pete's college blog

New Blog

2008-09-02T11:54:00.003+01:00

New job, new place (or rather, return the old place), therefore new blog. From now on I'll be posting my thoughts/ the recycled thoughts of others here.

If you're one of my readers (yes, both of you) then thanks for tuning in over the last few years.

A House For My Name

2008-06-28T16:15:00.003+01:00

I have just finished reading Peter Leithart's OT survey 'A House for My Name'. Besides being suitably pacy, readable, and popular-but-scholarly, the book is a fine example of Christological biblical theology.Infact, together with the Goldsworthy trilogy and Through New Eyes, AHFMN is now in my all-time top three introductions to biblical theology.

Although in some sense it's unfair to compare these three great books (they are written to serve differing purposes, for differing audiences, and AHFMN is only an OT survey), doing so does highlight some of the relative strengths of AHFMN.

In comparison to Goldsworthy's 'Gospel and Kingdom', AHFMN is less concerned with finding precise repetition of a particular pattern. So whereas Goldsworthy's 'people-place-blessing' can at times feel a little forced, or limited by its generality, AHFMN sits lightly enough to its unifying theme (the building of the house of the Lord) as to allow for a greater level of detail. Leithart's journey through the bible allows for more taking in of the scenery, without losing an overall sense of the journey's direction.

In comparison to Jordan's 'Through New Eyes,' AHFMN employs a more restrained interpretive maximalism. The result is greater accessibility and (for those used to breathing the more minimalist air of contemporary UK conservative evangelicalism) believability. Where some will be put off by several of Jordan's wilder assertions, Leithart's challenge to employ more maximal readings of scripture almost slips under the radar, since even at his most (for some) eyebrow-raising his conclusions are difficult to write off as speculative. Part of this is because Leithart argues his case more frequently (Jordan deliberately doesn't, and wouldn't have the space to either).

Those who read should read all three, but perhaps Goldsworthy first, then Leithart, then Jordan.

Art for Christ's sake

2008-06-12T16:22:00.005+01:00

I'm all too guilty of being able to spot problems without really having the solution. Or of only having an answer/ solution in the broadest, most general way.

So, despite having thought about the big picture of 'Christ and Culture' at various points throughout the last year, I must confess to being still largely clueless about how 'transforming culture' works out in practice. Yes, Jesus is Lord of all areas of life, including painting, sculpting and window-cleaning. But what does it actually mean to sculpt, paint, clean windows, in a 'Jesus is Lord' way? What is involved in a truly Christian approach to the arts, or to science, or to greengrocery?

With this in mind, Ally Gordon's blog looks interesting. Ally works for UCCF with arts students in the UK. He wants Christian artistry to go beyond simply copying its non-christian counterpart, and "to make culture, pioneer it and define it." I don't really know whether we agree on the relationship between Christ and culture (though I suspect quite strongly that we agree on a lot). But I do know I've been really enjoying his posts so far and am looking forward to what more I can learn.

The end of the beginning

2008-05-31T00:33:00.005+01:00

Earlier on today I sat my final Oak Hill exam and thereby completed (pending results!) three years of formal theological education. Obviously that will mean some changes are ahead over the course of the next few months, one of which will be that this blog will be coming to an end (since I won't be at college anymore). For the moment I'll keep posting here, but I'll move somewhere new at some point over the summer, watch here for details.

My final exam was on 'Puritan Perspectives on Ministry.' Despite the small amount of time available to cram it in, I really really enjoyed my revision, and constantly found myself making mental notes, storing away various nuggets and valuable insights for future reference. One of them (William Perkins) closes his book on preaching with some words which seem to me a pretty good summary to have in my mind as the next few months unfold [in fact, they're pretty similar to some words the Principal gave to us leavers this evening].

"Preach one Christ by Christ for the praise of Christ"

Church-centred Change

2008-05-23T19:41:00.004+01:00

The church is the place where God is working in new creation power. The church is the outpost of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the future, a society of resident aliens gradually filling the earth with the citizens, values, laws, and life of heaven.

Which means that all our plans for transforming human society must be church-centred. Reform the church, change the world. Not the other way round. The church models what it means to be the city of God to the city of man, pointing to a better way of life, a better King.

Which is why one of the primary ways we should respond to the HFE bill disaster this week (and it is a disaster, how else can we describe the willful abandonment of God's structure for the family and the destruction of precious human life?) is to build, in the church, a strong counter-culture where children are accepted, honoured, disciplined and loved in the Lord, an alternative society where godly fathers serve through loving headship. We have to reform ourselves according to the word, pursue deeper levels of faithfulness, study and pray harder, evangelise, serve, weep, disciple the next generation. We change the world by growing, being, reforming the Church.

So, we must continue the campaigning and the lobbying. Christians should be committed to speaking the mind of God on public issues where we can, doing what good we can, serving, loving, arguing. Those of us unable to do so in person should pray and support financially those who can. But long-term deep change will come, by the grace of God, in the gospel, through the Church.

[DF has some thoughts on the link between the state of the church and the state of the nation HERE]

Nehemiah 9 Chapel Preach

2008-05-19T14:16:00.003+01:00

I preached in Oak Hill chapel (for presumably the last time) on Nehemiah 9:22-31 last friday. This is a brief outline of what I said.

Two points to aid our life of repentance

1. Grace is the context for extraordinary sin.

Israel’s chief sin across history, from the perspective of this prayer at least, was to take take take grace from God and yet return that with disobedience and rejection of his laws.

E.g. see use of ‘gave’ in 22, 24, 27, 29 & 30.

The contrast is seen most clearly there in the transition from 25 to 26. They gorged themselves on grace. Yet threw the law behind their backs. Hence v25. great goodness of YHWH, and v26. great blasphemies of Israel.

God’s grace highlights the heinousness and unwarranted nature of the sin.
To sin against a gracious God is a terrible thing.
To gulp down his grace and cast away his covenant instructions is a terrible crime.

If for them, how much more for us living AD not BC?

Interesting that it’s this sin of license that they chose to focus on. As they looked at Israel’s history this was the way they chose to epitomise the nation’s sins that had gotten them into the mess they were now in. This was the nature of their covenant-breaking.

That should lead us to consider whether it might not be the same amongst us, God's covenant people today. E.g. Liberalism. E.g. various forms of Evangelical antinomianism.

We would do well to consider whether we need to repent of the same sins as Israel. We must not think we can take grace with one hand and cast aside our Father’s commands with the other. It’s a non-starter. It’s a road that leads straight to judgment.

2. Sin is the context for extraordinary grace.

E.g. God’s patience: ‘Testified/ warned’in 26, 29, 30. Also 'many mercies/ times' in 27, 31, 28, 30.

Three cycles, (26-27, 28, 29-30/31). Sin – handed over – cry out – saved. First two cycles follow the pattern, but third only has no cry, and no salvation. Because this prayer is the cry (32-37). This prayer is expecting salvation. They were expecting God to complete the cycle, to act as he’s acted before.

As they looked back on their history Israel saw the need to repent, for taking grace for granted.
But they also saw the basis for that repentance. v31.

You could say that where sin abounded grace superabounded.

If for them, how much more for us living AD not BC? What extraordinary grace to send His Son to be all that Israel failed to be, to restore, resurrect Israel even and give to his people, Jew and Gentile, the gift of the Spirit.

Repentance is based on grace. We repent because we know God to be a gracious and merciful God. We repent in the expectation of forgiveness and salvation and blessing.

Beardy-weirdies

2008-05-16T13:59:00.003+01:00

This is great news (and in no way representative of how word-studies should be done).

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament tells me that the Hebrew verb for 'grow old' (zaqen) is probably derived from the Hebrew word for beard (zaqan). Which presumably means that in one sense to grow old is 'to be/become bearded.' Even when applied to females.

It gets better though.

The LXX (greek trans. of OT) translates the Hebrew word for an old man (derived from zaqen) as presbuteros. Which we all know is the word commonly translated 'elder' in our english translations of the NT (cf. Titus 1:6-9).

Which means, surely, that to be an elder of the Church you must be bearded.

Application:

1. This solves the 'women elders' issue once and for all?
2. There's just enough time for men leaving college this year to grow a beard before their ordination/ commissioning.

Covenant/Election and 'just getting wet' in Baptism

2008-05-15T11:21:00.001+01:00

David Field has been imagining a world where the new covenant is co-terminous with eternal decretal election and seeing what happens, here, here and here. It's not pretty.

Particularly worth some thought is what happens when you try to move from the (alleged) unbreakability of the new covenant to antipaedobaptism:

You'd have to think that you could identify the big-E Elect by their faith. But that would exclude the possibility of false faith or temporary faith. And since you can't know for sure that someone's faith isn't false faith or temporary faith then you'd never baptise anyone at all.

If the response is, "we're not claiming to baptize the Elect, only those who look like the Elect because they have faith" then you've just separated out baptism from the New Covenant and said that baptism is for "those who look like the Elect to us".

Which is fine, because that's what paedobaptists / covenantalists are claiming: that we operate at the level of the "look like Elect to us" and that's how God intends it to be.

Mind you, if baptism is then the initiation rite for the New Covenant then you've just said that there are people who rightly receive the New Covenant sign but who are not big-E Elect. But if they rightly receive the New Covenant initiation rite then they break the New Covenant then the New Covenant is breakable.

So if you want to argue that everyone in the New Covenant is a big-B believer (decretally Elect) and yet that we rightly give the New Covenant initiation rite to those little-b believers (non-Elect, those with false faith / temporary faith etc) then you must deny that the New covenant initiation rite actually initiates people into the New Covenant. That is, that the baptism of the non-Elect isn't baptism, it's just "getting them wet". And the NT evidence for that is what precisely? Non-existent, that's what.

Calvin and Covenant/Election

2008-05-14T14:21:00.003+01:00

Some quotes from Calvin on covenant and election issues.

"So it was in France, Italy, Germany, Spain and England after the Lord established his covenant there. When those countries were oppressed by the tyranny of the Antichrist, the Lord used two means to keep his covenant inviolable. First, he maintained baptism there, a witness to this covenant; consecrated by his own mouth, it retains its force despite the impiety of men. Secondly, by his own providence he caused other vestiges to remain, that the church might not utterly die.”
[Calvin, Institutes, IV.II.11 (2:1051-1052)]

“But there is also another reason in our case, when God receives us into his favour; for we were covenant-breakers under the Papacy; there was not one of us who had not departed from the pledge of his baptism."
[Calvin, Commentaries, (13:115)]

“For when they claimed for themselves the name “church,” they wanted belief in the gospel to depend upon their decision. Today, in like manner, the papists with this false pretext would willingly substitute themselves for God. Paul, although he admits that, by virtue of the covenant, the offspring of Abraham are holy, still contends that many among them are outside of it. And that is not only because they degenerate from legitimate children to bastards but also because God’s special election towers and rules over all, alone ratifying his adoption.”
[Calvin, Institutes, III.XXI.7 (2:931)]

So, for Calvin,

a. Baptism does something - it witnesses to the covenant and brings with it the obligation to abide by the terms of the covenant.
b. By virtue of the covenant someone can be 'holy' in a way but really be an outsider from the perspective of special election.
c. There is such a thing as covenant-breaking in the new covenant.
d. God's special electing grace is sovereign over adoption and apostasy.

Good.

Law and Gospel

2008-05-09T17:15:00.005+01:00

Stumbled across this helpful, sensible, simple introduction to the law-gospel issue:

Law and Gospel by John Frame

A particularly good paragraph says

So gospel includes law in an important sense: God’s kingdom authority, his demand to repent. Even on the view of those most committed to the law/gospel distinction, the gospel includes a command to believe. We tend to think of that command as in a different class from the commands of the decalogue. But that too is a command, after all. Generically it is law. And, like the decalogue, that law can be terrifying to someone who wants to trust only on his own resources, rather than resting on the mercy of another. And the demand of faith includes other requirements: the conduct becoming the gospel that I mentioned earlier. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17).

I also particularly liked his statement that 'law itself in Scripture comes to us wrapped in grace.' [emphasis mine]

It's amazing where you find the law-gospel antithesis crop up, even among those who should really know better . Frame is writing in disagreement with some US Reformed theologians who think unless you buy their sharp distinction between the law and the gospel you've lost the gospel.

I blogged on the law a while ago here.

More on Covenant/Election in Hebrews

2008-05-08T17:26:00.006+01:00

Q: Does Hebrews distinguish types of covenant membership?

I think it does:

You can be a son or an illegitimate child (12:8).
You can fall away from the living God (3:12)
You can be the sort of land that drinks in the rain but produces thorns and thistles (6:8)
You can drift from what you've heard (2:2)
You can be Esau and sell your birthright (12:16).
It’s possible to leave Egypt but fail to enter the land (Chapters 3-4).
You can be enlightened, taste the heavenly gift, share in the Spirit, taste the goodness of the word and the powers of the age to come, and yet fall away irrevocably (6:4-6)
You can shrink back and be destroyed (10:39)
You can have come to Zion but refuse to listen to the one who speaks from heaven (12:25).
You can show contempt for the blood of the covenant that sanctified you (10:28-29).

And yet, it's only if we endure that we are his house/ partakers of Christ (3:6, 14).

Q: But isn't some of this 'you're in the covenant' language hypothetical?

Well, take a particular example - one of the warning passages in Hebrews.

Heb. 10:28-29: Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

I must admit to finding this passage still fairly difficult, (especially since I'm convinced of limited atonement, which closes down the options for interpreting this verse). But, the trouble with ‘sanctified’ being hypothetical is that wouldn’t that mean everything else is hypothetical too? So the passage would be saying something like this:

"The bad news for apostates is that they profane [but they don’t really profane] the blood of the covenant [which covenant they were never a part of] by which they were sanctified [though they were never actually sanctified by it]. Man, someone who has done [i.e. not really done] any of that will face a far worse punishment than the Israelite under the old covenant who disobeyed the law [which they actually were obliged to obey as part of the old covenant, because the old covenant did have members who were not decretally elect to eternal salvation, unlike the new covenant]."

In short, the new covenant brings worse punishments for non-members who disobey its terms than the old did for those who really were members and disobeyed. Which doesn't make sense to me.

It could be, of course, that the passage does not mean 'sanctification' in the exact same way that some other parts of the bible and some confessions of faith and various (important) theological discussions mean it. In that sense they were never sanctified, sure. But maybe that’s not the only thing signified by 'sanctified,' nor is it the only kind of sanctification the covenant has on offer.

Which means we're back to distinguishing (though not separating) covenant and election, and discussing types of covenant membership.

Covenant and Election in Hebrews

2008-05-07T13:47:00.005+01:00

Hebrews is also of help to us in thinking about the whole covenant-election thing.

Q: Is the new covenant unbreakable? [i.e. are the only people in the covenant those who cannot fall from it]

If yes, then you’d expect the logic in Hebrews to be: The new covenant is unbreakable, so you can’t break it, so you’re fine. In others words, to argue from the covenant to security, but not from the covenant to the danger of falling.

So, how come the logic is: Jesus brings in a new covenant, so don’t be a covenant-breaker, because that’s far worse than being a covenant-breaker under the old [Hebrews 2:1-4, Hebrews 12:18-29]. That is, Hebrews is written to people in the new covenant warning them not to become covenant-breakers.

Ok, so maybe therefore you could put it like this:

The new covenant is unbreakable, so make sure you don’t break it, because if you break it you prove that you’ve never been in it (because, after all, the new covenant is unbreakable). After all, doesn't Hebrews say something like this in 3:6, 14.

Which is fine, but only if we are able to distinguish types of being ‘in’ the covenant. Otherwise I don’t think it works. They’re spoken to on the basis of being in the covenant, not on the basis of maybe being in the covenant. They have come to Mount Zion where they can hear the voice of the Son of God speaking to them.

And if we’re able to distinguish types of being ‘in the covenant’ then it is possible to be a covenant-breaker.

[More to come later...]

Church in Hebrews 8: Conclusion

2008-04-30T13:26:00.004+01:00

The Conclusion to my essay on the doctrine of the Church in Hebrews.

CONCLUSION

The epistle to the Hebrews contains a Christological and eschatological ecclesiology.

1. A Christological Ecclesiology

The Church is by virtue of Christ’s ministry. It is because he fulfils and perfects the shadows of old covenant life that the Church can be considered as the new Israel, in possession of Jeremiah’s new covenant and inheritors of all that was promised to Abraham. The patterns of Church life envisaged in Hebrews flow from this Christology as a response of faith, hope and love. Because Christ is the high priest who has entered the heavenly places, the Church draws near to God and holds fast to the hope of a heavenly city she already possesses in some sense. Life gathered to Christ the priest of the true tent is ‘tabernacle life’ – involving holistic worship and priestly offerings. Therefore, among other things, what Hebrews demonstrates is that Ecclesiology should be rooted in Christology.[1]

2. An Eschatological Ecclesiology.

Because the work of Christ is heavenly-focused, the Church is an eschatological entity.[2] It is the ‘now’ of a ‘not yet’ future, though a future secured in Christ. In this sense the traditional ‘tenses of salvation’ apply to the Church.[3] As with the kingdom, we may say that the Church is inaugurated, progressive and to be consummated.[4] It is this eschatological tension that drives the exhortation within the book for endurance. There is a future hope to be lost if it is not held fast to in the now. This shapes Church life as focused on endurance and mutual exhortation. The Church lives in the ‘today’ of Psalm 95. We may add that, since the Church itself is a part of the inaugurated eschatological vision of 12:22-24, if the Christian life is to be eschatological it must also be a corporate life. There can be no living in hope without ‘Church’. This eschatological perspective also ascribes considerable honour and importance to the Church. As the exposition of Psalm 8 in 2:5-10 suggests, because she is the climax of Israel’s history, the Church is likewise the climax of God’s dealings with and plans for humanity within his creation.[5]

[1] I am grateful to Rev. Tim Davies for first highlighting the necessary link between Christology and Ecclesiology. Tim Davies, personal communication.

[2] Giles speaks of “the common Jewish apocalyptic idea that what lies in the future already lies above.” Giles, Church, 156.

[3] That is, past, present and future.

[4] The notion of the kingdom as progressive and inaugurated can be found in Gary North, Millenialism and Social Theory (Tyler, Tex.: ICE, 1990), 222.

[5] Psalm 8 is about God’s intentions for humanity as a whole. This is then applied to Christ, who is the one crowned with honour and glory, and to whom the world to come is subjected. His work however is to bring many sons (the Church) to the same glory. This is perhaps the most ‘whole world’ focussed moment in the epistle, and yet it is surrounded by passages discussed in this essay as showing the link between the Church and Israel. Similarly, Psalm 8 itself is about Yahweh, Israel’s Lord (Psalm 8:1, 9) and is said to be a song of David.

Church in Hebrews 7

2008-04-30T13:24:00.002+01:00

More on Church life in the epistle to the Hebrews:

Throughout the course of the letter the author explores what such corporate perseverance in faith involves, to which we turn in the next two headings.

2. Identification with the persecuted.

The author emphasises the need to live in Christian fellowship even if that requires identifying with persecuted Christians. In 10:32-34 the Hebrew’s “hard struggle” in the past had involved public reproach and identification with those likewise suffering, including those imprisoned. It is precisely this kind of response the author is wishing to exhort them to recommence. Perhaps it was the fear of continuing persecution that caused some of the Hebrews to neglect congregational life (10:25). A similar picture is painted in 13:3 where it is abundantly clear that those imprisoned are fellow members of the church. Moreover, 13:12-14 links these ideas with the sufferings of Christ. Part of following his faithful example is living life as suffering outsiders – the very essence of endurance in hope that the author has been exhorting (13:14).[1]

3. Access and Worship

One of the models the author employs for describing persevering faith in congregational life is the tabernacle. This brings a particular emphasis on the twin ideas of ‘access’ and ‘worship’.

An emphasis on access accords with the dominant Christological theme of the letter - Christ’s priesthood,[2] and the correspondingly significant role the tabernacle plays in the letter’s Christology. We see therefore that the emphasis on Christ’s ministry leads to a particular understanding of the nature of the Church, which in turn leads to specific forms of Church life. It is no surprise in this context that ‘approach’ occurs at several major junctions in the letter - most notably in 4:14-16 and 10:19-25.[3] In the latter the 1^st person plural present subjunctive of προσερχομαι heads up an extended exhortation. As with the Christological priestly material, this notion of approach is drawn from and yet also contrasted with the tabernacle life of Israel (10:2) and the Sinai experience (12:18-24). Here we again see how central ‘Church’ is to the basic response to Christ the author is seeking. Corporately drawing near to God as his people is a holding fast onto the hope inaugurated in Christ’s priestly work: the ‘hope’ of 6:19-20 is somehow (at least in part) realised and ‘lived out’ in 10:19-25. We should also note that while it could be argued the drawing near of 10:22 certainly involves more than congregational meetings it cannot be ascertained that it is less. Rather, the proximity of προσερχομαι and e˙kklhsi÷a in 12:22-23 suggests otherwise, since here ‘church’ is explicitly bound together with ‘approach’. The eschatological/ heavenly reality to which the Hebrews have arrived ought to find expression in communal approach to God in the here and now.[4]

This, of course, does not mean that the epistle limits Church life to formal meetings as often experienced in the modern west.[5] Rather, 10:19-25 weaves drawing near to God with the basic responses of faith, hope and love. What is more, we have seen that Church life for the author involves daily exhortation. In relation to this, the second aspect of ‘tabernacle life’ reflected in the life of the Church as the eschatological Israel is ‘worship’. In the author’s mind this is the obvious response to the eschatological reality of 12:18-24. This reality, which he describes in 12:28 as ‘receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken’, should provoke gratitude and, like Israel before her, the offering by the Church of “acceptable worship” to the God who is a “consuming fire” (12:28-29). This worship is described in 13 as encompassing many different areas of life. Not only are these instructions expressed in the plural, but many of the activities envisaged are inherently corporate, for example - “brotherly love”, “hospitality”, identification with imprisoned members of the body, “all” honouring marriage, respect and obedience towards leaders, and the sharing of goods.[6] That the tabernacle worship of Israel is still in the background is clear not just from the wider context, but also in 13:15-16’s offerings and sacrifices. Corporate praise of God and communal life are the priestly work of God’s people.[7]

[1] These verses could be further support for a preterist/AD70 reading, since ‘outside the camp’ refers to the camp of Israel. The Hebrews must not align themselves with soon-to-be judged apostate Israel/Jerusalem, but rather Christ, who suffered and died as an outsider to the nation. Guthrie argues that a return to Judaism was a danger for the Hebrews, which would be strengthened by a preterist reading. Guthrie, Hebrews, 20.

[2] The theme appears first in 1:3, is implied in 1:5, then returned to again in 2:17, 3:1-6. It comes into particular focus in the exhortation of 4:14-16 from where it dominates until chapter 11 (a brief excursion from 5:11to roughly 6:18 being the exception). The theme resurfaces in 12:24 and then again in 13:8-16.

[3] Guthrie highlights these passages in the structure of the book. Guthrie, Hebrews, 39-40, 173, 340.

[4] “[T]his passage speaks of end-time existence as present possibility for the believer.” Giles, Church, 156.

[5] It is not less than such formal meetings however. Giles, Church, 158.

[6] Attridge understands chapter 13 to be about ‘worship’ and notes the connection between worship and congregational life. Attridge, Hebrews, 384-385.

[7] Likewise, 13:10 is unmistakably drawing on the image of the old covenant priesthood, and may be a reference to communion. See Leviticus 6:26.

Church in Hebrews 6

2008-04-30T13:11:00.000+01:00

The second half of my essay focussed on what Hebrews has to teach regarding Church life and practice.

As already seen above, Hebrews is an interplay between expository and hortatory material. In this section we will focus more particularly on the exhortatory, though this is dependent upon the expository material. In a similar way, this second half of the essay is built upon the first half. The nature of the church as eschatological Israel is the paradigm within which the letter’s picture of Church life is found and from which it flows.

1. Perseverance as a corporate responsibility

The main exhortation of the letter is a call to persevere in fidelity to the word received from the Son, though this is expressed in a variety of ways.[1] This perseverance is envisaged as a corporate responsibility. Not only are most of the commands and exhortations given in the plural (for example, 10:19-25),[2] but in several passages the members of the Christian family are entrusted with responsibility for one another’s endurance (13:7, 17; 3:13-14; 10:24-25; 12:15-16). Firstly, in maintaining a proper response to the word members of the Church should imitate and submit to leaders (13:7, 17). Whatever we may postulate about the form this leadership took, we can assert that Hebrews envisages some kind of recognised leadership within the Church as an aid to the perseverance of the whole community in the faith.[3] Secondly however, the responsibilities of leaders to keep watch (13:17) are not to be set over against the more dominant theme of the responsibility of all in this regard. Rather, living as God’s people involves daily mutual exhortation.[4] The author would know nothing of the Christian life as a solo project. It seems therefore that ‘doing/being the Church’ is the response the author is seeking.[5] We may state this more generally that ‘Church’ is in some sense the appropriate gospel response.

[1] See e.g. 2:1-3; 3:6, 12-15; 4:11, 14-16; 6:11-12; 10:19-25, 35-39; 12:1-3, 12-16, 25, 28.

[2] See for e.g. 2:1-3; 4:11, 14-16; 10:19-25; 12:1.

[3] Some argue from the simplistic language used to describe leaders that the Church was institutionally simple at the time the epistle was written. E.g. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 68. Giles, Church, 158-159. This is almost an argument from silence (i.e. the lack of the words for presbyters and deacons found in e.g. the pastoral epistles) and lacks any real conclusive power.

[4] 3:13

[5] Terminology derived from James Halstead, personal communication.

Church in Hebrews 5

2008-04-29T20:40:00.000+01:00

In conclusion to the (1st) half of my essay devoted to the nature of the Church in Hebrews I wrote:

We may summarise what we have discovered about the ecclesiology of the letter to the Hebrews as follows. In Christ a word is spoken and a salvation achieved, which word and salvation stand as a teleological climax to the word and salvation offered in the Old covenant to Israel. Through right response to his word, the Church stands in a similar teleological and climactic relation to old covenant Israel. What Israel was promised, what faithful Israelites looked for, is the possession of the Church by virtue of Christ’s completion in his death-resurrection-ascension of what Israelite religion foreshadowed. That the Church is the eschatological Israel is arguably the key concept in the writer’s theology of the nature of the Church.

Church in Hebrews 4

2008-04-29T20:30:00.005+01:00

[NB. If you have it/ want it, then these posts are better read using Firefox as your browser]

More of my efforts to show that according to Hebrews the Church is in a relation of eschatological fulfilment to Israel of the Old Testament.

3. Two e˙kklhsi÷a passages

Both uses of the word e˙kklhsi÷a in Hebrews are references to the ‘end times’ hope of Israel and should be read in accord with the promise-inheritance dynamic of the passages cited above.[1]

With 2:12, the surrounding text contains a number of descriptions of the people of God, together emphasising the familial connection between Christ and Church, but doing so in ‘Israel language.’ The “brothers” in the e˙kklhsi÷a of Psalm 22 (quoted in 2:12) are the Israelites gathered around the vindicated suffering King, whilst the “children” in 2:12 are from Isaiah 8 where Isaiah and his family function as a ‘true Israel’ within Israel - displaying the kind of patient faith that should have characterised the entire nation. Like Isaiah, Christ is “ a rallying point” for faith, and those who gather around him are ‘Israel’ in the truest sense.[2] In this context the reference to those who receive help from the Son’s priesthood as “the offspring of Abraham” in 2:16 seems entirely natural. Moreover, in 2:11 both Christ (the sanctifier) and Church (those he sanctifies) are of one origin, that is, have a sonship[3] based on God’s exaltation of them.[4] Hence, in 2:10 the Church is the “many sons” (like Israel was the son of God, Exodus 4:22) who are brought to glory by the perfected Son. The ‘church’ of 2:12 is thus qualified by a number of further descriptions which emphasise the arrival of eternal salvation (sanctification-glory-perfection-inheritance) through Christ for the ‘Israel’ gathered around him.

In 12:18-24 the Hebrews are contrasted with Israel at Sinai. Rather than being gathered at the foot of Sinai, they have come to Zion, the eschatological Jerusalem.[5] This, together with the reference to perfection (12:23), indicates that the hope of Abraham and other old covenant saints for a heavenly city/country is in view.[6] The ruling body[7] of this heavenly Jerusalem is the church of the firstborn enrolled in heaven (12:22), who have access to God himself through Jesus the better mediator (12:23-24). This is summarised in 12:28 as them receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken.[8] The Church is thus contrasted with Israel, but the contrast is by way of fulfilment – what makes the Church ‘different’ is that what Israel hoped for the Church in some sense possesses. Whilst this obviously awaits consummation, because the foundational, unique and guaranteeing priestly work has been done, the Church may truly be said to have ‘arrived’ at where Israel wanted to ‘be’ as embodied in her Zion theology. The new world, the promised rest, the heavenly city, the glorified ‘perfection’ that faithful Israelites hoped for, is all, through Christ’s mediatorial work, the possession of the Church. As Giles concludes, the Church is “Israel of the last days.”[9]

[1] In both passages ideas of inheritance are found in close proximity. See 2:16 and 12:17, 28.

[2] Quotation from Lane, Hebrews, 60. Attridge, Hebrews, 90-91.

[3] Asymmetrical but related nonetheless.

[4] Attridge argues that πάντες includes “both parties in v 11”, though ἑνὸς is ambiguous. Atttridge thinks ἑνὸς is intentionally ambiguous, much like the identity of the son of man in 2:8-9, to be revealed later. Given the verbal link with 10 (where God is the source of τὰ πάντα) and the familial language frequent in the rest of the writer’s exposition of this solidarity, it seems likely that the referent is God. Lane, Hebrews, 58. 51. Attridge, Hebrews, p88-89.

[5] See Psalm 2 or Psalm 46 for an example of Jerusalem idealised. Attridge states that in eschatological tradition Zion “became paired with Sinai as the ultimate point of God’s manifestation”, which traditions Paul and other early Christian authors adapted. Attridge, Hebrews, 374.

[6] Cf. 11:8-10, 13-16.

[7] This ‘political’ meaning for e˙kklhsi÷a can be found, for example, in Jonathan Stephen, “Introduction,” in Tales of Two Cities – Christianity and Politics (ed. Stephen Clark; Leicester: IVP, 2005), 9.

[8] This is probably itself a contrast with the old covenant system, which is about to be removed (8:13, 12:27, also 8:2-5, 9:11). This ‘preterist’ reading of the epistle assumes a pre-AD70 dating. John Owen is one of the more famous figures from Church history to propose such a reading. Rather than engaging in the lengthy process of trying to justify a preterist reading for Hebrews, we simply note here that reading the epistle as written in the context of the imminent covenant-transitional events of AD70 would strengthen the overall argument being made in this essay about the relation of the Church to Israel. The overall ‘new Israel theology’ on display here does not depend on preterism however. See David Field, “Interpretive approaches to the apocalypse” (Unpublished Lecture Handout. Oak Hill College, 2007). Also John Owen, Hebrews – The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Messiah, the Jewish Church (vol. XVII of The Works of John Owen; 1854-55; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 96-101.

[9] Giles, Church, 159.

Church in Hebrews 3

2008-04-28T10:43:00.003+01:00

[NB. If you have it/ want it, then these posts are better read using Firefox as your browser]

More of my efforts to show that according to Hebrews the Church is in a relation of eschatological fulfilment to Israel of the Old Testament.

2. Christ, the Church, and Israel

So far we have seen at the very least that the Church is deeply analogous to Old Testament Israel, and that this is so by virtue of the Church’s connection to Christ. However, more can be said here, since the importance of Christ in the Church’s identity has further implications for the Church’s relation to Israel. Christ’s work is described throughout Hebrews as fulfilling promises, types, shadows, offices and rituals that were given to Israel in the Old Testament.[1] This basic relation of Christ to Israelite history is also true for the Church. The community that benefits from Christ’s fulfilling of Israel’s shadows is therefore a part of this fulfilment of Israel and her history. In the Church Israel’s salvation history, her covenant, her promises, reach their teleological climax.[2] The Church is in this sense the ‘true’ or ‘new’ Israel, and that by virtue of Christ.[3]

This can be established at several places in the text, but we will start with Hebrews 8 since in this section (8:1-10:18) we find some of Hebrews’ more sustained reflection on Christ’s relation to the old covenant order.[4] In 8:1 the discussion of Christ as High priest in the order of Melchizedek comes to a head with the commencement of a comparison between “the true tent’ in which Christ serves and that which is described as a shadow of it, namely the earthly tabernacle built by Moses (8:5).[5] As high priest in this true tent Christ mediates a better covenant (8:2-6). This covenant (and the deficiencies of the old one) were spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (quoted in 8:8-12). Christ’s unique priesthood, fulfilling the shadows of the old covenant, guarantees for the Church the new covenant of Jeremiah’s prophecy.[6] In 9:15 this is described in terms of inheritance, which indicates these ideas are an expansion of what has been already asserted in more compact form in 2:16 where Christ as high priest helps Abraham’s offspring. The same themes can also be found in 6:13-20 where the promise to Abraham is expounded. Taken together, these passages show that what the Church receives from Christ’s high priestly ministry is what was promised to Abraham, and what was promised for a renewed Israel in Jeremiah 31. Hebrews 11:39-40 makes this even more explicit, where it is claimed that the saints of the Old Testament “did not receive what was promised” but only attained perfection[7] along with the Church. The same pattern is displayed in negative form in the discussion of God’s rest (3:7-4:14).[8] What faithful Israelites looked forward to, what faithless Israelites forfeited, is the possession of the Church.

[1] See discussion below for a fuller explanation. But see also discussion of typology and the Old Testament in Giles, Church, 154-155.

[2] That is, their intended ‘goal.’ This concept is clear in 11: 39-40 with regard to the promises and covenants given to faithful Israelites. See also Giles, Church, 153-159.

[3] “New’ alone would imply the Church was a new version, a second, a renewed Israel. That does not account for the fulfilment/climax motif found throughout Hebrews.

[4] Guthrie sees 8:3-10:18 as forming the second major half (5:1-10 with 7:1-28 forming the first half) of material in Hebrews on Christ’s “[r]elation to the Earthly Sacrificial System” – material which runs from 4:14 to 10:25 in total. 8:3-10:18 he designates as dealing with the superiority of Christ’s offering. Guthrie, Hebrews, 39-40.

[5] Guthrie sees 8:1-2 as a moment of transition and summary. Guthrie, Hebrews, 278-279.

[6] See also 7: 22. The significance of the priesthood as the guarantee of the whole covenant whether old or new) comes from Charles Anderson, Lectures on Hebrews, October-December 2007.

[7] That is, “cleansing of conscience, sanctification, and ultimate glorification” only “made possible by Christ’s sacrifice”[7] Attridge, Hebrews, 352.

[8] Note especially the description of this as a promise in 4:1.

Browser issues...

2008-04-27T22:08:00.003+01:00

It seems that internet explorer doesn't like some of the formatting on my last couple of posts. For anyone who either already has it or is interested, Mozilla Firefox works a lot better. Apologies for the mess for those who don't.

Church in Hebrews 2

2008-04-25T17:38:00.001+01:00

This section aims to show that according to Hebrews the Church is in a relation of eschatological fulfilment to Israel of the Old Testament.[1]

1. The Hebrews are like and unlike Israel

That there is a close connection between the recipients of the letter and “historic Israel”[2] is apparent from the very start of the letter. 1:1 describes the recipients of previous revelation as “our fathers” and the remainder of the introductory paragraph continues to draw a parallel between this revelation and the revelation given to the recipients of the letter through the Son (1:1-4). In one sense this sets the tone for the rest of the letter; the recipients are like Israel in the sense that they have received a gospel proclamation (4:2), and response to this word can either bring salvation or terrible judgment (2:1-4, 10:28-29, 12:25). Hence the Hebrews[3] are compared to the recipients of the Exodus deliverance in 2:14-15, to Israel in the wilderness in chapters 3-4, and the promises and warnings given to Israel in Psalm 95 and Jeremiah 31 are applied directly to them.[4] In fact, a similarity to Israel is implicit throughout, as evidenced by the frequent quotation from the Old Testament.[5]

However, the warning and judgment passages noted above are more than simply a ‘since them, then also us’ argument.[6] The Hebrews are like Israel but also unlike them.[7] This ‘unlikeness’ is based on the finality and climactic nature of the word spoken to them through the Son.[8] Accordingly, the salvation and judgment offered in the Son is both comparable to, and yet at the same time greater than, that experienced by Israel (1:2-4, 2:1-3, 10:28-29, 11:39-40).[9] Secondly, it can be clearly demonstrated that this connection to Israel is conceived as being in and through the recipients’ connection to Christ, whose relation to the old covenant itself receives a great deal of attention throughout the letter.[10]

[1] See e.g. Giles, Church, 159.

[2] Giles uses this expression. Giles, Church, 159.

[3] At various points we will use the term ‘the Hebrews’ to designate the recipients of the letter.

[4] Giles, Church, 153-154.

[5] Giles, Church, 152-153 highlights this.

[6] This does not mean they are less than such an argument, nor that they aren’t framed so as to read as such. Rather, we are asserting that there is more to be said than might appear at face value.

[7] This is a facet of the broader theme of the continuity and discontinuity between the covenants. See e.g. Ellingworth, Hebrews, 68-69.

[8] E.g. 1:1-2. Guthrie describes this as revelatory climax. Guthrie, Hebrews, 45.

[9] This understanding of Hebrews has been influenced by Charles Anderson, Lectures on Hebrews, October-December 2007.

[10] This is almost so all-pervasive as to not require confirmation by naming specific texts (we could cite the whole epistle in this regard). However, passages that specifically speak of Christ and the old covenant include 7:22-8:7; 9:15-26; 10:1-18.

Church in Hebrews 1

2008-04-25T17:32:00.002+01:00

A while ago I did an essay on the doctrine of the Church in Hebrews. Over the next few posts I’ll be putting up edited selections from that essay, for anyone who’s interested.

My essay was essentially divided along the lines of two (ultimately inseparable) themes:

Hebrews and the Nature of the Church
Hebrews and Church Life

My main point on 1. Can be summarised like this:

Hebrews teaches that the Church stands in a teleological and climactic relation to old covenant Israel. What Israel was promised, what faithful Israelites looked for, is the possession of the Church by virtue of Christ’s completion in his death-resurrection-ascension of what Israelite religion foreshadowed. That the Church is the eschatological Israel[1] is arguably the key concept in the writer’s theology of the nature of the Church.

[1] I use this phrase to denote a similar idea to Giles’ “Israel of the last days”. Giles, Church, 159.

Computer Rage

2008-04-04T17:19:00.004+01:00

When Jonathan Edwards was about nineteen years old he wrote a bunch of resolutions, thus setting an explicit agenda for his thought and conduct. They're pretty hardcore.

Here's number 15.

15. Resolved, Never to suffer the least motions of anger towards irrational beings.

As someone who commits 'computer rage' (well, with PCs anyway, who could get angry at something so beautiful as a Mac?) and gets angry with other inanimate objects, I find that extremely challenging. He is, of course, completely right - such displays of anger are childish (toys out of pram anyone?) and ungodly.

So I'm resolved to try at number 15 now too.

And I'm also resolved to find time in the first five years of ministry to read much more Edwards (I think I'll need to limit myself to making a list of four or five 'friends' to commit to reading over the first few years, otherwise the list could just go on and on and on).

Prayers for Mission Saddleworth

2008-03-27T17:04:00.004Z

The mission week is now well and truly over. In the end it was a strange sort of a week. The odd thing about mission weeks and the like is that you find yourself immersed in a place for 7 days, beginning to feel its concerns, fear its dangers and temptations, despise its idols, see its tremendous potential, only to then pack up and return home.

As a result, intercessions and thanksgivings form the most obvious, easy, immediate way to stay connected to (God's) long-term mission in Saddleworth.

I give thanks for the fact that the gospel has established a foothold in the area. In the midst of some middle-class gospel-apathetic do-goodery God has established his Church. I pray that his people there will buck the trend (numerical decline) and go from strength to strength. May there always be faithful people in Saddleworth.

I also give thanks for those Church members who turned up, invited friends, and provided prayerful support for the mission. I pray that all three churches we visited will grasp a much clearer vision for serving Christ in the Church and in the village.

I also give thanks for being shown considerable hospitality, warmth of fellowship, and being allowed to share in the material goods (mainly homes and food) of many Church members across the seven days. I pray that such hospitality would become the bedrock of 'life-on-life' discipleship, creating a culture of mutual pastoral care, accountability and spiritual zeal.

I give thanks for the Christian influence in the schools. For the regular assemblies taken by the vicar, for the Christian teachers, for the Christian headmistress of one school in particular. I pray this influence would continue and grow, and bear fruit in conversion. I pray that over time this influence would blossom into fully-grown Christ-centred biblical-worldview education.

I give thanks for the chance to witness a little on the ground, (at times) mundane, non-urban gospel ministry. I give thanks for the chance to see the pitfalls, dangers, potential distractions, and the internal and external pressures which face many ministers in their charges. I pray for all the leaders of the family of God in Saddleworth, that they'd plough a straight line.

I pray against the devil and his schemes, against disunity and apathy, against the idols of 'the good-life' and of 'churchiness', against the idea that the only way is down, against false hopes and false paths to growth, and for Saddleworth's future in God's plan to glorify himself in the Son.

The story so far...

2008-03-18T11:05:00.003Z

Since arriving on Sunday evening we've

- Done 1 open air service (brass band included), 4 assemblies (2 different schools), 1 PCC meeting, 1 visit to the old folk's home and 1 coffee morning.

- Been served meat and potato pie twice (thrice for Marian).

- Spoken about heaven, hell, mission (what is it?), forgiveness, the cross, resurrection, palm sunday, death ('what about x, who was a lovely person, but didn't believe, I can't believe they'll be in hell?' seems to be a common question).

So, if you get the chance, pray for bottle, grace, patience, wisdom, energy.

Saddleworth Mission 2008

2008-03-15T13:48:00.004Z

Ever heard of Saddleworth in West Yorkshire? No? Me neither. At least not until I agreed to help my college tutor organise a mission with two parish churches there for this easter week.

As a result, I'll be there from tomorrow onwards, helping brothers and sisters in Christ take the good news of easter to their neighbours. The first event is an open air service complete with brass band (Brassed Off anyone?) at which I'm giving a brief Palm Sunday talk. The last events are services on Easter sunday. In between there's coffee mornings, school assemblies, and other events filled with eastery goodness.

If you get a chance, please pray for us (there's a team of 7 of us going from Oak Hill). If I get a chance I might blog on location about how it's going.

Church attendance in England

2008-03-14T16:08:00.005Z

Statistics aren't everything. But they also aren't nothing.

This post prompted me to go and dig out the figures on church attendance from the last English Church Census. I found them here. They make for a sobering read in some ways.

6.3% of the population of England attend church regularly.

Of which 40% attend evangelical churches of some description.

Which means evangelicals make up about 2.5% of the population.

Which is 1,264,800 people. (And falling).

We could analyse this 2,5% even further, by looking at the way it breaks down into broad, mainstream and charismatic evangelicals. But that would be perhaps a little too controversial. As it stands the 2.5% figure is enough to be thinking about.

[Off the main point slightly: The only thing is, when your church is 500 people strong you don't really feel like 2.5% of the population. I'm not against bigger churches, I don't buy the 'smaller is better' mentality of some (though I think there are issues about church life and discipleship tied to considerations of size). But I do think that one of the negative side effects of being in a bigger church is that you don't feel the cold bite of the wind. When you're singing the praises of God with a few hundred other people every sunday you can feel like the gospel is doing better (numerically speaking) than it is. Does that contribute to our bouts of evangelistic apathy and naivety, to our spiritual weakness, to our prayerlessness?]

I do believe that Britain has a Christian future. But we've got to realise that it won't happen at this rate, until (by the grace of God) we make some changes.

Wilson at Blenheim

2008-03-13T19:11:00.005Z

Has the British Church become domesticated, like 'one of those little yippy dogs trained not to pee on the carpet?'

That and related topics are dealt with in these lectures on

The Gospel and your Church
The Gospel and your Family
The Gospel and your Government

by American Pastor Doug Wilson available here for free download. I for one am looking forward to listening to them.

The LORD your God is the only Lord...

2008-03-12T12:27:00.007Z

The Vatican has added another seven to the 'old school' seven deadly sins. They are:

Environmental pollution

Genetic manipulation

Accumulating excessive wealth

Inflicting poverty

Drug trafficking and consumption

Morally debatable experiments

Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

The reason? It seems like the old sins just aren't driving people to the confession box enough. [After all, who really gets upset these days by a bit of lust, greed, or sloth?]

Apart from questioning the presumption to decide which sins are death-inducing, cynics might also worry that the Apostolic Penitentiary (who, according to the BBC are "in charge of fixing the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners") is motivated by self-interest in trying to stem the tide of ever-diminishing visits to confession.

Meanwhile Libby Purves has some thoughtful things to say about the way our tax and benefit system treats the poor as if they are incapable of looking after their own money. She says "the message [repeatedly given in successive government budgets] is that if you are poor, you must be kept in the status of client and petitioner..." handing wads of your hard earned money over to the government in order to "immediately beg nanny government to give them back." She sums up:

"If you are poor, the Government's message is simple: “You are not in charge of your life and prosperity. We are. Trust us. Keep on voting for us or you're stuffed.”"

All this in the same week that someone suggests that school-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country. What I found very telling was how Lord Goldsmith understood the education system: "The citizenship ceremonies, which are just one of the many things I have suggested, are a way of marking that passage of being a student of citizenship to a citizen in practice." It might surprise many of us Christians to discover that the education system is not, after all, about being taught 1+1 and your p's and q's in a value-neutral environment (as if one actually exists), but about being given "a sense of shared belonging, a sense that you are part of a community with a common venture, to integrate better newcomers to our society and be clearer about what the rights and responsibilities are."

Meanwhile, back in reality, there is still only one God whose righteous law defines what is sin and determines the punishment, only one Lord to whom we owe absolute allegiance, and only one Saviour in whom we trust for forgiveness, prosperity, and identity.

Religious Worldliness

2008-03-07T09:40:00.005Z

In 1 John 2:12-14 John tells the believers that he is writing to them for three reasons, reasons which define them as true believers over against the false ones he’s writing against.

a. Your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake.
b. You know him who is from the beginning.
c. You have overcome the evil one (you are strong, the word of God abides in you).

By contrast, it seems the false believers were in love with the things of the world, which john also describes in three ways. It seems to me that these in some way ‘map onto’ the three defining features of the believers above. They 'love the world,' i.e.

a. The desires of the flesh (rather than forgiveness, giving in to sin).
b. The desires of the eyes (living by sight, not by faith, focussing on what the eyes desire, rather than ‘desiring God’).
c. Pride of life (strong in oneself, rather than in the word, so proud like the evil one rather than experiencing victory over him).

But what’s also interesting is that there’s a definite allusion to Ezekiel 24:21 and the description of the temple which God was about to destroy (I’ve altered the order from Ezekiel 24 to highlight the connection with 1 John). The Israelites loved the temple, but it was a misplaced love, a foolish presumptuous faith that they’d be ok despite their sin. The temple is described as

a. The yearning of your soul.
b. The delight of your eyes.
c. The pride of your power.

This is especially poignant, given the connection in John’s gospel between faithless Israel and the ‘world’. And then there’s a further connection with Genesis 3:6 and the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

a. It was good for food (the desires of the flesh? Yes, food is good, but not when God says 'don't eat').
b. And a delight to the eyes.
c. Desirable to make one wise (self-sufficiency for life rather than God-dependency).

Does all of this help to explain, then,

1. Why loving the world is utterly opposed to being a Christian. It’s an inversion of the benefits found in Christ, a ‘false faith’ if you like?

2. How the sin of the Israelites in their trusting in the mere possession of the temple despite their ongoing sin, was a repeat of the mistake of Eve in the garden, and deserving of the same punishment (expulsion from the garden/ land)?

3. In other words, being like the world in the 1 John 2:16 sense, and like Eve in the Genesis 3 sense, and not at all like a true believer should be in the 1 John 2:12-14 sense, might at times look extremely religious and pious, but in reality be like the presumptuous ‘false faith’ of Ezekiel 24:21?

[Also, the connection with Ezekiel 24 (and 'world' in John's gospel) might suggest a 'run up to AD70' setting for the epistle. Could the false teachers and believers have been apostate Israelites or Judaisers? Like Israel in Ezekiel's day they loved the world and the things in it, i.e. they clung to the temple in false faith?]

More theo-traffic on the information super-highway

2008-03-06T17:47:00.002Z

Mark D. Wallace (the middle initial is important, believe me) has been blogging away for a while, though seems to have picked up the pace recently. His blog is worth a look because

a. He's the *head boy* I mean Senior Student (oops) at Hogwarts/ Oak Hill College.

b. He blogs about things like - Christian Counselling, 1 Corinthians, and the happenings in the global anglican communion.

c. He's a sincere and godly brother in Christ.

Enjoy him and his thoughts here.

The Virtual Word

2008-03-05T14:34:00.003Z

Oak Hill student Mr Philip Sweeting has been offering the cyber-world his theological delights for some time, and yet I never knew until yesterday. Anyway, since he linked to me, I thought I ought to return the favour (it's all a little in-bred and self-referential isn't it, the internet?) and link to his blog - TheVirtualWord (no spaces because punctuation is for wimps).

He says there that

"At theVirtualWord we believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God and we exist to promote Evangelical Christianity and to attempt to engage with current issues in a thoughtful way."

Which seem like good things to believe and attempt to me. So, read and enjoy. (Though he does need to post a little more often).

John Owen - Transformationist?

2008-03-04T18:16:00.005Z

This view of the intention of God in the creation leads John Owen to propose a (to my mind at least) distinctly 'Kuyperian' (or 'transformationist' - see here for a good quote on that sort of thing) approach to culture.

“…God would hereby instruct us both in the use that we are to make of his creatures, and the improvement that we are to make of the work of the creation unto his glory. For the first, it is his will that we should not use any thing as merely made and created by him, though originally for that purpose, seeing as they are so left they are under the curse, and so impure and unclean unto them that use them…but he would have us look upon them and receive them as they are given over unto Christ…This God instructs us in, namely, to look for a profitable, sanctified use of the creatures in Christ, in that [he?] himself ordered them in the very first creation to fall at length naturally under his rule and dominion, making them all by him."

So, if we want to glorify God in our use of the various elements of the old creation, we must view them as not just having been created by God, but as belonging specifically to Christ the Redeemer, as being intended for subjection to him in the new creation.

So what does this mean of non-Christian use of the creation?

"The whole mystery of laying the works of the old creation in a subserviency unto the new being hidden from many ages and generation, from the foundation of the world men did, by the effects and works which they saw, conclude that there was an eternal power and infinite wisdom whereby they were produced: but whereas there is but a twofold holy use of the works of the creation – the one suited unto the state of innocency, and the moral-natural worship of God therein, which they had lost; the other to the state of grace, and the worship of God in that, which they had not attained, - the world and the inhabitants thereof, being otherwise involved in the curse and darkness wherewith it was attended, exercised themselves in fruitless speculations about them…and glorified not God in any due manner, Rom. i. 21. Neither do nor can men unto this day make any better improvement of their contemplation on the works of creation, who are unacquainted with the recapitulation of all things in Christ, and the beauty of it, that all things at first were made by him. "

I think this means that Owen would, for example, argue against any concept of common grace, or natural law, providing a 'neutral zone' where Christians and non-Christians can meet to do social-political-cultural work. God-honouring use of the creation in all of these activities (whether painting, building a bridge, teaching geography, or writing a song) is only possible when creation is viewed as properly belonging to, and destined for, the Lord Jesus Christ. God wants us to look at and treat creation as being subject to him.

All from John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. 81-82.

John Owen: The purpose of creation

2008-03-04T17:51:00.005Z

In drawing theological instruction from the description of the Son in the latter part of Hebrews 1:2 ('by whom he made the worlds') Owen argues that the creation always had the new creation in view:

“God designed from eternity that his great and everlasting glory should arise from the new creation.”

That's why the creation was made by the Son - the very one who would later become incarnate and inherit the creation as its Redeemer:

“God in infinite wisdom ordered all things in the first creation, so as that the whole of that work might be subservient to the glory of his grace in the new creation of all by Jesus Christ. By the Son he made the worlds in the beginning of time, that in the fullness of time he might be the just heir and lord of all.”

Or, put another way, “[a]ll things at first were made by him, that when they were lost, ruined, scattered, they might again, in the appointed seasons, be gathered together into one head in him.”

This, he argues, explains the idea in Romans 8:19-22 of creation eagerly awaiting the full manifestation of Christ's kingdom:

“The creation hath, as it were, a natural propensity, yea, a longing, to come into subjection unto Christ, as that which retrieves and frees it from the vanity, bondage, and corruption that it was cast into, when put out of its first order by sin. And this ariseth from that plot and design which God first laid in the creation of all things, that they, being made by the Son, should naturally and willingly, as it were, give up themselves unto obedience unto him, when he should take the rule of them upon the new account of his mediation.”

Creation was made in such a way (by the Son) as would fit with God's intention that it be redeemed and brought under the rule of Jesus Christ in his role as mediator.

All from John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. 77-81.

John Owen: The purpose of God in the call of Abraham

2008-03-04T10:04:00.004Z

Biblical theology and 'missiological readings of the bible story' are nothing new. Here's John Owen on Abraham and the nation of Israel:

“God having from the foundation of the world promised to bring forth the 'Seed of the woman,' to work out the redemption of his elect in the conquest of Satan, did, in the separation of Abraham from the rest of the world, begin to make provision of a peculiar stock, from whence the Seed of the woman should spring. That this was the cause and end of his call and separation is evident from hence, that immediately thereupon God assures him that ‘in his seed all the kindreds of the earth should be blessed,’ Gen xii. 1-3, xxii. 18; which is all one as if he had expressly said to him ‘For this cause have I chosen and called thee, that in thee I might lay a foundation of bringing forth the promised Seed, by whom the curse is to be taken away, and the blessing of everlasting life procured,’ as Gal iii. 13, 14. For this cause was his posterity continued in a state of separation from the rest of the world, that He might seek a godly seed to himself, Num. xxiii. 9; Mal. ii. 15: for this cause did he raise them into a civil, regal, and church state, that he might in them typify and prefigure the offices and benefits of the promised Messiah, who was to gather to himself the nations that were to be blessed in the seed of Abraham, Gen. xlix. 10; Ps xlv.; Hos. iii. 5; Ezek. xxxiv. 23. And all their sacrifices did but shadow out that great expiation of sin which he was to make in his own person…”

From: John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. p13.

Puritan Preaching

2008-02-28T20:00:00.003Z

Scattered thought arising from approximately four hours today spent discussing Puritan Preaching (material from a variety of sources).

1. Preaching puts forward the will of God from the word of God for the edification of the people of God.

2. Ministers must be bible experts, knowing the scriptures better than they know any other book.

3. Given the goal of edification, application is of most importance in preaching.

4. It is a sin to preach and have no application.

5. Application should be specific, direct, clearly arising from the teaching in question.

6. Application can console, exhort, admonish.

7. Exhortation involves spelling out the means of change as well as calling for such change.

8. Speech should be simple, and as unaffected as possible (the more affected the less effective - thanks Pete M).

9. Preaching should anticipate and deal with doubts and objections to the teaching in question.

10. Application should make listeners 'feel the word of God to be quick [i.e. alive] and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart' (Westminster Assembly Directory for the Publick Worship of God).

And a great quote (by a guy called Ryken, via a guy called Maclure) to round things off:

"For the Puritans, the sermon is not just hinged to Scripture; it quite literally exists inside the word of God; the text is not in the sermon but the sermon is in the text...listening to a sermon is being in the bible."

I have to admit to feeling rather like we are pygmies when we compare ourselves with these older brothers of ours. And I am a dwarf among the pygmies. Sometimes it feels like we are playing at sermons when we preach. Or half-starving the people. Or asking them to live off MacDonalds and Haribo. Or trying really hard to make the word of God boring.

But God is good, gracious, wise and sovereign. So, it must be time to pray more, devour more bible, think harder, graft longer, and focus more intently.

Did he ask for Britain?

2008-02-21T18:17:00.002Z

A few worthy blog-posts out there in Cyberdom.

Matthew Mason writes to his congregation on the Rowan/Sharia thing.

Douglas Wilson calls British Christians to imagine by faith. Best quote: "After the resurrection, the Lord Jesus was given this invitation -- ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. Does any Christian seriously want to say that Jesus was given this invitation and that He didn't ask for Great Britain?"

Against Relativism (by ER)

2008-02-18T10:12:00.004Z

This is really very good.

"I need someone who will look me in the eye and tell me how to find forgiveness, because I am running out of time."

(Thanks Dave Bish)

Faith in Public Life

2008-02-12T13:35:00.000Z

For Public Theology last semester we had to write a script for a ten minute talk on 'Is faith in public life good for Britain?' to be given to a mixed audience of Christians, secularists and agnostic fence-sitters (you can read about the real event this assignment was based on here). Below is my attempt. Reading it now, I'd make a couple of changes (more eschatology for a start). What I was trying to do was briefly and winsomely argue that the Christian faith ought to be the basis for public life, and that until that's the case, Christians will still love and serve in the public sphere where they legitimately can.

******

There are two things that us Brits are not allowed to talk about - religion and politics. Today we’re breaking all the rules by talking about both.

I have only a short amount of time, so I’ll dive straight in. I have two things I’d like to contribute to the discussion.

1. Faith and Public Life are inseparable.

Now, I am taking ‘faith’ here in a broader sense than is often used, though one that I think is actually more accurate. Possession of a faith, a system of beliefs, a way of looking at the world, a set of values and presuppositions, is common to all people. In this sense secular humanism is a faith just as much as Christianity or Buddhism are. Everyone operates on the basis of a set of beliefs about the world. I think once we’ve acknowledged that then it becomes clear that faith and public life cannot be separated. No-one can operate without presuppositions, values, a worldview, in any area of life. Someone can be inconsistent, or can dip in and out of or amalgamate several all at once – but no-one can be worldview-neutral.

Therefore, the call for ‘faith’ to be kept out of public life is really a non-starter, and a rather paradoxical one at that. In calling for a secular state, secularists are simply doing what the advocates of other worldviews have been doing for a long time with varying degrees of forcefulness, arguing that their worldview/faith is the right one for basing national public life on. Now, those who are secularists are entirely welcome to that opinion in one sense. But it can’t be claimed that secularism offers some kind of neutrality for public life. What secularists want is for people of every persuasion to adopt the values, the principles of the secularist worldview by leaving their Christianity or their Hinduism at the doors to the houses of parliament or the school gate.

This poses specific issues for Christians of course, since Christians believe (when they’re being consistent) that it is the message of Jesus Christ that provides the best basis for public life. Christians, of all people, should have massive problems with living out their faith in the private sphere of the home or church but in the public arena.

Which actually leads to my second point.

2. The Christian Faith provides a great basis for public life.

My argument is that national public life can only really work where there is a common worldview, or faith. The dream of a pluralistic state runs into problems the moment someone tries to write the constitution. A pluralist constitution would either have to be blank, in which the authority of the state is groundless and therefore tyrannical by definition, or else it could say something about everyone being right or everyone being wrong, which hardly holds promise for coherent and workable legislation. Can any state really refuse to take an ideological stance?

But I’d want to argue not just that we need a basis for public life, but that in actual fact the Christian Faith as such a basis is extremely beneficial. Because Christians believe their God to be the Creator God, the outrageous claim is that life based on Christianity is life lived according to the Maker’s just and loving standards, and therefore the best way of living, in the public as well as the private sphere.

(Of course there are historical examples of abuses in Christianity’s name. I don’t think it’s my job to make excuses for these and I wouldn’t want to try. I do think overall Christianity has brought enough prosperity, freedom, justice, to outweigh the genuine pain and sometimes horror that has been caused by some of the distortions and mistakes of its followers.) Aside from any historical arguments that can be made I want to argue that Christianity itself provides us with principles that are truly good for public life. There are many that could be highlighted (some that we are so used to enjoying we often forget their origins in Christianity), I want to briefly mention two.

a. The value of human life

Christians believe that murder, rape, violent assault, theft of property is wrong as do most people in our society. The difference is that Christian faith bases these values not on biology, evolutionary theory or the gut ‘yuk’ instinct of how distasteful such actions may seem. According to Christianity, human life is valuable because it is valued by its Creator. Human life is valuable because God makes, sustains, and preserves his creatures. Human beings are valuable because the Creator values them enough to work transforming justice and forgiveness where they’ve gone way off course. Because it teaches that God so highly values humanity, Christianity provides the basis for a society that treasures life.

b. Servant Leadership

In Christianity, leaders are servants. Leadership is not so much a position to be lorded over others, but a service to be exercised for the interests of others. This other-person-centredness flows from the very source of the faith himself – Jesus – the very epitome of ‘servant leadership’. A society following Christian principles would be led by servants not despots. That’s also why much current Christian involvement in the public square is characterised by service and love of neighbour.

Of course, us Christians would love to see our whole society voluntarily committing itself to a public life ordered on the principles of Christianity. But where that’s not the world we live in we’ll still serve, love, debate, comment, help in the public sphere alongside those who disagree with us as far as we are able and for as long as we are allowed. We’ll keep suggesting ways that the principles of our faith can benefit everyone. That’s because it’s only Christianity that provides a basis for genuinely serving those who, from a worldview perspective, might be in direct opposition to you. Because it’s only the founder of the Christian faith who gave his life for the sake of even his enemies.

"We live in a political world..."

2008-02-11T17:50:00.000Z

...as Bob Dylan once sang. And here in the UK the hoo-ha over Rowan William's comments about Sharia Law has proved that religion and politics can't really be separated.

I've posted before about this sort of stuff (see 'public theology' posts), but here and here are two recent posts by David Field saying what I'd already thought about the RW thing but in a much better way than I'd have said it.

Secondly, here's another David Field post on some lectures given at the weekend somewhat pertinent to the same issues.

Philippians 2:9-11.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Quiet Day

2008-02-07T15:33:00.001Z

Today is our annual college quiet day. But, what's so good about being quiet?

I've been (quietly) reading through the Psalms and have noticed that sometimes being placed in silence is a sign of judgment:

Let the wicked be put to shame;
let them go silently to Sheol.
[Psalm 31:17b]

Whereas, sometimes, being in the midst of noise is a great thing:

You surround me with shouts of deliverance
[Psalm 32:7b]

And sometimes making a noise is a good thing too:

Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous,
and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!
[Psalm 32:11]

Quiet times? Quiet days? Here's to a far more noisy spirituality in the future.

(But, so that I don't go overboard in this anti-quietness thing, and remember the balance of scripture, sometimes shutting up is exactly the right thing to do: Job 40:3-5)

Chuckle-headed Calvinism

2008-02-07T10:40:00.000Z

The Mrs and I greatly enjoyed Doug Wilson's visit to college last night in which he shared wisdom and stories from his 30-year pastorate. He talked winsomely of his becoming a postmillenialist, a calvinist and a paedobaptist (it did happen in that order), and of his church's involvement in making Christian schooling happen.

Of course, it is unfair to boil someone's words down to mere soundbite, but there were a few memorable nuggets on offer last night (the quotations are not exact, but hopefully capture the spirit and intention of the originals):

"Whoever came up with the phrase 'limited atonement' was no doubt a theological genius, but he was a PR chucklehead."

"Christians fighting over baptism is like fighting over the ring at a wedding."

"Of all the theological shifts I've made over the years, becoming a postmillenialist was the only one that was fun."

Wilson also spoke of the need for churches that disagree to have a strong-headed partnership in the gospel, of how pastoring involves patiently leading for change in people rather than expecting instant conforming to the ideal in our heads, and of how liturgy vs emphasis on the bible is a false dichotomy. Therefore, we were encouraged, by example, to be about reforming the church and the world, by God's grace and by God-given means.

[NB. David Field puts it all a lot better than I have HERE]

The Gospel for all of Life 2

2008-01-31T23:03:00.000Z

Here are some notes from two seminars I did here last weekend for various leaders of various ministries. The overall title was 'Far-reaching Discipleship: The Gospel for all of life' and the sessions had the very simple aim of trying to expand everyone's concept of what being and making disciples involves. Session 1 had argued that the gospel is centred upon Jesus' Lordship.

Session 2: Because Jesus is Lord, discipleship is deep and wide

Matthew 28:18-20
The logic of the great commission - because Jesus has all authority, go and disciple. The job of making disciples is to be as all-encompassing as Jesus’ Lordship is (all authority - all nations - all that Jesus commanded). All-encompassing Lordship mean all-encompassing discipleship.

1. Discipleship is wide

A. Every Nation
The bible speaks expansively of the number of the redeemed. Jesus’ kingdom will be the biggest the world has ever known.

B. Every Person
As long as someone denies that Jesus is Lord the work of making disciples continues.

2. Discipleship is deep

A. The Whole Person
2 Corinthians 10:5 & Deuteronomy 6:4-5. No part of us is off-limits to the gospel.

B. The Whole of Life
No sacred-secular divide. No neutral zone. No closet Christianity

Examples of areas we usually don't think of in this way: Politics, Culture/Art/Music, Work.

The gospel of Jesus’ Lordship should shape how we think about and how we do everything.

This changes the way we read the bible/ the questions we ask. What does the bible tells us about architecture, psychology, medical biology, greengrocery, chewing gum, fashion, beer, the environment, weather, dentistry, playing the oboe, fishing, parenting? We should expect the bible to speak to all of these areas.

Everything belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ and until everything is organised and ordered under him and his ways, then it is not ordered correctly.

3. Conclusion and Expectations

The gospel is moral, cultural, global. So, therefore, is discipleship.

Progress is real. Therefore expect it, pray for it, plan for it.

Progress is progressive. Therefore be patient (God is).

The Gospel for all of Life 1

2008-01-31T22:20:00.000Z

Here are some notes from two seminars I did here last weekend for various leaders of various ministries. The overall title was 'Far-reaching Discipleship: The Gospel for all of life' and the sessions had the very simple aim of trying to expand everyone's concept of what being and making disciples involves.

Session 1: The gospel is about the Lordship/rule of Jesus Christ.

1. How Jesus summarised the Gospel – The Kingdom of God

The gospel is about the kingdom of God. In and through Jesus, God is ruling in such a way as to sort out creation, defeat death, save his people, destroy his enemies

Mark 1:15
Isa 52:7
Colossians 1:14-23
1 Corinthians 15:22-26

2. Ηow the NT authors summarised the Gospel - ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’

Romans 1:1-4. Jesus is the Christ and Son of God from Psalm 2. He has inherited the rebellious nations of the world and rules over them. “Jesus Christ our Lord” is Paul’s summary, which is repeated throughout the NT (e.g. Mark 1:1, John 20:31, Acts 2:36, Acts 16:31, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 2 Corinthians 4:3-5, 2 Timothy 2:8, Romans 10:9 and Philippians 2:11).

In the gospel God is saying to the world “Jesus Christ is Lord”

3. Key events of the Gospel

NT authors also highlight some key events in their gospel summaries. Jesus' Lordship is never far in the background.

Cross = establishing his reign, populating his kingdom. Revelation 5: 9-10

Resurrection = declaration of Jesus’ Lordship/Sonship. Romans 1:4

Ascension = installation as ruler of the universe. 1 Peter 3:22, Ephesians 1:20-23

4. Summary

The Gospel is a declaration of regime change.
The gospel is God’s declaration to the world that Jesus Christ owns this world and everything and everyone in it. This is good news because his Lordship involves sorting creation out by defeating sin, saving his people, destroying death, crushing his enemies.

5. Brief implications

So what does all this mean? Some starters:

Faith involves personal allegiance
If the gospel that we’re asking people to believe that 'Jesus is Lord' then faith involves a change of allegiance, swapping sides, yielding to Jesus the Lord.

Therefore…

Faith results in obedience
We can’t really believe the gospel message that says ‘Jesus is Lord’ and go on as if he’s not.

Therefore…

We must say no to pitting 'mission' against 'maturity'
The same gospel that says Jesus Christ is Lord drives us out into the world and compels us to deep ever deeper roots into Christ.

Final Semester

2008-01-28T10:06:00.000Z

2008 is here. Semester 2, year 3 begins today. While fighting off the mild panic (I only have x number of weeks left to make the most of this important phase in training for ministry) here's what I'll be studying:

The Doctrine of Salvation. Does what it says on the tin. Doctrine, plenty of it, and about salvation.

Psalms. Final attempt to get my Hebrew at least functional amidst immersion in the bible's hymn-book.

Puritan Models of Ministry. Learning from the heirs of the reformation. Last year's module handouts can be found here.

10 on the Law

2008-01-25T16:12:00.000Z

One of THE single most important theological and pastoral issues is the relationship between Christian living and the law.

Here's ten words giving some of my reasons why I reject an absolute antithesis between law and gospel and some sort of summary of how I think we should relate to the OT law.

1. The law was never intended as a system of meriting salvation. In fact, the sacrificial system and priesthood at the centre of the law were about grace, forgiveness, propitiation.

2. One way of summarising the gospel is 'Jesus Christ is Lord.' This means immediately that the concept of 'law' (i.e. commands you really must obey) is included within the gospel itself. I can't say I believe that Jesus is Lord and then totally willfully persistently ignore everything the Lord wants me to do. It just doesn't make sense.

3. Then, add to 2. the fact that obedience to Jesus Christ is often described using commands from the Old Testament law (yes, modified and transformed by the salvation-history context)...

4. ...then add to 2. and 3. the fact that the Christian's love-response to Jesus Christ is described as fulfilling the law...

5. ....then add to 2., 3. and 4. the fact that Christ himself thought he was fulfilling the law in his life and in his teaching....

6. ...and what do you get? I think you get the idea that the Christian is, although not under the law (i.e. we don't live under the Mosaic administration of the covenant, we are not living between Sinai and the cross, but between the cross and eternity), under Christ, but, that being under Christ means being under someone whose commands are the fulfillment of the law.

7. In other words Christians should relate to the Mosaic law in the same basic way that we relate to all of the Old Testament - through Christ. The law comes to us, not in exactly the same way it did to the Israelites as they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai, but transformed, renewed, changed, by the fact that the law has found its climax in the life and work and revelation of Jesus Christ the Lord. The law is for us because it speaks of Christ, by showing us our need of him by exposing sin, by helping us fill out the content of what obedience to Christ looks like, etc. The law is there to instruct and train us in righteous living.

8. Point 7. will look quite different depending (in part) on the law in question. The way I approach the food laws of Leviticus will look quite different to the way I approach 'do not murder' but in neither case can I write off the law as irrelevant to Christian living, nor can I simply lift the law straight out of the Old Testament without reflection on the fact that Christ has brought things to a climax.

9. 'Spirit vs. law' is ultimately a non-starter too, since the Spirit writes the law on our hearts.

10. Were the writers of psalm 19 and psalm 119 simply off their heads, or were they the worst sort of pharisaical legalists? Or could it be that for the living-by-grace Christian the law is a great friend since it communicates the wise requirements of our loving and holy King?

Til we have built Jerusalem...

2008-01-24T17:26:00.000Z

I've never noticed before that in Isaiah 40:9 it is Zion/ Jerusalem that is the herald of the good news of the end of the exile.

I think this paves the way for the church on earth, not just as gathered in heaven, being considered 'Zion', since it is the church as gathered on earth that proclaims the good news of Jesus' exile-ending cross and resurrection.

It seems to me that this might help a little bit with the apparent 'tension' between the OT and NT perspectives on mission. Isaiah 2:1-4 views mission as the word going out from Jerusalem and bringing people in to Jerusalem. However, the NT sees the word going out from Jerusalem, sure, but it seems to stays out, creating localised congregations everywhere it goes. Where is the vision of the nations being brought into Jerusalem? Answers include

1. Jesus 'is' Jerusalem - the word draws people to him.

2. The new Jerusalem 'is' Jerusalem, the word draws people to this heavenly city.

To which I can now joyfully add a third

3. The Church on earth 'is' Jerusalem. The word goes out from her and draws people to her.

I don't think this says anything new at all. But I like this way of thinking about it since it helps us to see that mission work isn't just something that takes effect in the heavenlies, but also something that is manifested on the earth. We really do gather people to Zion, the community gathered around Jesus on earth (as it is in heaven). We might even say that part of experiencing salvation is experiencing the church as she is now on earth.

Which tells us something we all knew all along anyway - church-planting is part of the fufillment of Isaiah 2. Great.

Bible-Bashing?

2008-01-23T16:41:00.000Z

Today I received an email from a major distributor of Christian books. They were emailing to advertise their extensive selection of bibles. The email was titled 'Your Bible, Your Choice' and included the following list of the different types of bible they sell:

By Translation
By Occasion
Favourite
Devotional
Study
Reference
Parallel
Audio
Spanish
Large Print
For Men
For Women
For Infants
For Children
For Tweens
For Families
For Academics
For Your Valentine

A visit to their website revealed this list only told part of the story. In fact you can choose your bible according to size, colour, season, or your favourite doctrine (I'm curious as to what a 'Spirit-filled life bible ' actually is).

I can't decide whether the fact that this makes me feel uncomfortable is a good thing or whether in actual fact I'm turning into a grumpy so-and-so.

Is the list above evidence of something fairly healthy (say, getting the word of God to as many people in as many ways as possible) or something rather more rancid (say, the adoption within evangelicalism of all that smells bad about individualism, consumerism and the worship of choice, and a me-centred desire to have even God Most High speak to me on my terms)?

Answers on a post-card (of your choice of colour, size, picture, message, gender, season...)

The importance of being humble

2008-01-11T14:31:00.000Z

One of the things I've come to see over the last three years is that some of the things that I didn't think mattered that much, really really do matter.

But all of this is not to say that everything matters to exactly the same degree or at the same time. David Field is passionate and persuasive about covenant infant baptism, but here he is explaining his personal experience of fellowship in a baptist church and the baptism of his own children.

It's a reminder to people like me (who arrived at college fairly convinced paedobaptists, and are now really really convinced and keen to advocate and teach it for the sake of Christ) of the need for patience, gentleness, respect, love and never being more exclusive than Christ is. As I finish semester 1 of my final year, and really do start to look forward (in both senses of the phrase) to the next stage, it seems extremely important to remember that.

Also available at Dr Field's blog are the essay questions I'll be selecting from for semester 2's Puritans module.

Why do we have lions?

2008-01-08T15:31:00.000Z

More from Doctrine revision...

- Creation is there to reveal God. It's why creation exists.

- This includes the words of the bible, which are themselves a part of creation, and talk about God with created words which reference other parts of creation ('God is a rock').

- So, one of the things we can say about creation is that God made it this way so that the bible could say what it does say in the way that it says it.

- So, why do lions exist? Because of the Lord Jesus Christ (Revelation 5:5).

From revision for the Doctrine of God exam...

2008-01-08T14:01:00.000Z

Why is communication possible? Because God is a Trinity.

1. All speech is somewhat analogical (when I say 'dog' to you, there's enough similarity between the picture of a barking beast in your head and the same picture in my head that I'm signifying by the word 'dog' for us to meaningfully communicate, but my 'dog' and your 'dog' are not exactly the same thing).

2. So all speech requires a world where things reflect other things.

3. Only a God who himself is a reflection of himself could create a world full of reflection (otherwise, where'd he get the 'idea' of reflection from if it didn't somehow exist within himself 'before' he made the world).

4. Only a trinitarian God can be, within himself, an eternal reflection of himself (the Father reflects the Son and so on).

5. People who believe in a divine Monad (Islam, Judaism) have no basis for communication. They are unable to account for why we have a world where communication is possible, or why human beings communicate.

[6. So, unless you believe in the Trinity, you might as well keep quiet :) ]

On 'doing God' or not

2007-12-27T15:22:00.001Z

Should be writing essay(s) in this pause in the festivities, but I read an interesting article the other day. Matthew Parris talks a lot of sense sometimes. Here he is on how it matters whether or not our politicians believe in God:

We non-believers are always puzzled by protests that strong religious conviction could be without huge influence in the way a man lives his public as well as his private life. We read the Gospels (sometimes with more attention than believers seem to); we learn about Judaic beliefs in God's purpose for the Jews and for mankind; we hear and try to understand the claims of Islam; and it strikes us that these belief systems make enormous claims on their adherents, with the most profound practical consequences.

...We think it matters. It genuinely pains us to seem to insult nice Anglicans, decent Methodists, quiet Catholics, moderate Muslims and liberal Jews, but we don't think they're representative of their faiths militant.

The rest of the article is here. I totally disagree with his stance (he thinks it's a bad thing when politicians believe in God) but I couldn't agree more about the silly idea that it simply makes no difference.

Those Christians living in Nick Clegg's constituency should take note. It matters.

The government we deserve? (updated)

2007-12-19T11:33:00.000Z

Matthew Mason's post here hits the spot in my opinion. If we have complaints about the government we might need to first ask questions about the Church.

Towards the redemption of television

2007-12-17T10:34:00.000Z

Still not sure I know the answer to the question I posed in the previous post. But the points below seem like good things to be getting on with, some more long term than others, some more specific than others.

These points are part-stolen, part-adapted from Schultze's "Redeeming Television."

1. Christians should be discriminating viewers of TV.
Rather than start by blaming the television industry or some other institution, Schultze suggests getting our own TV habits in order first. Christians must be discerning, and Christian parents in particular must teach and train their families to make careful, considered viewing choices. Discernment means finding the good to enjoy. Discernment means balancing television appropriately with all the priorities and tasks we have in life.

2. Christians should push for televisual literacy in education.
The medium we choose shapes the message. Communication methods encourage certain patterns of thought, certain ways of learning, certain kinds of worldview. Television is biased in a certain way, just as print is. Television, as it currently stands, tends towards fragmentation/ incoherence, the valuing of entertainment as the way to communicate anything, and a bunch of other things. People more aware of these tendencies are in a better position to interpret these inherent (whether intended or accidental) messages.

3. Christians should be active in TV protest.
Whether writing in to the BBC, or filling in the market researcher’s form, or signing the appropriate petition, Christians should make known their views on television as it currently stands. These views, of course, should come from analysis of television from the perspective of a biblical worldview. It might be that some Christians should voice their ‘protest’ by exercising their consumer choice in not buying a TV license.

4. Christians should work to redeem television’s institutions.
TV belongs to God. The technology, but also the institutions, the personnel, the programmes. Christians who are talented and thus inclined should enter the industry and seek to change priorities, make Christ’s values known, bring others to Christ, and live out their Christian faith within the TV world. Living with integrity within any sphere dominated by more secular (or just confused in a sort of postmodern way) agendas will be extremely difficult, and Christians must be prepared to lose their jobs for the sake of doing so. But it might also turn out that some are able to change some things for the good. Christians in the media world need help, encouragement, challenge, not suspicion from well-meaning Pastors.

5. Christians should work to provide alternatives to secular television.
One of the problems with Christian television is that it is often an inferior version of the secular. Just like a lot of Christian pop music. Rather, Christian television should pursue aesthetic and artistic excellency. Christian TV programmes should be good, not cringeworthy. Christian TV should be innovative, creative, not merely a low budget version of Trisha with a sheen of ‘God-talk’. This is probably where we’re ‘furthest back.’ So much work needs to be done in the area of a Christian perspective on beauty/ aesthetics/ art/ story-telling before Christian cultural produce can be more like what it should be.

6. Christians should prioritise evangelism and holistic discipleship.
Ultimately, bringing TV to glorify God comes from the transformation of people into God-glorifiers in all areas of their lives. Preaching Christ (the whole Christ that is) will always be the first stone in the jar.

Redeeming Television?

2007-12-14T15:08:00.000Z

“Redemptive cultural discourse seeks to redeem culture from a fallen world, to rehabilitate, to reconfigure, and to reorient culture to the glory and service of God, that is, to cause culture to affirm God as the awesome and beautiful Lord of creation.” (Here for full article)

Here's probably the biggest question I have coming away from my own seminar on television. What does the above look like in the case of television?

Some people might think television is simply irredeemable (others might get itchy at the use of the language of redemption for anything other than people, but I might blog on that another day).

And for sure, human technology is not neutral, nothing is.

And certainly there's a whole load of godless bilge out there on the box.

But then they're not necessarily evil in and of themselves either. Rather, they're biased (thanks to Doug Wilson, via David Batchelor for this) - prone to certain specific temptations and tendencies. Like money.

And that doesn't mean TV is irredeemable.

Television

2007-12-14T14:49:00.000Z

Television has come in for a lot of bad press. It is the drug of the nation, the tool for numbing us into mindless obedience to the status quo in the hands of the establishment. It causes obesity, family breakdown and postmodernism.

Or, on the other hand, it is the mechanism through which God speaks to us in the questions, struggles, doubts, hopes, dreams, confessions of the nation. It is the 'common grace donkey' through which we hear God's prophetic voice calling us into dealings with him.

These, and related matters, were discussed in a seminar I had to lead this past Wednesday on media. I chose to focus on television because it is really really popular, and really really easy to have a go at. I wanted to see what, positively and negatively, a Christian worldview could make of television. In the end I got far more questions than answers. Matters for further though/ action/ study include:

What is the proper relationship between words and images? I suspect the answer starts to be answered once we engage with the specifics of the relationship between God's general revelation and his special revelation, between the two halves of Psalm 19.

Relatedly, since God gave us a book not a video, are text-based cultures the bees knees? Are they better than image-based ones? Better than oral cultures? Are they the only sort of culture the gospel produces?

Relatedly again, should we be seeking to go backwards (to text) or forwards (from image). What would moving on from the negatives of a very visual culture mean?
How do we evangelise and disciple post-literates and illiterates? And people with very different learning styles?

How do we help people engage critically and christianly with television? How do we help them 'tame' it and use it with moderation?

How do we disciple those Christians already working within the media world and encourage them to have a transformative, provocative, positive Christian presence and witness in that sphere?

Answers on a postcard to the usual address please.

Christianophobia in Public Life (updated)

2007-12-05T09:18:00.000Z

Interesting BBC article here about a debate being held in Westminster today.

What's more, here is a BBC report on some of what was said at the debate and the website of the MP who called for it.

Gospel Optimism 9: Headlines and Eschatology

2007-11-30T14:09:00.000Z

Simply put, one of the reasons optimistic eschatology fell from a place of dominance to occupy the sidelines of the evangelical world was that two world wars and the social-moral upheavals of the 20th century seemed to suggest things really could only get worse. But of course, it's bad news for theology to be based on the newspaper headlines rather than thoughtful, careful examination of the scriptures.

The Jollyblogger thinks postmillenialism might be making a comeback, and that this might be linked to brighter headlines in the US. He (not a post-mill) thinks it would be quite a good thing for postmillenialism to come back, but that any comeback shouldn't be based on the news headlines. I (a post-mill) agree with him on both counts.

Also of note, the article he links to includes an intriguing comment;

These days many evangelicals talk like premillennialists but act like postmillennialists. They expect the world to get worse and worse but preach the gospel, lobby politicians, and fight for social justice in order to make it a better place.

"Be still and know that I am God"

2007-11-30T13:20:00.000Z

Really great stuff yesterday in chapel on Psalm 46 where (watery) chaos in creation and rebellious chaos among the nations are linked together. Psalm 46 shows that the God who can subdue creation with his word, will also subdue the nations, save his city, end war. And he'll do that by his word also - his command to be still and know that he is God. The echoes of Psalm 2 (the raging of the nations) lead us to expect that God to do it all through his anointed Son/King.

Of particular help on thursday, therefore, was the connection made between vs10 and Mark 4:36-41. Jesus calms the storm as the Son/King with God's authority to rule. The calming of the storm thus indicates not only (!) Jesus' power over the physical elements of creation as the one who can speak chaos into order, but, in the light of Psalm 46:10, we should link that same 'chaos into order' re-creational authority with his destiny to be exalted among the nations. The Lord Jesus is the master of all the chaos in his creation, whether that's human rebellion or natural disaster.

So it's not surprising that in Mark the calming of the storm comes straight after a section which emphasises the need to trust the word of the king to build the kingdom, despite apparent failure and the rejected/ hidden identity of the King himself. The Psalm 46-echoing events out at sea were a visible manifestation of the kingdom-establishing, creation-restoring, God's people-protecting authority and potency of Jesus' words. The waves were told to be still, and the disciples should've known that here in the boat was their God.

Psalm 46:10 continues to be the Lord Jesus' command to all that is chaotic in his creation.

“Be still, and know that I am God.
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth!”

Through New Eyes 4

2007-11-26T22:47:00.000Z

James B Jordan is a transformationist. He thinks culture matters, and that Christians should develop Christian culture.

One of the arguments against Christian involvement in transforming culture is that cultural produce doesn't last, so is only good in the sense that it can help us to learn how to be more godly, or in as much as it might be useful somehow for evangelism. Jordan's view is different.

This second aspect also gives perspective to the transitory nature of human works. The great paintings of the Reformation era are darkening and cracking with age. Many have been destroyed in wars. Of Bach’s five great Passions, only two are extant. All our works are like castles of sand. Thus, it is sometimes argued that human work in the creation has meaning only in that it trains men: Adam himself is progressively transformed and glorified through the six-fold action. While this touches an important truth, the problem is with the word “only.” By itself, the notion that human labor exists only to train men reduces the value of work only to the subjective dimension. The objective foundation needed is the confession that human labor, if it is ultimately worthwhile, progressively reveals and glorifies God. Even if the artifact does not itself endure, like the crude sketches of a child, the revelation of God and glorification of the creation is cumulative (p124).

Our task is to 'do' the being human/ Genesis 1-2 thing called 'culture' in such a way that God's glory is reflected back to him. That can never be a worthless activity, or useful only in the sense that it morally has an impact on me.

More on Jacob

2007-11-21T13:55:00.000Z

Here's some stuff that didn't go into the chapel meditation on Genesis 29:21-30 (mostly inspired by or directly stolen from Wenham, Jordan and Cotter).

Rachel's name means (apparently) 'ewe' or 'lamb' or something like that. This makes an interesting parallel between her and the flock(s) Jacob gains from Laban, and of course the flock Jesus snatches from the clutches of the 'strong man.'

Rachel is therefore the bride of the heir, and as such is his flock/lamb, but also she is described as a Shepherdess (and is the only person thus designated in the scripture). Cue some thoughts on the church as the bride/flock/shepherdess of Christ the husband/shepherd. The Church both receives Christ's shepherdly care as well as partnering him in it.

This also sets up an interesting parallel with Leah, whose name means 'wild cow.' Not sure what to make of that.

The key to the whole Jacob narrative seems to be when the LORD wrestles with him and we find that all of Jacob's struggles have been divinely appointed as the means to his prevailing. Jacob's limp becomes a sign of victory-through-weakness.

Jacob's question in 29:25 resembles the LORD's (to Eve) in 3:13, Pharaoh's (to Abraham) in 12:18 and Abimelech's (to Isaac) in 26:10. They all refer to occasions of deception.

Also, there must be something in the fact that Jacob has to work seven years for each wife, and that the seven-day wedding feast is called a 'week' , especially given that this is Genesis - the book that begins with the first ever week. But what I'm not sure yet.

The positive portrayal of Jacob flows in some senses from the somewhat more negative portrayal of Isaac. Given how much of the Abraham narrative is about the birth of Isaac in some way or another, given that he's the child of promise, his whole part in the story is a bit of a let down to some extent. If anything, we might have expected him to be the one who had lots of sons and gave birth to a nation. But in some senses his part in the story doesn't move the promises on to fulfillment very much at all. That is left rather to Jacob who plays a far more significant role in the founding of the nation, and whose sojourner experiences mirror the future experiences of Israel. Could this relate to the way that Jacob talks about Isaac in 31:42 where he says the LORD is the God of Abraham but the 'fear' of Isaac?

Jacob, Leah and Rachel

2007-11-21T09:09:00.000Z

I had the privilege of preaching on Genesis 29:21-30 this morning in chapel. Here's the gist of it.

The passage is not really about Jacob getting a taste of his own medicine, but comes as part of a wider narrative which emphasises the hardship the LORD puts him through en route to promised blessing. Genesis is more positive than negative about Jacob - every time the LORD speaks to or about him it is to promise blessing. He has, after all, chosen Jacob over Esau, and Jacob is described as a 'blameless' or 'complete' man back in 25:27 ('quiet' in the ESV seems an odd translation).

The route to blessing in the land is paved with hardship as a sojourner and a servant (32:4) in a foreign land. Jacob faces exclusion from his family (Laban treats him as a hired hand), deception and exploitation, and has his claims to being heir mocked by Laban (in 29:26 Laban echoes God's choice of Jacob over Esau and says 'that's not how we do it round here mate!'). The one whom the nations were supposed to serve (27:29) becomes a servant himself.

Yet, this is the LORD's doing. In fact, the LORD uses the hardship instrumentally in his fulfilling of the Abrahamic promise. All four women mentioned in the passage feature in the very next section as mothers to Jacob's children- the patriarchs of Israel. Whatever we may want to say in another context about polygamy, here the LORD turns Laban's deception into Jacob's blessing. A similar pattern follows, such that when Jacob leaves Laban Exodus-style to head to the promised land he has wives, servants, children and sheep all in tow.

As such, Jacob serves as an echo of Israel's own experience in Egypt and eventually in exile too. Moreover, the heir par excellence to the Abrahamic promises undergoes treatment like that Jacob faced. He is the heir who takes the place of a servant, who submits to his enemies deception and exploitation in order to win his bride, is excluded from his family and has his claims to sonship mocked. Yet, this is all used by God to fulfill the promise to Abraham. The Son will have his bride, his children and his land. The nations will bow down and serve him.

As God's heirs we too should expect to receive the blessings of the covenant via hardship. Whether it is blessings we experience now or the final blessing in the new creation-land, the route there is paved with hardship. We know that, whatever hard times we go through, God has designed them to be our necessary route to glory and blessing. So, we must learn to be like Jacob by grabbing a hold of Jesus' coat tails and following him.

O come all ye faithless...

2007-11-19T12:19:00.000Z

There's something wrong with this promotion that bookshop Borders have notified me about: a special Christmas promotion of Dawkin's The God Delusion in which each copy comes with a 'come all ye faithless' Christmas card.

Postmillenialism and Suffering 3 (updated)

2007-11-13T17:58:00.000Z

The Christian life is characterised by the cross. Does this refute postmillenialism - the idea that the gospel will triumph in history?

1. Of course, we must affirm that the Christian life is characterised by the cross. To say anything less is an over-realised eschatology. However, we can say more (and a-mill brothers and sisters would of course want to agree with this) – the Christian life is characterised by the cross because of union with Christ.

2. Union is with the whole of him, and therefore his resurrection as well as his cross.

3. In fact the two (cross and resurrection) cannot be separated. For the cross is the route to glory, the cross is (because of the resurrection) an example of victory through suffering. The Christian life is a life of cross and resurrection.

4. But what shape does this victory/resurrection aspect of the Christian life take in the present (i.e. before its ultimate in bodily resurrection at the 2nd coming)?

a. Patient endurance despite persecution and suffering.
b. Justification.
c. Regeneration.
d. Sanctification (progressive, though not perfect, victory over sin in the life of the believer, increasing moral conformity to Christ, etc.).

Few would disagree with a. through d. However, are there any other manifestations of resurrection-life/victory-through suffering spoken of in the scripture? I would say yes. Consider these verses from 1 Peter - an epistle in some ways majoring on the 'Christian life involves suffering and persecution' theme;

1 Peter 2:11-12. The suffering of the Christian under persecution results in the conversion of the persecutor.

1 Peter 2:15. The good living under fire of the Christian silences the ignorance of the persecutor.

1 Peter 5:10. God establishes and strengthens the church after she has suffered for a little while.

The poignant thing here is how these promises of victory are connected to persecution. Now, we could argue forever about ‘when’ 5:10 happens – is it within history or only at the 2nd coming? But, it is pretty hard to argue that 1 Peter 2:11-12 and 15 are only to be experienced at the 2nd coming. Even if ‘the day of visitation’ is ‘end of time judgment day’ (which I don’t think it is) then what is being predicted in that verse is still undoubtedly conversion – a within-history victory of the gospel over some of the church’s persecutors.

Also, just because Peter seems only to be putting forward 2:11-12 as a possibility doesn’t undermine the point. It’s clearly something that does happen (Saul of Tarsus anyone?) – I assume Peter’s uncertainty to be related to his not knowing the elect status of the specific persecutor’s in mind, rather than his doubting that this is a strategy for gospel growth that God uses! That he even puts it forward as a possibility shows that we have a further category to add to a. to d. with regard to the sort of victory that the Church can experience within history.

e. Gospel-conquest through the cross-living of the Church.

Peter doesn’t see this silencing and converting of former persecutors as being in conflict with the cross-shaped reality of the Christian life. Rather he sees the cross-living of Christians as instrumental in the whole thing.

The point is not that these verses somehow prove postmillenialism (there are many other passages and themes that we could turn to for mounting that argument) but rather that, even before considering 'proof-texts' for postmillenialism it can be demonstrated that e. is a part of the resurrection/victory side of union with Christ experienced by the Church prior to Christ's return. That the Christian life is cross-shaped does not mean the gospel won't win, or that persecution can't be reduced by that victory. Postmillennialism argues that what the apostle Peter is suggesting could happen on a local scale for the believers in Asia Minor, the bible elsewhere predicts will eventually and gradually happen on a massive scale before Jesus Christ returns. Cross-shaped living is instrumental in the victory of the gospel.

Typology and my 'never gonna do it' phd.

2007-11-09T13:41:00.000Z

I sometimes wonder that if I had the inclination/ discipline/ ability/ time to do a phd, I would do it on something to do with typology (here for some stuff on someone else's thought on typology).

I'd want to investigate the possibility that typology (as a view of history) is the fundamental presupposition/ basis for the way the different phases of the bible relate to one another, in particular for the relationship between the new and the old testaments. I'd probably want to investigate in particular my hunch that typology undergirds the ways the apostles and other NT authors interpreted the OT, and that all the different ways of describing how we 'get to Christ' from the OT are bound together by typology in some way.

I think some of the cash-value would be;

Rescuing apostolic exegesis from those who want to say we can't imitate their methods.

Opening up a greater appreciation for some patristic exegesis (and providing a proper framework for assessing when analogical stuff goes too far).

Moving towards developing a philosophy of history that is biblical and Christological.

Increasing people's appreciation (including my own) for Hebrew narrative (which, it strikes me, has a fair bit of typology in it).

Thinking through issues of referent and fulfilment(s) of prophecy in all the bible.

Opening up levels of typological allusion that will enrich the church's understanding of scripture and combat exegetical minimalism.

Moving towards providing a framework for a balanced assessment of maximalism and its proper bounds.

Give some tools for genuine word ministry among not-so-wordy cultures (I suspect typology, with its associational way of thinking has lots to help 'less booky' people)..

In other words, it would help me (and hopefully others among God's people) gain a better grasp of the richness of history, Christ, the old testament, prophecy, and teaching ministry.

God is Love

2007-11-08T15:28:00.000Z

Today in Doctrine of God we had a disputation (a bit like a debate) on the following proposition;

'God is an eternal trinity of love. This means that it is unthinkable for him to act toward any creature in a way that does not pursue that creature’s highest good. We cannot, therefore, believe in the Calvinist doctrine of election, the limitation of the atonement to the elect, or the abhorrent idea that anyone might be abandoned to eternal punishment.'

How should such a statement be argued against? Some of the points emerging from class-time were;

All depends how you define 'good' and 'love'.

God is love, but he's also a lot of other things too. These attributes are not in competition - God is 'simple' in this sense.

A lot of biblical texts seem to talk about election/ particular redemption/ eternal punishment. How can we just write them off?

God is most concerned for his glory. That is, his trinitarian love commits him to seeking the good/ honour/glorification of himself. He is glorified when he punishes sinners as well as when he saves them.

The Father really really loves the Son and wants him to be firstborn of many brothers.

The Father really really loves the Son and that is bad news for those who disobey the Son.

What did emerge is that those arguing from a reformed perspective need to reckon with the fact that (in many communication situations in present-day UK) the truth of the proposition above carries a great deal of emotional weight. This is especially true when someone presses the question of just how God can be glorified/ find pleasure in the sending of many people to eternal punishment. "How can a loving God send people to hell?" is an instinctive question to ask, and people feel that the bible is on the back-foot on this one. If we want to win over hearts to God's word, we need to think about how to defend the truth emotionally as well as logically.

Ephesians and the Armour of God

2007-11-05T13:34:00.000Z

We've just come back from a great weekend in the peak district with Christ Church Central. Humble, lucid, timely teaching from Ephesians was provided by Simon Austen from Carlisle.

Simon focussed on what we learn about the Church in Ephesians . We saw that the Church is the

apologetic for the power of the gospel
new humanity/temple/household built on Christ in the Spirit
outpost of the kingdom of Christ
plan of God for creation and history
product and agent of gospel progress

Particularly exciting were his insights into Ephesians 6:10-20 and the armour of God. Austen argued that the armour belongs to the conquering Messiah as described in Isaiah 11:1-5, 49:1-3 and 61:10 (also Psalm 18:35?), and is ours because we are united with him (hence, 'be strong in the Lord and in the might of his strength').

So, Christ sits victoriously enthroned above all powers (Eph 1:20-22), and through his church (which is dressed in his armour - no wonder since it's his body, 1:22-23) wages war on the very same powers and authorities (6:12). As the church stands against the schemes of the devil and pushes forward with the sword of the Spirit, Christ is bringing all things under himself in accordance with the Father's plan (1:10, 20-22).

I'll try and remember that the next time I feel disappointed with/ tired of or grumpy about [the] [C/]church.

Postmillenialism and Suffering 2

2007-11-02T14:13:00.001Z

There's some helpful distinctions made here for anyone interested.

Postmillenialism and Suffering 1

2007-11-01T15:57:00.000Z

One of the big big problems some people have with the idea that Jesus will return to a majority-Christian earth at his second coming is that such a situation would presumably require a very significant reduction in persecution. And, after all, doesn't the bible say that Christians should expect persecution?

The obvious thing to say upfront is that Christians will always suffer until the second coming (in their struggle against sin, in their coping with a dying and decaying body, in their having to set aside their own interests to serve and honour others etc.). But should all Christians at all times in history expect to experience suffering of the persecution variety? Here are my initial problems with such a view;

A. It hasn’t been true for all Christians throughout every period of history.

B. It isn’t true for all Christians throughout the world now.

C. A and B haven't always been because of unfaithfulness/compromise/laziness. Sometimes it has just been because of significant levels of gospel progress. (I wonder if one of the reasons white western middle class Christians might feel uncomfortable about postmill'ism is because we carry a lot of guilt about not being persecuted and fear, perhaps correctly, that this might be because we aren't being that faithful)

D. Once we’ve allowed for A-C, and if we think that the bible does predict a time when the gospel will have made such significant progress across the whole world that it can be said to have ‘conquered’, or the kingdom can be said to be the largest of all the kingdoms in the world, then it follows that persecution would be strikingly rare in some parts of the world at that time.

Or, put it another way. I imagine that after his conversion, there was a significant reduction in the persecution of Christians who (so to speak) lived on the same street as Saul of Tarsus. All postmillenialism is doing is saying that what God did to Saul of Tarsus' neighbourhood he is progressively doing (not necessarily in a linear fashion) throughout the world across history.

Sometime soon I'll blog some more about this, perhaps especially about the nature of the cross-shaped Christian life and how this is in no way incompatible with an optimistic eschatology.

Reformation Day 2007

2007-10-31T13:58:00.001Z

Happy Reformation Day!

490 years ago a monk named Luther sparked the protestant reformation by putting 95 points for public discussion up on the cathedral door in Wittenberg.

Luther and those who followed after him re-discovered that scripture is the sufficient and final authority in the Church, that God makes the ungodly righteous, that salvation is not earned, that God is free and sovereign, that all of life is Christ's, that the cross is able to fully save us and that the Church always needs reforming.

Here are all my posts with a 'reformation' tag. They're helpful mainly in the sense that they contain links to some good things said by other people about reformation.

Action for the Unborn

2007-10-30T09:16:00.000Z

Psalm 68:5
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows, is God in his holy habitation.

I've been thinking recently a lot about the abortion issue. I think there's a need for evangelicals to do two major things;

a. Speak out on this issue (hardly ever mentioned in the churches I've been a part of. Don't think I've ever mentioned it from the pulpit or in personal ministry either).

b. Provide positive care for women in difficult situations who are tempted to abort, or being pressured to, or likely to. We can't just say the negative, we should help provide alternatives.

I really admire what John Piper's church do. As well as preaching passionately, they actively encourage and facilitate adoption so as to help give women a real alternative to abortion.

I think we need evangelical adoption agencies (I'm sure there are some already out there? We should support them too). However, there are a number of problems with the state of play legally with regard to adoption, especially over the issue of homosexuality, making it difficult for evangelicals to be involved and remain within the bounds of both the law of the land and the law of Christ. This gives rise to another action point;

c. Work to change current UK adoption legislation and procedure.

Many years from now... Abortion and the long term perspective.

2007-10-29T20:33:00.000Z

Charles Moore writes in the Telegraph on the occasion of 40 years since the abortion act was passed.

"I found myself wondering how abortion will be viewed by museum curators, teachers, historians and moralists 200 years from now."

"We reserve particular scorn for those who sought to justify slavery on moral grounds. We look at the moral blindness of the past, and tut-tut, rather complacently."

"It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them."

He then warns about the danger of senationalising the past, and stresses the need to help mothers with unwanted children rather than jump to preachy condemnation. After that he continues

"But the reason I throw this argument into the future is that, with the passage of time, abortion, especially late abortion, is slowly coming to be seen as a "solution" dating from an era that is passing. It will therefore be discredited."

"If you want to do people wrong, you must first undermine the idea that they are people... One of the good moral trends of our time has been to reject this way of looking at things. Instead, we insist, in the great debate about what it means to be human, that weakness is not a disqualification, but, by a famous Christian paradox, a strength. Abortion runs against this trend, and so civilisation will eventually reject it, as once it rejected slavery."

I for one hope that future generations will look back at this period of our history in disbelief at the unwanted, defenceless, aborted unborn. And I hope that a significant part of the reason is that Christians have left the ghetto and reclaimed the public square for the Lord Jesus Christ, seeking bring his just, loving, serving, compassionate leadership to our society. (Here for more)

Limited Atonement in Hebrews 2:13-15

2007-10-24T23:50:00.000+01:00

Limited atonement (which really should be renamed 'powerful atonement' or something like that) is often accused of being 'a doctrine without a text'. Whilst this is in many ways a non-argument (who seriously wants to limit 'what the bible teaches' to 'what can be proved from proof texts'?) and Romans 8:32 is a proof-text of sorts, there are also a number of texts that suggest that Jesus' cross-work was undertaken with the specific purpose of saving the elect.

I think Hebrews 2:13-15 is probably one of those sort of texts. It strongly implies the doctrine of limited atonement.

13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me." 14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

vs 13 envisages those who belong to Christ as family members as 'the children' given to him by God. Then vs 14 says that it was because of the humanity of specifically these children that the Son also adopted a human nature (flesh and blood) in order to die a death that rescued them from slavery.

In other words we have atonement explicitly linked with election. Christ's cross-work flowed out of the Father's giving to the Son. It was very definitely 'for us and for our salvation' that the Son was made incarnate and went to his Satan-whupping death.

Imposing faith

2007-10-20T12:17:00.001+01:00

Of course the state can't impose faith on anyone, nor should it try to. But there's a difference between.

1. Making unbelief/heterodoxy/other faiths and worldviews a crime.

and

2. Making some public expressions of unbelief/heterodoxy/other faiths and worldviews a crime.

For example, if part of your worldview is a belief that people from Leicester are not really people at all and should be made into the slave-drones of the rest of us 'real humans', UK law (rightly) forbids you from practicising your belief in this country. It does not (at the moment, give it time) forbid you from holding that opinion, just from some public acts based on it.

Replace the 'people from Leicester...' bit with one of the below and you start to see how this distinction can be very important for anyone wanting government to be shaped by the bible.

Euthanasia should be legalised.

Abortion is every woman's right.

Homosexual couples should be able to adopt like any other couples.

There's nothing wrong with visiting a prostitute.

The minute anything is criminalised, someone is forbidden from living out all the implications of their worldview/faith on the basis of someone else's worldview/faith. The question for the Christian is whether they'd rather the law-shaping worldview come from the bible or not. Surely, to ask the question is to answer it.

Principled Pluralism

2007-10-20T11:46:00.001+01:00

Yesterday in Public theology we had a christian brother come in from here to share with us his view on how Christians should relate to the public square. The model he goes for is called 'Principled Pluralism.' This position states that under every circumstance, the ideal is that states are 'confessionally silent'. This does not mean 'we don't do God' in the sense that christian politicians must leave their christianity at home when they head to westminster, but rather that the state must never officially enshrine one epistemology (faith, worldview, etc.) in its constitution as the basis for legal authority (why it has put in the statute book what it has). Christians can and should let their faith inform their political opinions and actions, but the state must never favour Christianity in its constitution.

PP advocates believe that this is the way that God wants the state to be, because it must represent and govern all of its people, and does not have the right to impose faith on anyone.

The problems with such a view are manifold;

1.Of course the state can't impose faith on anyone, and shouldn't try. But, this is not the same as the state overtly basing it's laws on a particular worldview or faith. The minute the state legislates anything, it is imposing values derived from a worldview.

2. There is no such thing as confessional silence. Unless you are going to have a completely blank constitution that is (see below). Once you have a constitution you have taken a side, even if that side is 'we think every/no religion is right' or 'we think the government should always do what the majority says' or 'we think the government should rule for the common good'.

3. A blank constitution is a bad idea, since it means having a government exercising power based on no authority at all. Naked power without a basis for authority is a very bad thing.

4. A constitution based on something other than Jesus being Lord is an idolatrous constitution - it says something/one is Lord other than Jesus Christ.

5. Saying that 'Jesus is Lord' can never be in the constitution amounts to 'we don't do God' in our constitutions. Since Jesus really is Lord of all things and everyone, this surely includes constitutions.

Paradoxically, PP adovocates affirm that God requires the state to rule justly as his servant. So, we are left with the following statements about what God wants of the state.

a. God requires the state to govern as his servant, ruling justly, punishing evil and commending good, within the jurisdiction given to it by God.

b. God requires the state to never ever own up in public or state in its constitution that a. is true.

You can look here for where I stole most of the thoughts above from.

Renewed Creation: Preterism and 2 Peter 3

2007-10-20T10:50:00.000+01:00

'Preterism' is the view that many of the prophecies we find in the new testament are about the events of AD70 when God judged faithless, Messiah-crucifying, Roman-colluding, Church-persecuting Judaism, in effect 'divorcing' Old Israel to make ready for marrying New Israel. It therefore reads many of the 'Jesus is coming real soon' texts as being about his coming in judgment in AD70, without denying that he will come again to judge the living and the dead at the close of history.

So, what might a preterist reading of 2 Peter 3 look like?

1. The day of the Lord is the AD70 judgment on Jerusalem (3:10).

It will after all, come on the scoffers of Peter's generation (3:2-7), who're probably identified with the false prophets of chapter 2.

2.The burning of the heavenly bodies/ the destruction of the heavens and earth that now exist (3:7, 10) refers to the judgment fires on Jerusalem.

God often abolishes and re-makes the world/shakes the heavenly bodies and so on. See Haggai 2:6-7 and 20-23, and Isaiah 13. All these texts clearly refer to the political and covenantal re-alignment of the world. In AD70 the old covenant Jerusalem/temple-centred world was abolished. This is a part of very common bible symbolism in which the heavenly bodies (stars etc.) are used to represent powers and authorities, both on earth and in the heavenly realms.

3. The new creation refers to our post-AD70 world.

Old Israel-centric world gone, Christ and New Israel-centric world begun. We are living in the age of Christ's rule, through his new covenant people, the reign of righteousness which is progressively spreading throughout history as people come to bow the knee to the world's new King.

This seems perhaps the hardest bit to swallow, but, remember

a. The new creation began with Christ's resurrection. (Surely, everyone believes this).

b. The new creation has also begun in Christians who are raised with Christ in some sense now. (Surely everyone believes this).

c. The legal/covenantal precedes the cosmic. i.e. the new heavens and the new earth have legally begun, the big covenantal shift has occured, the world is a new world because it has new government - Christ, and in him, his people. The cosmic effects of this new government won't be physically experienced (i.e. no more crying/pain/death/curse/sinners) until Jesus returns to earth and consummates the new creation. But a consummation is a consummation of something which has already legally been established.

d. So, to speak of the new creation as having already arrived is not intrinsically an over-realised eschatology.

e. And, after all, unless the new creation in some sense is 'here' now in our world which still has sinful people and death, don't we have a massive problem with Isaiah 65 which says that it is.

Do I still have questions about such a reading? Yes. Do I think that AD70 looms very large in the New Testament, such that such a reading demands attention and careful thought? Yes. See Galatians 4:24-31 and Hebrews 8:13.

More can be found on preterism here, here and here.

2 Peter 3 and the renewed creation

2007-10-08T11:21:00.000+01:00

I've been (not very systematically) compiling arguments, thoughts, and biblical texts in support of the view that this creation (renewed and transformed) will continue into eternity.

One of the texts considered to be a little bit problematic for this sort of view is 2 Peter 3:10-13 (bold bits my emphasis).

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Thus it could be argued that language of dissolution, melting, passing away, burning up, suggests a reading of 'new' in v13 that means 'totally (or 'almost entirely') new'. But, there's more to be said on 2 Peter;

1. Just before these verses Peter has already spoken of a previous destruction of the world:

5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

It doesn't take a very imaginative reading of Genesis 6-9 to argue that the destruction (it 'perished' v6) of the world in Noah's day did not involve a complete annihilation of the whole cosmos. v7 explicitly parallels this event with the judgment stored up for the present 'heavens and earth' as described in 10-13. This alone suggests the judgment of the day of the Lord is one of transforming and purifying rather than annihilation.

2. In 3:7 Peter indicates that the day of the Lord means the 'destruction of the ungodly' and yet it has been well documented that this destruction (understood in the context of the whole bible) does not mean annihilation. The same can be said by analogy of the destruction-type language used of the creation.

3. And all of that's without going into a discussion of what the actual words for 'dissolution' or 'passing away' refer to, or how they are used elsewhere in the bible (which others have done). Even without those studies the context at the very least implies that we can (and of course we should) try to reconcile 2 Peter 3 with the continuation envisaged in passages like Romans 8:19-21.

All of the discussion above hinges on an understanding of 'the day of the Lord' in 2 Peter being about the end of history judgment rather than AD70 judgment. The New Testament talks of both these judgment days, so at the very least the possibility of an 'AD70 reading' needs to be considered. The next post will attempt (tentatively) to do that.

David Field on Matthew 24

2007-10-08T11:17:00.001+01:00

Some interesting thoughts on Matthew 24 can be found here and here.

(Yet more) Renewed Creation Texts

2007-10-05T12:07:00.000+01:00

Perhaps next week I'll discuss some of the more difficult texts for the 'continuationist' position - that God will renew and not replace this creation when he comes to settle the scores and set up home with his people forever.

For now, this post continues my efforts (in a rather ad-hoc fashion) to compile texts which may support such a position. The texts in this post are from the epistles.

By the way, some of the texts merely allow (with varying degrees of strength) for a 'continuationist' reading (by, for e.g., implying that Christ's reconciling work is cosmic in proportion). But in some others, it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable.

Rom. 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

1Cor. 7:31b For the present form of this world is passing away.

2Cor. 5:19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Eph. 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Col. 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

2Pet. 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.

Heb. 2:5 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.

Heb. 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

1John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Rev. 11:15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and she shall reign forever and ever.”

Rev. 5:10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

(More) Renewed Creation Texts

2007-10-04T15:47:00.000+01:00

This post continues my efforts (in a rather ad-hoc fashion) to compile texts which may support the case that God will renew and not replace this creation when he comes to settle the scores and set up home with his people forever. Here are some texts that come from the gospels.

By the way, some of the texts merely allow (with varying degrees of strength) for a 'continuationist' reading (by, for e.g., implying that judgment day will be the removal of wickedness/the wicked from the earth, not the removal of the earth, or of the righteous from the earth). But in some others, it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable.

Matt. 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Matt. 6:10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Matt. 13:38-42 The field is the world, and the good seed is the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

John 4:42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

Renewed Creation Texts

2007-10-02T22:54:00.001+01:00

I'm starting (in a rather ad-hoc fashion) to compile texts which may support the case that God will renew and not replace this creation when he comes to settle the scores and set up home with his people forever. First, here's some verses from the psalms.

Some of the texts merely allow (with varying degrees of strength) for a continuationist reading (by, for e.g., implying that judgment day will be the removal of wickedness/the wicked from the earth, not the removal of the earth, or of the righteous from the earth).

In others, it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable.

Psa 34:16
The face of the LORD is against those who do evil,
to cut off the memory of them from the earth.

Psa 96:10-13
Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved;
he will judge the peoples with equity."
Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
let the sea roar, and all that fills it;
let the field exult, and everything in it!
Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the LORD,
for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness,
and the peoples in his faithfulness.

Psa 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

Psa 104:35
Let sinners be consumed from the earth,
and let the wicked be no more!

Psa 119:90
Your faithfulness endures to all generations;
you have established the earth, and it stands fast.

World Without End

2007-10-01T17:58:00.000+01:00

'Totally new or renewed creation?' is the question (see previous post). My money is on the eternal home of God's people being a renewed version of this creation.

Some have suggested that just as humanity has to die before resurrection can occur, so too there has to be a 'death' of creation before it is reborn. And (so the argument goes) just as a Christian's death (now through union with Christ in his death, physically in the death of the present body, then finally at judgment day) involves considerable destruction, we should expect a similar level of annihilation of the old in the production of the new heavens and earth. Man is so corrupted by the fall that a totally new man is needed - we should expect the same with the rest of creation.

There are several things that come to my mind in response to this.

1. When God made the world and declared it good, he meant it. But then of course the fall and the curse came. Humanity and the creation were both changed and marred by the events of Genesis 3 and following. This much is true.

2. However, there is (to my mind) a considerable asymmetry in the effects of the fall on humanity on the one hand and creation on the other. Humanity fell and became willfully ignorant of God and idolatrous, morally depraved, legally guilty and therefore deserving of death as a just and logical sentence. The creation was put under bondage to decay - a kind of 'death' perhaps corresponding to (and definitely related to) the death humanity faces. Yet Creation itself did not become sinful or evil in and of itself.

3. The good creation was subjected to frustration as a part of the judgment of humanity. Consequently it will be liberated when humanity is redeemed (Romans 8:19-21).

4. Even in the example of resurrected and restored humanity there is still considerable continuity between pre- and post-resurrection. It is still 'you' who will be raised (1 Corinthians 15 uses the analogy of a seed and its plant).

5. If all of this were not the case, then Satan would have succeeded in his war against God's good creation. God has to resort to annihilation and replacement for his plans for a created order (of some sort) to succeed. The good creation of Genesis 1-2 is resigned to the dustbin of eternity because of Satan's schemes. If the creation is renewed however, Satan ultimately fails.

No doubt there's more to be said. But, in conclusion, while there may be some sort of radical transformation of the present creation (depending on how you take 2 Peter 3:10 for example), there will be considerable and substantial continuity between it and the new creation.

A whole new world...

2007-09-28T23:01:00.000+01:00

No, I haven't gone all Disney. This issue has come up again in some of my classes this week. Is the new creation a totally 'new' creation (i.e. God throws this one in the bin and gets a new one 'off the shelf' to take its place so to speak) or is it this creation but (perhaps radically) renewed?

I for one am convinced it's 'renewed' rather than totally discontinuous from this one. And the clincher passage is probably Romans 8: 19-21

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

This creation, the same creation that was put in bondage to decay when humanity fell, will be liberated from that bondage and enjoy all the glory of being governed, tended, inhabited by God's resurrected children. I don't know about you, but being annihilated and replaced doesn't sound too much like a liberation to me!

I'll maybe try and post some more on this over the next few days. It might not seem it at first, but I think this is quite an important thing to get clear on.

Christians and Human Authorities

2007-09-25T16:46:00.000+01:00

What is the proper Christian approach to non-Christian authorities? How should Christians relate to pagan governments? A key passage is found in Peter's first epistle.

1Pet. 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

The commentators disagree - is Peter advocating conformity (because he says to submit) or non-conformity (because he says Christians are to live as free men, with a primary identity as slaves and servants of God, not of Caesar).

For my part I think I'd want to talk about Peter proposing a policy of subversive conformity.

Christians are being told unambiguously that they must submit to the created authorities. To do less would be to do evil and to invite the negative sanctions at the disposal of the authorities – in other words, to suffer for doing evil. In this sense then, Christians are to conform, to obey the human authorities above them.

However, such conformity is subversive both in its basis and in its intent.

a. Christians must yield to the authorities in service to the Lord, as a part of their more basic submission to and service for God. They are in reality free, though free slaves of God, willing to serve him by living exemplary lives that serve his purposes in the world (of which more in b. below). The different levels of responsibility commanded in 2:17 suggest that where obeying the state conflicts with fearing God (or indeed loving the brotherhood) the Christian is under no obligation to comply.

b. Christians must yield to the authorities in order that the reign of God through the gospel might be furthered in the world. This is the inevitable conclusion from the hope of Gentiles converting in 2:12 as a result of the believer’s visible good works. It is also implicit in 2:15 where the criticisms against God’s people can be silenced by their civil obedience. Plug this into an eschatology of hope (e.g. Daniel 2:44-45) and you get the picture that as Christian's obey pagan authorities it contributes to their ultimate downfall (as pagan authorities anyway).

Christians submit to the authorities because Jesus, and not the authorities, is Lord. Civil obedience (i.e. conformity) functions within the more basic requirement to fear God and serve the Lord’s purposes, including the conversion of the nations – as part of ultimately bringing all authorities to find their rightful place under Christ’s overarching Lordship (i.e. it's subversive).

Of course, if we had time, we could discuss how 'subversive conformity' could be part of a wider picture we find in the new testament of power through weakness, victory through suffering, rule through service, resurrection via the cross, glory in jars of clay etc.

Some people did exegetical papers on this passage in my NT class, and I'm grateful for the way their careful work got me thinking. Any exegetical insights have probably come from them, any examples of bad thinking come from me.

Gospel Optimism 8: The Covenant with Abraham

2007-09-21T11:20:00.000+01:00

We read Genesis 22:15-24 in chapel today. Here's the first few verses (emphasis mine)

And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

And I thought of 1 Corinthians 15:22-25 (again, emphasis mine)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Christ, the offspring of Abraham, will possess the gate of his enemies - he will subdue them all, such that when he returns it will be to a conquered earth (with all the nations of the earth blessed under his rule) with only death left to deal with. This 'last enemy' is then swallowed up in victory.

Gospel Optimism 7: Kuyper and Creation

2007-09-19T19:47:00.000+01:00

Gospel optimism is about the gospel being deep and wide. We should expect the gospel to penetrate and conquer with geographical breadth (to the ends of the earth) but also with personal and social depth. After all, the gospel says (among other things) that Jesus is Lord, the judge and saviour, the rightful king of our world, the one in whom humanity and in fact all of creation is reconciled and transformed.

A while ago I posted on this. Then yesterday I found a quote by Abraham Kuyper.

It is not that there are two worlds, a bad one and a good one, which are fitted into each other... it is one and the same world which once exhibited all the glory of Paradise, which was afterwards smitten with the curse, and which, since the Fall, is upheld by common grace; which has now been redeemed and saved by Christ, in its center, and which shall pass through the horror of the judgment into the state of glory.

Kuyper goes on to explain the 'cash value' for Christian living of viewing the new creation as a renewal of the present earth rather than an entirely new thing.

For this very reason the Calvinist cannot shut himself up in his church and abandon the world to its fate. He feels, rather, his high calling to push the development of this world to an even higher stage, and to do this in constant accordance with God’s ordinance, for the sake of God, upholding, in the midst of so much painful corruption, everything that is honourable, lovely, and of good report among men.

Thus gospel optimism means that none of our labours done in Christ's name (not just our evangelism) are in vain because of Jesus Christ.

What am I studying this semester?

2007-09-13T21:48:00.000+01:00

For those interested, here is what I'll be doing for a lot of the time between now and sometime after Christmas. It's the big, bad, 3rd year so modules are big and bad (in a good way) too - consequently there's only room for three a semester.

Hebrews and the General Epistles in Greek: Final attempt to do serious CPR on my Greek, taking in the scenery in Hebrews and 1 Peter along the way.

The Doctrine of God: A whole module simply trying to read, understand, digest, compile and apply what the bible has to say about the One it's really all about in the first place. After all, the chief end (i.e. main goal) of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

Evangelical Public Theology: So, what does believing 'Jesus Christ is Lord' mean for engagement with public life (politics, education, media, art etc.)?

Pretty good huh?

Gospel Optimism 6: Vision of the UK from an American Pastor

2007-09-11T23:34:00.000+01:00

Gospel optimism, precisely because it is gospel optimism (as opposed to e.g. humanistic optimism), doesn't mean burying your head in the sand and pretending things are better than they are. Rather, it means having a realistic hope for the long-term future based on faith in the promises and purposes of God revealed in the bible and the power of God in the gospel. It is entirely compatible with facing up to the (in many ways) dire situation Christians find themselves in much of western europe.

That sort of faith in the gospel's breadth and power (and eventual victory) can be found here (thanks to David Field) alongside critical engagement with the present state of affairs here in the UK.

Other posts on Gospel Optimism

Summer Reading

2007-09-01T21:49:00.000+01:00

September has arrived and the summer is drawing to a close (meteorologically it never arrived of course). As usual I have achieved a lot less than I hoped I would, though my 'to-do' list was particularly ambitious this year. I have read a few books though, which I list and describe briefly here for your delectation.

Against Christianity (sample online here): Peter Leithart thinks the Church is a new city. That means he's against 'Christianity' (a private/unsuccessful gospel and Church) and for 'Christendom' (a public/successful gospel and Church). And who wouldn't agree? Leithart also writes with considerable wit and style, which makes his book enjoyable as well as provocative.

Tested by Fire: Suffering in the lives of Bunyan, Cowper and Brainerd. John Piper has served us well with his brief (but not shallow) reflections on various Christian figures from history.

He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillenial Eschatology. Kenneth Gentry Jr.'s comprehensive and mostly persuasive book on the ultimate in gospel optimism. Seems to be the book that other-millenialists must contend with, both exegetically & theologically.

All Families are Psychotic. Hardly Douglas Coupland's finest moment. Some interesting commentary on consequences of actions, and of course on families and relationships. Less-than-believable ending doesn't really help things. Okay as beach reading.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Satisfactory and enjoyable conclusion to the series that has been disproportionately lauded (not J.K. rowling's fault I stress). Won't change your life, but then it isn't meant to.

Pierced for our Transgressions: Necessary, scholarly, readable. More (but brief) comments here.

By Faith, Not By Sight. Richard Gaffin helps us understand justification and sanctification, showing how the forensic and the renovative aspects of the salvation of individuals flow from the same basic reality - union with Christ.

The Radical Reformission. The unique Mark Driscoll on modern mission that doesn't sell out. All that needs to happen now is for someone to write the same kind of book for the UK but in a style that won't immediately offend and repel the conservative evangelical constituency here.

I've also started reading 'City of God' by St Augustine. Man, was that guy thorough (long-winded). I'm enjoying the ride but it might be some time before I blog on that one.

Reformation Alehouses

2007-08-31T14:57:00.000+01:00

Whilst at the reformation museum in Geneva I discovered an ale of 'biblical' proportions (here is the website). But, the real question is, would John Calvin himself have approved? I'm not sure entirely, but here's what I discovered from Mark Driscoll's short section on 'the sin of light beer' in The Radical Reformission.

'Pastor John Calvin's annual salary package included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by him and his guests.'

No surprise I guess, since the Overseer must be hospitable (1 Timothy 3:2). Driscoll continues;

'Martin Luther once wrote of the Reformation, "While I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow."'

And apparently 'when the Puritans landed at Plymouth Rock, the first permanent building they erected was a brewery.'

For his own part, Pastor Mark longs 'for the return to the glory days of Christian pubs where God's men gather to drink beer and talk theology.' Evidently such pubs would serve not the watery, mass-produced, 'feminine', light beer all too common today, but what Driscoll calls the 'rich, dark, heavy, more "biblical" European beers.'

Gospel Optimism 5: Syncretism and Sectarianism

2007-08-30T17:40:00.000+01:00

I am currently enjoying reading Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle - a book about trying to engage with culture without losing the (gospel) plot. Driscoll's big passion for the world and for the Lord Jesus is on every page. Moreover, his chapter on the twin pitfalls of syncretism (when the Church becomes too much like the world) and sectarianism (when the Church hides away from the world) reveals strong convictions about the scope of the gospel's power.

The problem with both syncretism and sectarianism is that they deny the clear teaching of the Scriptures that the power of God unleashed through the gospel of Jesus Christ can transform anyone. Sectarians do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that evil hearts and sinful actions and worldly social structures are more powerful than God, unable to be redeemed, and therefore are a waste of our energies because they are destined to be meat on God's grill anyway, so why bother? Likewise, syncretists do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that the hearts of people aren't that bad, their actions aren't that sinful, and since people are doing the best they can, we can't expect any sort of radical transformation, and so we should simply bless them with a sentimental love.

What he says at the end of the chapter is pure gospel optimism rooted in a reformed model of culture.

Here's what I'd like you to remember from this chapter: reformission is not about abstention; it is about redemption. We must throw ourselves into the culture so that all that God made good is taken back and used in a way that glorifies him. Our goal is not to avoid drinking, singing, working, playing, eating, love-making, and the like. Instead, our goal must be to redeem those things through the power of the gospel so that they are used rightly according to Scripture, bringing God glory and his people a satisfied joy.

[Previous posts on Gospel Optimism HERE]

Are paedobaptists unrepentant?

2007-08-21T23:35:00.000+01:00

Some words of sanity on a difficult issue where Christians often disagree can be found here. As an unrepentant paedobaptist I welcome the stance taken by John Piper and co., even if others think it fuzzy.

He was pierced for our transgressions

2007-08-21T11:01:00.000+01:00

Things have been a little quiet here recently - apologies (holidays, camps, jury duty etc.). I aim to blog a little more over the next few weeks, at least until college gets into full swing.

One thing jury duty enabled me to do was finish reading Pierced for our transgressions (PFOT). Written in the wake of a fair bit of controversy about what Jesus' death achieved, PFOT aims to help the Church redisover 'the glory of penal substitution' - which is basically the teaching that

'Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory.' (Packer)

Evangelical Christians have pretty much always believed this, until recent years, when an increasing number from evangelical circles have questioned, attacked and even rejected the doctrine.

Others have reviewed PFOT properly elsewhere (just google it), so this is intended as an advert more than a review. If you don't own it (and you do read books), buy it. Then read it. Then buy it again and give it to others to read.

PFOT is in two parts. Part one kicks of with exegesis of the main relevant bible passages. The main strength here is that all the findings and arguments of others who've written defending penal substitution in the last fifty years are gathered in one place as a coherent whole. Also, the authors deal sensitively with the new perspective on Paul for those interested in those debates. From now on, anyone wishing to write against penal substitution must tackle this exegetical groundswell head on.

The section on theology (i.e. how penal substitution fits with other major themes and teachings in the bible) is marked by crisp logic built on sound exegesis. It is especially helpful to see how PS hooks into the bible's teaching on creation and the nature of God as Trinity - both areas where some evangelical thinking at a popular level can be a little weak.

The authors also show us that PS is pastorally necessary and historically well-attested. The historical section is especially eye-opening in the two main points is makes - PS is an old doctrine (whereas some critics argue it was invented in the C16th) and PS is an evangelical essential (whereas some critics have argued that one can be evangelical and reject it).

But it is in part two that this book really comes into its own. Part two consists of a step by step answer to just about every conceivable criticism of and objection to PS. Whilst many opponents of the doctrine have not listened accurately to the other side of the debate, the same cannot be said for the authors of PFOT. The authors present their opponent's views with calm precision, then politely, but firmly, show how each objection to the doctrine can be fully answered. This section alone (helpfully organised by the different types of objection) makes PFOT an invaluable resource for the Church.

PFOT can help God's people achieve a biblically balanced, nuanced, contextualised, practical and rich conviction about the glorious reality that 'Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.'

Camp 07

2007-08-08T16:50:00.000+01:00

Camp went extremely well last week. Here's some things I am really thankful for.

1. The weather was really good. We had about thirty minutes of rain the whole week (despite being forecast several days). This is not just good for the tan - entertaining 35 9-12 year olds in a week of rain is pretty hard.

2. The book of Exodus proclaimed the gospel loud and clear. We traveled from Egypt to Sinai, from light to darkness, from slavery to freedom, from Pharaoh to Yahweh, from de-creation to new creation.

3. The children listened incredibly well.

4. Two children professed Christ for the very first time.

5. The team was largely happy and unified.

Oh Mercy!

2007-08-08T15:55:00.000+01:00

I don't usually whine about translations (and I like the ESV), but in sermon preparation for this sunday I find myself asking;

Why has the ESV chosen to translate /hanan/ as 'mercy' in Psalm 123?

It seems so obviously connected to other uses of the word (and related) i.e.

Ex. 33:19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Note here how it is related to but distinguished from 'mercy')

Num. 6:25 the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;

Most of the time when translating the word the ESV goes for something to do with being gracious. Also, the few Hebrew wordy-books I've looked up always give a meaning more akin to being gracious than mercy. Mercy, certainly in our modern English usage, seems too narrow. It helpfully carries the idea of something being undeserved, but then so does 'graciousness'.

I suspect we usually associate mercy with 'not being punished even though you deserve it' rather than a broader concept of 'being shown undeserved compassion and favour' which is closer to /hanan/. Technically speaking 'mercy' can be used with this broader sense of an unmerited kindness (Sheila constantly performed small mercies for the poor in her neighbourhood) though I feel that's a little archaic and foreign to most people nowadays.

All of this makes the preacher's job harder.

In what sense?

2007-08-07T13:51:00.000+01:00

The longer I am at Oak Hill the more I realise just how pants much of my state education was. I resent the fact that I was never really taught to think (any fool can regurgitate, and especially if you're blessed with a fairly good memory like this fool is).

In particular, I was never taught how to distinguish, i.e. to ask and answer the question 'in what sense?' about every statement. If our many chat shows, political discussion shows and radio phone-ins are representative, then it would seem that most of the country hasn't been taught to think in this way either. We are rapidly losing our ability to grasp or make coherent arguments.

Obviously this is bad news, since it means decisions will be made for the wrong reasons, theological positions will be held without being carefully worked through, and friendships broken unnecessarily.

Oak Hill graduate Neil Jeffers joined the world of blogs today, and his blog (Distinguo - you'll have to forgive the Latin) opens with a brief thought or two on the need to distinguish. Neil has a great mind and a gospel heart, so do check in at Distinguo every now and then

Exodus; Tabernacle & Creation

2007-07-27T02:35:00.000+01:00

Peter Enns, in his helpful commentary on Exodus points out that the tabernacle is paralleled with creation.

1. There are seven 'The LORD said to Moses' instructions re. the building of the tabernacle and accompaniments (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1; 31:12).

2. The seventh (31:12) is an instruction not so much about the tabernacle (on the face of it) but rather about the sabbath. The instruction here highlights the link to creation clearly (31:17).

3. Enns is unsure about the order of the other six and is reluctant to see them tied too directly to the days of creation, stating that the overall point is made clear simply by the structure of seven climaxing in sabbath rest. I haven't thought a lot further, but it is interesting that the sixth 'The LORD said' instruction is regarding Oholiab and Bezalel, two men filled with God's breath/Spirit/spirit and commissioned to build the tabernacle (cf. Genesis 1:26-30 = Day 6 and creation of humanity, commissioned to have dominion. cf. Genesis 2:7, 15 = Man created and filled with God's breath, commissioned to tend God's garden-sanctuary).

4. Following the Golden Calf incident and following (32-34), there is yet again mention of the sabbath (35:1-3) and then a narrative of the actual building of the temple, under Moses instructions, through the obedience of the Israelites, all according to the heavenly pattern.

5. When all the building is done we are told that 'Moses finished the work' (40:33) in a (surely) deliberate echo of Genesis 2:2.

So, the tabernacle was a model restoration of creation order, a microcosm (Enn's word) of creation, showing how things could and should be with Yahweh as King. How exciting that, by extension/fulfilment/typology/union with Christ, the Church is the tabernacle/temple.

Exodus: Talks and passages

2007-07-27T02:14:00.000+01:00

Here is the rough breakdown of my series on 'Exodus - The Great Escape' for camp (starts saturday, 9-12 yr olds).

1. Exodus 1 (&2). God keeps his promises (intro to the series)

2. Exodus 3 (&4). Meet the LORD (i.e., what's he like? Holy/Saving/Reliable)

3. Exodus 7-11. The Big Fight - Pharaoh vs God (God is God of all the earth)

4. Exodus 12. Passover - Rescue through Blood (Mainly about PSA this talk)

5. Exodus 14. The Red Sea - Rescue through Victory (God beats his people's enemies)

6. Exodus 20:1-17. Living God's Way (How should rescued people live? Point of rescue was from slavery in egypt to Yahweh's kingship etc.)

7. Exodus 25, 29, 40:34ff. God with us (Tabernacle, God dwelling with his people as the goal of redemption, God guiding Israel all the way to the promised land etc. etc.)

It has really struck me in preparation just how much stuff there is in Exodus. Along the way we'll meet (at times only briefly, alas) with such themes and doctrines as;

- God's sovereignty and human responsibility (talks 3&4 mainly)

- Salvation as new creation (talks 5, 6, 7 mainly)

- Judgment (and in fact sin) as de-creation (mainly talk 3, but it could so easily be in 5 too)

- The Perseverence of the Saints (talk 7)

And of course, Covenant/Promise, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Death/Resurrection, Law/Grace, Lordship, Kingdom, Christus Victor, Revelation and so on...

Basically, there's quite a lot in Exodus, and I've only started to scratch the surface.

Exodus - The gospel according to Moses

2007-07-23T17:14:00.000+01:00

This is the first of what I hope will turn into several posts on Exodus to help me get myself clear(er) in time for talks next week at camp. First up, some general points which will govern all my teaching from Exodus.

1. Exodus follows Genesis.
The book of Exodus is self-consciously a continuation of the story begun in the first book of the bible. The story of Creation-Fall-Abraham and ff. is always in the background either explicitly or implicitly. In short, I'll be aiming to teach Exodus as part of the story of God pursuing his original plans for his creation through the family line of Abraham.

2. Exodus is 'about' Jesus
This is because the story begun in Genesis and continued in Exodus reaches its climax in what God did/is doing through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is obvious and more familiar in some parts (Christ as the passover lamb of Exodus 12) but I'm guessing there will be less familiar discoveries along the way too.

3. Exodus is Gospel
In a very real and significant way, therefore, Exodus is a proclamation of the gospel, both in terms of types and shadows (the tabernacle, the passover) but also in terms of its exposition, expansion and exploration of the gospel promises already announced to Abraham and co. in the covenant(s) of Genesis 12, 15, 17 etc. and its further revelation of the gospel/covenant-proclaiming and fulfilling God. This assumption will prove especially important when teaching the 'law bits'. One of the things I hope to help the children see is that 'His commands are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3).

Reformation in Geneva

2007-07-12T17:01:00.000+01:00

Here are some pictures from our visit to Geneva on holiday. The first is Calvin's auditorium where he and John Knox lectured and where reformed refugees from across the whole world gathered to hear them, including many of the guys who would go back to Britain in Elizabeth's reign to get the reformation going again.

The second is the cover of the initial copy of Calvin's Institutes. This work helped clarify the teachings regained at the time of reformation
and spread them across the world.

This is the inscription from Calvin's grave.

There were many more delights, especially the city's newly-opened museum of the reformation. Claire and I bumped into Mark Dever there, which was slightly weird. Whilst he tried to buy a bust of Calvin for his office desk from the Museum gift-shop, I rather fancied the ale they were selling named after the great reformer.

Anyway, the point of it all? Just the kind of thing geeky Oak Hill students get up to on their hols? well, I was struck by one big thing:

The reformers achieved an awful lot and changed the world. Calvin was 55 when he died. Others died younger. Yet these guys left behind them an incredible body of work. In an age before the internet etc. they worked tirelessly to spread the gospel they'd re-discovered around Europe and lay foundations for the generations of Christians who followed them. Just in our one day in Geneva we saw and heard of schools, universities and churches set up, civil government reforms, church government reforms, missionaries trained and sent, books written and revised, and more. It kind of makes me wonder what I've been playing around at these last 28 years.

Holidays are for Reading

2007-06-22T15:51:00.001+01:00

Things may go quiet here for a couple of weeks as Claire and I head off on holiday shortly. Pool-side reading includes

Cities of God: Rodney Stark on how the early church conquered Rome as an urban movement.

Pierced for our Transgression: Jeffries, Ovey & Sach on you know what.

He shall have dominion: Kenneth Gentry on why everyone should be a covenantal postmillenialist

So maybe there'll be comments on some of these when we return.