Archive for the 'Theology' Category

Forgiveness and the Second Chance

I am a Christian. I believe that when we turn back to the Father and repent of our sins, we are truly forgiven through Jesus' blood shed on the cross, and given new life through his resurrection and in the power of the Holy Spirit.  (And as you can probably tell from that sentence, I am also a theologian with a postgraduate degree!)

But what does that forgiveness mean? What are the consequences of that forgiveness, as opposed to the consequences of my sin? When we are forgiven by God, do we still have to face some consequences of our wrongdoing, or are we given a genuine second chance?

Continue reading 'Forgiveness and the Second Chance'

Grace and Mercy

I was just chatting with a good friend, with whom I have had many theological discussions.  But it all boils down to the advice he gave me (I'm sure he wouldn't mind me sharing his words!):

His mercies are NEW EVERY MORNING – they need to be because we sin. No condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. Remember your ABCs of Evangelicalism – we sin, God forgives, we give glory.

I have always liked the theology of Karl Barth – a central tenet of which is that we alienate ourselves from God, and cannot get back to him.  So he comes to us with grace and mercy – to which we respond gratefully – and God graciously accepts our imperfect worship.  Our part in our salvation – simple gratitude and worship – is sandwiched within God's movement to us.

Never think you deserve it, never forget who gives it, never cease to worship such an amazing God, Jesus Christ.

Christian Economics

I watched this video with interest, especially given the work I did at Oxford three and a half years ago, entitled 'The idols of death and the God of life'.  Perhaps I should have emailed it to Rowan back then!!  Of course with hindsight, everything is clear..

Natural Disasters?

I am currently watching an excellent series on the BBC called The Story of Science.  The third episode, which I have just watched, is called 'How we got here'.

It of course raises all the red herrings and difficult questions surrounding geology and biology, but one observation from the presenter hit me squarely between the eyes.

The episode ended on a geological note, Dr Mosley talked about how violent Earth is, with the volcanic eruptions and earthquakes caused by continental drift, and the tsunamis that occur when those events happen underwater.

His point was that the development of life is not in spite of Earth being so violent, but is actually helped by it. Some catastrophic events do wipe out entire species, but most of the time the violence actually encourages life to flourish by giving it new opportunities.  His best example was the Rift Valley in East Africa, which is home to hundreds of thousands of animals and birds.

I found this a fascinating argument, that natural 'disasters' help and encourage life to flourish far more often than harming it.  And it made me think – well that's exactly how God operates, bringing life out of death, even totally dead and arid places like the deserts of East Africa, transformed into lush savannah by the violent separating of two continents.

It should not surprise us that he created the world in such a way – that no matter how dreadful the catastrophe, life always survives, somehow, somewhere.  Even at its most harsh and devastating, creation does exactly what it says on the tin.

Does God need chance?

I have long disliked the central place that 'chance' has in modern scientific theories, particularly the 'random' mutations that drive evolution forward. As a Christian I don't like the idea of utter randomness, of chance being the determining factor in the development of life.

I am also aware that as a concept it is lauded by many of the new atheists as the final nail in God's coffin: there is no need for God, there is no proof for God's existence in nature; everything is down to chance, and therefore there is no creator, and no ultimate purpose to life.

A good friend pointed me recently to this article, by Paul Ewart. It is one of those articles that forced me to look at something from a slightly different angle, which is no bad thing.

Paul Ewart argues that – maybe – chance is a necessary aspect of theology, because it helps us to understand the relationship between a sovereign creator and human agency (often called 'free will' – I'm not sure humans actually have free will, but that's another argument).

Perhaps life is like a game of chess, with God as 'an infinitely wise grand master.' No matter what we do, which moves we make, God always wins, the outcome is always good, in the end: 'God adapts his actions in sustaining the world in existence to take account of whatever happens.'

Of course, we would want to argue that God also knows which moves we are going to make, before we make them. We don't 'catch him out' with our wickedness. We mustn't take the chess game analogy too far; instead it is perhaps a helpful way for us to understand how the world appears sometimes (that there is no benevolent almighty God in ultimate control) with what the Bible insists is the case (the Lamb is on the throne).

The Message for the Broken

Jesus' teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing, religious people of his day. However, in the main, our churches today do not have this effect. The kind of outsider Jesus attracted are not attracted to contemporary churches, even our most avant-garde ones. We tend to draw conservative, buttoned-down, moralistic people. The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church. That can mean only one thing. If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did. If our churches aren't appealing to younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we'd like to think.

Tim Keller, The Prodigal God, p.16

Thanks to Custard for the great quotation.  I suppose this question has haunted me for quite a long time.  We are quite convinced that our preaching is faithful, that we are saying the right things, encouraging the right things, but the churches I have known have almost universally been precisely not irreligious.

Is it that we don't know how to encourage the right kind of practice?  Or is it more that there is a tendency to want to think the 'correct' things, rather than go out of our way to do the hard, un-selfish, loving and caring things?

I love things to be in order, to be just so, but that is precisely not how Jesus operated, and it can so easily lead to the kind of situation Tim Keller describes.  I find Keller's words hugely challenging.  They seem to me to be to be vital for the church's mission, yet at the same time almost impossible to put into practice.

Because, to me, I want a church for the broken, not a church for the religious.  I feel like a broken man, not a religious man, and somehow that means I don't feel like I belong in the church – the very place I should belong, in the arms of God.

Communities of Grace

Over the years I have frequently thought about the relationship between the uncompromising ethical stance of much of the New Testament (not least the Sermon on the Mount), and salvation as the free gift of God, through the cross, while we were still God's enemies.

With the help of various theologians (John Calvin, Karl Barth etc), as well as sustained reflection on the Bible (not just the New Testament) I have come to think of it in terms of a response.  We are given a free gift of live, salvation through Jesus Christ, which we must live out.  We must live a life worthy of the calling we have received.

But of course the context of that life is always that it is a free gift.  We didn't earn it in the first place, and we can't mess up so badly that there is no way back.  We can't lose our salvation in Christ through our failure to live it out.  There is nothing we can do that is so bad God won't forgive us—if we repent.

And right there is the crux of the issue.  We can stuff things up terribly, but if we repent and turn back to God, he will forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.  Although our sin cuts us off from God, there is always a way back, through the cross, if we repent.

Unrepentance I think comes in two guises: first, refusing to repent of what we know is sinful behaviour (this is the most obvious kind); second (more subtly perhaps), failing to acknowledge that we are simul iustus et peccatore, at once justified and sinner, and that we do mess things up.

The first is perhaps more common in our individual lives, the second much more common in our communities.  In many (evangelical) churches I have been privileged to be a part of, there has been an unspoken culture / expectation that actually things are all right for everyone.  Maybe that's my perception, I don't know, but that's how I've felt.

When the culture is like that, it is very difficult for individuals to acknowledge serious failures.  Yeah we can all say a confession, I haven't put God first, that kind of stuff, but when there is a serious problem, the sense of failure is so strong that it is difficult to tell anyone, because you are worried they will judge you for not being a good enough Christian (or whatever).

I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that.  Often in churches it can feel as if we are expected to be perfect, so when things aren't it is very difficult to talk to anyone about it.  Somehow we need to create an atmosphere in which failure (privately and publicly), while not accepted as 'right', is not condemned or judged, but accepted as 'real' and worked through, drawing on God's grace and power.

We need to create communities of grace (I'm sure I've not made that phrase up, but I don't know where it's come from), which accept sinners, but challenge sin and encourage an atmosphere of repentance and forgiveness.

We need not to expect people to be perfect, or even close, but to be real about the messed-up world we live in, that things don't always work out, that people get things wrong, that we all do, just some of us more obviously than others.  People need to be aware of all that, so they feel comfortable and able to be real and honest, to share where they are really at, so that sin can be dealt with in God's way (by repentance and forgiveness) rather than being allowed to fester within our congregations.

Archives

Categories