http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_XJbWYrWE
Dec
23
Christmas Compendium
With the last note of Carols be Candlelight having been sung, my Duke Street Christmas has ended, and I am home for the holidays. I am strangely more connected to the internet in my little home village in Devon, than I am in London. I have taken some of today to catch up on the parts of the internet recently neglected; namely reading blogs and writing blogs. Here are a few Christmas themed posts fulfilling two criteria (a) about Christmas (b) worth reading.
Must we believe the virgin birth? – Albert Mohler
Santa Claus with the baby in Bethlehem – Kevin DeYoung
On the morning of Christ’s nativity – Liam Goligher
What we tell our kids about Santa – Mark Driscol
Three quick notes on tradition:
(1) In line with my only self stipulated Christmas tradition, today I listened to Christmas with Johnny Cash; the only album I can think to recommend listening to in the next week.
(2) For any fans of Belle and Sebastian: O Come, O Come Emmanuel.
(3) Watched part 3 of BBC’s The Nativity this evening. I didn’t think much of it despite having heard an encouraging interview. Writer said he had tried to let the Bible story speak for itself, without putting a spin on it. Having read the Gospels reasonably thoroughly, I can say this is not the case. Put another way, I was not surprised when I was told he also writes for Eastenders. Still that aside, pleased to see the Bible on prime time.
Nov
09
The Wrighteousness of God
According to a recent post on the Reformation 21 website, whilst the majority of the UK’s population were watching X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing (not guilty!), Liam was spending his Saturday evening in the more worthwhile activity of defending Gospel truths against recent shifts in Pauline studies.
Inspired by Liam’s valour, I’ve just read an interview with Tom Wright about his views on justification as outlined in Justification: God’s plan and Paul’s vision. I’d read the book about a year ago and have since read a variety of articles by Wright and by others responding to his ‘New Perspective’. I must say that I have found his writing stimulating and helpful in that it has caused me to challenge my presuppositions on the text of Romans and Galatians and to think 1st century before thinking 16th century or 21st century. They have especially made me aware of the ecclesiological implications of justification – that is, all those who have been justified by faith alone in Christ alone are ‘one in Christ Jesus’.
However, when questioned on his denial of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believer, Wright says the following: “when people talk about the imputed righteousness of Christ…then I want to say, yes, when God looks at me, thank God, he sees me, not as I am by myself, but in Christ. That’s the truth which Romans 6 was written to expound. But when Paul expounds it, he does not mean that God sees me as perfectly morally righteous because Christ has completed moral righteousness. It means he sees me as having died to sin and come alive to him in Christ.”
Wright is absolutely spot on to say that Paul is not expounding imputation in Romans 6. Rather he is explaining how baptism as a symbol of our union with Christ in his death and resurrection (v4a) carries with it the assumption that those who are truly united to Christ and visually display that through baptism, should also visually display a dying to sin and rising to a new life of righteousness. To borrow a category from Erickson’s Christian Theology It is describing the ‘Vital’ (life giving) aspect of our union with Christ.
However, what Wright leaves out is the passage which comes before Romans 6, that being Romans 5:12-21 where Adam and Christ are contrasted as heads of the human race. Through Adam’s sin, the whole human race is considered to be sinful and therefore receives the penalty of death (5:14) yet through Christ’s obedience, anyone who trusts in him is considered to be righteous and therefore receives eternal life (5:19,21). This is one of the clearest statements about imputation in the New Testament.
They key doctrine in question here is Union with Christ and what that means. Does this mean that God considers us dead to sin and alive to him only? Or is there an aspect to it where we are considered ‘righteous’ in a judicial sense, because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness? These questions, and more, are discussed in a little article I recently wrote which is available here.
Nov
04
Women Bishops: should Christian’s buy the Big Issue?
Was surprised to be woken by a story about Wallace Benn on the Radio 4 this morning. My semi attentive brain had to wait til the next set of pips to actually gather why though. My response? Pretty mixed I guess. Liam summarised what was said in an earlier post. If you are tuned to any media outlet, no doubt, you will be aware what was said – or at least you will be aware of what the media is saying that the Bishop said. With reference to Conservative ministry under women bishops, the Bishop warned,
“I feel very much increasingly that we’re in January of 1939. We need to be aware that there is real serious warfare just round the corner. It’s actually arrived in some places already. And we’re in a challenging and serious situation.”
Having not listened to the quote in it’s context I comment cautiously. I am in no doubt that the Church of England has fallen on hard times; although reading JC Ryle suggests that this has long been the case and reading Martin Lloyd Jones suggests this has always been the case. I would doubt though, that JCR or MLJ would argue the Anglican Church in their day was in worse shape than it is now.
As far as the ordination of women bishops goes, I agree that it is to the detriment of the Church (whether there should be such a position for them to aspire to is a different matter still). I am with the Bishop here, so why do I say I have mixed feelings? Well I just placed myself in the average Radio 4 listeners shoes and asked what such strong statements make the Church sound like; I concluded they would probably think us sexist. In a Themelios article, Why Christians Shouldn’t Buy the Big Issue, which is on another media favourite homosexuality, Carl Trueman encourages Christians to be discerning in engaging with these issues. That is not to say that Christians should not formulate views on women and homosexual clergy, but that these discussions are not do-or-die; they are not the big issue; the ones the Church should be famed for. Citing such an emotive moment in our countries history may not prove prudent, because ultimately it is not the big issue or the drawing up of battlelines; those were drawn a long time ago. Trueman writes
“The only Big Issue in this age, as in any age, is the reality of Christ; and Churches in Britain have allowed men and women who deny this reality to occupy pulpits for decades; are our evangelical leaders then really surprised that, having allowed such theological cruelty to exist for so long, all other areas of biblical teaching are gradually being dispatched to the theological landfill site?”
So the question is, why is now the do-or-die moment? Why is it only now that a Conservative Evangelical style ministry is under threat? I wonder if ‘January 1939′ has long past. How long have ministers who would deny Christ been tolerated? Yet at women bishops we have had enough? Though it is not the case, you can see how to the uninitiated a battle over women bishops, looks far more like sexism than serious concern for Christian orthodoxy. Trueman offer three reasons on why we have reached such a state of confusion (a) a tendency toward imprecision in our language that we might be tolerant has rendered us doctrinally inarticulate when we approach what the Bible really says; (b) a tendency toward individualism has placed congregation’s needs at the centre of the theological universe, not God; and (c) a low view of historic creeds and confessions.
The call is not to ignore ecclesiastical issues, but rather to keep Christ at the centre of our thinking and not the issues that the media or Christian leadership suggest. It does seem that the Church is reaping what it has already sown and there may be no easy solution.
Nov
03
Bishop causes outrage…
So runs today’s headline in the London Times following a statement by an evangelical bishop in the Church of England. Bishop Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes, told the Reform conference of conservative Anglicans: “I’m about to use an analogy and I use it quite deliberately and carefully. And it slightly frightens me to use it but I do think it’s where we’re at.
“I feel very much increasingly that we’re in January of 1939. We need to be aware that there is real serious warfare just round the corner. It’s actually arrived in some places already. And we’re in a challenging and serious situation.
“I’ve only two years left before retirement but the Church of England into which I was ordained is not the same Church today. Some decisions it may well make over the next five years are going to marginalise some of us and push us either to the very edge or out of the Church, and that’s a very serious issue,” he added.
The Bishop urged the several hundred Reform members at the conference to “wake up” their parishes to the realisation that their conservative style of ministry could soon be a thing of the past if women are ordained as bishops.
Ruth Gledhill of the Times goes on to report:
‘Fears that the issue could split the church have prompted even those on the liberal wing to urge caution. In an interview with the Church of Ireland Gazette, the former Bishop of Durham, the Right Rev Tom Wright, who resigned this year to take up an academic post at the University of St. Andrews, said he had spoken at the General Synod and written in favor of women bishops. “But I don’t think it’s somethig that ought to be done at the cost of a mjor division in the church. I mean whatever you do in the church you are always going to leave some people behind this way or that, you can’t help that,” he said. Bishop Benn also gave warning that traditionalist clergy coming up for ordiantion might not be able to swear oaths of obedience to their bishops if the legislation to consecrate women passed without statutory protection for their beliefs.’
Oct
31
Generous Justice
Re Generous? To finish off Friday’s partial review; perhaps, less a review more ‘the thing which stood out the most clearly’. Namely that often the justice that we can be prone to aim for, is stingy justice. Generous justice is that which always airs on the side of prodigality (to use more Keller terminology). With the book closed and on my shelf, this challenge remains the most stinging. The opening chapters look at what the OT, NT and Jesus had to say about social justice. The civil law shows much about God’s heart for the poor in the OT and you can’t hide from James strong words: faith if it does not have works is dead (2:17). The parable of the Good Samaritan similarly does not pull it’s punches. In sum, those who have experienced the grace of God cannot help but be gracious toward others. I think in most believers minds there would be little new information, perhaps more a good kick in the arse.
The question that follows is how do we do social justice though? How can we be pragmatic about this? The closing chapters look at how the Church as an institution is to do social justice, and how Christians are to engage in the public arena.
The job of the church is to equip believers with the Word of God to live in all spheres of life. Sunday morning is not a rallying point for civil servants; as an institution, the Church is not a civil service; do you get the idea? the Church is not a civil service. [Although technically a Church given to community work would be part of the voluntary sector, I mean to show my scepticism toward the idea that the place of religion in Cameron's big society is mere voluntary work to replace the states responsibility for the poor; perhaps it is a confusing term to use]. The church as an institution is to equip believers with the Word of God that they might serve Christ in the World. That is central and unmovable. Now some Christians vocation is directly engaging in social justice, others less directly, in their giving or where they might find time in the week. The point is more that the Gospel, which the Church is to hold out in the Word and Sacraments, is to stir believers hearts with that good news, that they are warmed toward their fellow man. To remind them that they once where lying destitute in the road and received grace. It is interesting that the beaten man in the parable of the Good Samaritan is a Jew; done so that Jesus might place his hearers in the middle of the story. They have received grace and so they are to act towards others with deeds of grace. Though that is not to say that the Church as an institution should do nothing. Another point rightly made is that Deacons less resemble those first appointed in Jerusalem and more resemble a group of treasurers, sectaries and committee sitters. In the Bible, a Deacon’s position seems more to do with practical service of the Church body and the poor; that is not to say a treasurer is not a good thing.
In the public square? Don’t be so sure that one single political view can sustain the Bible’s teaching on social justice. Neither wing provides all the answers. Second point: just because a social justice movement is not specifically Christian, that is not to say that believers should not work within or along side the movement for common good.
Well written, firmly Biblical and eminently practical. Read it.
Oct
29
Generous?
October/Winter has a special Keller air to it; it’s not far off the feeling I get at Christmas. Having waited for this years offerings and I gleefully snapped it up asap. 150 pages in..
About an hour ago I was chatting over the idea of Social Justice with the lads in the trainee office. If you are 20 something then the idea of social justice is not a new one. Our discussion circled these topics. Social justice is culturally a very fashionable idea, which means in churches that like to drown themselves in secular culture it has become a defining reason for Christ not having come back yet. Quite a lot of my reading earlier this year about the Emerging Church movement, many of whom are a point in case. During the election if David Cameron was asked whether religion had a part to play in the Big Society, the role was to be one of charity and general do-gooder-ing.If I am honest, this has tainted my view of social justice; I am easily sceptical about it. The churches main reason for existence is not merely to do social justice, as if it were some civil service; when people try sell the Church short in this way, I get my back up and retreat as near to the other end of the spectrum as I can.
Perhaps that is slightly over stated; I can’t help but read the Bible and be convicted that all people (even more so those have received the grace of the God) should help the poor and marginalised. Really what happens is that I caveat my social justice very heavily. This is the challenge of Generous Justice; I realise I practice Stingy Justice. “Yeah helping people is important but, I don’t have much myself” or “I would help but, they won’t help themselves” etc. Keller makes a fine point that, those who have been touched and changed by the unbounding generosity of Christ, cannot help but be generous to others. Christ could have said of us when we were unwilling and unable “I would help but, they won’t help themselves”. He didn’t though.
Still 50 odd pages left to chew over. I think they look at how we should go about it, which might indeed deal with how the Church as a gathered body doesn’t degenerate into a branch of civil service and yet practises social justice.
I am also aware that the title of the post suggests this will be a review of the latest Delirious? album. Let me assure you, I will never do that.
Oct
29
Apr
29
LG: Temptation (4)
[Liam Goligher interviewed by Sam Crossley]
SC: What is the hope for those who fail to resist temptation?
LG: If we fail, there is hope in the confession of sin and the forgiveness of God. I think that the warnings of Jesus and his teaching that we should pray not to be led into temptation are important; we should pray that everyday. He warns his disciples not to be led into temptation. We should everyday remind ourselves constantly of this and everyday make the assumption that if I am tempted to do that I am liable to fall.
Apr
28
LG: Temptation (3)
[Liam Goligher interviewed by Sam Crossley]
SC: What is the difference between being tempted and sinning? Where do we draw that line?
LG: Being tempted is where something is being paraded before our minds or suggested to our imaginations. Where the mind latches on and the imagination expands into the idea and the will begins to shift, temptation has begun to find a lodging place moving us an extra bit more towards sin.
SC: So it is less black and white, more like of a grey scale?
LG: There is a movement towards the actual committal of the act of sin, the thought of sin or even the imagination of sin.
SC: At which point your conscience tells you that you have sinned?
LG: Depending on the state of our conscience, our conscience has been hardened because we have been neglecting the means of grace, the word of God, fellowship with God’s people, then we’re not as sensitive to it as we should be.