful
relationships blossomed (along with ministries that often lost their
confidence with the power of the word proclaimed plainly!).
But the footing on which those relationships were placed was the
proclamation of the gospel to strangers. (But again perhaps
this is closer to the ‘gospel intentionality’ model than to
’stranger evangelism’)
- Jesus did both - He did
blow into town and speak to strangers. And He also went
to dinner parties and built into very significant relationships.
- We are to sow on all
the soils (Mark 4).
In all I
think I agree with the statement in terms of priorities. I’d want
to make sure that those we invite are not simply our friends (Luke
14:12-14) and that we target those who are not only beyond the walls of
the church but beyond our friendship groups and comfort zones. Door
to door is never to be an end in itself but the basis on which a
relationship will ensue. It should never be “Gospel apart from
relationship.” But if it were ever a choice between “Gospel =>
relationship” or “Relationship => Gospel” then there should certainly
be no theologically decisive preference for the latter!
Therefore
I would certainly not want to abandon door-to-door but seek for all
evangelism to involve relationship building. In short, let’s sow on
all the soils.
What say
you?
.
Posted in evangelism, mission
| Tagged evangelism, mission | 13 Comments »
25 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Some nice
moments from Barth against apologetics
“Knowledge of revelation…
begins with certitude. Either God has spoken or He has not spoken. If He
has spoken, He has done so in such a manner that it is impossible not to
heed Him. Among others, the question of His existence and nature are then
decided and can be answered only a posteriori. Doubt and despair, human
unbelief, and even a sea of uncertainties on our part, will not be able
to change the certitude of His presence. Revelation is this divine
presence.” (God in Action, p8)
“And we are certainly not
ministers of the Word if we feel ourselves called to be benevolent
protectors, or big-hearted friends or representatives of whom the Word of
God has need.” (God in Action, p67)
“What God speaks is never
known or true anywhere in abstraction from God Himself. It is known and
true for no other reason than that He Himself says it, that He in person
is in and accompanies what is said by Him.” (I/1, 155)
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)
“For we know nothing of
our created state from our created state, but only through the Word of
God, from which we can derive no independent, generally true items of
knowledge, different from the Word of God and therefore leading up to
it.” (I/1, p148)
When people say ‘God’ “far
too often what is meant by it is… the unsubstantial, unprofitable and
fundamentally very tedious magnitude known as transcendence, not as a
genuine counterpart, nor a true other, nor a real outside and beyond, but
as an illusory reflection of human freedom, as its projection into the
vacuum of utter abstraction.” (III/4, 479)
”If grace is
alongside nature, however high above it may be put, it is obviously no
longer the grace of God, but the grace which man ascribes to himself. If
God’s revelation is alongside a knowledge of God proper to man as such,
even though it may never be advanced except as a prolegomenon, it is
obviously no longer the revelation of God, but a new expression (borrowed
or even stolen) for the revelation which encounters man in his own
reflection.” (II/1, p139)
.
Posted in Barth, apologetics | Tagged Barth, apologetics | 5 Comments »
22 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
A while
back Matt Jenson wrote a brilliant
short essay entitled: Faith is nothing at all. Do read it if
you haven’t already, it won’t take long.
We must
constantly remind ourselves that faith is not a thing. It is not a
possession by which we make claim to salvation. Faith is the
absence of a thing - it is the confession of a complete lack. To
even ask ‘Am I having faith?’ is already an unbelieving question for
faith is looking away to Christ.
If you
make faith into a thing you run into problems. Either you have to
make it an imputed substance which God grants arbitrarily (in order to
uphold sovereign grace). Or you make it a legitimate factor
contributing to our salvation. Sounds quite like
many Calvinist-Arminian debates right? In many (certainly not all,
but in many) of these debates you can see both sides making this
mistake: they begin by considering faith to be a thing. And from
this premise, one side is in danger of making salvation a matter of
divine caprice unrelated to Christ. The other side begins from the
same premise and makes salvation a matter of self-effort (and again
Christ’s position is diminished). But both have begun down the
wrong track. They’ve thought of faith as a thing and then
they’ve got into trouble figuring out how a gracious salvation can be
‘by’ this thing. We must remember though: Faith is not a
thing.
Alan
Torrance is fond of pointing out that reformers like John Knox spoke very
little about ’salvation by faith alone.’ Instead he spoke of salvation
‘by the blood of Christ alone.’ Why? Because he didn’t want
anyone thinking that faith was the ‘thing’ that saved. ‘Faith
alone’ makes sense only in the context of ‘Christ alone.’ ‘Faith
alone’ is the subjective correlate of the objective salvation in
Christ alone - it cannot be considered apart from it. To do so
is to risk seeing faith as a thing.
Similarly
Mike
Reeves points out that Martin Luther’s favourite phrase for declaring
our gracious salvation was not salvation ‘by faith alone’ but
salvation ’by God’s Word’ alone. Again, faith is not the
‘thing’ that saves and ‘faith alone’ is not possession of the single savingly
significant substance. (I suspect Luther would have trouble saying
this phrase - especially after his fifth Wittenberg ale!).
Faith is,
in Anders Nygren’s memorable phrase, ‘being conquered by the
gospel.’ Note how passive this image is. Faith is a
description of what has happened to the person who’s been overwhelmed by
Christ in His word. It is not a thing.
Anyway,
check out Matt
Jenson’s article.
.
Posted in faith, salvation | Tagged faith, salvation | 6 Comments »
19 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’m
preaching on Sunday with the title Why the Cross?
(I think the whole ‘Why can’t God just forgive?’ question is behind
the choice of topic). What should I say?
.
Posted in Cross, preaching, sermons
| Tagged Cross, preaching, sermons | 11 Comments »
19 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
After He had dismissed
them, He went up on a mountainside by Himself to pray. When evening came,
He was there alone, 24 but the boat was already a considerable
distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was
against it. 25 During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to
them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw Him walking on the
lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in
fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I.
Don’t be afraid.” 28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come
to you on the water.” 29 “Come,” He said. Then Peter got down out of the
boat, walked on the water and came towards Jesus. 30 But when he saw the
wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out His hand and caught him. “You of little
faith,” He said, “why did you doubt?” 32 And when they climbed into the
boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshipped
Him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:23-33)
Here
Jesus walks on water - He treads on the abyss. But Peter walks as
Jesus walks (cf 1 John 2:6). How?
Notice he
doesn’t just step out. He asks for Jesus to command him. He’s been in a
storm with Jesus before (Matt 8:23-27). Peter knows the power of
Jesus’ word - His word is obeyed! So Peter wants a word from Jesus to
command him. And the word is powerful to enable that which it commands
(Jesus’ word is like that). Peter does the impossible because Jesus
commands it.
Of course
he sinks (looking at the waves and not looking at Christ). But in His
grace, Peter only ‘begins’ to sink. This is not gravity acting on
Peter or he’d sink like a stone. How slowly Jesus lets him
down! But when Peter calls out, ‘immediately’ Jesus saves.
His words
of rebuke tell us how we can walk like Jesus: ‘You of little faith, why
did you doubt?’ Now what is Jesus referring to here?
Peter did
not doubt that Jesus could walk on water. And it wasn’t self-belief
that Jesus was recommending (Peter has no ability to walk on
water!). Peter’s problem was that he doubted Jesus’ word to
him. He doubted the word which both commands and enables what
it commands. Peter doubted that he truly had been made into the person
Jesus said He had - one who walks like He walks. That was Peter’s problem.
When Christ
speaks a word to us then trusting Him involves trusting that we are the
people Christ says we’ve become. Jesus says to you:
“I tell you the truth,
whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and
will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” (John
5:24)
So, don’t
look at the wind and waves. Don’t look at your heart and your
abilities. Trust the word that Jesus has spoken to you. His
word is powerful to make you who He says you are. You can’t make
yourself into this person, but neither can anyone or anything else
prevent you from being it. The word of the LORD is supreme, you can
trust Him. You will not be condemned. You have crossed over
from death to life. And now, you can walk as He walked.
.
Posted in assurance, devotional, faith
| Tagged assurance, devotional, faith | 4 Comments »
18 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Here
Rory Shiner explains a third way between stranger evangelism and
friendship evangelism. I’ve plenty of time for both these but
his description of ‘Gospel intentionality’ (borrowed from Steve Timmis)
is excellent. Check it out.
.
Posted in other blogs | Tagged other blogs | No Comments »
17 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
You want
a very quick way of distinguishing Islam from Christianity? Think
of the cross. The Muslim account of the cross exactly reverses the
gracious work of Christ.
In Islam,
the sinful man (Judas) is substituted for the righteous
one (Jesus). The Quran says it only appeared to be Jesus on
the cross, another was substituted in His place. The Hadith (Muslim
writings that interpret the Quran) claim that the one substituted was
Judas. All this happened because justice demands the death of the
bad man, not the good one. It was necessary for the unjust to be
punished and the just to escape. This is the judgement of human
religion.
Yet the
truth is the exact opposite of this very human sentiment. Instead,
the righteous One (JESUS) was substituted for sinful man. He
swapped in for the guilty and died in their place. He determined to
be the Just One punished so that the unjust may escape.
He who knew no sin became
sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. (2
Cor 5:21)
.
Posted in Cross, islam
| Tagged Cross, islam | 2 Comments »
15 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
1) The
sermon of creation is not a minimal thing - it’s maximal. Romans
1:19 ‘what may be known about God… God has made plain.’
Colossians 1:23 ‘the gospel… has been proclaimed to every creature under
heaven.’ Psalm 19:2 ‘Day after day they pour forth speech.’
2) Our
blindness/deafness to this sermon is not minimal either - it is
maximal. Note that in Psalm 19 David trusts that the creation daily pours
forth speech in intentional evangelism. In Ecclesiastes
1 his son sees the exact same heavens. Yet even with all his
wisdom, the ‘teacher’ of Ecclesiastes finds it utterly meaningless.
The circuit of the sun which was such a vivid portrait of the Bridegroom
Champion in Psalm 19 becomes, in the eyes of the ‘teacher’, a futile and
meaningless cycle.
Humanity
is blind to the things of God (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:21). We cannot judge what
the sermon of creation is saying by what we see. We naturally only see
what we want to see.
3) The
sermon of creation is not a static thing, it’s dynamic, it’s about
movement and action and inter-relation. Literally Ps 19:2 says “Day unto
day is a pouring forth of speech; night unto night is a displaying of
knowledge.” The sequence of day and night and day and night is itself a
display of knowledge. This proclamation is the sun, moon and stars
in their courses above. The sermon of creation is expressed in dynamic
action, it does not simply speak to us in static snap-shots of beauty.
So often
people simply characterise the sermon of creation as something like “Look
at a snow-capped mountain range, doesn’t it fill you with awe. Well, now
you should direct that awe to the God who is big enough and clever enough
to have made it.” That is certainly an element to what creation is
saying, but it’s not what David is drawing our attention to.
Psalm 19
highlights the progression of day and night, the movement
of the sun across the sky, the heavens in their courses. The
dynamic sermon of creation tells far better of the Glory of God who is
not a static, unmoved deity simply waiting for people to give Him glory.
The Living God acts and moves and relates. And His Glory, according
to the Bible, is His Son acting, moving and relating. The theist will
think of the sermon of creation in static terms because her god is
static. The Christian knows the sermon is dynamic - just like our God.
4) The
sermon of creation is the word of Christ. It is not about
abstract qualities of power or wisdom but about the Son. Of course
this is so since Jesus is eternally the image of God (Col 1:15).
There is no revelation that is not in Him.
In Romans
10 Paul asks if any have not heard the word of Christ (v17)? He
answers, of course not and quotes Psalm 19! The sermon of creation
is the word of Christ. When we examine Psalm 19 we see this to be
so. His example of the sun is a dead giveaway. This sun is
like a Bridegroom Champion who moves from east to west (like the journey
the high priest makes from altar to ark) as the light of the world. (Ps
19:4-6; cf Ps 45). Here is a sermon regarding Christ.
Think
also of John 12. When Jesus picks up a seed He doesn’t say “How pretty
and how intelligently designed” - He says “This seed proclaims my death
and resurrection and, though this, the life of the world.” The
sermon of creation is a gospel word concerning Christ.
5)
Finally, the sermon of creation is seen only through the spectacles of
the Scriptures (Calvin’s famous image). Ps 19 continues ‘The law of
the LORD is perfect, reviving/converting the soul.’ (v7) That which
left even Ecclesiastes’ ‘teacher’ looking into the meaningless cycle of
life and death is that which, through the spectacles of Scripture,
becomes the dynamic proclamation of Christ and His gospel.
.
Posted in bible, creation, theological method |
Tagged bible, creation, theological method
| 3
Comments »
14 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Bobby’s
just commented on a brilliant Richard Sibbes quotation re participation
in the trinitarian communion of love. Go read it.
It got me
thinking about the upper room, before Jesus died. Here Jesus
gives us three pictures of how we are loved. The
waterfall, promotion, God’s compass. They all deserve
reflection as we immerse ourselves in how we have been loved by the
triune God.
.
First, the
waterfall:
“As the Father has loved
me, so have I loved you.” (John 15:9)
Here the
love of the Father for His Son cascades over to us. We stand in a
beginningless, limitless torrent of love. Think about it.
Take the word ‘as’ with utmost seriousness.
.
Then
there’s promotion to Jesus’ side:
The Father Himself loves
you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
(John 16:27)
Here, in
loving Christ we are raised shoulder to shoulder with the Son.
Think how highly we have been raised. Anointed ones alongside
the Anointed One. Sons and daughters alongside the
Son. Receiving the same love from the Father that Jesus does.
Promoted into the Godhead!
.
Then
there’s God’s compass placed within us:
…in order that the love
You [Father] have for Me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.
(John 17:26)
The
Father’s own ‘true north’ of love for His Son is placed within the
Christian. Now we have the Father’s love for His Son in us. The
Christian loves the Son with the love the Father has placed within
us. That beginningless, limitless waterfall is not only something
we receive, it’s something that now flows from within us (John 7:38f).
.
How He
has loved us! How He has caught us up in His love! Meditate
on these things
.
Posted in devotional, trinity
| Tagged devotional, trinity | 1 Comment »
13 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
A few
months ago I commented on a blog about Christian kids songs. I
mentioned speaking to an author about the lyrics of one of his better
known songs. Since this conversation happened 7 years ago, my
memory of it was very sketchy (I even mistook his name for someone else’s
when it was mentioned). But it didn’t stop me blogging with
abandon on his theology as represented by the placing of a single comma
(I kid not!). How lame am I?
Anyway,
to cut a long story short, the said author found my comments and a) can’t
remember ever speaking to me, b) meant the opposite of how I’d represented
him on the blog.
Lessons?
- Blogs are
public! They will be read by people who know, or people who
know the people who know.
- “The tongue is a
small part of the body, but it makes great boasts.” (James
3:5a) Boasting was at the heart of this: ”I
once spoke to a song-writer - and I knew better”
Pathetic.
- The verse goes
on ”Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small
spark.” (James 3:5b). The author in question was very
good about it, but the potential for hurt is so huge.
So, all
us smart-alec, proud, young male bloggers - let’s think before
we blog.
.
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »
12 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
When
times are tough - what is your comfort? When comforting others,
where do you point them?
In the
circles in which I move the encouragements of choice
involve variations on the theme of ‘God’s got a plan.’ Many’s
the time when a well-meaning brother (usually a brother) has said ‘I
guess at moments like this, all you can do is cling onto God’s
sovereignty.’ Often I’ve heard friends say that only
sovereignty has enabled them to get through the hard times.
Something’s
gone wrong here. 1.5 billion Muslims navigate through
life clinging onto ‘insh’Allah‘ (God willing). 800 million
Hindus believe that karma will work everything out. And how many
westerners, even in the face of terrible suffering, will still believe
‘everything happens for a reason.’
This was
really brought home to me about 5 years ago. I was
praying with a new convert from Islam. We were worried about his
visa application, but I was amazed at how he was ‘trusting God’s
sovereignty’. In fact he was using language that I usually
associate with the most mature of reformed Christians. I told
him I was very impressed, he shrugged his shoulders and said ‘In Pakistan
we have a saying: ‘God willing’ - it means that whatever God wills will
happen.’ Insh’Allah had simply been translated to a
Christian environment. Yet surely a Christian account of
sovereignty involves more than simply transfering deterministic agency
from Allah to the Father! Surely there’s got to be a gospel-shape,
a Christ-focus, a trinitarian dynamic to Christian sovereignty. Yet
what was so striking about my friend’s translated insh’Allah was
that it sounded so completely like the Christian pastoral wisdom
sketched out above.
Two years
ago I went to northern Nigeria and the difference between Muslim and
Christian accounts of sovereignty struck me again. When I wanted
something done by Tuesday, the Muslim would tell me ‘It will be ready, insh’Allah‘.
The Christian would tell me, ‘It will be ready, if Jesus tarries.’
Hallelujah!! Isn’t that brilliant?? (King James’ English
lives on in Nigeria!). But isn’t there all the difference in the
world between a future determined by an inscrutible divine will and a
future opened up in the gospel-patience of Jesus? I’ve
tried to get people using ‘If Jesus tarries’ over here, but it hasn’t
taken. Yet.
Now I’m
not denying for a second the sovereign rule of the Father through the Son
and by the Spirit. And perhaps in future posts I’ll outline
some thoughts on what a truly gospel-shaped, Christ-focused,
dynamically-trinitarian account of sovereignty might look like. But
for now I will simply question the pastoral wisdom of referring the
suffering Christian to the sovereignty of God as though ‘God’s in charge’
was the sum and substance of the Christian hope.
All too
often this amounts to a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’
comfort. How much better to encourage a person that Christ
joins them in the tunnel.
I want to know Christ and
the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings.
(Philippians 3:10)
Christ is
with us in suffering. He is especially near to the
broken-hearted. As Spurgeon used to say, He never throws His
children in the fire without joining them in it (cf Dan. 3; Isaiah
43:2). In suffering we get to know the Suffering Servant with
greater depth and intimacy than ever before. To simply point
to the God over and above us in suffering is deficient. We must
also point to the God beside and within us.
The
gospel is not the truth that, while I may be buried in
muck, God remains untouched in pristine glory and one day I’ll be
there with Him. The gospel is that God joins us in the muck.
The gospel is that He stoops, sympathises and suffers alongside
us. And that He raises us with Him to the
throne. But if the gospel is not that God remains in
heaven and we battle on till glory, why does so much of our pastoral
exhortation betray exactly such a ‘gospel.’
Why do we
so often point people to God’s sovereignty and so rarely point them to
God’s Son? Why is the focus on the light at the end of the tunnel
and so little on the One who joins us in the darkness? The one kind
of exhortation produces tight-lipped soldiers, the other produces broken-hearted
lovers. Let’s aim for the latter!
.
Posted in devotional, pastoral theology |
Tagged devotional, pastoral theology
| 10
Comments »
10 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Sometimes,
when I’m sharing with Christians about tough times, I ask them: ‘Why do
you think God is breaking you down like this?’
Almost
without fail they say something like, ‘I know, I know, it’s to make me
stronger.’
No!
No, no, no, a thousand times no!
He’s
breaking you down to make you broken. Don’t, whatever you do,
toughen up!
The sacrifices of God are
a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not
despise. (Ps 51:17)
The LORD is close to the
broken-hearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. (Ps 34:18)
Everyone who falls on that
stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.
(Luke 20:18)
.
Posted in devotional | Tagged devotional | 10 Comments »
7 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
For Barth
the three-fold Word - Christ, Scripture and Proclamation - means
that preaching should always be Scriptural and always witness to
Christ. Here he makes it clear that christo-centrism is not
something the preacher (or the biblical theologian) bestows on the Bible.
Rather, the Bible is already and inherently witness to Christ:
“The Bible says all sorts
of things, certainly; but in all this multiplicity and variety, it says
in truth only one thing - just this: the name of Jesus Christ… The Bible
becomes clear when it is clear that is says this one thing… The Bible
remains dark to us if we do not hear in it this sovereign name…
Interpretation stands in the service of the clarity which the Bible as
God’s Word makes for itself; and we can properly interpret the Bible, in
whole or part, only when we perceive and show that what it says is said
from the point of view of that… name of Jesus Christ.” (I/2, p720)
What
about the Old Testament? For Barth…
“the Old Testament is
witness to Christ, before Christ but not without Christ… As a wholly
Jewish book, the Old Testament is a pointer to Christ.” (Homiletics, p80)
Barth
does not consider the christo-centric meaning to be a sensus plenior in
addition to the literal sense.
“the natural sense is the
issue… [we do not] give the passage a second sense… This passage in its
immanence points beyond itself… The Old Testament points forward, the New
Testament points backward, and both point to Christ.” Homiletics, p80-81.
As for
the New Testament, Barth insists that christocentric preaching is no less
important here.
“One can never say of a
single part of the narrative, doctrine and proclamation of the New
Testament, that in itself it is original or important or the object of
the witness intended. Neither the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount nor
the eschatology of Mk 13 and parallels, nor the healing of the blind,
lame and possessed, nor the battle with the Pharisees and the Cleansing
of the Temple, nor the statements of the Pauline and Johannine
metaphysics and mysticism (so far as there are any), nor love to God nor
love to neighbour, nor the passion and death of Christ, nor the
miraculous raising from the dead - nothing of all that has any value,
inner importance or abstract significance of its own in the New
Testament, apart from Jesus Christ being the subject of it all. His is
the name in which it is all true and real, living and moving, by which,
therefore, everything must be attested.” I/2, p10-11
This is a
helpful reminder. We usually hear from the Old Testament sermon
some ”bridge to Christ” (however tenuous!). Yet what does it
say when the same preacher can manage to preach Christlessly from the
New?
Do
preachers really believe that the Scriptures are already
Christ-focused? Or is it our job to add a second layer of Christ-centredness?
If a preacher breathes a sigh of relief once they’re in New
Testament waters, and if they then fail to witness to Christ while
there - what does it say about their view of the Old and New
Testaments?
Barth is
really helpful here. Scripture exists within the perichoresis
of the three-fold Word. It exists to be preached. And it
exists (every part of it) as witness to Christ. It is not the
preacher’s job to make it into a witness to Christ. If we find our
Old Testament sermons involve some weird change of gears in order to ‘get
to Christ’, we’ve not understood the bible properly. If we find
that our New Testament sermons fail to point people to Christ, we’ve not
understood the bible properly. These issues might be a sign
you’ve bought into the wrong biblical theology.
Just a
thought.
.
Here’s my length paper on Barth and
Preaching.
Posted in Barth, bible,
preaching | Tagged preaching, Barth, bible | 4
Comments »
6 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
That’s
what Heinrich Bullinger asserted in the Second Helvetic Confession.
And he’s not alone. Check out Luther:
“Tis a right excellent
thing, that every honest pastor’s and preacher’s mouth is Christ’s mouth,
and his word and forgiveness is Christ’s word and forgiveness… For the
office is not the pastor’s or preacher’s but God’s; and the Word which he
preacheth is likewise not the pastor’s and preacher’s but God’s.” (Quoted
from CD I/1, p107)
Or
Calvin:
“When a man has climbed up
into the pulpit… it is [so] that God may speak to us by the mouth of a
man.” (Sermon XXII on 1 Tim 3:2 “apt to teach”, quoted in THL Parker,
Calvin’s Preaching, Westminster/ John Knox, 1992, p24)
Or, more
to the point, check out the Bible!
“And we also thank God
constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you
heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it
really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” (1 Thes
2:13)
For you have been born again,
not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and
enduring word of God. For, “All men are like grass, and all their
glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers
fall, but the word of the Lord stands for ever.” And this is
the word that was evangelized to you. (1 Pet 1:23-25)
Remember your leaders, who
spoke the word of God to you. (Heb 13:7)
So do we
agree that ‘Preaching of the Word of God is the Word of
God’? Or would we rather Bullinger had maintained a more modest:
‘Preaching of the Word of God explains and applies the
Word of God’? Can we seriously maintain the word ‘is’ in that
statement?
Karl
Barth did. Emphatically. If you want to read more, go here to
a very lengthy essay on Barth and preaching. Here I’ll sketch
out the argument in point form:
.
1) The
Word of God is a three-fold Word. That is, Christ, the Bible and
preaching are all called ‘the Word’ in the Bible. And yet there are
not three competing words or revelations but One Word of God (Christ) who
comes to us in the Spirit-mediated modes of Scripture and
proclamation. Thus we have one Word in three modes. This is
Barth’s primary analogy of the trinity.
2) Just as
in the trinity we have distinct Persons who, nonetheless, are one, so
with the Word we have distinct modes which nonetheless have a
perichoretic unity. The Son is one with the Father in
His mediation of the Father. He is no less God for being a witness
of God. But He is also no less distinct from the Father in this
oneness. In the same way preaching is no less the Word for being a
witness (a Scriptural witness) to Christ. But simultaneously it is no
less distinct from Christ (and Scripture) for being one with it.
We need a perichoretic ontology not only for God but for the Word also.
3)
There is divinity and humanity to all three forms of the Word. Yet,
for all that, we must avoid the danger of Nestorianiam - that is, we must
not conceive of the humanity as a separate existence from the
divinity. Barth is adamant that you cannot get around the
worldliness of the Word - whether of Christ, Scripture or
preaching. In fact, it is not at all desirable that you should get
around it. For the Word as grace meets us where we are.
Christ the Man says ‘If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.’
Christ the Man says ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ The humanity of
Christ in no way jeopardizes divine revelation or salvation.
Equally, the humanity of the apostles and prophets and the humanity of
the preacher does not prevent the Word from being still a divine
Word.
Just as
the eternal Word did not come in a man but as a
man, so on Sunday morning, God’s Word does not come contained somewhere
within the preaching but it comes as this human preacher in this
situation witnesses to Christ.
4) We
must remember the divine initiative in all this. It is not a
question of ‘Can we hear God’s Word in the preacher?’ Rather the question
is: ‘Is it Christ Himself who encounters us in the preacher?’ It’s
not a case of pulling Christ down through correct exegesis. If we
think like this we’re basically falling for an ex opere operato
of the pulpit. That is, we’re imagining that our correct
priestly exercises ensure a divine encounter. We must resist this -
we must begin from above. Revelation is grace. It is Christ
who chooses to condescend in Scripture and Proclamation (not we who bring
Him down). But in this divine condescension it is Christ Himself
who encounters us.
.
Let’s
take all these points together. Preaching is a mode of the Word of
God. It is distinct from Scripture and Christ but inextricably
linked to it. And in relation to Christ and Scripture - that is, as
Christ is proclaimed Scripturally - it is itself the Word of God.
Not a competing revelation to the Bible but rather a ‘Word from Word’
(parallel to Christ’s divinity as ‘God from God’). The
humanity of the preacher is not a barrier to divine revelation but
instead is the very worldiness in which the Word must meet us. Thus
the congregation on a Sunday morning is not confronted with explanation
and application of the Word. They are confronted with Christ
Himself.
Think of
a preacher who challenges the congregation to confess Christ as ‘My Lord
and My God.’ (John 20:28) If the hearer does not trust Christ, is
it only the preacher they’ve disobeyed? Have they not more fundamentally
disobeyed Christ? Isn’t it Christ Himself who confronts them in
this preaching? It is a daunting prospect for preachers, but such
is the humbling authority of ‘the keys of the kingdom’ (Matt 16:19; John
20:23).)
[Preaching is] “the
speaking of God himself through the lips of the minister.” (Karl Barth,
Homiletics, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, p67.)
“…in what Church preaching
says of God, God Himself speaks for Himself.” (Barth, Karl. Church
Dogmatics, vol. 1, part 2, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley, Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1956, p800)
.
This post contains reworking from my comments at Faith
and Theology
Posted in Barth, preaching | Tagged preaching, Barth | 8
Comments »
5 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Are we in
the Post-Christian age?
Is this
age characterized by total cultural memory-loss regarding our Christian
heritage? Is this the age in which people are so far back in their
Christian understanding that the mission stategies of previous centuries
are virtually useless?
Are we in
the Post-Modern age?
Is this
age characterized by the total devaluation of truth-claims? Is this
the age of story rather than argument? Of dialogue rather than
preaching? Is this the age in which declarative proclamation will
be basically impotent?
Are we in
the Post-Ascension age?
Is this
the age characterized by the Spirit’s pentecostal power? Is this
the age in which every minute represents the LORD’s gospel
patience? Is this the age in which the church is commissioned to
make disciples of all nations, empowered by His resurrection authority
and accompanied with His living presence?
.
I am
tired of hearing Christians rehearse 1 and 2. We all know about 1
and 2. But what’s fundamental here? What age are we really
in??
.
Posted in evangelism, mission
| Tagged evangelism, mission | 4 Comments »
4 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
.
Posted in recommendations | Tagged recommendations | 3 Comments »
4 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
From a sermon on Luke
14 I gave yesterday:
Godliness is radical
other-centredness. Christ-likeness is opening your life out in
invitation to the world.
Posted in ethics, evangelism, mission,
sermons | Tagged ethics, evangelism, mission, sermons | 2 Comments »
2 February, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
There’s
often a point in the crime drama where the bad guy tells the cop ‘You
and me, we’re not so different really.’ Well there are two
baddies in the history of trinitarian theology who really aren’t that
different: Arius and Sabellius. Arius was the
sub-ordinationist. He defined the One God such that Jesus could not
fit in. Instead Jesus had to take His place under the One
God. Sabellius was the modalist. He defined the One God such
that Jesus was absorbed in, losing everything that made Him distinctly
Jesus. Instead Jesus was just the mask that the One God wore
occasionally. But you know - Arius and Sabellius weren’t so
different. They both had a doctrine of the One God that couldn’t
cope with Jesus.
It was
Jurgen Moltmann who really nailed this in my thinking. Check out
this quote from The Trinity and the Kingdom of God:
A pre-conceived doctrine
of the One God means “Christ must either recede into the series of the
prophets, giving way to the One God, or he must disappear into the One
God as one of his manifestations.” (p131)
Here are
the errors of Arius and Sabellius - and Jesus gets either squashed down
or squished in. The distinct Person of Christ will always lose out
when ’the One God’ is defined without Him. Arius will allow
Him to be Jesus and not God, Sabellius will allow Him to be God and not
Jesus. But fundamentally these errors are not so different because
both prefer a pre-conceived ‘One God’ to Jesus.
This
leaves us no option but to begin with a doctrine of God that expressly
includes the mutual relations of Father and Son. Nothing else will
allow Jesus to be Jesus and God. Moltmann helped me
to see what was at stake in this. To begin with a definition of God
that doesn’t already include the distinct Personhood of the Son means
either Arius’s or Sabellius’s error. And, at the end of the day,
they’re not so different.
This is
why Moltmann says:
…the doctrine of the
Trinity is not only the deification of Christ; it is even more the
Christianization of the concept of God. God cannot be comprehended
without Christ, and Christ cannot be understood without God. If we are to
perceive this, we not only have to reject the Arian heresy; the Sabellian
heresy must be dismissed with equal emphasis.” (p131-132)
Christ
will never fit into a ‘God’ defined without Him. We must begin with
Him or else we will never honour Him properly. The errors of
subordinationism and modalism are simply the result of falling off either
side of the wrong horse. We must begin with Christ.
.
Posted in theological method, trinity
| Tagged theological
method, trinity | 2
Comments »
31 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
This week
I’ve been listening to sermons from the web on Luke 14. I’m
preaching on it on Sunday. It’s Jesus at a banquet. He heals
on the Sabbath, He teaches about not taking the seats of honour, He calls
people to invite the poor, crippled, lame and blind to dinner and He
speaks of the kingdom as a great feast. Wonderful stuff.
But do
you know, in all the sermons I’ve listened to from the web, what’s been
the number one application of Luke 14?? Quiet times! From
both UK and US pastors, the predominant take-home message was ‘make
sure you get alone with God every day.’ I’m not going to name names
but I listened to some big hitters. And they preached on the feast.
The feast where Jesus tells us to throw feasts and then speaks of the
kingdom as a feast. And what’s their conclusion: ‘We need to get on
our own more!’ ??! Usually the logic was: Don’t take the
places of honour => Therefore Get humble => Therefore get on your
knees => Therefore commit to quiet times.
Now there
were two notable exceptions: John
Piper was good. And so was the Australian (obviously!) Mike
Frost. (Those two aren’t usually positively lumped together but
there you are). But the rest took Luke 14 and boiled it down into
some very individualistic applications.
Now I’m
all in favour of ensuring that our doing flows from a lively relationship
with Christ. But why does that equate to ‘getting alone with
God’?? I mean how do we get from the feast to the prayer
closet?? Are conservative evangelicals that afraid of getting our
hands dirty in mission, in rubbing shoulders with the poor, crippled,
blind and lame? Are we that individualistic and moralistic?
Anyway…
I do think a healthy relationship with Christ means talking and listening
to Him daily. But why is the quiet time the touch-stone of
evangelical spirituality? Why is it the default application for
every sermon? (I say this against myself) Why do we
reach for the privatized exhortations so readily?
And how
many times have I heard Robert Murray McCheyne’s daunting challenge:
What a man is alone on his
knees before God, that he is and no more.
I mean
it’s right to be challenged by that. But is it true? And is
it right to aim for this as the very model and highpoint of Christian
maturity? What about: “By this all men will know that you are my
disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:35)
I
dunno. Bit of a rant really. What do you think?
.
Posted in evangelicalism, prayer,
preaching, sermons
| Tagged evangelicalism,
prayer, preaching, sermons | 12 Comments »
30 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’ve just
written an essay
on repentance and evangelism. It was very hurriedly written,
but basically my point is: Unbelievers can’t repent, believers must
- all the time.
One of
the implications is that evangelism is calling sinners to come to
Christ just as they are. Two men preaching
in the 19th century grasped this very well indeed.
Here is
Spurgeon calling sinners to repentance:
Do not attempt to touch
yourself up and make yourself something other than you really are, but
come as you are to Him who justifies the ungodly. …The Gospel will
receive you into its halls if you come as a sinner, not otherwise. Wait
not for reformation, but come at once for salvation. God justifieth the
ungodly, and that takes you up where you now are; it meets you in your
worst estate. Come in your disorder. I mean, come to your heavenly Father
in all your sin and sinfulness. Come to Jesus just as you are: filthy,
naked, neither fit to live nor fit to die. Come, you that are the very
sweepings of creation; come, though you hardly dare to hope for anything
but death. Come, though despair is brooding over you, pressing upon your
bosom like a horrible nightmare. Come and ask the Lord to justify another
ungodly one. (From
“Justification of the Ungodly” by C.H. Spurgeon. A sermon on Romans
4:5)
And this
is from a wonderful piece called Evangelical
Repentance by John Colquhoun (1748-1827)
Do you postpone the act of
trusting in the Lord Jesus for all His salvation, till you first sit down
and mourn awhile for your sins, or till your heart be so humbled that you
may be welcome to Him, and so have from your own resources a warrant for
trusting in Him? Do you object against coming to Christ because you are
not certain that your conviction of sin and your repentance are of the
right sort? Do you apply yourself to the exercise of repentance in order
to be qualified for believing in Christ, or do you apply your conscience
to the commands and curses of the broken law, in order so to repent as to
be entitled to trust in Him? Know, I entreat you, that this preposterous
and self-righteous course will but sink you the deeper in unbelief,
impenitence, and enmity to God the longer you try in this manner to seek
for evangelical repentance in your heart or life, the farther you will be
from finding it… Do not try to wash yourself clean in order to
come to the open fountain of redeeming blood; but come to it as you are,
and, by the immediate exercise of direct confidence in the Lord Jesus,
wash away all your sins (Ezek 36:25).
.
Posted in evangelism, repentance, salvation, sermons
| Tagged evangelism, repentance, salvation, sermons | 2 Comments »
30 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I flew a
kite here
for the notion of confession following our taking of
communion. It wasn’t enthusiastically embraced!
I was
reminded on Sunday of how brilliant Thomas Cranmer’s ‘Prayer of
humble access’ is. In the Anglican church, this is what we pray
before receiving communion. Isn’t it great?
We do not presume to come
to this your table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but
in your manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to
gather up the crumbs under your table. But you are the same Lord, whose
nature is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to
eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that
our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed
through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him,
and he in us. Amen.
Now if
the supper was explained to people ‘On the night He was betrayed, Jesus
took bread…’. And people said this prayer, haven’t we been
sufficiently prepared? Then, following my appropriation of Christ’s
grace, then I formally confess my sins - and let’s take some
time about it, let’s mourn our sin and hate it. But don’t we
confess best when humbled by grace?
(Even if
you object to this, thought I’d share the prayer - good huh?)
.
Posted in Anglicanism, ethics,
prayer, repentance, salvation | Tagged Anglicanism, ethics, prayer, repentance, salvation | 2 Comments »
28 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
How about
that for a title?
Just two
half-formed thoughts really that flow from recent musings on the trinity…
First, Bobby has some
interesting posts here
and here
that touch on (among other things) Barthian methodology and avoiding
universalism. Now one way of describing universalism is the
conflation of church and world - that is church and world become, in the
end, identical. Can trinitarian theology help?
Well
Christ is Priest of God. And we’ve been seeing that Christ and His
Father are one - not identically but with important
self-distinctions upheld in their mutual relations. Christ as
Priest has His distinct existence which is neither identical with the
Father nor identical with humanity. He is God for man and Man for
God and this mediatorial existence is absolutely essential to His
Person. But in this mediation He does not collapse into either
party. He remains, in eternity, distinct.
Now the
church, corporately, is a royal priesthood. And, again, the
absolutely essential nature of the church is mediatorial.
We do not exist for ourselves but find our very being in reaching out
into the world. But, church does not for this reason collapse into
world. Church remains, in eternity, distinct.
Now it’s
interesting that Barth’s trinity is explictly not ‘three divine I’s’.
He states emphatically that his trinity is a ‘single subject
thrice repeated’. Here (IMHO) there is not adequate room for
self-distinction in the Godhead. I wonder whether the fruit of
that, down the line, is inadequate distinctions being drawn between
church and world? Just a thought.
Secondly,
more briefly. If, as
I’ve argued, the equal Persons are differently gifted and
perform different roles, doesn’t this re-shape what we mean by
gender-equality? Equality, if it’s grounded in God’s equality,
includes and upholds real differences in gifting and function.
I mean let’s do the exegetical work on the relevant passages, but beware
playing the ‘equality’ card in a way that would commit you to modalism
when speaking of God!
.
Posted in equality, salvation, trinity
| Tagged equality, salvation, trinity | 8
Comments »
28 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok, so the
last post put forward church life as an analogy of trinitarian life.
More specifically:
‘Differently
gifted members of one priesthood’ is analagous to ‘Differently gifted
Persons in one Godhead.’
Once this
is seen, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief and just let Jesus be
Jesus.
What do I
mean by that? Well let me ask a few questions. When you read
the Gospels, do you ever wonder:
- Why doesn’t Jesus
just say ‘I am God’? Why all this ‘I am sent…’ stuff?
- Why does Jesus keep
saying things like: ‘I can do nothing by myself’? (e.g John 5:19,30)
- How come Jesus
sleeps?
- How come Jesus
doesn’t know when He’s returning?
Do we get
worried when we see that Jesus is ‘differently gifted‘ to the
One He calls Father??
Well we
needn’t be. It is a revelation of His divine nature (and
not a concealment) that we see in Jesus such dependence on the
Father. When He says ‘I am sent’ it reveals His divine nature
as the eternal Son of the Father. When He says ‘I can do nothing’
it reveals His divine nature as the eternal Servant of the LORD.
When He sleeps it reveals His divine nature as One dependent upon the ever-wakeful
Father. When He says He doesn’t know when He’s returning He reveals
His divine nature as One sent from God. He waits
on the Father’s command and does not initiate His first or second coming.
He really
can’t do anything by Himself. He really does sleep (He really
does die even!) He really doesn’t know when He’s
returning. But for all that He is no less divine. For
He belongs to the other Members and in union with their ‘giftings’ He is
a full participant in the communion that is God.
We don’t
need to assign these differences in Jesus to some ‘human nature’ locked
off from a special sphere of uncorrupted deity. Jesus’ deity
is not insulated from these differences, it includes them. It is
the human Jesus who says ‘If you’ve seen me you’ve seen the Father.’
It is the human Jesus who says ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ In
His differences, even in His complete humanity, He is
the living God. So let’s let Him be who He is in the Gospels.
Let’s not fit Him into some pre-conceived notions of divinity. Let’s
let Jesus be Jesus.
Posted in christology, theological method, trinity
| Tagged christology,
theological method,
trinity | No Comments »
27 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
In
previous posts I have discussed the
priesthood of all believers and how this doctrine interacts with
the doctrine of the trinity. In
my last post on this I examined the connection from Trinity
=> church. In this post we’ll go in the other direction: church
=> trinity (a much more perilous route!!). My question
is:
Can ‘different giftings united in one priesthood’ be thought of as an
analogy for the trinity?
If it
can, then it would be ok to see different Persons of the Godhead
differently gifted. This different gifting would
imply no difference in divinity (just as differences in charismatic
gifting implies no difference in priestliness). Instead we could
affirm the differences we see in the economy as real and not apparent and
yet in no way infer any ontological subordination.
To set
this up, let me quote from Athanasius’ Deposition of Arius
And if the Son is the
“Word” and “Wisdom” of God, how was there “a time when He was not?” It is
the same as if they should say that God was once without Word and without
Wisdom.
Here we
have, of course, a thought-experiment. But it is interesting to
note exactly what thoughts are being had by Athanasius. The
argument is basically this:
1. The
Son is the Wisdom of the Father.
2. It
is inconceivable to have the Father without wisdom.
3. The
Father must have always had the Son.
Now it
doesn’t take much thought to imagine the Arian come-back to this.
Surely you could just say that the Father has always had wisdom in
Himself, i.e. considered apart from the Son. This was a move which
Athanasius was unwilling to make. The logic of Athanasius’ position
(without which his argument fails) is that the Father must have the Son
to have wisdom - He does not have it in Himself.
All this
accords with verses like 1 Cor 2:10-11, where the wisdom of God is seen
as an irreducibly inter-Personal knowledge. The Father is wise in
the wisdom of the Son, known in the Spirit. Athanasius reveals
in this argument that he did not conceive of the Persons as having divine
attributes (like wisdom) complete in themselves. The attributes are
not, on this conception, identical CV’s repeated for each Person.
Rather, each Person shares in the common divine life because they so
belong to one another and inter-penetrate one another that Each has a
complete share in the giftings of the Others. Yet those gifting
(attributes) are properly unique to the Persons in their distinctive
existences as Begettor, Begotten and Proceeding. The Son is the
Wisdom of the Father. The Father is not wise in Himself
but only in the Son and by the Spirit.
As we
discussed the priesthood of all believers we were led to just these kinds
of conclusions. I am priestly not by myself but only in and with
you and your gifts. And because of you and your gifts - you and
they belong to me (Rom 12:5). Is it not the same with God?
The Son so belongs to the Father that He who is Wisdom eternally
makes wise the Father in the Spirit, etc, etc.
Isn’t it very
suggestive that 1 Corinthians 11 tells us that Father and Son are Head
and Body (v3) just before we read a whole chapter on the church also
being like a body?? And isn’t it interesting that the following
chapter (13) discusses how the many are one - love!?
Can we
not say by analogy with 1 Cor 12:15: “If the Father should say ‘Because I
am not Wisdom, I do not belong to the Godhead,’ He would not for that
reason cease to be part of the Godhead… “ You see where I’m going
with this. Just as the priesthood of all believers is the corporate
priestliness of differently gifted believers so the equal divinity of the
Three is the corporate divinity of differently gifted Persons. Yet
these Persons so belong to each other that they are never without the
gifts of the Other.
Now some
think that Athanasius’ famous affirmation opposes such a position:
‘The Son is everything the
Father is except Father…’
But I’m
saying, if Athanasius is being true to his Deposition of Arius he must
mean this in terms of ontological equality. That is the sense in
which we must uphold these words. But it’s very clear, viewed from
another perspective, that the Son is many things the Father
is not - Begotten, Mediator, Prophet, Priest, Prince, Sent One, etc,
etc. So whatever the above affirmation means it does not mean
that the Son’s CV is the same as the Father’s. Instead, just as my
gifts are different to yours, so the particular attributes of the Persons
are different. And just as your gifts belong to me in the unity of
the church so the Person’s attributes belong to one another in the unity
of the Godhead.
We’ll see
why this is important shortly.
.
Posted in church, mission,
trinity | Tagged church, mission, trinity | 3
Comments »
26 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
From
Genesis 1, the way of the LORD has always been forming,
then filling.
The
filled-out reality is there by anticipation even in the forming. The
intention for filling is included in the forming. But still the order is
‘form, then fill.’:
- In Gen 1:2 - a
formless and empty creation is then formed (days 1-3) and filled
(days 4-6) as the Word of God is revealed (Gen 1:3ff).
- (This is similar to
both the tabernacle and the temple where first it is formed, then
filled by the Glory of the LORD).
- Adam is formed (from
dust) and then filled (by the breath of the LORD God).
- Humanity as male and
female is first formed in Adam and then filled out in Eve’s creation
and their consummation.
- The first Adam is
filled by the Last.
- The people of Israel
as the seed of Abraham are filled by Christ, the Seed of Abraham.
- The law is the form
of the covenant and is filled by the gospel events.
In all
this we remember that the intention for filling is already anticipated in
the forming. The very forming reveals a long-intended desire to fill. The
forming sets everything on a trajectory towards something beyond itself.
Is it too
much to suggest on this basis alone the supralapsarian
tendencies of the Living God? I’ll do it anyway!
Eden is
not the point. Adam is not the point. Adamic humanity is not the point.
Israel and its worship is not the point. All these things are forms,
intended to be filled-out by realities to which the forms themselves
point but which they do not themselves contain. The intention is always
to move through Eden and beyond to the New Jerusalem; through Adam and
beyond to the Heavenly Man; through Israel (and its worship) and beyond
to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Tellingly,
this movement goes through death and out the other side to
resurrection. Thus…
- The day is not always
bright (as it will be in the new creation). Instead it goes from
darkness into light.
- The tree is not
first, first comes the seed (John 12:24; 1 Cor 15:37)
- There are not
blessings and curses for Israel as alternative present tense
realities but rather the blessings come after the curse. (see Deut
4:23-31; Deut 28-29 culminating in 30:1ff).
- The cross comes first
and then resurrection.
- The LORD makes the
old covenant and then the covenant renewed. (though the new covenant
reality is grasped by faith long before both old and new covenants
purchased).
- The LORD makes the
old earth and then the earth renewed.
- First comes my body
of flesh and then my spiritual body. (1 Cor 15:44)
.
The
Christian therefore knows two incontrovertible facts:
1. All
things are forward-looking. The best is yet to come (let’s never yearn
for Adam, for Eden, for Israel, for old covenant).
2.
The path to better things is through suffering: the road to
resurrection blessing always goes through the cross.
Psalm 30:5 For his anger
lasts only a moment, but his favour lasts a lifetime; weeping may remain
for a night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.
Psalm 126:6 He who goes
out weeping, carrying seed to sow, will return with songs of joy, carrying
sheaves with him.
1 Peter 5:6 Humble
yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up
in due time.
.
Posted in Cross, devotional, supralapsarianism |
Tagged Cross, devotional, supralapsarianism
| No Comments »
24 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
When
discussing the
priesthood of all believers I tried to highlight the corporate nature
of our priestliness. I only find my priestliness in union
with Christ and in union with others. Both are essential.
The
priesthood of all believers is not a priestliness that is the private
possession of each believer. If we argue like this
then the very basis for the doctrine is undermined. If I claim
priestliness in myself then I can be priestly without you. And if
this is admitted then my different gifted-ness and the distinct exercise
of my priestly gifts will easily appear as a different order of
priestliness to yours. And once we say that we’re a hop,
skip and a jump from a priesthood of the few.
No - the
priesthood of all believers upholds that, while having different gifts to
you and while exercising them in different ways, I cannot be priestly
without you. Yet with you I am both priestly and I
have your gifts - for you in your giftedness belong to me, and I to you
(Rom 12:5ff).
In
thinking this through the connections with trinitarian theology suggest
themselves pretty readily. In John 17, Christ prays for a priestly
church unity. That is, He prays that the church be united as
witness to the world. (see v18, 21, 23). In v21 and 23, Christ
makes clear the proto-type for such priestly unity: the Father-Son
union. So in thinking about Church and gifts, there seem to be some
fruitful lines of enquiry into Trinity and attributes.
In this
post I’ll consider things from Trinity => church. In my next
post I’ll think of church =>Trinity.
As we
consider things from Trinity => church. It seems like the major
trinitarian heresies are easily seen in our understandings of church.
tritheism: a ‘trinity’ of
separable Persons becomes, in church practice, separable priests -
lone-ranger, hit and run evangelists divorced from the corporate
life of the church.
modalism: a one-ness in
which the Persons lose their distinctiveness becomes, in church practice,
a forcing of church members into the same mould. Everyone must
exercise every gift. Training in mission = making everyone do
street-evangelism. That kind of thing.
subordinationism
(Arianism): The ontological subordination of Son and Spirit
becomes, in church practice, the suborination of the non-full-time
Christian workers. It’s the old two-tier way of life first espoused
by Eusebius but replicated today. The ‘perfect’ are the
priests (nowadays the ‘full-time Christian workers’), the ‘permitted’ are
the regular folk (nowadays those whose tithes support the ‘full-time
Christian workers’).
The
antidote must be to go back to the trinity and understand again how the
many are one. Not competitively, not identically, not merely apparently.
Rather the one-ness (of God and of church) is a unity of distinct Persons
whose belongingness to one another makes them who they are.
I am -
in all my differentness to you, in all my distinct gifting and
role - one with you in the mission that constitutes both me and the
church. Without you I have no mission, in fact I have no ecclesial
being - that is, I am not a Christian. I have my life and being and
we have our mission to the world only because we belong together at the
very deepest level.
20 “My prayer is not for
them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their
message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me
and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe
that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me,
that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they
be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and
have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:20-23)
.
Posted in church, mission,
trinity | Tagged church, mission, trinity | 5
Comments »
22 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Is
“systematic theology… the end process of exegesis and biblical
theology”?? Ben
Myers writes brilliantly against such a conception. To imagine
that a pure biblical scholar can dispassionately read off the
meaning of the Bible through the use of objective interpretive tools
is ludicrous. To imagine that then the systematic theologian comes
to co-ordinate these propositions into a logically cogent order is
similarly misguided. As Myers says ‘It’s theology all the way
down.’ Theological pre-suppositions and commitments necessarily
guide and shape all Christian activity from exegesis to exposition to
pastoral work, to evangelism to hospitality to everything.
And yet
the idea that the Bible can be neutrally read is so tempting. We
would love to conceive of revelation as propositions deposited in a handy
compendium simply to be extracted and applied. Yet the Word is a
Person. And His book is Personal (John 5:39). It’s not
something we judge with our double edged swords - the Word judges us.
(Heb 4:12)
Now Jesus
thought the Scriptures were absolutely clear. He never made excuses
for theological error. He never gave even the slightest bit of
latitude by conceding a certain obscurity to the Bible. He never
assumes that His theological opponents have just mis-applied an
interpretive paradigm. If they get it wrong He assumes they’ve
never read the Scriptures (e.g. Matt 21:16,42; Mark 2:25)! So the
perspicuity of the Bible is not in dispute.
But Jesus
tells the Pharisees why they get it wrong - “You are in error because you
do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.” (Matt
22:29) And, again, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you
think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures
that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”
(John 5:39-40) They are wrongly oriented to the Power of God and
the One of Whom the Scriptures testify - Jesus. This is not simply
a wrong orientation of the intepreter but of the interpretation.
Scripture reading must be oriented by the Power of God to the Son of
God. Within this paradigm - a paradigm which the Scriptures
themselves give us - the Bible makes itself abundantly clear.
But this
paradigm is an unashamedly and irreducibly theological one. It is
the result of exegesis (e.g. studying the verses given above) but
it is also the pre-supposition of such exegesis. Theology is
not the end of the process from exegesis to biblical studies and then
to the systematician!
And yet,
I have often been in discussions regarding the Old Testament where
theologians will claim an obvious meaning to the OT text which
is one not oriented by the Power of God to the Son of God. They
will claim that this first level meaning is the literal meaning
- one that is simply read off the text by a process of sound
exegesis. And then they claim that the second meaning (it’s sensus
plenior - usually the christocentric meaning) is achieved by going
back to the text but this time applying some extrinsic
theological commitments.
What do
we say to this? Well hopefully we see that whatever ‘level’ of
meaning we assign to the biblical text it is not an obvious, literal
meaning to be read off the Scriptures like a bar-code! Whatever you
think that first-level meaning to be, such a meaning is inextricably
linked to a whole web of theological pre-suppositions. The step
from first level to second is not a step from exegesis to a theological
re-reading. It is to view the text first through one set of
pre-suppositions and then through another.
And that
changes the direction of the conversation doesn’t it? Because then
we all admit that ‘I have theological pre-suppositions at every level of
my interpretation.’ And we all come clean and say ‘Even the basic,
first-level meaning assigned to an OT text comes from
some quite developed theological pre-commitments - pre-commitments
that would never be universally endorsed by every
Christian interpreter, let alone every Jewish one!’ And then we
ask ’Well why begin with pre-suppositions which you
know to be inadequate? Why begin with pre-suppositions that
are anything short of ‘the Power of God’ and ’the Son of
God’? And if this is so, then why on earth do we waste
our time with a first-level paradigm that left even the post-incarnation
Pharisees completely ignorant of the Word? In short, why don’t we
work out the implications of a biblical theology that is trinitarian all
the way down? Why don’t we, at all times, read the OT as inherently
and irreducibly a trinitarian revelation of the Son?
.
Posted in Old Testament, bible,
theological method, trinity
| Tagged bible, Old Testament, theological method,
trinity | 4 Comments »
21 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
I’m no
expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some
unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone. Here’s what
I think the phrase must protect:
- The church as a whole
is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes. (Ex 19:6; 1
Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10)
- Every Christian
has equally entered this priesthood.
- None is more priestly
than another.
To this
should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one
and only, all-sufficient Priest. (How easy it is to
trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic
understandings. How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ.
But that’s for another time!)
So this
is what we are protecting by the phrase. BUT surely what we can’t
mean is: Every individual is equally a priest in
themselves. Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase
- I may start to look for my priestliness in myself. That
is, I may say ‘the priesthood is all believers; I’m a believer; therefore
I, on my own, am a priest.’ To think like this is to completely
invert the intention of the doctrine. My priestliness is found
only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that
is His body. And I must look for priesthood in both those
places - first in Christ and second in His body. But never in
me! I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome,
cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.
Why is
this important? Well, let’s just think of the implications for
evangelism:
1. Upon
trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole
existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to
world and world to God. But…
2. It is
a priestly body and so I must never do this in
isolation. The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is
not godly evangelism.
3.
Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can
honour the different parts without forcing ‘hands’ and ‘feet’ to be
lips! In other words we shouldn’t force non-speaking-gifted
Christians into speaking roles. But…
4.
We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to
utilise their complementary gifts in mission.
That
seems fairly straightforward. And yet.
- How much of a
church’s evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the
non-Christian to the pulpit?
- How much of
evangelism training simply equips individuals for
solo-witness?
- How much of it simply
equips individuals for their verbal ‘answer’?
- What does the average
church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or
individual? The ‘answer’ or more than that?
- How many of the
church’s exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges
for ‘hands’ and ‘feet’ to be ‘lips’?
- How little do we
encourage members of the body to come together organically and
complement one another in mission?
- How do Christians
feel who aren’t gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as
missionary, just as priestly?
I think
much of these problems come from an individualizing of the ‘the
priesthood of all believers’? We have turned something inherently
corporate into a private possession of each member. As soon as
this happens then I can be an evangelist without you. The ‘lips’
get on without the ‘hands’ and we quickly revert to a ‘priesthood of
the few’ - just via another route.
.
Anyway,
these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on
1 Peter.
.
Posted in evangelism, sermons
| Tagged evangelism, sermons | 4
Comments »
19 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
How to
attain humility? Determine to think low thoughts of yourself?
You’d be defeated before you began. Self-deprecation is still self-deprecation.
No, to be humble we need to be humbled.
Daniel 4
gives us a great picture of this. Nebuchadnezzar, the most powerful
man in the world, is humbled by the triune God who is ‘able to humble’
‘those who walk in pride.’ (Dan 4:37).
As a
young(ish) Australian male I know a little something about walking in
pride. What can I learn from Daniel 4 about humility?
First,
the hero of the piece, Daniel, accomplishes his work only in the
power of the Holy Spirit.
“I know that the spirit of
the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for
you.” Dan 4:9 (LXX has ‘Holy Spirit of God’ - translating the plural
‘gods’ as elsewhere in Scripture)
“None of the wise men in
my kingdom can interpret it for me. But you can, because the spirit of
the holy gods is in you.” Dan 4:18. See also 5:11,14 (LXX
translates them all as Holy Spirit of God)
Without
the Spirit, Daniel has nothing to offer. With the Spirit, Daniel is
wiser than the wisest men on earth.
Second, the promised
King of God’s Kingdom is described as the Lowliest of Men.
“the Most High is
sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone He wishes and
sets over them the Lowliest of men.” (Dan 4:17)
In the
great inversion of all our human expectations, God’s choice for
King is not simply a lowly man, but the Lowliest of men. The
King of all kings is the One who says “I am gentle and humble in
heart.” (Matt 11:29) How can Nebuchadnezzar exalt himself when
the Chosen One of the Most High is the Servant of all?
Third, Nebuchadnezzar
learns humility when he worships the Most High God:
34 At the end of that
time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes towards heaven, and my sanity was
restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honoured and glorified Him Who
lives for ever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; His kingdom endures
from generation to generation. 35 All the peoples of the earth are
regarded as nothing. He does as He pleases with the powers of heaven and
the peoples of the earth. No-one can hold back His hand or say to him:
“What have you done?” 36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my
honour and splendour were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom.
With his
eyes turned upwards, Nebuchadnezzar praises Him Who lives forever.
The sovereign glory of the Omnipotent Father draws out of him awed
worship. I’m told (and I can believe it) that the Grand
Canyon will take your breath away - no-one stands on the rim with high
thoughts of themselves. And no-one can confess the majesty of our
Father and not be correspondingly humbled in the process.
So how do
I fight pride? The doctrine of the trinity of course. I need
to know that anything I have of worth in God’s service is a gift of the
Spirit - “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did
receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?” (1 Cor 4:7).
I need to
know that the Lord of Glory is Himself the Lowliest of men. His
glory is His service. So how can I exalt myself above Christ?
I need to
know that the Most High Father is awe-inspiring in His heavenly power. As
I worship Him I find a grateful ‘nothingness’ by comparison which is, at
that very moment, my restoration to honour.
To be
enfolded in the life of these Three is to be well and truly
humbled.
.
On
humility, see also Bobby
on Gospel Living
– to KC a fan of trinitarian
theology!
Posted in Old Testament, ethics,
trinity | Tagged ethics, Old Testament, trinity | 5 Comments »
17 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Where
would you place the ‘confession’ in a communion service?
I was
speaking about that yesterday with another gospel minister. I ‘flew
a kite’ for the idea of confessing after receiving the
sacrament. Perhaps, I wondered aloud, we could receive Christ in
the bread and wine (of course with reverence recognizing the body of the
Lord) and then repent of all our unworthiness. Perhaps
this would better model the fact that our repentance flows from the prior
grace showered on us ‘when we were still sinners.’ (Rom
5:8) In our sin we are unable to turn to Christ, yet in His mercy
He has turned to us to ‘justify the wicked’ (Rom 4:5). And, as
recipients of such undeserved mercy, our hearts are then humbled
into repentance. So should we put the confession after communion?
What do
you think?
I’ve been
thinking about this especially because I’m writing a paper on repentance
at the moment. Here is the outline of my proposal. I’d love
any thoughts you may have on it…
“I
propose to write on the implications for pastoral ministry of our
doctrine of repentance. Where should repentance fit into our soteriology
and therefore how should we proceed in preaching and teaching, in
evangelism, administration of the sacraments, in pastoral care,
edification of the flock and in relations with the parish and wider
world? In each instance the minister of the Word of grace encounters sin
in its various forms. In each instance there is a danger that the
covenant love of God will be presented as a conditional contract - a kind
of “repent, then believe” ordo salutis. This would be to invert the
Gospel in which Christ meets us exactly in our sin and does so
unconditionally and with no respect to our capacity for Him or His new
life. (Romans 4:5).
On the
other hand Christ’s salvation is precisely a salvation from sin - a
deliverance from the realm of the flesh, the world and the devil. “The
wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9). The triune God
embraces sinners and in that embrace, changes them (1 Cor 6:11).
How do we
as church model this Gospel ordo salutis? How do we preach
repentance from our pulpits? At what point do we call the enquiring
non-Christian couple to live out a Christian sexual ethic? To whom
do we administer the sacraments? (In this question lies, among other
things, the balance between communion as a “converting ordinance” and the
dangers of “eating and drinking judgement” (1 Cor 11:29)). How do we
counsel our people towards repentance? What counts as repentance when
various addictions and relational involvements muddy the waters?
I’m sure
my research for this will take me in many directions, yet I propose that
I begin with the Biblical material, in particular the Old Testament
covenants and the NT Pauline corpus. I also hope to investigate the
controversies regarding the Western ‘ordo salutis’ comparing historical
positions with each other and the Biblical data. I intend to make use of
Calvin’s distinction between ‘Evangelical and Legal Repentance’,
especially as it has been developed by JB Torrance. As I begin these
lines of enquiry I expect that many others will subsequently open up.”
Any help?
.
Posted in ethics, salvation | Tagged ethics, salvation | 9 Comments »
16 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Our
church is in a sermon series encouraging us to put mission at the heart
of all we do and say. It’s got me thinking about one of my
favourite verses: ”I believed therefore I have spoken.” (2 Cor
4:13) I’ve been trying to think, what do I need to believe in
order to be the evangelist God calls me to be? Here are 21
thoughts:
- God is mission.
He is Sender, Sent and Proceeding. His being is irreducibly
bound up in sending - in mission. He is the out-ward focussed
God, the spreading God. He is a fountain of sending love.
- Participation in the
life of this God means, inescapably, participating in the
glorifying/magnifying/proclaiming of the Persons (”Behold My
Servant…” Is 42:1ff). Life in God means life in mission.
- The Father is over
all our missionary efforts. He is the real One who summons the
world to faith in Christ and who orders all things that they might
be brought under His feet (Eph 1:10). Therefore He is not
limited by my limitations and can do immeasurably more than all we
ask or imagine. (Eph 3:20).
- The Son is the centre
of all our missionary efforts (Rom 1:3-4). He is the One
proclaimed - the substance of all our proclamation. Good thing
too because He is unbelievably attractive. Speak of Him and
you cannot go wrong.
- The Spirit is the
power of all our missionary efforts. You are ‘clothed with
power’ as you go in mission (Luke 24:49). The One whose very
nature is to make known the Son is with you in divine power and
presence.
- Hell is real and the
certain destination of all those apart from Christ. (Acts
4:12; 2 Thes 1:8-10)
- The gospel is the
power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16). I am unleashing divine
potency as I testify to Christ.
- The love of Christ
compels us (2 Cor 5:14). This is not a case of God saying,
“I’ve been good to you in X, why don’t you be good to me in
Y.” It’s a case of “I have swept you up in my mission to
the world. Now carry on!”
- I am salt and
light (Matt 5:13-16). I am a witness (Acts 1:8). Whether I
act on this or not, I don’t have to become an
evangelist. God has made me what I need to be.
- My flesh is the
real enemy to evangelism not lack of evangelistic techniques!
My flesh curves me in on myself when mission is to extend myself
into the lives of others. The arguments against me
evangelizing always revolve around my present
comfort, introspection and the status quo. My desire for
vain glory, approval and ease stops me gospelling. My fight
against the flesh is one fought on the front lines of the mission
field.
- My authority to speak
of Christ is not about me ‘earning the right’ but the
authority is Christ’s resurrection from the dead. (Matt
28:18-20) That is the Ultimate Disruption that authorizes all
other disruptions of the status quo that aim at making disciples of
Christ.
- Giving myself away is
the happy life - the way of Christ, the way of blessing.
(Mark 8:35)
- Disgrace for the sake
of the Name is glorious (Acts 5:41). There is nothing like
evangelism for experiencing standing with Jesus as one chosen out of
the world (John 15:18-21).
- Nothing is neutral
(Matt 12:30). My friends, family, colleagues and the
public space is not neutral but conveys spiritual values all the
time. I never ‘inject’ God-talk into the world. All talk
is god-talk, that is - talk about ultimate spiritual values. I
never need to be ashamed that I’m the one forcing spiritual
views on another. Such proselytising is a necessary part of
all conversation. I may as well bring true God-talk
to bear.
- The Gospel is about
everything! Fundamentally I don’t have to turn the
conversation to spiritual things. It’s already spiritual and
it’s already addressed by the Father in the Son and by the
Spirit. (I just have to figure out how! - but that will come
in time.)
- The community is
chosen, dearly loved and special in its world-focussed
outward-looking-ness (1 Pet 2:9). I have a whole body - the
body of Christ - behind me. In fact no, let me
re-phrase. The body of Christ surrounds me as an intrinsically
evangelistic organism. The burden is never simply on my
shoulders.
- The community in its unity
is hugely important (John 13:34-35; John 17:20-26).
Before I’ve loved the unbeliever, my love of the believer (if done
in view of the world) has already witnessed powerfully to Christ.
- The community in its diversity
is hugely important (Eph 4:10-12). I have been uniquely gifted
in the evangelistic task and I am surrounded by others (who I need)
who are likewise uniquely gifted.
- I don’t have to be
holy first then a missionary. I strive for holiness in
mission. (More on this in other posts). It is the
outward-looking holding-up-of-Christ that is the umbrella activity
of the Christian under which my holiness is worked out. So
don’t wait to evangelise while you sort out your personal
walk. Use mission to conquer those besetting sins and habits
(they won’t be properly conquered any other way!).
- I don’t have to be
complete in knowledge first and then a missionary.
John 9: “I was blind but now I see.”
- There is reward for
the evangelist! (Dan 12:3; Luke 16:9; 1 Thes 2:19)
.
I’m sure
others can add more. What is it that we need to trust that
will motivate our evangelism?
.
Posted in evangelism, mission
| Tagged evangelism, mission | 2 Comments »
14 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
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.
.
This is a re-working of an older post on One-ness
and Three-ness.
Posted in Doctrine of God, theological method, trinity
| Tagged Doctrine of
God, theological
method, trinity | 7 Comments »
6 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Hello
all,
I’m going
on a blog-fast for the next week. Feel free to comment on anything
but I will resist replying - for a bit anyway.
In the
meantime enjoy this! Barth 101:
Posted in Barth | Tagged Barth, videos | 1 Comment »
5 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
A friend
of mine is at Bible college and has been set an essay on trinitarian
theology and the difference between east and west. He emailed me to
ask “So what??! I mean realistically what are the implications of the
different approaches?”
Here’s
part of my response. I have obviously caricatured positions to
make a point. I’m trying to be as stark as possible to drive
home the difference. And the west is obviously not as bad as I’ve
suggested, nor is the east the paragon of virtue. There are basic
things about eastern trinitarianism I disagree with - but not their
starting point. And that’s my focus here. So here is my
response:
.
Ok, you
say ‘So what?’ I say - ‘So everything!’
De Regnon
[who my friend mentioned in his email] is a good lead. Let me
re-phrase his insight: The west begins with One and then tries to
figure out how to get Three. The east begins with the Three and
then figures out how the Three are One.
Re-read
this until you have the distinction firmly in mind…
The west
begins with One and tries to get to Three. The east begins with
Three and then gets to One.
Now
between these positions there is all the difference in the world.
If you’re
eastern you say: ”I’ve met this guy Jesus and He introduces me to
His Father and sends His Spirit.” And then, having met the
Three Persons in the gospel, you say ‘what kind of one-ness do these
three Persons share?’ And because you think in this way
you can conclude: “These three Persons are *one* because they are united
in love.”
So you go
to John 17 and you see Jesus saying He wants His followers to be one
the same way He and the Father are one. And then you say
“Aha! The one-ness of the church is loving
unity, therefore it stands to reason that the one-ness of
Father and Son is loving unity.” And then you remember 1 John 4 and
you say with joy: How is God one? God is love! God is a
loving community of Three Persons.
And this
means that the greatest thing in all reality is love (because God is
love). And it means that reality is relational. And it means
that loving community among disinct people is very important.
One-ness for the east is a loving union of particular Persons who don’t
lose their individuality (Father, Son and Spirit are all different
Persons - they are not one because they are identical.)
So the
east simply says: God is three distinct but totally united Persons loving
one another. Let me flesh out three implications of this:
1) It means
that difference, distinction, community, relationship, mutuality,
reciprocity and LOVE are all at the very very centre of who God
is. God’s identity is not primarily a collection of
attributes but a community of love.
2) Because even
the Father, Son and Spirit find their identity in relationships we
see that relationship is at the heart of personal
identity. God is who He is because He is love. God is who
He is because of the relationships of Father, Son and Spirit.
Therefore I am who I am because of the relationships I share
in.
3) Community is
hugely important. Even in God, different voices are not
silenced by one dominant ruler. Instead different voices contribute
to a one-ness that’s all about distinct persons working together in love.
.
On the
other hand the west begins by saying: “we know that God is one. We
know that this one God has all sorts of attributes that go with the
‘Creator’ job description. So God is omnipresent, omnipotent,
omniscient, impassible, immutable etc etc.” Then the west
says, “Ok we’ve got the one God, but now in the gospel we meet these
three Persons. So how can the three Persons qualify as this one
God?” They figure that since the one God is defined by these
attributes then the way these Three are One is by sharing in all these same
attributes. And so they map these attributes identically onto
the three Persons. In this way the distinctions between Persons
gets lost. Every difference is blurred into the one God who is
defined not by relationships but by attributes (i.e. He’s big and clever).
Three implications of this:
1) God’s
identity is primarily a collection of attributes - attributes that
are about His distance from creation, His difference to us.
2) If God is who He
is because of His attributes - personal identity is essentially about
*attributes* (about being big and clever). Therefore I
am who I am because of how big and clever I am.
3) Community is
not really that important - there’s only one voice and will that
counts. Distinctions and difference will get bull-dozed before the
all-important one.
.
Ok, now
that I’ve laid it out like this, hopefully you can see some of the ’so
what’ significance??
Let me
tease it out by discussing the three implications:
Regarding
1): In the west, God has been defined as a collection of
attributes that place Him at an infinite distance from us. Now if
you go out on the streets and talk to people about whether they’re
religious, basically (keeping eastern influences out of this) people will
say either they do or they don’t believe in a distant, uni-personal
God who is approximately the ‘omni-being’ of philosophy. Whether
they believe in “God” or don’t believe in “God”, the “God” they’re
talking about is the collection of attributes which the western
theologian began with before they examined the gospel! The
god that our western culture has either embraced or rejected is not the
God of the gospel! Instead the “god” of the pub discussion is
pretty much the “one God” that the western theologian began with.
And if the bloke in the pub rejects that god - I don’t blame him!!
That’s not a god who is obviously related to Jesus of Nazareth (or His
Spirit or the Father He called ‘Abba’). And therefore its not a god
who appears to be particularly interested in us - its not a god revealed
in gospel love but in philosophical speculation. Now the cultures
shaped by the western church have been shaped by this doctrine of
God. When they accepted “God” it was this “God” they
accepted. When they rejected him, it was this “God” they rejected.
Atheism
has basically been the rejection of this god. People have decided
they don’t want a distant omni-being over against them and proclaimed his
non-existence. And what people like Colin Gunton are trying
to ask is “Would the west have rejected “God” so thoroughly if the
“God” they were presented with by the western church was the community of
committed love revealed in Jesus?” The answer still might be yes,
but it’s an interesting question anyway!
Regarding
2): The question of personal identity. Well if we go with the
west, my identity is all about my attributes. I need to build up a
CV of my big-ness and clever-ness. That will define me. But
if I go with the east then my identity is about my relationships. I
am who I am because fundamentally I’m in Christ (and what’s more I’m
a son, a brother, a husband, etc). When I take this seriously, my
western status-anxiety can be relieved in a second. I find
liberation from the western drive to prove myself and forge an identity
for myself. I am given identity in the relationships I have
(primarily my relationship with Christ).
Think
also of the abortion debate. What is it that defines whether this foetus
has personal identity? Ask a westerner and they’ll instinctively
answer you in terms of attributes: “This foetus can/can’t do X, Y, and Z
therefore the foetus can/can’t be aborted.” But what if the foetus
is a person not because of its attributes but because it already stands
in relationships of love?
Regarding
3): The point about community. Here’s a quote from the website:
(http://www.christthetruth.org.uk/threepersonsunited.htm)
“…what can we learn about
relationships and community from The Relationship? In gender relations,
in multi-ethnic society, in equal opportunities policies, in the church,
in our families - we are constantly confronted by people who have real
and important differences and yet people who ought to be treated with
equal respect and dignity. How do we appreciate the differences and
uphold the equality? If we treat all in exactly the same way, are we not
ignoring the valuable distinctives? This ‘melting pot’ approach falls
foul of oppression-by-assimilation. The incumbent majority always wins
out at the cost of the minorities - they either become like the majority
or they die. Do we, therefore, treat specific parties differently in an
attempt to give them a leg-up? When this happens stereo-types can be
re-enforced by ‘special treatment’ and work against the value of
equality. Furthermore: who defines the appropriate yard-stick of
“success” in a culture? Perhaps it is better to abandon the idea of
community altogether and accept along with Margaret Thatcher that there
is “no such thing as society.”
“Well what can the Trinity
teach us? At the heart of reality lies a Community of different but equal
Persons who have their own identities constituted by their mutual
interdependence. They work together as One. There definitely is such a
thing as society. Person-hood can never be considered individualistically
but is made up of relationships on which we depend. Within The Community,
the Persons freely submit to one another in roles of subordination while
never losing their equal status. They do submit to differences in
treatment and in function - but they maintain a definite equality of
being and uphold one another in bonds of unconditional love. Here is a
Community on which to model our own.”
.
Posted in Doctrine of God, theological method, trinity
| Tagged Doctrine of
God, theological
method, trinity | 11 Comments »
4 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Over at White to Harvest there
are some very stimulating discussions of election and assurance going on
- see here
and the comments here.
But just to stick up for the reformed tradition, here are (very
selective!) quotations from three of the greats. Not to say that
these are consistently followed by each theologian or their tradition but
here are some good bits nonetheless:
.
John
Calvin
Faith: “is a firm and sure
knowledge, of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a
free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our
hearts, by the Holy Spirit” (Institutes, 3.21.2.)
“Christ, when he illumines
us into faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same time so engrafts us
into his body that we become partakers of every good.” (Institutes, III.2.35)
.
C.H.
Spurgeon
“Many persons want to know
their election before they look to Christ, but they cannot learn it thus,
it is only to be discovered by ‘looking unto Jesus.’ If you desire to
ascertain your own election; after the following manner shall you assure
your heart before God. Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty
sinner? Go straightway to the cross of Christ and tell Jesus so, and tell
Him that you have read in the Bible, ‘Him that cometh unto me, I will in
no wise cast out.’ Tell Him that He has said, ‘This is a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners.’ Look to Jesus and believe on Him, and you
shall make proof of your election directly, for so surely as thou believest,
thou art elect. If you will give yourself wholly up to Christ and
trust Him, then you are one of God’s chosen ones; but if you stop and
say, ‘I want to know first whether I am elect’, you ask what you do not
know. Go to Jesus, be you never so guilty, just as you are. Leave
all curious inquiry about election alone. Go straight to Christ and
hide in His wounds, and you shall know your election. The assurance
of the Holy Spirit shall be given to you, so that you shall be able to
say, ‘I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to
keep that which I have committed to Him.’ Christ was at the
everlasting council: He can tell you whether you were chosen or not; but
you cannot find it out any other way. Go and put your trust in Him
and His answer will be - ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love,
therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee.’ There will be no
doubt about His having chosen you, when you have chosen Him.”
(‘Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.’ Morning and
Evening, July 17. 1 Thess 1:4.)
.
Karl
Barth
“If we would know who God
is, and what is the meaning and purpose of His election, and in what
respect he is the electing God, then we must look away from all others,
and excluding all side-glances or secondary thoughts, we must look only
upon and to the name of Jesus Christ, and the existence and history of
the people of God enclosed in Him” (Church Dogmatics, II/2,
p54).
“We must not ask
concerning any other but Him. In no depth of the Godhead shall we encounter
any other but Him… There is no such thing as a decretum absolutum.
There is no such thing as a will of God apart from the will of Jesus
Christ… Jesus Christ reveals to us our election as an election which is
made by Him, by His will which is also the will of God. He tells us that
He Himself is the One who elects us… As we believe in Him and hear His
Word and hold fast by His decision, we can know with a certainty which
nothing can ever shake that we are the elect of God” (II/2, p115).
.
Here
is my favourite from Barth:
“We might imagine the
conversation to which it gives rise and some of the forms which it
necessarily takes. The man to whom it is said thinks and says that he is
not this new, peaceful, joyful man living in fellowship. He asks leave
honestly to admit that he does not know this man, or at least himself as
this man.
The Word of grace replies: ‘All honour to
your honesty, but my truth transcends it. Allow yourself, therefore, to
be told in all truth and on the most solid grounds what you do not know,
namely, that you are this man in spite of what you think.’
Man: ‘ You think that
I can and should become this man in the course of time? But I do not have
sufficient confidence in myself to believe this. Knowing myself, I shall
never become this man.’
The Word of grace: ‘You do well not
to have confidence in yourself. But the point is not that you can and
should become this man. What I am telling you is that, as I know you, you
already are.’
Man: ‘I understand
that you mean this eschatologically. You are referring to the man I
perhaps will be one day in some not very clearly known transfiguration in
a distant eternity. If only I had attained to this! And if only I could
be certain that even then I should be this new man!’
The Word of grace: ‘You need to
understand both yourself and me better than you do. I am not inviting you
to speculate about your being in eternity, but to receive and ponder the
news that here and now you begin to be the new man, and are already that
which you will be eternally.’
Man: ‘How can I
accept this news? On what guarantee can I make bold to take is
seriously?’
The Word of grace: ‘I, Jesus
Christ, am the One who speaks to you. You are what you are in Me, as I
will to be in you. Hold fast to Me. I am your guarantee. My boldness is
yours. With this boldness dare to be what you are?’
Man: ‘I certainly
hear the message, but…’
In this perplexed and
startled ‘but’ we see the attack, and who it is that is attacked.” (V/2,
p250)
.
Posted in Barth, Calvin,
Spurgeon, assurance, election | Tagged assurance, Barth, Calvin, election, Spurgeon | No Comments »
3 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
Much of
this is from a comment or two I’ve made here
at Dan Hames’ excellent blog.
The
trinity is a very old doctrine. See The
Trinitarian Old Testament for just how old. But Nicea (by which
I mean the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed of 381 which we say in church
today) gave us certain terminology that is accepted by both East and
West. Its creed is basic to all Christian churches. Yet its
doctrine of God is a particular one - one that is sometimes
unwittingly (sometimes wittingly) side-lined, ignored or opposed.
The first
thing to notice is Nicea’s doctrine of ‘the one God.’ To the
untrained eye, it looks like it doesn’t have one. It simply says
‘We believe in one God’ and then immediately goes on to speak of ‘the
Father Almighty’, ‘one Lord Jesus Christ’ and ‘the Holy Spirit’.
Nicea gives absolutely no definition of the one God except to unfold His
being in the description of the Three. No doubt many scholastic
theologians (if anachronistically present!) would have inserted quite an
extended treatise on the omnis in between “I believe in God…” and “…the
Father Almighty”. But Nicea doesn’t let you force a breach between a
description of the One and the Three. To describe the One is to
unfold the Three.
When
looking for a doctrine of God’s ‘ousia’ (being), again a typical western
theologian may be disappointed. All we have in the creed is the
controversial phrase ‘homo-ousios’. Jesus, the Son, is ‘homo-ousion
tw patri‘ (of one being with the Father). There is not here a
prior definition of ‘ousia’ which is then mapped onto the three
Persons. Let me repeat: There is not a prior
definition of ‘ousia’ which is then mapped onto the three Persons.
Instead we infer what the ‘ousia’ is from the fact that Father
and Son are ‘homo-ousios’.
Jesus, in
all His difference from the Father, is still homo-ousios with the Father.
In His divinity He is ‘God from God, Light from
Light, True God from True God, begotten not made.” Even in
His divinity He is ‘ek tes ousia tw patri‘ (out of the being of
the Father). There are important differences between Father and Son that
are not papered over but rather affirmed by and included in the
homo-ousios.
The
homo-ousios does not denote three-fold repetition but rather, in TF
Torrance’s words:
“The Father/Son
relationship falls within the one being of God.” (Trinitarian Faith,
p119).
Homoousios “meant that the
Son and the Father are equally God within the one being of God.” (ibid,
p122)
The
homo-ousios upholds the distinction (as well as unity) of Father
and Son. Remember that you can’t be ‘homo’ with yourself. And it points
us to the fact that the Father is Begettor, the Son Begotten. The Father
from Himself, the Son from the Father (even according as He is God, contra
Calvin but with Nicea!).
There are
genuine differences in Persons that in no way compromise their equality
of divinity. There is never a time when the Son is not homo-ousios with
the Father nor is there a time when the Son is not begotten of His
Father. Therefore there is not an ousia of the Father that could ever be
separately conceived and then assigned in equal measure to Father, Son
and Spirit. Instead the ousia of God is a mutually constituting communion
in which Father, Son and Spirit share. The ousia of the trinity consists
in three Persons who are ‘homo’ with one another. While Nicea does not
say explicitly that the ‘ousia’ is the communion of Persons, it
points decidedly in this direction. (See Torrance’s ‘Trinitarian Faith’
for more).
All this
is to say that distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit are upheld
within the divine nature. The divine nature is not a set of
pre-determined attributes which are identically mapped onto the Three.
The divine nature is constituted by difference, distinction, mutuality, reciprocity
- it is a divine life (a dance even!) not a divine stuff.
Compare
this with so much doctrine of God in the west. First an ousia of
‘omnis’ is determined. The one God is discussed for 600 pages in
terms of ‘uncreated Creator’. And then we face the
Three. What do we then do? Simply give to each Person this CV
of attributes and insist that this is what the Nicene
homo-ousios demanded! On this understanding all difference,
distinction, mutuality and reciprocity is banished from the status of deity.
In preference to the lively interplay of Father, Son and Spirit, a
’simple’ doctrine of the One (read divine simplicity) is forwarded.
And God’s own being is conceived of as a stuff not a life.
Think I
prefer Nicea!
.
For a
sermon of mine on trinity go here.
For some excellent talks by Mike Reeves on the subject go here.
Posted in Doctrine of God, theological method, trinity
| Tagged Doctrine of
God, theological
method, trinity | 3 Comments »
1 January, 2008 by glenscriv | Edit
“A new command I give you:
Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By
this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one
another.” (John 13:34-35)
“May they be brought to
complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them
even as you have loved me.” (John 17:23)
“You are the light of the
world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp
and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives
light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light
shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father
in heaven.” (Matt 5:14-16)
The
congregational life of the church has breath-taking
potential. We are on show to the world - even beyond this
world! (Eph 3:10). Jesus wants the world to look on and to say “The
love these people display reminds me of Christ. This love is out of
this world. Now I believe that Christ came from the Father. Praise
be to God!”
If we
took this seriously we would see that there is not ‘fellowship’ on the
one hand and ‘mission’ on the other. But in the plan and purpose of
Jesus our fellowship is missional. Our life together
is to the end that we witness to the world. We are a missionary
body - a kingdom of priests. (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10). The
community of the church is not a community for its own sake but for the
sake of the world. This outward focus is constitutive of our life
together. Thus we are neither a ‘holy huddle’ nor a loose
association of evangelists.
These are
the two errors we could fall into. On the ‘holy huddle’ side we may
invest in community life for its own sake. And yet Jesus expects
that the world will be able to see our united love. On the other
side we may neglect our brothers and sisters for the sake of
mission. Yet this is impossible if we’ve understood Jesus’ commands
above. Loving the ‘brotherhood’ is missional. Thus when
Paul says to do good “especially to those who belong to the household of
faith” (Gal 6:10) it is not simply an inwardly-looking nepotism.
The love of the Christian family is the shop-window of the gospel and has
unparalleled magnetic potential!
The
question in practice is how do we make this gospel fellowship visible to
the outside world? I have three suggestions, I’d love to hear any
that you have.
- Churches should keep
‘church’ commitments to a minimum so that Christians can actually
engage in the world around us.
- Home groups should be
places where non-Christian friends can come along and see fellowship
(over meals preferably)
- Church members should
be encouraged to collaborate in efforts to ‘infiltrate’ clubs, sports
teams, bars etc. This way Christians can ‘love one
another’ before the watching world rather than having guerilla
soldiers go on individual ‘raids.’
Any other
thoughts on the practicalities of this?
.
For a
sermon I just preached on John 13 which prompted these thoughts go here.
.
Posted in evangelism, mission,
sermons, social action | Tagged evangelism, mission, sermons, social action | 2
Comments »
23 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
I’ve just
preached on Hebrews 2
this Sunday. “He shared in their humanity so that by His death…”
Or again, ”He had to be made like His brothers… in order that He
might make atonement.” (v14,17)
.
Or to
quote Kim Fabricius’
provocative post: “The crib and the cross are cut from the same
wood.”
.
See the
crib and you’ve seen the cross ahead of time. You’ve seen a
Man falling, there’s only one outcome possible.
.
Anyway,
it got me waxing lyrical. Not finished, but here’s a sketch of a
poem:
.
God in a
manger
Defenceless, enfleshed
Immanuel crying
And fighting for breath
God in a
manger
Wriggling and raw
Laid out on the wood
Enthroned on the straw
God at
Golgotha
Pierced in His flesh
Immanuel crying
And fighting for breath
God at
Golgotha
Forsaken and lost
Stretched out on the wood
Enthroned on the cross
.
You can
read/hear the sermon here.
.
Anyway,
probably won’t get a chance to blog for the next week, so let me
wish you all a blessed Christmas.
May we in
darkness rejoice in our Glorious Light.
.
Posted in Christmas, Cross,
creative, poetry,
sermons | Tagged Christmas, creative, Cross, poetry, sermons | 5 Comments »
22 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
In my
previous post I discussed how appropriate it is to celebrate Christmas at
winter. It is the celebration of Light dawning upon those walking
in darkness.
What I
find fascinating is the human determination to subvert God’s intentions
for the season(s). Those (in the northern hemisphere) who hold
Christmas in the dark determine to fashion their own light
from their own dark materials. They turn Christmas into
Winter-fest. Almost a celebration of the darkness or
at least calling ‘light’ what is only darkness apart from Christ.
Those (in
the southern hemisphere) who hold it in the light turn Christmas into a
Summer-fest. A celebration of sunny circumstances. Yet again
such lights are darkness apart from Christ.
The only
answer must be to celebrate the Light shining in darkness. And to
know that we are darkness and only He is
Light. If we truly embraced this then:
A) We
would stop being idolaters - worshipping family, feasting and
festivities.
B) We
would be able to truly enjoy family, feasting and festivities since we
recognize that such things are not our Saviour - but Christ, the LORD is.
C) We
would have good news of great joy for *all* people, including the
grieving and suffering. People need to know that Christmas is for
people in dark places. All is darkness around -
let’s not pretend any different. But the Other-worldly Light has
dawned. Look to Him.
.
Posted in Christmas | Tagged Christmas | No Comments »
22 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
I grew up
with Summer Christmases. Mangoes for breakfast. Roast Turkey
for lunch (never mind that it’s 40 degrees/100F outside).
Backyard cricket. Swims and BBQs. And I loved them. But
I’ve been thinking recently. Theologically, a summer Christmas
is a contradiction in terms.
People walking in darkness
have seen a great Light. On those living in the shadow of death a
Light has dawned. (Isaiah 9:2)
The rising Sun will come
to us from heaven, to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow
of death. (Luke 1:78-79)
The Light shines in
the darkness. (John 1:5)
Christmas
begins in the dark. The context for Christmas is ignorance, rebellion,
captivity and death. Christmas is a celebration that finds no
justification in earthly circumstances. All around is darkness and
death. The only possibility for joy lies outside. Christmas
celebrates an other-worldly Light dawning from on High.
Christmas
is not the celebration of our sunny circumstances. Nothing in
our grasp is true justification for Christmas joy. Not
family, not friends, not gifts, not health, wealth, success or
acclaim. Only Christ coming from beyond our circumstances
- like light into darkness - only He makes a Christmas.
Yet in
the Southern Hemisphere we celebrate Christmas as though we were
celebrating our happy environs - and ignore the darkness. In the
Northern Hemisphere we turn to family, friends and fesitivities to
try to generate our own light - and ignore the darkness. But
darkness is the very atmosphere of Christmas.
If you’re
having a tough one, know that Christmas is meant for dark places.
And let’s all seek our Light and joy only in the Son given to us.
Apart from Him, it’s only winter - no matter what side of the equator
you’re on.
.
To hear a
Christmas sermon of mine on this theme go here.
.
Posted in Christmas, sermons
| Tagged Christmas, sermons | 5 Comments »
20 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
Check this
out. 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.’
Spot on!
.
Posted in evangelism, other blogs, preaching | Tagged evangelism, other blogs, preaching | 6 Comments »
17 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
What
would happen if God really laid hold of you? How do you respond to
that prospect?
Do you
fear the idea - worried about how He will treat you up close and
personal?
Do you
long for it - maybe then you’d break free from the ruts you’ve been stuck
in?
Well Christmas
means that God has already gotten His hands on you!
“Surely it is not angels who
He lays hold of but it is the seed of Abraham He lays hold of.” (Heb
2:16)
At
Christmas, Jesus Christ lays hold of His people - the seed of
Abraham. In fact, as the Seed of Abraham, He comprehends in Himself
the totality of His people, like a Vine comprehends
its branches. Jesus assumes our humanity and in doing so draws
us into Himself. This is a comprehensive ‘laying hold of’!
Jesus
does not come to offer advice. He does not come to direct us in
righteous paths. He does not make possible our living for
God. Instead, as the Seed of Abraham, He lays hold of
His people and wrenches them from the clutches of sin, the world and the
devil. He sums up and puts away their sin on the cross and rises as
the Vindicated Servant. Now He is enthroned at the Father’s right
hand - taking with Him the humanity He assumed.
Christ
has placed His hands on us in the most radical and thorough-going
way. He has commandeered the totality of our existence. We
may wish that He had a more ‘hands-off’ approach. We may want to
cast ourselves as free agents who can consider whether or not to offer
Jesus our allegiance. But when this Word comes to us we realize
that we are already claimed, already grabbed, already Man-handled by
Jesus. He has gotten His hands on us and He has worked an
incredible salvation in us.
Now we
find ourselves caught up in His life, His death, His resurrection and His
ascension. Our life is hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3).
God has gotten hold of our life and done in us what we could never do
ourselves - what we could never dream of doing! And His purposes in
doing this are entirely for our blessing (just read about His
purposes in the context: Heb 2:14-18). We have nothing to fear from
this ‘Man-handling’ and everything to be thankful for.
As you
look into the manger this Christmas, look with irrepressible hope.
There, in the face of Christ, you see not only the Father’s self-giving
love. There also you see yourself. There in the manger is
your humanity laid hold of by Immanuel. God has gotten hold of you,
permanently, irreversibly. Christmas guarantees it.
.
Posted in Christmas, incarnation, mediation of Christ |
Tagged Christmas, incarnation, mediation of Christ
| No Comments »
14 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
State, Explain, Illustrate, Apply.
That’s apparently the blueprint for the young preacher. Find three
points in the text (regardless of the genre of the passage, regardless of
how many ‘points’ the Scripture might be making). For each of
the points (it’s best if they all begin with ‘P’): state it, explain it,
illustrate it and - in a discrete section of the sermon - apply it.
This
almost inevitably means turning each point into a law to be enjoined on
the congregation. Thus: point one - Jesus is faithful.
Application - how will you be faithful this week? For the preacher
who is very keen on ‘application’ they will offer all manner of
suggestions as to how the congregation can be faithful in the minutiae of
their lives.
All this
begs the question: what is preaching for? If it is faith
that comes by hearing why do our sermons aim at awakening
works? Why do both preachers and congregations love to cut to
the ‘application.’ You know the phrases that get a whole church
wide eyed, edging to the front of their pews, pliant in the preacher’s
hand: “Now where does the rubber hit the road?” “What about on a Monday
morning?” “How does this play out in the nitty gritty of life?” And
of course the answer given by the preacher (the answer that all our flesh
longs to hear) is “You’ve heard this abstract, ‘unearthed’ stuff about
Christ’s righteousness, now, go, establish your own righteousness in your
home, school or office. You’ve heard of Christ, now you go
and be the Faithful One.”
On this
understanding, application looks like this:
In my
experience the more ‘concrete’ and ‘earthed’ an application the
better. Specific moral instructions are thought to really liven up
the sermon. Now of course this puts a huge onus on the preacher
to be able to discern the thoughts and attitudes of the heart - something
which surely only the Spirit by His Word is competent to do. And
the more specific these applications become the more easily they slide
off the backs of a congregation safe in the knowledge they didn’t commit that
sin this week.
But
that’s not the real issue with such an understanding of
‘application’. The real issue is - what are we aiming at in
preaching? Here’s my question: what if we took seriously the fact
that the gospel is to be believed? Christ is to be
received. The Word is to be heard. What would application
look like then? I suggest it should look much more like this:
Application
ought to be the pointed driving home of the gospel. It is the
lively and repeated application of the Word to the heart of the
congregation to the end that it might be believed. It is not the
derivation of principles which can then be turned into moral
instruction. Application is the Spirit’s work of awakening faith in
the Christ who we proclaim. It is a work which we cannot perform
ourselves but to which we are called nonetheless. In prayerful
dependence we follow the way of witness in the Scriptures as they point
to Christ. And we point too. With excitement, with passion,
with entreaty. And we say like Moses did regarding the bronze
serpent: Look and live!
.
Posted in preaching | Tagged preaching | No Comments »
12 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
A little
detour on Barth…
Last
century, Karl Barth was key in re-emphasizing mission as the outflow of
the life of God. At the Brandenburg Missionary Conference in
1932 he said:
“Must not even the most
faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have reason
to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church an
expression of the doctrine of the Trinity-namely the expression of the
divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to
the world? Can we indeed claim that we do it any other way?”
The
mission of God flows from Father to Son to church and out to the
world. And just as the God from whom this mission flows is a Gospel
God - One who is who we see in the events of the gospel - so His
mission is a gospel mission. Just as the Father committed His words
(remata) to the Son (John 14:24), the Son entrusts
them to His followers (John 17:10) to be taken out into the world (John
21:20).
For this
reason Barth was very particular about what he thought mission to
be. It is a word-y business. It is about proclamation, about
publishing this Gospel to the world. Consider these
quotes from a variety of his writings:
“The essence of the Church
is proclamation.” (Homiletics, p40)
“the event of real
proclamation is the life-function of the Church which conditions all the
rest.” (I/1,p98)
“The first if not the only
thing in its witness is the ministry of the viva vox Evangelii
to be discharged voce humana in human words. It is its
declaration, explanation and evangelical address with the lips.” (IV/3,
p864)
“…we learn from the
Biblical witness to revelation that, over and above the command to
believe, love and hope, and distinct from the command to call in common
upon His name, to help the brethren, etc., Jesus Christ has given His
Church the commission to proclaim, and to proclaim through preaching and
sacrament.” (I/1, p62)
“At bottom, the Church is
in the world only with a book in its hands. We have no other
possibility to bear witness except to explain this book.” (God in
Action, p107-108)
Now,
before we ever write off such a mission as narrow - ignoring the
social and political needs of the day - consider article 6 of the Barmen
Declaration which Barth penned in Germany in 1934:
“The Church’s commission,
which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ’s
stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all
people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of
God.”
Consider
the context. Germany. 1934. Wouldn’t there have been immense
pressure to deliver another message alongside that of the ‘free grace of
God’?? Wouldn’t we have been tempted also to address the extemely
pressing social and political needs of the day??
Yet Barth’s
definition of mission speaks extremely pointedly into the social and political
needs of the day because it refuses to deal with those needs on their own
terms. Instead, the church serves and confronts the world (even
Nazi Germany!) by first serving its Lord. This service is gospel
proclamation. And through it, the world is confronted with its true
Fuhrer (Christ) and its true Reich (the
Kingdom). The church most engages the world when it most rejects
the world’s agendas and presses its own - the Gospel of Christ.
.
For more
on this see my essay on What
is the mission of the church?
.
Posted in Barth, Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission,
social action | Tagged Barth, Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission, social action | No
Comments »
10 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
I’m
preaching on this sobering passage on Sunday.
I’m
struck by the sins of the fathers repeated in the children. Just as
2 Samuel 11 showed lust => deception => illicit taking
=> death => further chaos so it is here. In fact, just as
Genesis 3 involved lust, deception, illicit taking, death and a spiral into
chaos so this is re-played once again in the royal house.
From 1
Sam 16 until 2 Sam 10 we see good king David. A wonderful mirror of
Christ. David is anointed among his brothers (1 Sam 16) then fights
on their behalf to win victory for God’s people (1 Sam 17). While
the world acknowledges one king, there is a faithful remnant who serve
God’s choice as king. The women sing his praises, the mighty men
join him in battle. Eventually he is vindicated (2 Sam
5ff). He ascends Zion and is enthroned. He shows unfailing
love to those in covenant with him (2 Sam 9) elevating the helpless to
table fellowship. He makes peace to the ends of the land/earth
(same word in Hebrew) by defeating all his enemies and bringing peace. (2
Sam 8 and 10 - see my recent sermon on 2
Samuel 10). There ends the narrative of good king
David. From chapter 11 we have bad king David. In fact, from
here, we see the outworkings of sin in the kingdoms of the
world. The house of David had been a mirror to the house of the
LORD (see 2 Sam 7). But now (see 2 Sam 12:20) the house of David is
contrasted with the house of the LORD.
Think of
how important the ‘house’ is in Scripture. Just as the world
is a ‘house’ (e.g. Isaiah 66:1), so is a kingdom, so is a
family. These family problems are a microcosmos - a little world in
crisis. (think of the Genesis 3 link above). Everything that
is so heart-breakingly wrong with this family is everything that is so
heart-breakingly wrong with the kingdom of the world. The sin we
read about here cannot be held at arms length. It is being brought
home to us because it is the problem at the heart of every house, every
kingdom, the whole world.
Note how
these four men are distorted pictures of true men:
Amnon is
a lover. But it’s love turned to lust.
Jonadab
is a wise man, yet it’s wisdom turned to deceit.
David is
a king, but inactive in the face of evil.
Absalom
is an avenger, a rescuer - yet he silences Tamar and seems to protect his
own reputation more than hers.
How
wonderful the lover, the wise man, the king and the rescuer could have
been. But they are perverted and together make for one
dysfunctional house!
And what
is the state of the virgin daughter in the royal house? (This
very broken mirror of the church (cf Psalm 45). How is this virgin
daughter in this kingdom treated?
Desired (v1)
Deceived (v11)
Disgraced (v14)
Despised (v15)
Discarded (v17)
Dismissed (v20a)
Destroyed (v20b)
And what
a word to describe her in v20: Desolate! Literally -
destroyed. It’s such a violent word. It’s the word for Job
and his household - devastated. It’s most used with regard to the
curse of exile - the ravaged land, the desolated temple, the agriculture
dried up. She is destroyed like a war-torn country, like a
shrivelled up vine, like a desecrated temple. (There is hope though
for the Desolate woman - cf Isaiah 54!)
.
Now v15
has intrigued me for a long time. Can anyone help me with the
psychology of this. Literally it says that after he raped her “Then
Amnon hated her with a very great hatred. In fact the hatred with
which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved
her.” What’s going on there? What is it about this illicit
taking that makes him despise what he had previously desired so
fiercely??
.
Posted in Old Testament, ethics,
psychology, sermons
| Tagged ethics, Old Testament, psychology, sermons | 6 Comments »
7 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
This is a
short introduction I gave to our church prayer meeting held on Wednesday
night…
.
Job
16:19-20
19 Even now my
Witness is in heaven; my Advocate is on high. 20 My
Intercessor is my Friend as my eyes pour out tears to God;
I have to
tell you that you were all late for the prayer meeting. I want you
to seriously consider the fact that you all came late to the prayer
meeting. And last month, you were late to the prayer
meeting. And the month before that. In fact, you are always
late to prayer.
Because
the real prayer meeting, the heavenly prayer meeting, has begun before we
ever join in.
Job here
speaks of his heavenly Intercessor. Job has a friend in high
places. And this friend prays for him ‘Even now’.
Jesus
Christ is described many times as our Intercessor. Because intercession
(prayer) is one of the key things Jesus does for us as our High Priest.
The High
Priest of the Old Testament tabernacle system would, once a year, take
the blood of the atonement sacrifices and take them through the curtain
and into the Most Holy Place - the dwelling place of God Himself.
There He would sprinkle the blood before the LORD and make atonement for
the sins of the people. Now that’s wonderful enough, but one of the
things the High Priest was wearing was a breastplate in which were 12
stones. Engraved on the 12 stones were the names of the sons of
Israel. Exodus 28 says this:
29 “Whenever Aaron
enters the Holy Place, he will bear the names of the sons of Israel over
his heart (on the breastpiece of decision) as a continuing memorial
before the LORD.
So this
is the picture: The High Priest makes atonement for His people and in
doing so He carries His people on His heart before the LORD. The
people are remembered before the LORD because the High Priest carries
them on His heart.
Now the
Old Testament tabernacle system was only a multi-media
presentation. It pointed forward to the time when Jesus Christ
would enter into heaven itself to make atonement and intercede for His
people. In the Old Testament, the High Priest got into the Most
Holy Place and got out again quickly, lest he die in the presence of this
Holy God. But Hebrews 7 contrasts that with Jesus’
priesthood. It says:
“because Jesus lives for
ever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able
to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always
lives to intercede for them.”
Jesus always
bears us on His heart before the Father. He always
remains before the LORD. He is our Intercessor - always
praying for His people.
We are
always late to prayer. Because Jesus is always ahead of us.
Our prayer is the Amen to His ceaseless intercession!
Now let’s
just look at our passage and learn a little something about out Heavenly
Intercessor. He’s given four names here:
First: He is the Witness.
It’s legal language, and here we have what you might call a Star
Witness. While Satan may be called the Accuser in Scripture, Job
knows a Witness for the defence. And He’s a Witness with the very
best reputation. Here is a Witness who will be listened to on High,
because He belongs on High. The case for the defence can
rest because this Star Witness has given unimpeachable testimony.
Second: He is the Advocate.
We’re still in legal territory here. John also calls Jesus ‘the
Advocate’ in 1 John 2:1. He is not only the Star Witness, He’s also
the Star Barrister. That’s so important in court. Because if
you’re on trial, how do you look to the Judge? You look as good as
your lawyer. If your lawyer is good, you look good. The
Christian looks very good in the court of heaven. Their Witness and
their Advocate is flawless.
Third: He is the Intercessor.
Christ doesn’t just witness or advocate, He prays. He petitions, He
intercedes. Jesus said to Peter, “I have prayed for you that your
faith will not fail.” (Luke 22:32) And the LORD Jesus prays
similarly for you. And He prays, as Job says (v19) ‘even now‘.
Fourth: He is my friend.
All of this would be nothing if not for the fact that Christ is our
friend. We don’t simply have a Lord in High Places, we have a
friend in High Places. There is One who loves you more than you
love yourself. He is the One interceding for you ‘even now.’
Finally.
You might think that all this would make you not want to
pray. Perhaps you think: ‘Why should I bother praying if
Jesus is doing the job?’ This thought doesn’t occur to Job.
He makes the opposite conclusion - because He has such a
Witness, Advocate, Intercessor and Friend on High therefore his
eyes pour out tears before God.
When we
understand that our High Priest has given us such access to the throne of
grace then we will pour out our hearts to God. Before
Christ made friends with us, prayer could only ever be a wish list or a
religious rite - and who knows whether our words just bounce off the
ceiling. But now, carried on Christ’s heart, assured of a hearing,
now we can pray. Now we can call the Almighty God ‘Abba,
Father’. Now we are invited into the ultimate prayer
gathering. We may have turned up late, but we are very
welcome. And all our prayers become the Amen, to Christ’s heavenly
intercession.
Heavenly
Father, we approach You because Your Son, our Brother has become our
Priest. We praise and thank You because He ever lives to intercede
for us. Send the Spirit of Your Son now into our hearts, that same
Spirit of Christ, who calls out ‘Abba, Father.’ Draw us into your
life of prayer. Help us this evening to know the privilege and joy
of joining in with Christ’s intercession. Answer our prayers not
because of our own righteousness but only because Christ our Witness on
High intercedes for us. It’s in His Name we pray, Amen.
.
For
audio sermons of mine and some others I highly recommend go here.
.
Posted in mediation of Christ, prayer,
sermons | Tagged mediation of Christ,
prayer, sermons | 2 Comments »
4 December, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
All but cursed, the men of dust,
From garden’d bliss dejected thrust.
Cast down to blood and tangling thorn,
Flat-faced in mud, bereft, forlorn.
.
Unmoved as ages droned along,
Resigned to sighing pity’s song.
To mouth their sadness with each breath,
In love with self and sin and death.
.
Then glancing back, a glimmering sight,
Through gnarling weeds, a shaft of light.
The tree untouched, of matchless type,
Engorged with life, effulgent, ripe.
.
It lay beyond the thorny wall,
A tantalizing siren’s call.
All wrong reversed, all tears made good,
All hunger filled with holy food.
.
New drive possessed the men of dust,
They set to work with primal thrust.
To have the fruit at any cost,
If failing this then all is lost.
.
And so they pressed against the wall
Of thorns and blades and jagged sprawl.
Their eyes aglow with mad intent,
Their bodies pierced and torn and rent.
.
Their flesh sliced through by razor wire,
Could not abate their one desire.
No hurt could halt their desperate zeal.
“Once through, the tree alone will heal!”
.
Their bodies strewn along the route,
Their hands outstretched to reach the fruit.
Yet none would cross this death-divide,
Their hope lay on the thorny side.
.
Behind them in the other way,
Another tree for sinners lay.
It stood apart and unacquired,
Gnarled and grim and undesired.
.
It did not catch the eye of men,
Who sought a ripeness there and then.
Yet this one pledged a golden yield,
To all who ceased and turned and kneeled.
.
For hanging lone across its form,
The Lord of Life enthroned in scorn,
Was off’ring all a bloodied balm,
With up-raised voice and out-stretched arm.
.
Thus from the midst of cursèd death,
Is raised His call with rasping breath.
“Come every man, leave off your quest
Find life within my piercèd breast.”
.
“He lies!” they shrieked through raging tears,
They scoffed and mocked with angry jeers.“
What life could this cadaver give?
What guarantee that we shall live?”
.
“Just this” He said with pity’s call,
“I’ve come direct from o’er the wall.
All bliss that moves your frenzied glee,
Such fountains first begin in Me.”
.
At once they spluttered daft disdain,
“No wounded Man or tree of pain,
Will be our well or way of life.
We’re free! You pledge us only strife!”
.
“Dear friends!” He pleas, “regard your plight,“
Your freedom bonds you, blinds your sight.
Your wounds for self, for self are loss,
Come lose them in my wounded cross.
.
“Your life is death, My death is gain,
Now trust the word of Paschal slain.
Come hide in Me through darkest night,
Soon heaven’s dawns shine fresh delight.”
.
Just so His promise stands above
All men, inquiring which they love:
To seek the fruit and Him defy,
Or heed Life’s call to “Come and die!”
.
Posted in creative, poetry
| Tagged creative, poetry | 8 Comments »
29 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
God is a
Gospel-Alone God. He is known only in the Gospel. His very
being is a Gospel Being. There’s no use even conceiving of a
God other than the Father revealed in the Son by the Spirit. If
you’re not convinced, read these posts which were digressions to bolster
the point:
The
Trinitarian OT
Oneness
and Threeness
Now if
this is true then the Gospel-Alone God is honoured in the world by a
Gospel-Alone mission. This is what I was trying to say with the
first two parts of “Mission, evangelism and social action.” (part
one, part
two).
Here are
some more thoughts on the topic…
.
7)
Much talk in this debate is founded on false dichotomies.
Take as
an example Dwight Moody’s comment:
“I look upon this world as
a wrecked vessel. God has given me a lifeboat and said to me,
‘Moody, save all you can.”
Many of
the ‘evangelism-only’ advocates in this debate sound closer to Plato than
Scripture as they forward an essentially dualistic world-view. Here
“this world” is pitted against a salvation that is clearly ‘out of this
world.’ Salvation is from this ‘wrecked vessel’.
Such thinking is very common. People play off against each other then
and now, soul and body, heaven and earth,
individual and corporate, internal and external,
rational and physical. In each case it
is the former that is given precedence.
Yet
surely God’s purposes for ‘this wrecked vessel’ are to renew it
not abandon it! The new creation - the realm of salvation - is this
creation renewed. The spiritual realm is not anti-physical,
the Word became flesh! Any arguments for Gospel-alone mission must
avoid such dualisms. But…
.
8)
We must also maintain some Biblical distinctions.
‘Spiritual
vs physical’ is more recognisable as a Greek dualism But
the Bible puts forward some right distinctions.
- Adam vs Christ
- Adam refined
is still Adam. “Flesh gives birth to flesh.” (John 3:6)
- Works vs Faith
- Even
faultless legalistic righteousness is dung in God’s sight.
(Phil 3:1-9)
- “Faith comes
by hearing.” (Rom 10:14)
- Christ’s work vs
Our witness
- All
authority is given to the risen Christ - the Church goes in a word
and sacrament ministry. (Matt 28:18-20)
- We do not
redeem the world - Christ has done it. As ambassadors, we
bring word of this finished work (2 Cor 5: 18-21)
- We are not
the doers. It is finished. We bear witness to His
once-and-for-all Doing.
.
9)
‘Service to the world’ does not co-ordinate our mission. Mission
co-ordinates our service to the world.
Often
people conceive of ’service’ as the umbrella activity under which
evangelism sits (side by side with social action). Yet, what does 2
Corinthians 4:1-6 say? Apostolic ministry is setting forth the
truth plainly - in this context we serve.
It’s
always perilous to claim ‘this is how Jesus did it’ but that’s what I’m
claiming. Ministries of mercy always accompanied Christ’s preaching
of the word. Praise God! I mean, really, can you imagine
a Christ who ignored the physical needs of those who came to Him??!
Not for a second! Yet His service was in the context of His Gospel (word)
mission:
Think
of Mark 1:
“Everyone is looking for
you!” 38 Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else–to the
nearby villages–so that I can preach there also. That is why I have
come.” (Mark 1:37-38)
His word
ministry co-ordinated His mercy ministry.
Think
of Mark 2: the paralytic’s physical need was met but first
Jesus pronounces forgiveness and then heals him as a witness to
the reality of that forgiveness.
Think
of Mark 3: Jesus appoints the 12 and sends them out to preach
and to drive out demons. Now whatever you think about this second
task it surely functions similarly to the way it functions for Jesus (it
is His authority He gives them to do it). In Jesus’ ministry it
functioned as authentication that the Strong(est) Man has come. It
can’t be interpreted today as sanction for elevating social action to the
level of proclamation. Jesus could easily have said ‘Go and
campaign for social justice.’ Instead He said v14 and 15,
Think
of Mark 4. The Kingdom grows in the power of the
word. In fact the power to grow a world-dominating kingdom
organically resides in this word alone.
Think
of Mark 5. The woman with the flow of blood simply wanted a
physical fix. Jesus wants a personal encounter and to pronounce a
word of forgiveness.
Think
of Mark 6. Jesus identifies the people’s need - teaching
(v34)! Those who would sit under Jesus’ teaching were shown
tremendous kindness - the feeding of the 5000! Yet even this deed
is a sign proclaiming Christ and Jesus uses words to explain it as
such. To those who come under the word, their every need is catered
for. Yet even these needs are met in Gospel-proclaiming ways.
No-one could doubt that here is a Gospel, Word-ministry. But one in
which the full, vibrant, physical life of the Kingdom is manifest.
We could
continue in Mark, but let’s stop there. Doesn’t Jesus’ example
challenge our mission strategies? We often put on a meal to attract
non-Christians then tack on a Gospel talk. Jesus puts on a teaching
event and then, in costly love and in demonstration of the miraculous
resources of the kingdom, He meets the physical needs of those who
come. What should be our response?
Should we
put on a soup kitchen for the homeless and have a five minute ‘God slot’
in the middle? Or shouldn’t we rather move into the deprived areas
of our world on a Gospel-proclamation footing, and in that
context offer food, clothing, shelter, brotherly-sisterly love to any and
all who will come under the sound of that Gospel.
All this
is part of what it means to have evangelism co-ordinate our ’service’
rather than the other way around.
.
In my
next post I’ll talk about the costly, life-sharing, counter-cultural,
need-meeting love we ought to be manifesting in our churches. None
of that is a betrayal of our mission of Gospel-proclamation. In
fact, Jesus thought it was the back-bone of it! (John 13:34-35)
Posted in Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission,
social action | Tagged Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission, social action | 7
Comments »
26 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok - just
one more digression before we get back to missions. This flows on
from our discussions about the trinity…
I’m
a bit slow in my travels around the blogosphere so I apologise that this
is about a week out of date. But, Ben Witherington
(recently-ish) managed to get 83 comments on a post called “Is
God a narcisist?”. He was reacting against a Piper-ist,
Schreiner-ist theology that says “The chief end of God is to glorify God
and enjoy Himself forever.”
Being a
good biblical (NT) theologian he made excellent points on the meaning of kabod
(Hebrew) and doxa (Greek) and the difference between this and
God’s Name (which is about vindicating His reputation). I’ve
skim-read the comments as much as I’m going to but nowhere (as far as I
can see) do people discuss the trinity. This is kind of
surprising!
Growing
out of our discussion about One-ness
and Three-ness, one of the chief conclusions to be drawn is the
fact that God ought never to be thought of in anything approaching
unitarian terms. The One-ness of God does not connote a
single centre of action or personal consciousness in God. Yet
when a theologian asserts that “God’s chief end is
self-glorification” then almost certainly a doctrine of the one God,
divorced from trinitarian reciprocity, is in view.
We ought
to ask all such theologians ”Which Person of God are you
speaking of?” They surely cannot be referring to the trinitarian
life of Father, Son and Spirit - that communion is the essence
of self-giving. God is love. And they surely cannot
be referring to the Father for He has committed all things into His Son’s
hands (John 3:35). They mustn’t be speaking of the Son, He only
ever glorifies the Father. (John 4:34). And they can’t be speaking
of the Spirit, He simply takes from what is the Father’s and the Son’s
and makes it known (John 16:15). So what god are they speaking of
when they say “His chief end is to glorify Himself”? Clearly the
“God” referred to here is one abstracted from considerations of the
trinitarian life. Yet as my last post was trying to argue - the
living God cannot for a second be abstracted from considerations of
trinitarian self-giving. The only God there is is the
Trinity! The One God is precisely the community of sacrificial love
between Father, Son and Spirit. (see also The
Cruciform God)
When the
LORD says in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not
give my glory to another or my praise to idols.” it is only because He
has been glorifying His Servant for the last seven verses - “Here is My
Servant, whom I uphold, My Chosen One in Whom I delight; I will put My
Spirit on Him and He will bring justice to the nations…” (Isaiah
42:1ff) The Father glorifies His Son and anoints Him with His Spirit.
Therefore He will not give that glory to another. This is
the very opposite of self-love. Instead His other-centred glory
requires that He be exclusively committed to His Son in holy love.
God is
not a narcisist. A proper doctrine of the trinity guarantees
it. And wherever God is portrayed as a narcisist you can guarantee
that a defective trinity is lurking in the background.
Next time
you hear such a theology, ask yourself what doctrine of the trinity is
being espoused here? Has this theologian conceived of God apart
from the communion of the Three? Almost certainly they have - and a
selfish God is the outcome.
Two
verses from John to finish:
Jesus replied, “If I
glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your
God, is the one who glorifies me.” (John 8:54)
“All that belongs to the
Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine
and make it known to you.” (John 16:15)
Posted in Doctrine of God, trinity
| Tagged Doctrine of
God, trinity | 2 Comments »
24 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
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 | 10 Comments »
22 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
This,
together with my next post on One-ness and Three-ness, is a
detour from my series on mission, evangelism and social
action.
The point
I’m seeking to secure in this detour is that God is known only in the
Gospel. He is a Gospel-Alone God and thus His church has a
Gospel-Alone mission. There is not a God to be known apart from
Jesus - not “God the Creator”, not “The one God”, not “The Unmoved
Mover”, not “The First Cause” - if we do not know the Father in the Son
and by the Spirit we do not know God full-stop. (This being
the case it makes no sense to honour ”God” apart from the Gospel -
that is to take upon ourselves a mission that is not itself
the gospel).
Now very
quickly the question will come: Isn’t the Old Testament just such a
revelation? That is, don’t the Law, Prophets and Writings
reveal the living God yet not in this trinitarian (gospel) way? My
answer is no. The Hebrew Scriptures do reveal the
very deepest things of God because they are themselves a
trinitarian revelation of the trinitarian God.
In
asserting this people may accuse me of being driven simply by systematic
(christocentric) concerns. These are strongly present I cannot deny
it. But my purpose in this post is to show that the Hebrew
Scriptures on their own terms and in their own context must
be understood from a trinitarian framework.
My point
is not that the OT betrays hints, shapes and shadows of triune
structure
My point
is not that NT eyes can see trinitarian themes in the OT
My point
is not that we go back as Christians and
now retrospectively read the trinity into the OT
My point
is not that the OT gives us partial suggestions of trinitarian
life that are then developed by NT fulfillment
My point is
that these texts read on their own terms and in their own context
(as the Jewish, Hebrew Scriptures that they are) demand to be understood
as the revelation of a multi-Personal God. The only proper
way to understand these texts is as trinitarian revelation. These
texts are either to be understood triunely or they are mis-understood
- on their own terms or any others! What I am setting out to do is
to simply open up the OT and show what is actually there. I have
already acknowledged that I have a dogmatic commitment to christocentric
revelation, but I hope to show that the OT texts themselves bear this
out.
Just
before we dive into the texts I would simply ask the reader to question
their own dogmatic commitments. I may be expecting to see
a multi-Personal God in the OT, but I assure you - you are expecting
to see a certain kind of God also. What is it? Are you
expecting to see a revelation of the one God? A uni-Personal
God? Are you accustomed to thinking of the OT God as equivalent to
the God of the modern Jew? Unitarian? Perhaps not, perhaps
you recoil at the idea (I hope so). But it’s worth all of us asking
ourselves ‘What are our pre-suppositions?’ as we read ‘In the
Beginning.’ The “God” of Genesis 1:1 is a certain kind of
God. What do we assume about His being? What will we allow
Him to be, do and say as we read chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3…?
Do we think it’s “obvious” that the God of Genesis 1 is the uncreated
Creator? Do we assume that the God being revealed by Moses is
basically the God of the modern Jew? The philosophical
theist? Something like the Muslim ‘God’? Perhaps we think (as
so many Christians do) that “the One God” is a foundational doctrine to
which trinitarian concepts are added? Perhaps then we see the OT as
portraying this basic ‘God’ before trinitarian nuances are added?
I have
often had the experience of being criticised for bringing trinitarian
assumptions to the OT text when, at the same time, my Christian friend
was bringing equally strong and equally controlling assumptions to bear
themselves - assumptions that God (or His revelation) must progress from primitive
unitarianism to developed trinitarianism. Pre-suppositions are
inevitable. The issue is not ‘Who has purged themselves of all
dogmatic bias and is a pure biblical scholar!’ The issue
is ’Which pre-suppositions can actually handle what’s on the page
and which do damage to the text?’ My contention is that the
trinitarian pre-supposition is the only one that makes sense of the OT
data.
Ok.
Here we go - 24 Scriptures to consider:
- Genesis
1. Verse 1: “In the beginning Elohiym… ” Here
is the God to Whom we’re introduced. A plural noun!
One that takes a singular verb. The grammatical oddity is
meant to make us sit up and take notice. Our plural God acts as
one. And His plural counsel (v26) “Let us…”
gives rise to a united creation of a plural humanity - male and
female to image His own life.
- Genesis 3. The
Voice of the LORD God (v8) who comes to walk with Adam and Eve is
also the LORD God (v9)
- Genesis 16. The
Angel of the LORD (v9) is also LORD and God (v13)
- Genesis
18&19. The LORD who appears to Abraham (18:1) is Judge of
all the earth (18:25), yet He excercises His divine prerogative in
union with “the LORD out of the heavens.” (19:24)
- Genesis 32.
Jacob wrestles with the Man (v24) who is the Angel (Hosea 12:4) who
is God (Gen 32:28,30)
- Genesis 48. The
God who is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is Shepherd and the
source of blessing (v15) is the Angel of God (v16).
- Exodus 3. The
God of the burning bush is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (v6)
and the great I AM (v14). He is also the Angel of the
LORD (v2) and will bring the people to worship God on the
mountain (v12).
- Exodus 19. The
LORD on the mountain (v10) warns Moses that in three days the
LORD will come to the mountain (v11) and things will be
very different then. Sure enough, three days later, the
LORD descends on the mountain (v18) and then the LORD descends
on the mountain (v20)!
- Exodus 33.
Moses meets face to face with the LORD in the tent of meeting (v11)
but the LORD on the top of the mountain he must never see (v20-22).
- Joshua 5&6.
The Commander of the LORD’s army (5:14) who fights for Israel to
deliver her is also the LORD who is worthy of worship (5:15; 6:2)
- Judges 2.
The Angel of the LORD brought them out of Egypt and
established His covenant with them. (v1-4)
- Judges 6. The Angel
of the LORD (v11-12) brings the LORD’s blessing (one who is
Sovereign LORD, v22). Yet the Angel, as another Person
is Himself the LORD (v14) with the same divine majesty
(v22-24).
- Judges 13. God
sends the Angel of the LORD (e.g. v9) who is Himself God (e.g. v22).
And the Spirit fills Samson (v25)
- Psalm 2. The
Son Whom we are to kiss and find refuge in (v12) is the Anointed Son
of the Father through Whom is exercised all divine rule and
authority.
- Psalm 45. The
most excellent of men who rules the nations as Champion and King is
called ‘Lord’ by His bride and ‘God‘ by His God.
(v6,7)
- Psalm 110.
David knows two Lords who converse in their rule of the
nations. There is the LORD and there is the Kingly Priest who
is David’s Lord.
- Proverbs. The
Wisdom of God who creates (8:30) and gives new life (8:35) through
granting the Spirit (1:23) is also possessed by the LORD (8:22)
- Isaiah 9. The
government of God’s righteous kingdom will be on the shoulders of
the Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of
Peace (v6). Yet He is One who is born and through Whom the
zeal of the LORD will accomplish His work (v7)
- Isaiah 48. The great
I AM, the first and the last who created the heavens and the
earth and who called Israel (v12,13) is One who is sent from the
Lord GOD along with His Spirit (v16)
- Isaiah 63.
The Saviour sends the Angel to save, yet they grieve His Holy Spirit
(v9-10)
- Ezekiel 34. The
Shepherd of Ezekiel’s prophesy will be the LORD Himself (v12-22),
yet this loving, kingly rule is exercised through the Prince, His
Servant David (v23-24) who does all that the LORD is said to do as
Shepherd and who rules for the LORD.
- Daniel 7. The
Possessor and rightful Ruler of the Kingdom that shall never pass away
is the Son of Man (v13,14) who inherits the kingdom from the Ancient
of Days (v9-12).
- Micah 2. The
Shepherd who will gather the remnant of Israel is the LORD (v12) who
will set at their head a King who is also called ‘LORD’ (v13)
- Zechariah 2.
The One Sent from the LORD Almighty (v7,9,11) is the LORD Himself to
live among the Israelites as the gentle, righteous, saving King of
9:9 (compare with 2:10)!
In all
this my argument is not that these are hints of trinity but that
they are texts that can only ever be understood from the perspective of a
multi-Personal God. When two Persons called LORD are interacting in
the text (when we see plainly “true God from true God”) then an
understanding of God as uni-Personal is just dead wrong. It must
always have been dead wrong for it could never account for the Hebrew
Scriptures as written.
The only
God there is is trinitarian and His revelation has always been such.
Posted in Doctrine of God, Old Testament, covenant continuity, revelation, trinity
| Tagged covenant
continuity, Doctrine
of God, Old
Testament, trinity | 10 Comments »
19 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
Ok, I’m
going to continue with my Mission, Evangelism and Social Action posts in
a little bit. But first I need to respond to some
excellent questioning by Bobby and KC.
I propose
three posts on the issues of “The Mystery”, “The Trinitarian OT” and
“One-ness and Three-ness”. All of these are seeking to uphold the
fact that God was, is and ever shall be trinitarian and christo-centric
in His being and therefore in His revelation and salvation. The God
of the gospel is the only God there is and can be known only in the
gospel. This is true about ‘God in Himself’ and true for ‘God
towards us’, both in OT times and today. This being the case, our
mission is a gospel-alone mission since our God is a gospel-alone
God. But we’ll get to that.
.
I’ve
written a longer thing elsewhere on “mystery” citing every NT
occurence. I won’t bore you with that unless you ask.
.
Now we
all know that “mystery” is not a whodunnit in the Bible. Mysteries
are meant to be proclaimed (e.g. Col 4:3; Eph 6:19). And even
though they’re proclaimed and even when people understand them,
they’re still ‘mysteries.’ (e.g. 1 Tim 3:9). And we
know that mysteries have insiders and outsiders and that they’re
very differently experienced depending on where you’re standing (e.g.
Matt 13:11). And we also know that the vast majority of ‘mysteries’
in the NT have nothing to do with OT/NT disjunction! That’s all
worth saying I think.
But
there’s three that I think are associated with disjunctions.
Ephesians 3; Col 1; Rom 16.
Ephesians 3:2-6
“2 Surely you have heard
about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3
that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already
written briefly. 4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand
my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men
in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s
holy apostles and prophets. 6 This mystery is that through the gospel the
Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body,
and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”
Here Paul
spells it out. This is the mystery, this is what
was unknown and is now being revealed - *not* trinity, christology,
justification etc etc! This is the mystery: How to administrate the
togetherness of Jew and Gentile in the one body! In OT times you
could be a Gentile in Israel but you had to be circumcised etc. The
mystery concerns the “together”ness of Jew and Gentile - the
word ‘together’ appears 3 times for emphasis. How do you now
have Gentiles qua Gentiles as members together?
That will take some thinking through. The OT points forwards to
this time. But it doesn’t tell the Apostles how they’re going to
administrate it. Should Peter separate out from the Gentiles when
he eats or what? Should he go to Cornelius’ house? Should
Timothy be circumcised? What about Titus? What do we do about
dietary laws? Special days? What should multi-national church look
like? What do we do now that the Seed has come and Sinai’s “use-by”
date has passed?? The Spirit of God is going to have to make known
the details of this administration.
Let me
quote the important verse again: “This mystery is that through the gospel
the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one
body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” What
does Jew-Gentile “togetherness” look like - that’s what Paul needs
special revelation about.
Colossians 1:27
“the mystery that has been
kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious
riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
The “you”
that Christ is in, is the Gentile Colossians. (Paul often switches
between “we” and “you” in order to speak of Jews and Gentiles, cf Eph 2
for a good example). Making known among the *Gentiles* this hope,
the Spirit in Gentiles - this is new when we understand that the Gentiles
remain Gentiles. And of course that is the big controversy
in the NT - Don’t Gentiles have to become Jews to inherit the
blessings? No says Paul. And that’s the new thing.
Romans 16:25f
Now to him who is able to
establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but
now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command
of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him–
Note that
this mystery is made known through the prophetic writings which I think
is most naturally taken to mean the OT. Thus it is the OT which
reveals this mystery. Note also that the hidden/revealed distinction is
parallel to a long-ages-past/all-nations distinction. Therefore the
Jew/Gentile distinction is at the heart of this mystery (which makes
great sense of its context as a summary to Romans). Paul seems to
be saying that the mystery (associated very strongly with ‘my gospel’)
was hidden (can we say ‘wrapped up’?) in long ages past in the nation of
Israel and is now made known (through the OT!) to all nations. In
other words Paul is basically just repeating his ‘first to the Jew, then
to the Gentile’ maxim. This is a very fitting end to a letter in
which that theme is so prominent. Paul’s not going to say that the content
of the Gospel was hidden from OT believers or else he’s contradicting
himself massively (1:3-4; 3:21; 4; ch9-11; etc etc). Rather he’s
saying that the Gospel as a message to the nations was hidden within
the people of Israel and is now proclaimed in all the world.
.
There’s
much I disagree with in the new perspective, but one thing I think
they’ve rightly highlighted is the importance of the Jew-Gentile problem
for the NT church. The big “new thing” that everyone’s struggling
to grapple with, what is it?? Trinity?? Well there just
aren’t any passages where Paul goes “Right, about the Trinity, I know
it’s difficult but just bear with me…” But there are many passages
where the Apostles grapple with the administration of the ingrafting of
Gentiles. How much of Acts? How much of Romans? Corinthians?
Galatians? Ephesians? It’s pretty huge when you think about
it. This is what is genuinely novel about the New Testament.
Posted in covenant continuity, mystery
| Tagged covenant
continuity, mystery |
7 Comments »
17 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
I tried to argue in the last post that neither soteriology nor
ecclesiology nor eschatology should define our priorities in mission.
Rather, it’s our doctrine of God that must be our first point of
call. It is the God whose being is in the Father’s sending
(missio) of the Son who is the proper foundation for
missiology. If that’s true then it follows…
4)
A deficient doctrine of God will lead to a
deficient missiology
.
5) The divorce of
‘God the Creator’ from ‘God the Redeemer’ is one of the chief errors in
doctrine of God and, consequently, missiology.
John
Stott has been a vocal proponent of “evangelism + social action =
mission.” The links with his doctrine of God are exposed in quotes
like this:
“[There are two freedoms
and two unities for which Jesus Christ is concerned] On the one hand
there is socio-political liberation and the unity of all mankind, for
these things are the good will of God the Creator, while on the other
there is the redemptive work of Christ who sets his people free from sin
and guilt, and unites them in his new community. To muddle these
two things (creation and redemption, common grace and saving grace,
liberation and salvation, justice and justification) is to plunge oneself
into all kinds of confusion.” (From a sermon quoted in Timothy Dudley
Smith, John Stott: A Global Ministry, IVP, 2001, p204).
Here we see God
the Creator and God the Redeemer laid side by side. The concerns of
creation and redemption are, in this way of thinking, separately
addressed by the Living God.
Now of course the
Father is very interested in the whole spectrum of these
activities above. Yet He accomplishes them through the one
Gospel.
As Athanasius was
so keen to stress:
“The first fact
that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought
by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no
inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has
employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the
world through the same Word who made it in the beginning.” (Athanasius,
On the Incarnation #1)
The Word
became flesh – there are no purposes of God that are not bound up in the
exaltation of His Son, in Him creation and redemption are inseparably
bound.
6)
God’s mission is a Gospel mission
.
The purposes of the Father from all ages have been exclusively
focussed on His Son(Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:13,14; Romans
8:29; Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:15f).
.
In the power of the Spirit, His word has been the agent for all
divine activity in creation and redemption.( 2
Peter 3:5-7; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; John 1:1-3; 5:24; 6:63,68)
.
In the Incarnation of the Word, the Father gives to Jesus His word (John 8:55; 14:24), which accomplished all that
Jesus does (John 14:10; Mark 4:41; Luke 4:43; John 5:24; 12:48; 17:17).
.
It is this word that Jesus entrusts to his followers (John 15:20; 17:6,14,20).
.
The Church has inherited a Gospel mission for the world, i.e. the
Father’s mission to the exalt His Son in His Spirit-empowered word.
.
God is exclusively concerned for the exaltation of His Son. All
other interests (in justice, liberation, common grace etc) find their
place under this one agenda. And the Father has committed
all His omnipotent power to Christ (Matt 28:18) who in turn grants it to
the Church (Matt 28:19-20; Eph 1:22-23). The Living God has
unreservedly committed Himself to the Gospel mission of the Church.
.
Barth saw
these things so clearly. In 1934 the pressure for the Confessing
Church to have another agenda was immense. Yet even
(and especially) here Barth is adamant that the mission of the Church is
the proclamation of Christ:
‘The Church’s commission,
which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ’s
stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all
people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of
God.’ (Barmen Declaration, article 6)
Or
as he says in IV/3:
“The first if not the only
thing in its witness is the ministry of the viva vox Evangelii to
be discharged voce humana in human words. It is its
declaration, explanation and evangelical address with the lips.”
(IV/3, p864.)
Now if
Barth can say that in the face of the Nazis, can we really countenance a
socio-political side-show in our own day? In my next post
I’ll tease out some of the implications for the Church’s ministry today.
Posted in Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission,
social action | Tagged Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission, social action | 20
Comments »
15 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
Here are
some thoughts on the inter-relation of mission, evangelism and social
action. I have written a longer essay on this on my website here.
Here are some abridged thoughts… In part one I will flag up the
doctrine of God issues which ought to be the very foundation of our
missiology. But first, a word of warning…
1)
I lavish exhorbitant amounts of money and time on
my own ‘non-spiritual’ blessings
Before we
say anything else, let’s admit this. I will argue strongly that the
mission of the church is to proclaim the Gospel and that to add
social action as a separate component is confused and confusing.
BUT… before we get into all that let’s come clean: I love myself
by spending many resources on my own health, comfort, recreation, food,
clothing, shelter etc etc. If I am to love my neighbour as
myself, will I really with-hold such blessings from others – those
blessings which I indulge myself with on a daily basis?? If someone
refuses to feed and clothe the poor let them never claim justification in
an ‘evangelism-only’ missiology. It is greed pure and simple.
2)
Mission is God’s work first, then ours
“It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in
the world, it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father
which includes the church.” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power
of the Spirit: A Contribution of Messianic Ecclesiology, London: SCM
Pr., 1977, p64).
3)
Mission is founded in our doctrine of God
“As the Father
has sent me, I am sending you.” John 20:21
“Must not even
the most faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have
reason to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church
an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity—namely the expression of the
divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to
the world? Can we indeed claim that we do it any other way?” (Karl
Barth, quoted in Norman E. Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission and
World Christianity, Orbis, 1995, p105–6.)
In
evangelical circles we are accustomed to thinking through this question
from the perspective of certain priorities. That is, we begin with
“We’re on the Titanic! Get people to the life rafts, don’t
re-arrange the deck-chairs!” The urgency driving such thinking, the
priority of the gospel task that this engenders, is completely
admirable. If you’re proclaiming Christ from the roof-tops out of
this understanding of mission, I stand with you,
shoulder-to-shoulder! Evangelism is my passion, my gifting and my
job! But is this really where we should begin?? Such a
perspective often leads to the following assessments:
We
highlight the priority of then over now, of soul
over body, of heaven over earth, of individual
over corporate, of internal mental acts, over external
physical acts.
If we
start here, we’re defeated before we’ve begun. First of all, so
much of this dichotomous thinking is closer to Plato than
Scripture. But more importantly, our first thoughts should be about
our God, not our plight. We must begin with doctrine of God.
We should be asking: “What do we learn from the Father’s sending of the
Son? (a mission constitutive of the divine being). “What is His
mission in creation and redemption?”
As we do
so, we will see that there is a tremendous urgency to proclaim
the Son, yet it springs from a different well. More in part two…
Posted in Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission,
social action | Tagged Doctrine of God, evangelism, mission, social action | 2
Comments »
15 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
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 revelation, trinity
| Tagged revelation, trinity | 3 Comments »
14 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
On the
Cruciform God thing - here’s a brilliant sermon by Darrell Johnson
on these same issues. His text is Phil 2:5-11 and his title: “So
that’s what it means to be God!”
The real
realization is not “Oh, Jesus is the god I’d always believed in!” - how’s
that for fitting the Saviour onto a Procrustean bed! No, the real
realization is “Oh, God is nothing like I’d thought - He’s who I see in
Jesus!”
Posted in Cross, Doctrine of God, sermons
| Tagged Cross, Doctrine of God, sermons | No Comments »
13 November, 2007 by glenscriv | Edit
[I've
edited this post from it's original form which was a little specialized
and 'try-hard'!]
For a
long time I’ve held a certain verse from John at arm’s length:
“The reason my Father
loves me is that I lay down my life.” (John 10:17)
I’ve
always held it at arm’s length because… well what would it mean to
take it with full seriousness?? The Father-Son love in the bond of
the Spirit is the divine life. This love is
who God is. And the Son says it’s founded on the cross!
As 1 John
4 says, ”this is love” - the love that God is - “the
sending of the Son as an atoning sacrifice”. (1 John
4:7-10) Isn’t the logic here inescapable? Cruciformity
(cross-shaped-ness) is the essence of the divine life. God’s
very life is laid bare (upheld??) at the cross. It is God glorified
in shame and lifted up in ignominy.
Now we
can try to be poetic about this, but are we forced to speak simply in
terms of contradiction? Is there any way of relating the cry
of dereliction (Ps 22:1; Mark 15:34) to the love song of Father-Son
communion? Is it right to say “the cry of dereliction is
of the essence of the Father-Son communion”? Is it possible to
say “the cry of dereliction is of the essence of the Father-Son
communion” without simply re-stating it in equally paradoxical
terms? Would such a re-statement be, at bottom, a betrayal of the
cross?
Probably
not your average first post, but there you are. I’ll jump right
in. Who’ll join me?
Posted in Cross, Doctrine of God | Tagged Cross, Doctrine of God | 6 Comments »
Back to Papers
|
