Over at the Sojourners blog there is an interesting post entitled The Nazareth Declaration - read it here.
This is the first I've heard of The Manhattan Declaration and so don't want to offer any comments on it at present. I like the suggestion that Jesus Nazareth Declaration in Luke 4 refutes the Manhattan Declaration at one point - Jesus does not limit what he considers to be important to three points, and certainly not the three points in the Manhattan Declaration (1. the sanctity of human life, 2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and 3. the right of evangelicals to protest the first two items without recrimination.)
Now, I do think the three points of the Manhattan Declaration are important, but they are far from the most important points Christians need to address in 2009 entering 2010.
If you were asked to list the top three priorities for Christians/the Church in 2010 what would you put in your list?
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Blogging Resolutions
First of all, thank you to everyone who has visited my blog, especially those of you who have come back, who have left comments and who are following.
I've re-working my reading list at the side, for 2010 I've put a list of reading targets, in no particular order. I would hope to finish these books in 2010 and would welcome suggestions and recommendations to add to the list, as I think it won't last for the whole year!
Reflecting on my blog so far, I've taken on too many 'big' projects, like detailed blogging on various books, Tom Wright and David Bebbington spring to mind. I intend to continue blogging about books I've read, but won't take on such ambitious projects which don't get finished.
August and April were good months, both with over 20 posts. I will try to make 2o my target for posts per month and hope to achieve slightly above average over the year.
Once again, thanks to all who read this blog.
I've re-working my reading list at the side, for 2010 I've put a list of reading targets, in no particular order. I would hope to finish these books in 2010 and would welcome suggestions and recommendations to add to the list, as I think it won't last for the whole year!
Reflecting on my blog so far, I've taken on too many 'big' projects, like detailed blogging on various books, Tom Wright and David Bebbington spring to mind. I intend to continue blogging about books I've read, but won't take on such ambitious projects which don't get finished.
August and April were good months, both with over 20 posts. I will try to make 2o my target for posts per month and hope to achieve slightly above average over the year.
Once again, thanks to all who read this blog.
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Scotland Prayer 2010
I'm very excited about the initiative supported by the Evangelical Alliance Scotland, Pray for Scotland, Alpha Scotland and CARE for Scotland - Scotland Prayer 2010 - visit the web site here.
We can join in by praying the Lord's Prayer at 12 noon each day.
We can organise pray rooms in our communities - see the web site for details on how to organise a 24-7 prayer room.
There are two national events already in the diary -
Global Day of Prayer on Pentecost Sunday - 23 May
Prayer for the Nation on St Andrew's Day - 30 Nov
Let's not pray about 'the work' in 2010 may God teach us that prayer is 'the work'.
... if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)
We can join in by praying the Lord's Prayer at 12 noon each day.
We can organise pray rooms in our communities - see the web site for details on how to organise a 24-7 prayer room.
There are two national events already in the diary -
Global Day of Prayer on Pentecost Sunday - 23 May
Prayer for the Nation on St Andrew's Day - 30 Nov
Let's not pray about 'the work' in 2010 may God teach us that prayer is 'the work'.
... if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chronicles 7:14)
Sunday, 27 December 2009
After Christmas - what?
Our reading in church today will be the nunc dimitis, Simeon's song from Lk 2:
God, you can now release your servant;
release me in peace as you promised.
With my own eyes I've seen your salvation;
it's now out in the open for everyone to see:
A God-revealing light to the non-Jewish nations,
and of glory for your people Israel. (The Message)
After Christmas we rest in God's promise believing that in Jesus God has fulfilled all his promises. After Christmas we live in the 'God-revealing light' (what a great phrase) and encourage all others to join us there.
A blessed Christmas results in a life that is both blessed and a blessing.
God, you can now release your servant;
release me in peace as you promised.
With my own eyes I've seen your salvation;
it's now out in the open for everyone to see:
A God-revealing light to the non-Jewish nations,
and of glory for your people Israel. (The Message)
After Christmas we rest in God's promise believing that in Jesus God has fulfilled all his promises. After Christmas we live in the 'God-revealing light' (what a great phrase) and encourage all others to join us there.
A blessed Christmas results in a life that is both blessed and a blessing.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
10 of the best
A list before Christmas. These are my ten of the best from this year over various categories and in no particular order:
1. Best CD.
Fred Drummond recommended this disc to me and I bought it at Keswick in the summer, it really is great and very highly commended.
2. Best project.
I've really enjoyed getting involved in the biblefresh project with the EA and the Bible Society. This is a very exciting opportunity in 2011 to celebrate the bible in English and to engage others with the bible during that year. Check out the web site from Jan 2010 - http://www.biblefresh.com/
3. Most challenging book
.
I've got three books on the list. The first one is Red Mood Rising by Pete Greig and Dave Roberts.
I want to learn to pray like this, I want to live in that place where pray is not something I do, but how I live.
This is not a book to read and put down, you really should read it and allow it to challenge your life.
4. Best gadget.
This is an old one. My 30gb ipod classic. I got it at Christmas 2006 and love it to bits. If only all gadgets were this useful.
5. Church law book.
There are not a lot of contenders in this category, but even if there were, my friend Marjory's book would still come out near the top.
An analysis of Church State relations which offers not only a new reading of the 1921 settlement, the role of the covenanters and the Confession of Faith in the Church State question. But best of all, the idea of diaconal sovereignty, a servent exercise of sovereignty which is not about rights, but service.
6. Wii game.
I tried for six months and both heirs, senior and junior, said together, that will be a rubbish game dad. When I bought Fifa 09 for myself I found I couldn't get near it for the two of them who decided it really was a great game. So it is, why would you want to up grade to Fifa 10? And for all you Rangers fans out there, it is worth it just to play Rangers and make Kris Boyd sprint for a whole game!!
7. Best song.
At Keswick we learned the song, 'By faith we see the hand of God'. I enjoy singing this song and rejoice in all that it affirms.
8. Best Greek Grammar book.
Again not a big category. But for all you Wenham students who want to take your Greek a bit further, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B Wallace is very highly recommended.
9. Best worship event.
In October, just a few days before senior heir needed his appendix removed, we went to the Worship Central tour event in Dunfermline. It was a great night and very challenging in the area of creativity and church life/ministry.
1. Best CD.
Fred Drummond recommended this disc to me and I bought it at Keswick in the summer, it really is great and very highly commended.
2. Best project.
I've really enjoyed getting involved in the biblefresh project with the EA and the Bible Society. This is a very exciting opportunity in 2011 to celebrate the bible in English and to engage others with the bible during that year. Check out the web site from Jan 2010 - http://www.biblefresh.com/
3. Most challenging book
.I've got three books on the list. The first one is Red Mood Rising by Pete Greig and Dave Roberts.
I want to learn to pray like this, I want to live in that place where pray is not something I do, but how I live.
This is not a book to read and put down, you really should read it and allow it to challenge your life.
4. Best gadget.
This is an old one. My 30gb ipod classic. I got it at Christmas 2006 and love it to bits. If only all gadgets were this useful.
5. Church law book.
There are not a lot of contenders in this category, but even if there were, my friend Marjory's book would still come out near the top.An analysis of Church State relations which offers not only a new reading of the 1921 settlement, the role of the covenanters and the Confession of Faith in the Church State question. But best of all, the idea of diaconal sovereignty, a servent exercise of sovereignty which is not about rights, but service.
6. Wii game.
I tried for six months and both heirs, senior and junior, said together, that will be a rubbish game dad. When I bought Fifa 09 for myself I found I couldn't get near it for the two of them who decided it really was a great game. So it is, why would you want to up grade to Fifa 10? And for all you Rangers fans out there, it is worth it just to play Rangers and make Kris Boyd sprint for a whole game!!
7. Best song.
At Keswick we learned the song, 'By faith we see the hand of God'. I enjoy singing this song and rejoice in all that it affirms.
8. Best Greek Grammar book.
Again not a big category. But for all you Wenham students who want to take your Greek a bit further, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B Wallace is very highly recommended.
9. Best worship event.
In October, just a few days before senior heir needed his appendix removed, we went to the Worship Central tour event in Dunfermline. It was a great night and very challenging in the area of creativity and church life/ministry.10. Best anniversary.
It was the St Ninians 125th, but the prize in this category has to go to John Calvin as we celebrated the 500th anniversary of his birth in July, with a cake and a book.
A New Poster
Earlier this year I was in London at a conference and happened to be in the British Library (ok, when out of my way and dragged a friend with me). If you haven't been to the British Library you should go, it's right next to St Pancreas Station, so good for a few hours while in the que for the Eurostar ...
Back to the story.
After paying our respects to Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest manuscript of the complete New Testament, from the 4th Century we went to the shop just to pass some time. In the shop they were selling posters of the greatly loved Codex, but I didn't want to try to bring one home on the plane. So, last week I got round to phoning the shop and yes, they posted me a copy of the poster. It's now on the wall, as you can see from the not very good photo below. Does this count as an icon for bible lovers? When I've figured out which page it is open at on the poster I'll let you know.
What do you forget?
I heard this song on Jonny Walker on Radio 2 this morning, and thought I would share it with you.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Advent Songs
Just in case you are flagging during advent, here's the Boss with a song for you ... have you been good??
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Pray about/against sex-trafficking
Read this amazing post from the 24-7 web site Can Prayer Impact Human Trafficking - and join in praying for victims of trafficking and an end to this evil trade.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Tearfund Scotland
Last night we had a meeting in Newton Stewart with Lynne Paterson (on the left) and Jo Mummery (on the right). Lynne is the new Director for Tearfund in Scotland and Jo is the Enquiries and Church Liaison Officer.
You can read about some of the changes that have happened in Tearfund Scotland here.
Tearfund are having a Christmas campaign to offer a Gift of Life to children like Gloria. Gloria is from Fombe Village in Malawi, which I was able to visit in 2007. Both Gloria's parents have died due to HIV/AIDS related diseases and Gloria, who is only 13, is HIV positive. Look at the resources page on the Tearfund web site here.
Pray for Gloria, and the too many more young children like her who are victims of HIV/AIDS. Pray for Lynne and Jo and their work for Tearfund in Scotland.
Saturday, 5 December 2009
Breaking News - FIFA award Ireland a replay
FIFA have granted permission for a replay of the last half of the extra time section of Wednesday night’s game to take place in Stade de France.
Ireland will be playing right to left ...
Upset
I was in Glasgow yesterday and went into Borders for the last time.
I've always enjoyed going into the store on Buchanan Street, a haven of books surrounded by a wilderness of other shops. But yesterday was awful: half empty shelves, books lying uncared for in piles, 'Store Closing' and '30% off' signs everywhere - it was like a bad jumble sale.
Our society is already retail sick, it is a catastrophic failure within our community that we cannot keep open book shops. Can nothing save us from the hegemony of M&S and John Lewis? Are we doomed to having city centres and shopping malls devoid of any soul, or sense of value (i.e. bookshops)?
I've always enjoyed going into the store on Buchanan Street, a haven of books surrounded by a wilderness of other shops. But yesterday was awful: half empty shelves, books lying uncared for in piles, 'Store Closing' and '30% off' signs everywhere - it was like a bad jumble sale.
Our society is already retail sick, it is a catastrophic failure within our community that we cannot keep open book shops. Can nothing save us from the hegemony of M&S and John Lewis? Are we doomed to having city centres and shopping malls devoid of any soul, or sense of value (i.e. bookshops)?
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Advent Wallpaper
I've change my pc desktop wallpaper for Advent. This is a copy of the Cestello Annunciation by Botticelli. There are a number of copies on the web, but I like the vibrant colours in this one. I know that neither Mary nor the angel would have looked anything like this, but it is a great work of art and well worth looking at for more than the 24 days of Advent.
Just in case you think I've gone all arty, this image is used on the dust cover of The New International Commentary on the New Testament series, published by Eerdmans. I've got one or two in the series and Gordon Fee on 1 Corinthians is highly recommended.
IVP Advent
For the more seriously minded, IVP have an on line advent calendar which you can find here.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
TV Satellite
Janice Forsyth on Radio Scotland has been playing this single for the past month. The video of The Law performing Television Satellite is just great. I hope you enjoy it. Is this the best view of Dundee ever?
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Shift Happens
We were shown this clip at the Primary school parents night, last night. It does make you think.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Smile - It's Only An Excuse
How can we stay dismayed? Six weeks yesterday evening until the New Year 'It's Only An Excuse'. Remember this one?
Dismayed
I'm dismayed, upset at the news on the Free Church of Scotland web site that they have suspended all talks with the Church of Scotland - read about it here.
The Free Church of Scotland have been, and will remain, the closest sisters and brothers to the Church of Scotland in terms of polity, governance, doctrine and history. It is sad beyond expressing that growing and developing relations between our two denominations have been harmed in this way.
Amongst other things the Church of Scotland does need to give thought to our increasing isolation and separation from the Church Catholic as we pursue a path of our own choosing which if followed to its end will lead us not only out of fellowship with other Christians, but out of step with our God.
The Free Church of Scotland have been, and will remain, the closest sisters and brothers to the Church of Scotland in terms of polity, governance, doctrine and history. It is sad beyond expressing that growing and developing relations between our two denominations have been harmed in this way.
Amongst other things the Church of Scotland does need to give thought to our increasing isolation and separation from the Church Catholic as we pursue a path of our own choosing which if followed to its end will lead us not only out of fellowship with other Christians, but out of step with our God.
Tearfund - Statement of Faith
I've just got round to the Autumn teartimes.
The final item is a report on the adoption of a new Statement of Faith by tearfund. You can read the text of this statement here.
Matthew Frost, the Chief Executive of tearfund, has written:
The Statement demonstrates that Tearfund participates in God's plan to bring about, through Jesus Christ, a transformed creation free from evil and suffering, through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. (in teartimes Autumn 2009, page 30)
The Church is at the heart of tearfund's Statement of Faith and it expressed a deep reliance upon God in all its terms.
I've got two simple comments here:
1. Most statements of faith limit themselves to discussing faith as a noun and describing aspects of the faith to be believed. This tearfund Statement goes further in recognising faith to be a verb, something to be done, this especially in the third point where the bullet points begin: 'to live', 'to make known', 'to demonstrate' and 'to serve' - doing words all. What difference would it make if we thought and spoke about our faith in terms of what we are called to do in obedience to God and in response to his grace and love for us?
2. Reading this tearfund Statement of Faith I am once again at a loss to know how the Church of Scotland could ever choose not to be in partnership with such a Christian relief organisation? We cannot do all the relief and development work that needs to be done ourselves, nor can Christian Aid - why then have we not partnered with others, like tearfund, to more fully show our commitment to the poorest and most needy in our world?
The final item is a report on the adoption of a new Statement of Faith by tearfund. You can read the text of this statement here.
Matthew Frost, the Chief Executive of tearfund, has written:
The Statement demonstrates that Tearfund participates in God's plan to bring about, through Jesus Christ, a transformed creation free from evil and suffering, through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. (in teartimes Autumn 2009, page 30)
The Church is at the heart of tearfund's Statement of Faith and it expressed a deep reliance upon God in all its terms.
I've got two simple comments here:
1. Most statements of faith limit themselves to discussing faith as a noun and describing aspects of the faith to be believed. This tearfund Statement goes further in recognising faith to be a verb, something to be done, this especially in the third point where the bullet points begin: 'to live', 'to make known', 'to demonstrate' and 'to serve' - doing words all. What difference would it make if we thought and spoke about our faith in terms of what we are called to do in obedience to God and in response to his grace and love for us?
2. Reading this tearfund Statement of Faith I am once again at a loss to know how the Church of Scotland could ever choose not to be in partnership with such a Christian relief organisation? We cannot do all the relief and development work that needs to be done ourselves, nor can Christian Aid - why then have we not partnered with others, like tearfund, to more fully show our commitment to the poorest and most needy in our world?
Monday, 16 November 2009
24-7 Red Moon Rising
I've been reading Red Moon Rising by Pete Greig and Dave Roberts, The adventure of faith .. the power of prayer.
This is a good book, not difficult to read, very encouraging and challenging.
Perhaps it struck me because of the recent anniversary, but I love this quote:
But when the Berlin Wall finally came down one communist official made an extraordinary admission to a journalist: 'We were prepared for every eventuallity, but not for candles and not for prayers.' (page 24)
The vision and values of the 24-7 movement are very powerful and well worth reading and reflecting upon - vision and values here.
Again, perhaps given the present situation in the Church of Scotland, I was struck by one of the seven aspects of the brotherly agreement that influence Zinzendorf and the Moravians:
A refusal to be hostile to other believers - even when you believed they were not understanding the Scripture as you might. (page 341)
I don't think this is saying you need to agree with everyone, or even give in to everyone, but rather that in disagreements within the church, between believers, there should be a refusal to be hostile. Hostility generates heat, and what is needed in disagreements between believers is light.
So, read the book, visit the 24-7 web site (link at the side) - but even if you don't, pray!
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Phatfish - Holy, Holy (Lift Up His Name)
Pharfish have put a great video of their song Holy, Holy (recorded at Newday 2009) on youtube, but you can see it here!
Jon Peterson and 24-7
There is a great post about Jon Peterson and the work of 24-7 prayer - you can read it here.
One line from this post -
24-7 Prayer has centered me. I needed simplicity. 24-7 has brought me back to see prayer as a lifestyle not an activity.
I think Jon is so right. Prayer needds to be our lifestyle, the very air that we breathe. We need to stop thinking about prayer as something we do about the work God has called us to - prayer is the life God has called us to.
One line from this post -
24-7 Prayer has centered me. I needed simplicity. 24-7 has brought me back to see prayer as a lifestyle not an activity.
I think Jon is so right. Prayer needds to be our lifestyle, the very air that we breathe. We need to stop thinking about prayer as something we do about the work God has called us to - prayer is the life God has called us to.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
The Bible and Revelation
I've started re-reading Eugene H Peterson's Eat This Book. I always enjoy Peterson's writing it is so rich and sumptuous.
In this second volume in his spiritual theology series Peterson writes about bible reading.
The challenge - never negligible - regarding the Christian Scriptures is getting them read, but read on their own terms, as God's revelation. (page xi)
... in order to read the Scriptures adequately and accurately, it is necessary at the same time to live them. Not to live them as a prerequisite to reading them, and not to live them in consequence of reading them, but to live them as we read them, the living and reading reciprocal, body language and spoken words, the back-and-forthness assimilating the reading to the living, the living to the reading. Reading the Scriptures is not an activity discrete from living the gospel but one integral to it. It means letting Another have a say in everything we are saying and doing. It is as easy as that. And as hard. (page xii)
Revelation is a term that has dropped out of current discussions on Scripture. The text of Scripture is not a work of the imagination, even the creative imagination, of some human seeker after God. The text of Scripture is revelation, there is an objective reality to which the text of Scripture bears witness beyond itself. That reality is God. This aspect of the nature of Scripture constrains us in our reading and interpreting these words, because these words and no other words are this revelation which has been made known, displayed before us.
I really like Peterson's insistence upon our reading Scripture being intimately connected to our living Scripture - the two go together in ways that cannot be torn apart. Where there is no obedience or submission to Scripture there has not been an adequate or accurate reading of Scripture. Reading is more than recognising that the black marks make the words, this is true of every text. Reading a text which is a revelation of God by God must engage our lives, must change our lives if we have even begun to read this word.
HTC Newsletter
The Autumn/Winter edition of the Highland Theological College newsletter is on line here.
Take a moment to read the newsletter and pray for the staff and students at the College.
Take a moment to read the newsletter and pray for the staff and students at the College.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
24-7 Prayer
I don't usually post on Sunday, but I've been reading Pete Greig's Red Moon Rising and found the 24-7 prayer web site and wanted to share it. I've added a link on my side bar or you can find it here.
It may be that the work God is calling us to in these day is prayer; not praying for other work, but prayer is the work.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Jesus and the Constraints of History
I've borrowed the title of A E Harvey's 1982 book for this post. I've been thinking about the play 'Jesus Queen of Heaven' which is causing a bit of a storm in Glasgow in which Jesus is presented as a transgender, or transsexual, depending upon which newspaper report you read.
Some comments:
1. This is offensive. However, we do not live, and I don't want to live, in a Christian state and so we cannot expect non-Christians to be at all sensitive or caring about offending our Christian faith.
2. Jesus is an historical figure. You can imagine Jesus however you like, but if you do you must know this is idolatry - making an image of God which is not real or true. Jesus was male, there is no evidence to suggest Jesus was ever sexually acitve in any way, these historical facts constrain our thinking about Jesus.
3. Jesus is at the centre of Christian theology. This only applies to Christian theology since Jesus is not at the centre of non-Christian theology. The Jesus who takes the central place in Christian theology is the same Jesus who is constrained by history. Christian theology depend upon history this because of the nature of revelation and the facts of the incarnation, the crucifixion and resurrection, the ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, all of which are events in history. Any Christian theological reflection which is a-historical, or which denies historical fact is bad Christian theology.
4. I therefore conclude, whatever is being imagined, or presented in this play, it is not the Jesus of history and therefore not the Jesus of Christian theology. The path of faithful Christian discipleship is not to conform our image of Jesus to our ways of life but to transform our ways of life until they conform to the life of Christ, for the glory of God the Father.
Some comments:
1. This is offensive. However, we do not live, and I don't want to live, in a Christian state and so we cannot expect non-Christians to be at all sensitive or caring about offending our Christian faith.
2. Jesus is an historical figure. You can imagine Jesus however you like, but if you do you must know this is idolatry - making an image of God which is not real or true. Jesus was male, there is no evidence to suggest Jesus was ever sexually acitve in any way, these historical facts constrain our thinking about Jesus.
3. Jesus is at the centre of Christian theology. This only applies to Christian theology since Jesus is not at the centre of non-Christian theology. The Jesus who takes the central place in Christian theology is the same Jesus who is constrained by history. Christian theology depend upon history this because of the nature of revelation and the facts of the incarnation, the crucifixion and resurrection, the ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, all of which are events in history. Any Christian theological reflection which is a-historical, or which denies historical fact is bad Christian theology.
4. I therefore conclude, whatever is being imagined, or presented in this play, it is not the Jesus of history and therefore not the Jesus of Christian theology. The path of faithful Christian discipleship is not to conform our image of Jesus to our ways of life but to transform our ways of life until they conform to the life of Christ, for the glory of God the Father.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Bible Fresh
Things are beginning to pick up on the Bible Fresh front.
We have a group meeting in Scotland to prepare events and resources for the Bible Fresh initiative in 2011. This year is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the bible, and rather than simply celebrate an old book the plan is to encourage the church and many people to re-engage, or engage for the first time, with the bible for themselves.
There are to be four streams in this national initiative:
Bible reading
Bible experience
Bible training
Bible translation
Just now I'm working on some ideas for using blogs to help us engage with bible reading. Watch out for more news on this exciting project and please do pray for biblefresh: it could change your world.
We have a group meeting in Scotland to prepare events and resources for the Bible Fresh initiative in 2011. This year is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the bible, and rather than simply celebrate an old book the plan is to encourage the church and many people to re-engage, or engage for the first time, with the bible for themselves.
There are to be four streams in this national initiative:
Bible reading
Bible experience
Bible training
Bible translation
Just now I'm working on some ideas for using blogs to help us engage with bible reading. Watch out for more news on this exciting project and please do pray for biblefresh: it could change your world.
Worship Central and Matt Redman
Before John went into hospital we were able to go to a Worship Central event in Dunfermline. It was a really good night, lots of loud worship music and Tim Hughes and Al Gordon spoke very powerfully on creativity in the life of the church and in worship.
If you haven't heard Tim Hughes check out the Happy Day cd and dvd which is very highly recommended, use the Amazon search box at the side > >
At the concert we bought the new Matt Redman cd We Shall Not Be Shaken. This really has helped keep me together over these days as the songs are very good.My favourite just now is All That Really Matters:
Let our lives become a song for you,
Like a prayer that reaches high.
The glory of your name,
Our greatest cause.
All that really matters,
All that really counts is found in you.
What else would we live for?
You're the Way, the Life, the Truth,
And all that really matters is You.
Jesus, it's You.
Here's a you tube clip of Matt talking about the cd and a short clip of the title track, I hope you like it.
2 operations and no blogging
I noticed that my last post was on 21 Oct.
On that day my wife, Fiona, had an operation on her toe which has left her with a pin sticking out and crutches. (Check out her lovely new shoe here!)
Then on the 29th of Oct our eldest son and heir (due to inherit half a collection of books and cds) was taken suddenly to Dumfries Royal Infirmary where he had his appendix removed. It is 75 miles to Dumfries (150 there and back again, as Bilbo would say), so I did 600 miles before he came home on Sunday afternoon.
Rather than blogging I've been renewing my relationship with the dyson, the washing machine and yellow rubber gloves. I keep being told that things will get back to normal soon, but I'm not sure what normal is any more.
On that day my wife, Fiona, had an operation on her toe which has left her with a pin sticking out and crutches. (Check out her lovely new shoe here!)
Then on the 29th of Oct our eldest son and heir (due to inherit half a collection of books and cds) was taken suddenly to Dumfries Royal Infirmary where he had his appendix removed. It is 75 miles to Dumfries (150 there and back again, as Bilbo would say), so I did 600 miles before he came home on Sunday afternoon.
Rather than blogging I've been renewing my relationship with the dyson, the washing machine and yellow rubber gloves. I keep being told that things will get back to normal soon, but I'm not sure what normal is any more.
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Special Commission
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland appointed a special commission this year. Today I received an email asking me to make the information I'm posting in this blog widely known.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
EAGLAIS NA H-ALBA
Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry
The Remit
The General Assembly of 2009 has given the Special Commission this remit:
“A Special Commission composed of nine persons, representative of the breadth and unity of the Church, to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland in the light of the issues (a) addressed in a Report welcomed by the General Assembly of 2007: “A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality”, and (b) raised by the case of Aitken et al v the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.”
The membership
Rev John Chalmers, Pastoral Adviser and Associate Secretary (Ministries Support and Development), Ministries Council
Mrs Ruth Innes, advocate, member of Palmerston Place Church
Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting, former Moderator of General Assembly; Secretary & Ecumenical Officer, Ecumenical Relations Committee
Rev Dr Donald MacEwan, Minister of Largoward linked with St Monans, secretary of the working group which produced "A Challenge to Unity"
Rev Dr Angus Morrison, Minister of Stornoway St Columba, immediate past Convener of Mission & Discipleship Council, also a member of the working group
Rev James Stewart, Minister of Perth: Letham St Mark’s, with experience of a previous commission
Rev Professor Allan J Torrance, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of St Andrews
Miss Kim Wood, Student at St Andrews; a youth representative commended by the Moderator of the Youth Assembly
The Hon. Lord Hodge (Patrick Hodge), Convener, Court of Session Judge; former Procurator of the Church
Rev W Peter Graham, Clerk, former Clerk to the Presbytery of Edinburgh
Our proposed method of working
We will prepare a short consultation paper which will invite Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions to express their views on the questions which we consider arise from our remit and the divisions in our Church which have led to our appointment. We are considering using the Church’s website to make available documents to supplement the consultation paper.
In order to inform the consultation document, and in particular to enable us to express accurately the competing views within the Church and the views of other Churches, we are engaged in a pre-consultation exercise of obtaining current statements of such views. The aim is to enable us to summarise those views accurately in the consultation paper.
We hope to send out the consultation paper by the end of February 2010 and to have a consultation period until the end of May 2010, during which we will expect every Presbytery and Kirk Session to hold a special meeting in order to prepare a response. We will spend the latter part of the year in analysing the responses and preparing our report for the General Assembly of 2011.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
EAGLAIS NA H-ALBA
Special Commission on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry
The Remit
The General Assembly of 2009 has given the Special Commission this remit:
“A Special Commission composed of nine persons, representative of the breadth and unity of the Church, to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland in the light of the issues (a) addressed in a Report welcomed by the General Assembly of 2007: “A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality”, and (b) raised by the case of Aitken et al v the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.”
The membership
Rev John Chalmers, Pastoral Adviser and Associate Secretary (Ministries Support and Development), Ministries Council
Mrs Ruth Innes, advocate, member of Palmerston Place Church
Very Rev Dr Sheilagh Kesting, former Moderator of General Assembly; Secretary & Ecumenical Officer, Ecumenical Relations Committee
Rev Dr Donald MacEwan, Minister of Largoward linked with St Monans, secretary of the working group which produced "A Challenge to Unity"
Rev Dr Angus Morrison, Minister of Stornoway St Columba, immediate past Convener of Mission & Discipleship Council, also a member of the working group
Rev James Stewart, Minister of Perth: Letham St Mark’s, with experience of a previous commission
Rev Professor Allan J Torrance, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of St Andrews
Miss Kim Wood, Student at St Andrews; a youth representative commended by the Moderator of the Youth Assembly
The Hon. Lord Hodge (Patrick Hodge), Convener, Court of Session Judge; former Procurator of the Church
Rev W Peter Graham, Clerk, former Clerk to the Presbytery of Edinburgh
Our proposed method of working
We will prepare a short consultation paper which will invite Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions to express their views on the questions which we consider arise from our remit and the divisions in our Church which have led to our appointment. We are considering using the Church’s website to make available documents to supplement the consultation paper.
In order to inform the consultation document, and in particular to enable us to express accurately the competing views within the Church and the views of other Churches, we are engaged in a pre-consultation exercise of obtaining current statements of such views. The aim is to enable us to summarise those views accurately in the consultation paper.
We hope to send out the consultation paper by the end of February 2010 and to have a consultation period until the end of May 2010, during which we will expect every Presbytery and Kirk Session to hold a special meeting in order to prepare a response. We will spend the latter part of the year in analysing the responses and preparing our report for the General Assembly of 2011.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
EA Scotland podcast
There is a new podcast from EA Scotland. This month it is with Martin Clark, Director and Worship leader at Souled Out in Aberdeen. You can listen to this podcast and catch the back catalog of other podcasts here.
Souled Out is an inter-denominational (representing seven churches), city wide ministry primarily involved in organising large-scale worship events. Previous speakers to Souled Out events have included J. John, Tony Campolo, Mike Pilavachi, Pete Greig, Steve Clifford and Nicky Cruz
In this interview Martin shares his heart for worship and praise within the local church and within Souled Out. He talks about a number of issues including the celebrity culture within the modern worship scene and how we can start to see more songs being written by Scottish worship leaders.
Souled Out is an inter-denominational (representing seven churches), city wide ministry primarily involved in organising large-scale worship events. Previous speakers to Souled Out events have included J. John, Tony Campolo, Mike Pilavachi, Pete Greig, Steve Clifford and Nicky Cruz
In this interview Martin shares his heart for worship and praise within the local church and within Souled Out. He talks about a number of issues including the celebrity culture within the modern worship scene and how we can start to see more songs being written by Scottish worship leaders.
2gether Scotland Magazine
The EA in Scotland have re-launched our magazine, here is the blurb on it.
2gether Scotland Magazine
The Evangelical Alliance Scotland has just re-launched our new 2gether Scotland Magazine. This has previously just gone out to our members in Scotland but we are now making this available, free, to any one who wants it. We can also send more than one copy to your church or organisation.
The Evangelical Alliance Scotland has just re-launched our new 2gether Scotland Magazine. This has previously just gone out to our members in Scotland but we are now making this available, free, to any one who wants it. We can also send more than one copy to your church or organisation.
Just email us at Scotland@eauk.org
We are really excited about how our newsletter may be able to benefit the evangelical church across Scotland. We hope it will become a key resource for individuals, churches and organisations wanting to know what the Lord is doing across this nation through His people. With stories, interviews and articles we hope you will be able to share with us in the vision to see this nation transformed through a church united!
Kevin Vanhoozer's ten thesis
Here are the ten thesis of Kevin Vanhoozer mentioned in a post yesterday.
1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.
2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.
3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.
4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.
5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.
6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.
7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.
8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.
9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.
10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.
I really liked this quote from Vanhoozer towards the end of the paper:
"Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture."
1. The nature and function of the Bible are insufficiently grasped unless and until we see the Bible as an element in the economy of triune discourse.
2. An appreciation of the theological nature of the Bible entails a rejection of a methodological atheism that treats the texts as having a “natural history” only.
3. The message of the Bible is “finally” about the loving power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16), the definitive or final gospel Word of God that comes to brightest light in the word’s final form.
4. Because God acts in space-time (of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church), theological interpretation requires thick descriptions that plumb the height and depth of history, not only its length.
5. Theological interpreters view the historical events recounted in Scripture as ingredients in a unified story ordered by an economy of triune providence.
6. The Old Testament testifies to the same drama of redemption as the New, hence the church rightly reads both Testaments together, two parts of a single authoritative script.
7. The Spirit who speaks with magisterial authority in the Scripture speaks with ministerial authority in church tradition.
8. In an era marked by the conflict of interpretations, there is good reason provisionally to acknowledge the superiority of catholic interpretation.
9. The end of biblical interpretation is not simply communication - the sharing of information - but communion, a sharing in the light, life, and love of God.
10. The church is that community where good habits of theological interpretation are best formed and where the fruit of these habits are best exhibited.
I really liked this quote from Vanhoozer towards the end of the paper:
"Seminary faculties need the courage to be evangelically Protestant for the sake of forming theological interpreters of Scripture able to preach and minister the word. The preacher is a “man on a wire,” whose sermons must walk the tightrope between Scripture and the contemporary situation. I believe that we should preparing our best students for this gospel ministry. The pastor-theologian, I submit, should be evangelicalism’s default public intellectual, with preaching the preferred public mode of theological interpretation of Scripture."
Monday, 19 October 2009
The Bible and Theological Interpretation
Mike Bird has a very helpful post on theological interpreation of Scripture in which he copies ten thesis from Kevin Vanhoozer, read it here.
Well worth reading and reflecting upon.
Well worth reading and reflecting upon.
Holiday blogging
On holiday this week, hopefully a good chance to catch up on some blogging, I've got to keep up with Wright and Bebbington.
We had a really good day yesterday with the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Rev Bill Hewitt, at St Ninians, celebrating our 125th anniversary. It was great to celebrate long service with three elders and one minister who has been ordained for 50 years.
I've added some Amazon links to the side of the blog: there is a search facility for any book and also a list of some of the books I've mentioned in the blog, click on the arrows to take you through and then the link to go to Amazon to buy the book. (Other on line book sellers are available, although I don't have links to them.)
We had a really good day yesterday with the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Rev Bill Hewitt, at St Ninians, celebrating our 125th anniversary. It was great to celebrate long service with three elders and one minister who has been ordained for 50 years.
I've added some Amazon links to the side of the blog: there is a search facility for any book and also a list of some of the books I've mentioned in the blog, click on the arrows to take you through and then the link to go to Amazon to buy the book. (Other on line book sellers are available, although I don't have links to them.)
Friday, 9 October 2009
The Trinity and John's Gospel
I picked this book up at EMA in June. I like the series, well, not ever volume, but most of them are very good. Biblical theology is a hobby of mine and this book is a very good example of excellent biblical theology.
The authors give us a really good example of biblical studies providing a strong foundation for theological reflection.
The Bible is, after all, a profoundly theological document. Readings that fail to move beyond literary and genetic/historical issues to substantive doctrinal ones thus fail to grasp the Bible’s main subject matter. (pages 20-21)
No fear with this work, theological reflection is the final aim, but the route to it is through detailed study of the text of scripture. John’s gospel is the source and verse by verse, section by section a detailed account of what John writes about God, and how this is fully Trinitarian is carefully built up. Chapters 2 to 6 are entirely given over to a study and synthesis of what John’s gospel contributes to our understanding of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The biblical studies are excellent, the theological reflections start from the text and build four square upon what has been learned from John’s gospel. Jesus is shown to be God theos, in the whole gospel – note the inclusio 1:1, 18 and 20:28. But also in the references which include Jesus in the monotheistic character and nature of God, theos.
I don’t want to fall into blogging another long book review, although that would be very easy from this great book. Buy the book, read the book and share with me how much you have benefitted from it.
Just one more quote, on the author’s approach to their work:
we have read the Fourth Gospel with awe and wonder and with prayerful dependence upon ‘the Spirit of truth’ (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). (page 23)
May we all so read every page of scripture and find there displayed for us the glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The authors give us a really good example of biblical studies providing a strong foundation for theological reflection.
The Bible is, after all, a profoundly theological document. Readings that fail to move beyond literary and genetic/historical issues to substantive doctrinal ones thus fail to grasp the Bible’s main subject matter. (pages 20-21)
No fear with this work, theological reflection is the final aim, but the route to it is through detailed study of the text of scripture. John’s gospel is the source and verse by verse, section by section a detailed account of what John writes about God, and how this is fully Trinitarian is carefully built up. Chapters 2 to 6 are entirely given over to a study and synthesis of what John’s gospel contributes to our understanding of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The biblical studies are excellent, the theological reflections start from the text and build four square upon what has been learned from John’s gospel. Jesus is shown to be God theos, in the whole gospel – note the inclusio 1:1, 18 and 20:28. But also in the references which include Jesus in the monotheistic character and nature of God, theos.
I don’t want to fall into blogging another long book review, although that would be very easy from this great book. Buy the book, read the book and share with me how much you have benefitted from it.
Just one more quote, on the author’s approach to their work:
we have read the Fourth Gospel with awe and wonder and with prayerful dependence upon ‘the Spirit of truth’ (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). (page 23)
May we all so read every page of scripture and find there displayed for us the glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Tom Wright Justification 2
Chapter 2 – Rules of engagement.
In the long term, this may be one of the most important chapters in Wright’s book. Here Wright sets out a methodology for the study of Paul and/or justification. So often in church life today there is disagreement about theology or praxis which arises in large part from the different starting places and varied assumptions made by those taking part in the debates.
Wright contends that exegesis “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions that it raises in itself and the answers it given in and of itself” (page 23) is the beginning and end of the task of understanding Paul and justification.
Systematise all you want in between; we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it and much to be said for it, particularly when it involves careful comparing of different treatments of similar topics in different contexts. But start with exegesis, and remind yourself that the end in view is not a tidy system, sitting in hard covers on a shelf where one may look up ‘correct answers’, but the sermon, or the shared pastoral reading, or the scriptural word to a Synod or other formal church gathering, or indeed the life of witness to the love of God, through all of which the church is built up and energized for mission, the Christian is challenged, transformed and nurtured in the faith, and the unbeliever is confronted with the shocking but joyful news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. That is letting scripture be scripture. (pages 23-24)
Yes, what a wonderful paragraph! Any attempt to study scripture, to know God in any meaningful way involves theology. We cannot but have a theology, so we might as well have one that is well thought through and holds together well (a good systematics). But, too often we have allowed the system to control our reading of the text. We instinctively reject readings of scripture that don’t fit in with the system we hold. We look for answers in the big system rather than in the text of scripture. I heard Phillip Jensen at the EMA in 1997 tell us that he thinks Calvinists have a real problem with this. Thinking that Calvin’s system is so good we cannot imagine the text of scripture ever disagreeing with Calvin, so we amend our understanding of scripture to fit in with what we think Calvin wrote, although most times we have that wrong as well! So a big yes to having a good systematic theology, but a massive no (or even a Pauline me genoito) to allowing our system to take priority over our exegesis. It is good exegesis that will bring God’s word with power into all of the situations described by Wright at the end of the paragraph, and how great is the need for a clear statement of scripture in our churches and church courts.
Wright makes a good case for the inclusion of Ephesians in any study of Paul and justification, pages 26-28. It is curious how often conservative readings of justification do not attend to Ephesians, or Colossians for that matter.
Wright then suggests that we need to develop ‘A Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ (page 28 and following). There is a hermeneutic circle of theology and theological interpretation. Luther and Calvin were not only influenced by Augustine and the New Testament, but by all the theology that had been written and taught in between. It is important to consider which theological technical terms are not biblical, e.g. ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ and what associations are gathering into theology by the use of the Latin term iustitia? Now this is not to say that non biblical terms cannot be wisely used to help us understand scripture, rather that we do this too often without being aware of it and we do need to remind ourselves of the theological baggage we bring to scripture.
As an historian Wright is always concerned about historical questions.
We come with the questions and issues we have learned from elsewhere [other than scripture]. This is a perennial problem for all of us, but unless we are to declare, here and now, that God has no more light to break out of his holy word – that everything in scripture has already been discovered by our elders and betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what scripture says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is needed. I know that John Calvin would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. (page 33)
Wright is not saying that God will give fresh revelations of himself other than scripture (that’s a whole different discussion!). His point is this: can we in our study of scripture understand God’s word more clearly than earlier generations of students? If not, why do we study scripture, we should print text with Augustine, Luther and Calvin, like some Christian Gemora, and learn to interpret the few chosen interpreters. But, if we do believe that God will lead us in our study of scripture into his ways, not previously known, then historical study, not only of scripture but of theology is urgently required.
Wright ends this chapter with a complaint against contemporary English translations of Paul, particularly the NIV. In particular Wright mentions the translation of Rom 3:21-26
NIV - Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
I’ve copied the text above and you can see that the NIV has used ‘righteousness’ in vv. 21, 22, but justified, justice, just, justifies in vv. 24-26, which the same dikaisoun- root is used in the Greek. (I tried to copy the NA27 text but this blog post doesn't hold that font) Wright’s point is that this variety in English usage sets up a particular way of reading vv. 21-22 which is not what Paul intended. This point will be picked up in great detail in chapter 7 when Wright offers comments on Romans.
Three main things then:
1. Exegesis needs to have priority over systematic theology.
2. History is important, both in relation to scripture and theology.
3. Read the text, and make sure what you are reading is the text.
In the long term, this may be one of the most important chapters in Wright’s book. Here Wright sets out a methodology for the study of Paul and/or justification. So often in church life today there is disagreement about theology or praxis which arises in large part from the different starting places and varied assumptions made by those taking part in the debates.
Wright contends that exegesis “close attention to the actual flow of the text, to the questions that it raises in itself and the answers it given in and of itself” (page 23) is the beginning and end of the task of understanding Paul and justification.
Systematise all you want in between; we all do it, there is nothing wrong with it and much to be said for it, particularly when it involves careful comparing of different treatments of similar topics in different contexts. But start with exegesis, and remind yourself that the end in view is not a tidy system, sitting in hard covers on a shelf where one may look up ‘correct answers’, but the sermon, or the shared pastoral reading, or the scriptural word to a Synod or other formal church gathering, or indeed the life of witness to the love of God, through all of which the church is built up and energized for mission, the Christian is challenged, transformed and nurtured in the faith, and the unbeliever is confronted with the shocking but joyful news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. That is letting scripture be scripture. (pages 23-24)
Yes, what a wonderful paragraph! Any attempt to study scripture, to know God in any meaningful way involves theology. We cannot but have a theology, so we might as well have one that is well thought through and holds together well (a good systematics). But, too often we have allowed the system to control our reading of the text. We instinctively reject readings of scripture that don’t fit in with the system we hold. We look for answers in the big system rather than in the text of scripture. I heard Phillip Jensen at the EMA in 1997 tell us that he thinks Calvinists have a real problem with this. Thinking that Calvin’s system is so good we cannot imagine the text of scripture ever disagreeing with Calvin, so we amend our understanding of scripture to fit in with what we think Calvin wrote, although most times we have that wrong as well! So a big yes to having a good systematic theology, but a massive no (or even a Pauline me genoito) to allowing our system to take priority over our exegesis. It is good exegesis that will bring God’s word with power into all of the situations described by Wright at the end of the paragraph, and how great is the need for a clear statement of scripture in our churches and church courts.
Wright makes a good case for the inclusion of Ephesians in any study of Paul and justification, pages 26-28. It is curious how often conservative readings of justification do not attend to Ephesians, or Colossians for that matter.
Wright then suggests that we need to develop ‘A Hermeneutics of Doctrine’ (page 28 and following). There is a hermeneutic circle of theology and theological interpretation. Luther and Calvin were not only influenced by Augustine and the New Testament, but by all the theology that had been written and taught in between. It is important to consider which theological technical terms are not biblical, e.g. ‘the imputation of Christ’s righteousness’ and what associations are gathering into theology by the use of the Latin term iustitia? Now this is not to say that non biblical terms cannot be wisely used to help us understand scripture, rather that we do this too often without being aware of it and we do need to remind ourselves of the theological baggage we bring to scripture.
As an historian Wright is always concerned about historical questions.
We come with the questions and issues we have learned from elsewhere [other than scripture]. This is a perennial problem for all of us, but unless we are to declare, here and now, that God has no more light to break out of his holy word – that everything in scripture has already been discovered by our elders and betters and that all we have to do is read them to find out what scripture says – then further research, precisely at a historical level, is what is needed. I know that John Calvin would have agreed wholeheartedly with this. (page 33)
Wright is not saying that God will give fresh revelations of himself other than scripture (that’s a whole different discussion!). His point is this: can we in our study of scripture understand God’s word more clearly than earlier generations of students? If not, why do we study scripture, we should print text with Augustine, Luther and Calvin, like some Christian Gemora, and learn to interpret the few chosen interpreters. But, if we do believe that God will lead us in our study of scripture into his ways, not previously known, then historical study, not only of scripture but of theology is urgently required.
Wright ends this chapter with a complaint against contemporary English translations of Paul, particularly the NIV. In particular Wright mentions the translation of Rom 3:21-26
NIV - Romans 3:21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
I’ve copied the text above and you can see that the NIV has used ‘righteousness’ in vv. 21, 22, but justified, justice, just, justifies in vv. 24-26, which the same dikaisoun- root is used in the Greek. (I tried to copy the NA27 text but this blog post doesn't hold that font) Wright’s point is that this variety in English usage sets up a particular way of reading vv. 21-22 which is not what Paul intended. This point will be picked up in great detail in chapter 7 when Wright offers comments on Romans.
Three main things then:
1. Exegesis needs to have priority over systematic theology.
2. History is important, both in relation to scripture and theology.
3. Read the text, and make sure what you are reading is the text.
Friday, 2 October 2009
Sojourners, US and Politics
If you haven't visited the Sojourners blog it is very good, you can read it here.
They send out emails, and I like this one about a visit to a U2 concert.
U2's Music and Mission--and My Kid's First Rock Concert
Oh no, my eleven-year-old went to his first rock concert this week! Oh good, it was Bono and U2. That would express the feelings of many parents about their child’s introductory rock and roll concert experience. FedEx Field, where the Washington football team plays with much less energy and appeal, was filled with people from bottom to top, in boxes to bleachers, with a sound that seemed to reach every corner of the gigantic stadium, and with lights that inspired admiration and awe.
The stage alone was more than any other contemporary rock band has produced, according to 25 year-olds I know, who really “know” about this stuff. It has been described as a 164-foot high “claw” that loomed over the stadium, to a “cathedral,” to a “spaceship” said Bono, "But it isn't going anywhere without you!"
“Mom, how do you know the words to all these songs?” Luke asked Joy Carroll, who has been singing along with this band for its whole 33-year career. U2 roused the huge crowd with its best tunes like “Beautiful Day,” “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” “Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For;” with the highlight for me coming when Bono began with a solo rendition of “Amazing Grace” that moved right into "Where the Streets Have No Name."
But it was the stunning and extravagant stage, set, and lights of the U2 tour that stole the show. U2 literally lit up the sky and filled the air over the nation’s Capital with a display of sight and sound unlike anything I had ever seen. And in the middle of the show, Joy and I got a light tap on the back, turned around, and lit up ourselves with big smiles as we greeted our long-time friend Willie Williams—the man responsible for the amazing grace of all that light. “I heard you were here, and they told me where you were sitting. So I had to come over and just say hi.” “This is the person responsible for all the lighting,” I told Luke, who could hardly believe this was all happening to him.
And because it was the nation’s Capital, the politicos were all on hand. How many concerts feature shout-outs to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Judiciary Chair, Patrick Leahy, (who Bono called the “John Wayne” of Washington), or one to Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick , who were all on hand. “Can you believe it,” cried Bono, “A Cardinal at a rock concert!” And we even got to come in on the One Campaign bus with the Cardinal!
“Politics” was indeed part of the concert, not the partisan politics that dominate Washington D.C. – (Bono made it a point to praise politicians on “both the left and the right” who have cared about places like Africa, he even dedicated a song to President Bush for increasing foreign aid) – but the moral politics that characterize Bono’s clarion call to conscience and action which echoed throughout the evening.
In fact, what I love about a U2 concert, headlined by the Irish tenor with the sun glasses, is how it achieves such a powerful combination of art and social justice, music and message; and all with such fun. The New York Times titled its review of the opening concert in Giants stadium as “Fun With a Mission.”
As always on nights with U2, activism for human rights and democracy was lifted up. “Walk On” was dedicated to Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate under house arrest in Burma/Myanmar. “How long has she been under house arrest,” asked Luke. “20 years” I said, and watched the look of concern and indignation on the face of a pre-teenager—at a rock concert. Luke also got to see a short video of a beaming Desmond Tutu, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, talk about “the kind of people” who make a difference in this world, and invited us all to join the One Campaign.
On the way out of the concert, Luke whispered that he had just heard somebody say, “The only thing I don’t like about Bono is his political sh*t.” Luke asked me what he meant. I said there are some people who don’t like the message of Bono and U2, just the music. But it is precisely the incredibly inspiring blend and, dare I say, integration of music, message, and mission that makes U2 not only so compelling; but also so important.
It was a night of mutual affirmation with a band and an adoring audience, their community, who truly seemed to love being together again. It was an evening of joy and justice. The final comment of a first time almost teenager was, of course, “It was awesome,” but, unlike most of the moments and venues where this overused affirmation of the younger generation is invoked, this time it was accurate and appropriate. The concert was truly “awesome.”
They send out emails, and I like this one about a visit to a U2 concert.
U2's Music and Mission--and My Kid's First Rock Concert
Oh no, my eleven-year-old went to his first rock concert this week! Oh good, it was Bono and U2. That would express the feelings of many parents about their child’s introductory rock and roll concert experience. FedEx Field, where the Washington football team plays with much less energy and appeal, was filled with people from bottom to top, in boxes to bleachers, with a sound that seemed to reach every corner of the gigantic stadium, and with lights that inspired admiration and awe.
The stage alone was more than any other contemporary rock band has produced, according to 25 year-olds I know, who really “know” about this stuff. It has been described as a 164-foot high “claw” that loomed over the stadium, to a “cathedral,” to a “spaceship” said Bono, "But it isn't going anywhere without you!"
“Mom, how do you know the words to all these songs?” Luke asked Joy Carroll, who has been singing along with this band for its whole 33-year career. U2 roused the huge crowd with its best tunes like “Beautiful Day,” “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” “Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For;” with the highlight for me coming when Bono began with a solo rendition of “Amazing Grace” that moved right into "Where the Streets Have No Name."
But it was the stunning and extravagant stage, set, and lights of the U2 tour that stole the show. U2 literally lit up the sky and filled the air over the nation’s Capital with a display of sight and sound unlike anything I had ever seen. And in the middle of the show, Joy and I got a light tap on the back, turned around, and lit up ourselves with big smiles as we greeted our long-time friend Willie Williams—the man responsible for the amazing grace of all that light. “I heard you were here, and they told me where you were sitting. So I had to come over and just say hi.” “This is the person responsible for all the lighting,” I told Luke, who could hardly believe this was all happening to him.
And because it was the nation’s Capital, the politicos were all on hand. How many concerts feature shout-outs to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Judiciary Chair, Patrick Leahy, (who Bono called the “John Wayne” of Washington), or one to Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick , who were all on hand. “Can you believe it,” cried Bono, “A Cardinal at a rock concert!” And we even got to come in on the One Campaign bus with the Cardinal!
“Politics” was indeed part of the concert, not the partisan politics that dominate Washington D.C. – (Bono made it a point to praise politicians on “both the left and the right” who have cared about places like Africa, he even dedicated a song to President Bush for increasing foreign aid) – but the moral politics that characterize Bono’s clarion call to conscience and action which echoed throughout the evening.
In fact, what I love about a U2 concert, headlined by the Irish tenor with the sun glasses, is how it achieves such a powerful combination of art and social justice, music and message; and all with such fun. The New York Times titled its review of the opening concert in Giants stadium as “Fun With a Mission.”
As always on nights with U2, activism for human rights and democracy was lifted up. “Walk On” was dedicated to Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate under house arrest in Burma/Myanmar. “How long has she been under house arrest,” asked Luke. “20 years” I said, and watched the look of concern and indignation on the face of a pre-teenager—at a rock concert. Luke also got to see a short video of a beaming Desmond Tutu, another Nobel Peace Prize winner, talk about “the kind of people” who make a difference in this world, and invited us all to join the One Campaign.
On the way out of the concert, Luke whispered that he had just heard somebody say, “The only thing I don’t like about Bono is his political sh*t.” Luke asked me what he meant. I said there are some people who don’t like the message of Bono and U2, just the music. But it is precisely the incredibly inspiring blend and, dare I say, integration of music, message, and mission that makes U2 not only so compelling; but also so important.
It was a night of mutual affirmation with a band and an adoring audience, their community, who truly seemed to love being together again. It was an evening of joy and justice. The final comment of a first time almost teenager was, of course, “It was awesome,” but, unlike most of the moments and venues where this overused affirmation of the younger generation is invoked, this time it was accurate and appropriate. The concert was truly “awesome.”
Stuart Townend - Slipstream podcast
I've copied the blub to encourage you to listen to this.
Stuart Townend is a well-known Christian songwriter, worship leader, musician and seminar speaker. He also spends time training emerging worship leaders and songwriters. His latest album Creation Sings was released in May 2009.
Here is a taster from Stuart's podcast interview:
If people don't have a mentor or encourager and they want to test out a calling in worship leading, what are some of the recommendations you could make to them?
I think everyone needs pastoral input. Everyone needs someone speaking into what you do in terms of ministry. If you haven't got that, you look for that, not necessarily in someone who is musically massively gifted, but somebody who pastorally can have input into you as a person, and input into how you interact with the church and how you develop resources for the church...But it's important to have some pastoral input - even if it's your local church pastor. I would be very cautious about people who are writing songs who are not connected into a local church, who are not part of that body of believers. First, because I think that if you do develop ministry, you need support; but secondly, that's where you learn what it's all about. You learn what works as a song by trying it out with your local congregation. That's what keeps you sharp in terms of your writing. Otherwise the tendency is you can go off and write songs, but actually they don't work when people sing them because you're not hearing people sing them. You're not learning your trade, if you like, not learning your craft in the local church...
Download the Slipstream Podcast 18: Stuart Townend podcast (Note: Right-Click / Save As...)
Culture Slaves
I thought this week's Friday Night Theology from the EA was interesting. A good example of how to turn a current news story into an opportunity for the gospel.
It's The Son Wot Won It
There may not be that many FNT subscribers who read the Sun on a regular basis but for those that do the question is whether or not they will change their voting intentions now that Britain’s best-selling daily has come out for the Conservatives.
Of course, the response of the Labour party to this has been that “People win elections, not newspapers.” But is that actually true? Following the Sun’s claim in 1992 that they had changed the election outcome, a number of academic studies set out to demonstrate whether or not they had. The result is that it is unclear, though probably unlikely, that they changed the overall result, but what is clear is that newspapers do influence how people vote.
More broadly, it is also clear that a vast range of media outlets, from books to films to magazines to the web, impact how we think and behave on many fronts. So, when Coronation Street portrayed a character dying from cervical cancer, there was a substantial increase in the take up of cervical screening services. More negatively, a report in 2004 found that 40% of people think that half of all crimes are committed by young people despite the reality being much less. Excessive media reporting of youth crime was considered to be the main culprit for this misapprehension.
And yet, despite all this, when people are asked whether they think that the media influences their personal beliefs and choices, the answer is frequently in the negative. In particular, they consider it to have a strong influence on others, but just not on themselves.
What we have then is the strange situation where clearly the media does impact the public but this is not fully acknowledged by that public whose opinion is being swayed. What makes this worse is that the media themselves usually claim that they do not drive public opinion, they merely reflect it.
In response to all this, perhaps the first thing to note is that none of this is new. The apostle Paul warned us: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) He knew that we are subject to cultural influences, which is precisely why he actively encouraged us to adopt a different approach: the renewal of our minds in conformity to Christ. Even stronger is 1 John 4:4 which gives us hope that such resistance to cultural patterns is not futile, but can actually succeed: “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God.”
All of us then, including the church, are prone to social and cultural influences. We may like to think we make our own decisions and form our own beliefs, but the reality is that we swim in a tide of public opinion that is hard to escape. Moreover, subconsciously (if not consciously) we all like to conform. In order, then, to be different we need some other source of knowledge and wisdom to draw upon. That source is, of course, Christ. He provides an alternative base which enables us to think differently from the rest, indeed enables us to think with the mind of God.
So I guess the challenge to our non-Christian friends is to ask whether they want to continue to be slaves to cultural whims, or whether instead they should choose to become slaves of Christ. Whatever else people say about evangelical Christianity, it’s probably the only way to be a cultural rebel these days – and that alone seems a good reason to choose it.
Justin Thacker, Head of Theology
It's The Son Wot Won It
There may not be that many FNT subscribers who read the Sun on a regular basis but for those that do the question is whether or not they will change their voting intentions now that Britain’s best-selling daily has come out for the Conservatives.
Of course, the response of the Labour party to this has been that “People win elections, not newspapers.” But is that actually true? Following the Sun’s claim in 1992 that they had changed the election outcome, a number of academic studies set out to demonstrate whether or not they had. The result is that it is unclear, though probably unlikely, that they changed the overall result, but what is clear is that newspapers do influence how people vote.
More broadly, it is also clear that a vast range of media outlets, from books to films to magazines to the web, impact how we think and behave on many fronts. So, when Coronation Street portrayed a character dying from cervical cancer, there was a substantial increase in the take up of cervical screening services. More negatively, a report in 2004 found that 40% of people think that half of all crimes are committed by young people despite the reality being much less. Excessive media reporting of youth crime was considered to be the main culprit for this misapprehension.
And yet, despite all this, when people are asked whether they think that the media influences their personal beliefs and choices, the answer is frequently in the negative. In particular, they consider it to have a strong influence on others, but just not on themselves.
What we have then is the strange situation where clearly the media does impact the public but this is not fully acknowledged by that public whose opinion is being swayed. What makes this worse is that the media themselves usually claim that they do not drive public opinion, they merely reflect it.
In response to all this, perhaps the first thing to note is that none of this is new. The apostle Paul warned us: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” (Romans 12:2) He knew that we are subject to cultural influences, which is precisely why he actively encouraged us to adopt a different approach: the renewal of our minds in conformity to Christ. Even stronger is 1 John 4:4 which gives us hope that such resistance to cultural patterns is not futile, but can actually succeed: “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God.”
All of us then, including the church, are prone to social and cultural influences. We may like to think we make our own decisions and form our own beliefs, but the reality is that we swim in a tide of public opinion that is hard to escape. Moreover, subconsciously (if not consciously) we all like to conform. In order, then, to be different we need some other source of knowledge and wisdom to draw upon. That source is, of course, Christ. He provides an alternative base which enables us to think differently from the rest, indeed enables us to think with the mind of God.
So I guess the challenge to our non-Christian friends is to ask whether they want to continue to be slaves to cultural whims, or whether instead they should choose to become slaves of Christ. Whatever else people say about evangelical Christianity, it’s probably the only way to be a cultural rebel these days – and that alone seems a good reason to choose it.
Justin Thacker, Head of Theology
Thursday, 1 October 2009
New Blog to Follow
I was directed to a blog by Alan Macgregor, and I know he and I might be the only one's interested - but just is case ...
It's called Evangelical Textual Criticism, and you can view it here.
Long past time for Evangelicals to stop being afraid of academic biblical studies and join in once more.
It's called Evangelical Textual Criticism, and you can view it here.
Long past time for Evangelicals to stop being afraid of academic biblical studies and join in once more.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (1)
Some years ago I bought a copy of David Bebbington’s Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (pub Routledge 1989). Bebbington’s book can hardly be described as a page turner, however, it has become a major text in terms of understanding Evangelicalism in an historical context. In the Church of Scotland, and I’m sure other denominations, Evangelical is a slippery term which seems difficult to define and its origins are uncertain if not in dispute. Bebbington’s work is highly commended to anyone interested in understanding Evangelicalism.
I hope to write a series of posts on this important work as an offering towards understanding and communication between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals especially in the Church of Scotland at this time.
Bebbington begins with an attempt to define Evangelicalism.
Evangelical apologists sometimes explained their distinctiveness by laying claim to particular emphases. … according to Henry Venn in 1835 Evangelical Clery differs from others, ‘not so much in their systematic statement of doctrines, as in the relative importance which they assign to the particular parts of the Christian System, and in the vital operation of Christian Doctrines upon the heart and conduct.’ And Bishop Ryle of Liverpool asserted that it was not the substance of certain doctrines but the prominent position assigned to only a few of them that marked out Evangelical Churchmen from others. … It [the Evangelical tradition] gave exclusive pride of place to a small number of leading principles. (page 2)
What Venn and Ryle are saying here is that Evangelicals do not hold different doctrines from other Christians, but that in their systematic exposition of the Christian faith they give prominence to a few of those, which are not so privileged in other systems of Christian doctrine. I’m sure there is a danger in elevating only a few doctrines amongst others, the obvious danger is of imbalance. There would need to be more said to identify the particular points of doctrine so elevated and a case made for their place in the Evangelical scheme.
I do like Venn’s comment about the vital operation of Christian Doctrines upon the heart and conduct. There is far too much that passes under the name of Christian doctrine or theology that would only move the heart to coldness and leave all matters of conduct to personal preference. For Evangelicals this will not do. If the heart is not affected by our Christian doctrine and our life is not conformed to the likeness of Christ then our doctrine is wrong and needs changed.
Bebbington describes four characteristics which he says emerge clearly from a study of Evangelical history:
conversionism – the belief that lives need to be changed.
activism – the expression of the gospel in effort.
biblicism – a particular regard for the Bible.
crucicentrism – a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
These are not elegant terms and should not be widely used. However, they do get to the heart of what is distinctive about Evangelicalism. Of interest, Bebbington can show that for eighteenth century Evangelicals the Bible was not normally put among the most important features of their religion, however, by the time of Bishop Ryle at the end of the nineteenth century the first principle of Evangelical religion is the absolute supremacy it assigns to Holy Scripture. (page 3) In particular the primacy of Scripture was directed against those who exalted the authority of either church or reason. And then in the twentieth century those attributing most importance to Scripture became known as conservatives.
This ‘change’ in the relative importance attached to Scripture is something Bebbington returns to, as we will in later posts.
There is what I find a sad note on page 4,
Instead of the joy of new discovery that pervades eighteenth-century lists of distinctives, there is a resolve to resist an incoming tide of error.
For many resisting error has become the main thing in Evangelical religion in the early twenty-first century. But this cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. Yes, resisting error is important, the watchman must sound a warning, the sheep must be guarded from the wolves. But is this all Evangelicalism has to offer the church, and more importantly the non-Christian world? I hope not!
And yet, the joy of new discovery doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps what should be more evident in Evangelicalism is that joy in the Lord and in his wonderful gospel which brings to life a confidence and humility in trusting our Lord. We could do with more of this!
I think it will be good to post separately on each of these four distinctives before moving onto the rest of Bebbington’s book, so watch out for more on this theme.
Promoting the Gospel
Last week I read John Dickson's book Promoting the Gospel: The whole of life for the cause of Christ. I can't find a picture on the web, pub by Aquila Press 2005, ISBN 1 920935 770. Copies are available in the Tron Book shop Glasgow, at least they were the last time I was in.
The eleven chapters of this book are a great encouragement to any Christian to be involved in the work of promoting the gospel. I know that some have used these eleven chapters as fuel for a sermon series, but they could equally be used in small groups, for evangelism training or the whole book read at a church book group (and if you don't have one, why not?)
However, the highlight of the book are the appendices, especially 1 and 2. Appendix 3 is good, a modern retelling of the gospel in which Dickson gives an example of an evangelistic conversation, but appendices 1 and 2 steal the show.
In appendix 1 Dickson seeks to answer the question 'What is the Gospel?', and boy does he answer it well. An examination of key NT 'gospel' texts results in the following description of the core content of the gospel:
In appendix 2 Dickson offers what he calls Gospel bites, by which he means ways of answering the questions asked by people who don't share our faith using the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Too often we don't look for the Gospel in the gospels and here are a series of great examples showing us how to answer with the Gospel from the gospels. Easiest just to copy out the first example, page 192:
Imagine a friend declares, 'I've done too many wrong things ever to be a Christian.' ... Lk 7:36-50 could provide the basis for the following possible reply:
Well, then, you are exactly the sort of person Christ was interested in. He was at the home of a religious leader (Pharisee) one day when a prostitute came in looking for him. She was so overwhelmed she burst out crying. Everyone there wanted to condemn the woman and throught Jesus should do the same. Instead, Jesus condemned his self-righteous host and turned to the woman and said, 'Your sins are forgiven.' He forgave her and she was a changed woman because of it. Christ didn't come for the 'good' people. He came to restore and forgive those willing to admit they are anything but good. Have you ever looked into Jesus life?
Read it through, a short answer but it addresses the comment and uses a gospel story to teach the Gospel. Dickson offers a number of other examples which, once you catch on, you will be able to work out your own.
This is a good book to help us keep the main thing the main thing. The Good News needs to be proclaimed and we need to promote the Gospel.
John Dickson was a speaker at this years EMA, and you can download his two addresses from that site here.
The eleven chapters of this book are a great encouragement to any Christian to be involved in the work of promoting the gospel. I know that some have used these eleven chapters as fuel for a sermon series, but they could equally be used in small groups, for evangelism training or the whole book read at a church book group (and if you don't have one, why not?)
However, the highlight of the book are the appendices, especially 1 and 2. Appendix 3 is good, a modern retelling of the gospel in which Dickson gives an example of an evangelistic conversation, but appendices 1 and 2 steal the show.
In appendix 1 Dickson seeks to answer the question 'What is the Gospel?', and boy does he answer it well. An examination of key NT 'gospel' texts results in the following description of the core content of the gospel:
- Jesus' royal birth secured his claim to the eternal throne promised to king David.
- Jesus' miracles pointed to the presence of God's kingdom in the person of his Messiah.
- Jesus' teaching sounded the invitation of the kingdom and laid down its demands.
- Jesus' sacrificial death atoned for the sins of those who would otherwise be condemned at the consumation of the kingdom.
- Jesus' resurrection establishes him as the Son whom God has appointed Judge of the world and Lord of the coming kingdom.
In appendix 2 Dickson offers what he calls Gospel bites, by which he means ways of answering the questions asked by people who don't share our faith using the sayings and deeds of Jesus. Too often we don't look for the Gospel in the gospels and here are a series of great examples showing us how to answer with the Gospel from the gospels. Easiest just to copy out the first example, page 192:
Imagine a friend declares, 'I've done too many wrong things ever to be a Christian.' ... Lk 7:36-50 could provide the basis for the following possible reply:
Well, then, you are exactly the sort of person Christ was interested in. He was at the home of a religious leader (Pharisee) one day when a prostitute came in looking for him. She was so overwhelmed she burst out crying. Everyone there wanted to condemn the woman and throught Jesus should do the same. Instead, Jesus condemned his self-righteous host and turned to the woman and said, 'Your sins are forgiven.' He forgave her and she was a changed woman because of it. Christ didn't come for the 'good' people. He came to restore and forgive those willing to admit they are anything but good. Have you ever looked into Jesus life?
Read it through, a short answer but it addresses the comment and uses a gospel story to teach the Gospel. Dickson offers a number of other examples which, once you catch on, you will be able to work out your own.
This is a good book to help us keep the main thing the main thing. The Good News needs to be proclaimed and we need to promote the Gospel.
John Dickson was a speaker at this years EMA, and you can download his two addresses from that site here.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Rhapsody in Blue
I got a copy of this CD the other day, thanks to Karen.
What a great disc, a really wonderful group of musicians with Brian Kellock's piano and so much work from Tommy Smith.
This is well worth taking a chance on if you think you don't like jazz. Listen to this and you'll find that you do.
Ezekiel and the 'celtic' church
I've never been persuaded that the celtic church really existed in the form presented to us by the celtic church gurus. There clearly were Christians in Ireland and Scotland from the early 5th Century, but as with all others they would have been Western Christians under the authority of Rome.
I've been reading Chris Wright's book on Ezekiel, which is highly commended. Commenting on 8:14-15:
14 Then he [The LORD] brought me [Ezekiel] to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. 15 He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this."
Wright offers the following comment:
Christians are rightly recovering a creation balance in our worship and spirituality. Celtic worship has been enjoying something of a revival, even if not all of it would be immediately recognized by Patrick or Columba. However, there is a danger that what passes as allegedly 'Celtic' actually draws on pre-Christian Celtic paganism (which is very much in vogue with New Age adherents), rather than the vigorous and trinitarian Celtic Christianity which emerged after the remarkable conversion of Ireland. It is vital that our appreciation of creation within our worship is kept anchored to the biblical affirmations about God himself, and not allowed to drift over into a false kind of personalizing of nature. If creation is exalted to excessive levels in our theology or worship, we may subtly marginalize the person and character of the Creator and come close to ascribing divine power and properties to natural forces and elements. 'The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it' (Ps 24:2), and our worship, like the worship of all created things, must be directed to the Lord himself alone. The paradox is that if we worshp the living God rightly as Creator, then we shall care for creation as well, as he commanded; but if we worship the creation (in any of its manifestations, or even by unbridled consumerism), we quickly forget the Creator. (pages 106-107)
I am grateful to Chris for this timely reminder and hope that sharing it with you will be an encouragement to worship our God who alone Created everything there is.
I've been reading Chris Wright's book on Ezekiel, which is highly commended. Commenting on 8:14-15:
14 Then he [The LORD] brought me [Ezekiel] to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. 15 He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this."
Wright offers the following comment:
Christians are rightly recovering a creation balance in our worship and spirituality. Celtic worship has been enjoying something of a revival, even if not all of it would be immediately recognized by Patrick or Columba. However, there is a danger that what passes as allegedly 'Celtic' actually draws on pre-Christian Celtic paganism (which is very much in vogue with New Age adherents), rather than the vigorous and trinitarian Celtic Christianity which emerged after the remarkable conversion of Ireland. It is vital that our appreciation of creation within our worship is kept anchored to the biblical affirmations about God himself, and not allowed to drift over into a false kind of personalizing of nature. If creation is exalted to excessive levels in our theology or worship, we may subtly marginalize the person and character of the Creator and come close to ascribing divine power and properties to natural forces and elements. 'The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it' (Ps 24:2), and our worship, like the worship of all created things, must be directed to the Lord himself alone. The paradox is that if we worshp the living God rightly as Creator, then we shall care for creation as well, as he commanded; but if we worship the creation (in any of its manifestations, or even by unbridled consumerism), we quickly forget the Creator. (pages 106-107)
I am grateful to Chris for this timely reminder and hope that sharing it with you will be an encouragement to worship our God who alone Created everything there is.
Tuesday, 15 September 2009
More on red letters
Further on red letter Christians and red letter bibles, see an earlier post here. I was reading the follow passage in a bible with red letters for the words of Jesus.
John 12:27-29
27 "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say?`Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
Whose voice speaks from heaven in v. 28? Presumably the same voice as spoke from heaven at the baptism of the Lord Jesus and at his transfiguration. The only voice that ever speaks from heaven is the voice of God.
Why do we colour the words of the Lord Jesus red but not the words of God? Are the words of the Lord Jesus better, more significant, more important than the words of God spoken from heaven?
It is a truly silly idea to have red letter bibles, and an even worse idea to claim to be a red letter Christian, privileging the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Scripture over the word of God, which is the essential nature of Scripture.
John 12:27-29
27 "Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say?`Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
Whose voice speaks from heaven in v. 28? Presumably the same voice as spoke from heaven at the baptism of the Lord Jesus and at his transfiguration. The only voice that ever speaks from heaven is the voice of God.
Why do we colour the words of the Lord Jesus red but not the words of God? Are the words of the Lord Jesus better, more significant, more important than the words of God spoken from heaven?
It is a truly silly idea to have red letter bibles, and an even worse idea to claim to be a red letter Christian, privileging the words of the Lord Jesus recorded in Scripture over the word of God, which is the essential nature of Scripture.
Tom Wright Justification 1
In 2008 John Piper published The Future of Justification: A response to NT Wright. This short volume from 2009 is Wright’s response to Piper. See my earlier post on Piper, in short, I think his book seeks to show that Wright is not following a main line, traditional reformed interpretation of justification. We didn’t need a book to tell us that.
In a number of posts I’m going to offer comments on Wright’s response.
Chapter 1
In this first Chapter Wright sets out to show what this discussion is all about and why it matters.
“Ever since I first read Luther and Calvin, particularly the latter, I determined that whether or not I agreed with them in everything they said, their stated and practised method would be mine, too: to soak myself in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, to get it into my bloodstream by every means possible, in the prayer and hope that I would be able to teach scripture afresh to the church and the world. The greatest honour we can pay the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible – they would be horrified at that – but to do as they did.” (page 6.)
I have not yet found a human author with whom I can say I agree with everything they said (or wrote). And I do not expect to find one. By definition a human author is human and therefore even the best author and their best work will be tainted by sin in some part. We cannot allow ourselves to be blindly chained to any human author, however much we value any tradition of interpretation of Scripture that derives from them.
I am not one of those who denies the value of theology and the systematic study of theology. However, if I am forced to choose let me study Scripture and only Scripture. There is no greater need in our generation than for Scripture to be heard and obeyed. If I find my study of Scripture to lead me to disagree with any tradition or part of Christian theology then I will humbly do that. That is what Augustine, Luther and Calvin did. Are they the only ones to be given this duty?
“But the real point is, I believe, that the salvation of human beings, though of course extremely important for those human beings, is part of a larger purpose. God is rescuing us from the shipwreck of the world, not so that we can sit back and put our feet up in his company, but so that we can be part of his plan to remake the world. We are in orbit around God and his purposes, not the other way round.” (page 8 – Author’s emphasis)
Yes, read that one over again and then lower your peacock feathers. Salvation is for God’s glory alone, not our glory. This doctrinal debate is not about some obscure point of theology. Justification is that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It does very closely touch the work of redemption God has achieved in Christ. It is about the heart of the gospel.
It matters that we get this right, because if we get it wrong we will end up mistreating the gospel and misrepresenting the purposes of God in his great work of redemption.
In this opening chapter Wright comments on the vast field of contemporary literature on this theme. Noting that he will not engage with it all, but promises us a larger more detail work on Paul as part of his on going Christian Origins and the Question of God series. In this introduction Wright promises much. He will offer us three further chapters of introduction in which he outlines his thinking on justification before a final four chapters of detailed exegesis of the key Pauline texts on this theme.
Chapter 1
In this first Chapter Wright sets out to show what this discussion is all about and why it matters.
“Ever since I first read Luther and Calvin, particularly the latter, I determined that whether or not I agreed with them in everything they said, their stated and practised method would be mine, too: to soak myself in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, to get it into my bloodstream by every means possible, in the prayer and hope that I would be able to teach scripture afresh to the church and the world. The greatest honour we can pay the Reformers is not to treat them as infallible – they would be horrified at that – but to do as they did.” (page 6.)
I have not yet found a human author with whom I can say I agree with everything they said (or wrote). And I do not expect to find one. By definition a human author is human and therefore even the best author and their best work will be tainted by sin in some part. We cannot allow ourselves to be blindly chained to any human author, however much we value any tradition of interpretation of Scripture that derives from them.
I am not one of those who denies the value of theology and the systematic study of theology. However, if I am forced to choose let me study Scripture and only Scripture. There is no greater need in our generation than for Scripture to be heard and obeyed. If I find my study of Scripture to lead me to disagree with any tradition or part of Christian theology then I will humbly do that. That is what Augustine, Luther and Calvin did. Are they the only ones to be given this duty?
“But the real point is, I believe, that the salvation of human beings, though of course extremely important for those human beings, is part of a larger purpose. God is rescuing us from the shipwreck of the world, not so that we can sit back and put our feet up in his company, but so that we can be part of his plan to remake the world. We are in orbit around God and his purposes, not the other way round.” (page 8 – Author’s emphasis)
Yes, read that one over again and then lower your peacock feathers. Salvation is for God’s glory alone, not our glory. This doctrinal debate is not about some obscure point of theology. Justification is that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It does very closely touch the work of redemption God has achieved in Christ. It is about the heart of the gospel.
It matters that we get this right, because if we get it wrong we will end up mistreating the gospel and misrepresenting the purposes of God in his great work of redemption.
In this opening chapter Wright comments on the vast field of contemporary literature on this theme. Noting that he will not engage with it all, but promises us a larger more detail work on Paul as part of his on going Christian Origins and the Question of God series. In this introduction Wright promises much. He will offer us three further chapters of introduction in which he outlines his thinking on justification before a final four chapters of detailed exegesis of the key Pauline texts on this theme.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Final Thoughts on The Word Became Fresh
I haven't offered a full review of all the chapters in this really good book. It's a long time since I've read a book of just 154 pages so full of really helpful comments and ideas.
Just two more, see earlier posts
On application:
God has given his word for our instruction and obedience, for our endurance and encouragement; therefore any interpretation that stops short of appropriation [application] is illegitimate. (page 94)
What a great definition of application,wholly grounded upon our understanding of the nature of Scripture as God's word and the purpose of Scripture which God desires to see in our lives. Too many sermons fail to be sermons at this point. A fine exposition of God's word ends at the point of exposition and never touches any kind of application. Davis shows in his chapter on this that application may obviously be applied to our behaviour, but also - and this is really important - to our thinking. Sometimes what needs to change is our thinking about God which can easily become un-biblical. In relation to narrative text Davis is very helpful in illustrating where the application can be doxological, the outcome of a story may be the glorifying of God and an out pouring of praise from those who respond properly to the wonders of our God.
On centre:
For a student of OT talk of a centre raises the spectre of a search for the unifying centre of the OT. Rather Davis offers a premier presupposition,
God has given his word as a revelation of himself; if then I use his word rightly, I will long to see him, and he will be the focus of my study. (page 121 - what a sentence to have on a page bearing this number!!)
Yes, Scripture is about God, a gracious self-revelation of God to humanity. It is only about humanity in relation to God, not about humanity and not about God in relation to humanity. If we go wrong at the beginning we won't get back on line at all. Too many sermons, and far to much of what is called contemporary theology is not worthy the name being rather sociological or anthropological studies in which some kind of god may or may not be involved. A theocentric approach to Scripture will serve us like a compass needle and keep us in the right direction.
This book is most highly commended for all preachers and all students of God's word. It has a particular focus upon OT narrative texts but the points made can be transferred to other genres and passages of Scripture.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
God Isn't Deluded, Even If Dawkins Is!
As we anticipate the publication of another book by Richard Dawkins, described on the cover rather grandly as ‘the most formidable intellect in public discourse’, I share here a section on the Delusion under which Dawkins labours from William Lane Craig. I found this on the EA site, here.
I feel increasing sure that God really isn’t impressed by Dawkins and the so called new atheists.
Dawkin’s Delusion
Richard Dawkins has emerged as the enfant terrible of the movement known as the New Atheism. His best-selling book The God Delusion has become the literary centerpiece of that movement. In it Dawkins aims to show that belief in God is a delusion, that is to say, "a false belief or impression," or worse, "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." On pages 157-58 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." Note it well. If this argument fails, then Dawkins's book is hollow at its core. And, in fact, the argument is embarrassingly weak.
It goes as follows:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements. Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument intended logically to imply the conclusion "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.
A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements not as premises but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins's cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" simply doesn't follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified. The only delusion demonstrated here is Dawkins's conviction that this is "a very serious argument against God's existence."
So what does follow from the six steps of Dawkins's argument? At most all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation.
Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. Dawkins's argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false in any case. Take step 3, for example. Dawkins's claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: Who designed the designer?
This objection is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of some unknown group of people even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extraterrestrial agents even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extraterrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. In the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.
Second, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations-for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. If a less simple hypothesis exceeds its rivals in explanatory scope and power, for example, then it may well be the preferred explanation despite the sacrifice in simplicity.
But leave those questions aside. Dawkins's fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a nonphysical entity, a mind is not composed of parts; and its salient properties-like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition-are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable physical quantities and constants (mentioned in the fifth step of Dawkins's argument), a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas (it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus), but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may indeed be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity. Other steps in Dawkins's argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.
Several years ago my atheist colleague Quentin Smith unceremoniously crowned Stephen Hawking's argument against God in A Brief History of Time as "the worst atheistic argument in the history of Western thought."5 With the advent of !e God Delusion the time has come to relieve Hawking of this weighty crown and to recognize Richard Dawkins's accession to the throne.
William Lane Craig is research professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. His Ph.D. in Philosophy is from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom.
I feel increasing sure that God really isn’t impressed by Dawkins and the so called new atheists.
Dawkin’s Delusion
Richard Dawkins has emerged as the enfant terrible of the movement known as the New Atheism. His best-selling book The God Delusion has become the literary centerpiece of that movement. In it Dawkins aims to show that belief in God is a delusion, that is to say, "a false belief or impression," or worse, "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." On pages 157-58 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." Note it well. If this argument fails, then Dawkins's book is hollow at its core. And, in fact, the argument is embarrassingly weak.
It goes as follows:
1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.
3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.
4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.
5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.
6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.
7. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.
This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements. Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument intended logically to imply the conclusion "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.
A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements not as premises but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins's cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" simply doesn't follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified. The only delusion demonstrated here is Dawkins's conviction that this is "a very serious argument against God's existence."
So what does follow from the six steps of Dawkins's argument? At most all that follows is that we should not infer God's existence on the basis of the appearance of design in the universe. But that conclusion is compatible with God's existence and even with our justifiably believing in God's existence. Maybe we should believe in God on the basis of the cosmological argument or the ontological argument or the moral argument. Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation.
Maybe God wants us to believe in Him simply by faith. The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism. Dawkins's argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false in any case. Take step 3, for example. Dawkins's claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: Who designed the designer?
This objection is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis but products of some unknown group of people even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extraterrestrial agents even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extraterrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. In the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.
Second, Dawkins thinks that in the case of a divine designer of the universe, the designer is just as complex as the thing to be explained so that no explanatory advance is made. This objection raises all sorts of questions about the role played by simplicity in assessing competing explanations-for example, how simplicity is to be weighted in comparison with other criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, and so forth. If a less simple hypothesis exceeds its rivals in explanatory scope and power, for example, then it may well be the preferred explanation despite the sacrifice in simplicity.
But leave those questions aside. Dawkins's fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a nonphysical entity, a mind is not composed of parts; and its salient properties-like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition-are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable physical quantities and constants (mentioned in the fifth step of Dawkins's argument), a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas (it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus), but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may indeed be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity. Other steps in Dawkins's argument are also problematic; but I think enough has been said to show that his argument does nothing to undermine a design inference based on the universe's complexity, not to speak of its serving as a justification of atheism.
Several years ago my atheist colleague Quentin Smith unceremoniously crowned Stephen Hawking's argument against God in A Brief History of Time as "the worst atheistic argument in the history of Western thought."5 With the advent of !e God Delusion the time has come to relieve Hawking of this weighty crown and to recognize Richard Dawkins's accession to the throne.
William Lane Craig is research professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. His Ph.D. in Philosophy is from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)