Archive for the 'Theology' Category

Predestination and responsibility

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 24 January 2008
in Bible, Quotations and Theology
. 0 Comments

Matthew 18.7 says this:

[Jesus says,] “Woe
to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that
temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!"

We have here an example of how difficult it can be to understand the Bible.  I don't mean that the meaning of this verse is difficult to understand, I mean that the implications of this verse are difficult to understand.

The Bible affirms two seemingly contradictory things: the predestination of things by God, and our personal responsibility for what we do.  God gives us grace and faith to believe in him (search for 'chose you' in the Bible and see how many times it says 'God chose you'), and we have to respond to him (the prophets continually call the people to follow the Law, in the New Testament people are told 'repent and believe').

These two things are both affirmed by the Bible, and if we believe the Bible is internally consistent then we have to say they are both true.

The danger lies in extrapolating further from these truths, asking the question 'how' it can be that these things are both true.  Almost every time this has been attempted, one has been emphasised to the detriment of the other.

Charles Simeon said:

Truth does not lie at either extreme taken on its own, nor yet midway between them: truth lies in both extremes held together in tension.

See here.

In so much of theology this is true, including this area.  It is why dialectical theology is so important: the Bible usually affirms two seemingly paradoxical positions.  It is our job not to synthesise the two, as Hegel would have us believe, but hold them together in tension, faithfully following the Bible.

If the Holy Spirit wanted it written like that, who are we to disagree?

Clarity and understanding

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 22 January 2008
in Random and Theology
. 1 Comment

I am currently trying to learn how to use XSL for my website.  XSL stands for eXtensible Stylesheet Language, and allows an XML file to be displayed in a friendly format.

XML files look like HTML, and they are commonly used for holding data.  While slower than a database, they are much easier to read with the naked eye.  Because of this, they are very useful for sharing data across different systems.  For example, try opening a *.doc file in a text editor.  It is a load of gobbledegook.  Now find a *.docx file, change the extension to .zip, extract the files, and view them in a text editor.  You can read it with the naked eye.

However, all of that isn't my point.  A friend recently wrote a blog post complaining about overly complex language when explaining one's ideas.  It is of course not limited to academic circles, but all over the place.  I have been reading online guides to understanding XSL, and many of them are absolutely useless.  They use jargon.  They explain things using other concepts they haven't explained.  They use single sentences to describe complex things.  And so on.

I think that at the root of all this is a lack of understanding.  The path to clarity is nothing less than understanding.  If people do not understand fully what they are saying, then they will regurgitate complex language in an attempt to sound clever, to sound like they really understand what they are talking about.

After all, I should know: I did this at university.  When writing essays I 'copied' the language of the books I was reading, in order to sound clever, because I didn't really understand.  One of my first essays is a wonderfully dense description of 'nothingness', using language heavily derived from Moltmann's own dense analysis.  When you really do understand something, it is painfully obvious when people are doing this.

My plea is this: please don't write an instruction manual, or something explaining a concept, unless you understand at least most of it, if not all of it!

Paul’s gnosticism

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 18 January 2008
in Bible, Church and Theology
. 1 Comment

I am currently reading through Romans with a friend at college, and we are up to Romans 7.  One of the things we mentioned was how easy it is to mis-read Paul and interpret what he says as gnostic.

For example:

7.5 For while we were
living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at
work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But
now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us
captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the
old way of the written code.

Not only does Paul set up a radical distinction between 'the new way of the Spirit' and 'the old way of the written code', he also locates sin at work in 'the flesh', 'our members'.  Equally, in the previous chapter Paul writes:

6.12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.

His emphasis is so strongly on our sinful bodies, on sin which works in our 'mortal body', that it is not a big step to gnostic theology, where the spirit is holy, the flesh evil.

It is also not a big step to the neo-dualism of contemporary evangelicalism.  Now there's a sentence and a half!  When I worked for A Rocha in London, one of the things I did was go around churches giving talks about the biblical basis for creation care.  A regular comment that many of us encountered (and no doubt they still do) was that God is more interested in saving souls than restoring creation.

There is undoubtedly some truth in that statement.  God has a special love for humans, made in his image to worship, glorify and love him.  However it is no different to the gnosticism that was denounced as heresy, and completely fails to understand the Old Testament, and much of the new.

When Paul locates sin at work in mortal flesh, he is not saying that God will do away with physical bodies.  He is not saying that all material things are evil and that what is important is our soul.  What he is saying, is that God needs to transform our mortal bodies if we are to obey him.  The very next verse in Romans 6 is this:

6.13 Do not present your
members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present
yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life,
and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.

God wants us to use our bodies, our minds, our strength, our souls - all of ourselves - to serve him.  He is not interested in disembodied children, but children in his image as he made them, bodies and all.  The 'newness of life' that Paul talks about earlier in Romans 6 is the basis on which we are able to 'present' our 'members to God as instruments for righteousness'.

6.4 We were buried
therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk
in newness of life.

Just as our baptism is a physical event, and just as Jesus' resurrection was a physical event, so also our newness of life is a physical event.  So, coming back to Romans 7, serving God in the 'new way of the Spirit' is correctly interpreted and capitalised by the ESV as the 'new way of the Holy Spirit': i.e. the new bodied life in the power of the Holy Spirit, not a new life somehow disconnected from our bodies, and purely 'spirit'.  The true meaning of the word 'spiritual' is not 'the life of a spirit', 'but life in the power of the Spirit', mind, body, soul and strength.

I am sure that no self-respecting and thoughtful evangelical would disagree with what I have just argued.  Why is it then that the focus of 'gospel ministry' is so often proclamation on its own, without the accompanying care for people's 'fleshy' side?  I myself have been guilty of this mistake, but hopefully no longer.

Wearing my A Rocha hat (A Rocha is a Christian environmental charity, seeking to transform communities and ecosystems in Jesus' name and power) I would go further still, and say that God's concern is for the whole of creation, not just humans.  After all, Revelation teaches us that heaven comes down to earth, not the other way around.  The whole world will be transformed by God, not just those people who call on Jesus' name.  (For more on this, please look in the Sermons section, or search for 'creation care' or 'hope for the planet'.)

When we pray 'your kingdom come', what we are praying for is the full and complete kingdom, which includes the transformation of the world, as well as the transformation of the people within the world.  The latter concern for people's physical well-being is being rediscovered by the church, but we are still lacking the former concern for the world.

The challenge is this: have we sold out to a gnostic dualism between spirit and flesh?  Have we in practice (if not in theology) ignored the fleshy side of life in favour of the spirit side of life?  If we have, we need to do both to be doing full and proper 'gospel ministry'.

Atheist carol-singing

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 23 December 2007
in Culture and Theology
. 0 Comments

I was preparing to blog on an article I read in The Times the other day, and this morning discovered a friend had done just that! His blog post is here, the original article is here and some letters sent to the editor in response are here.

Apparently Richard Dawkins, outspoken and well-known atheist, enjoys singing carols at Christmas. Libby Purves writes:

How can his famous, well-modulated voice choke out the word 'adore', apropos a God he calls a 'misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'?

diagacht argues that one can appreciate the 'culturally significant pieces of music' without making any statement of belief by singing them. I'm not sure that is the case. I think there is a difference between observing (e.g. appreciating some Bach at a music concert) and participating (e.g. singing Christian carols at Christmas).

Given the strength of Dawkins' antipathy towards God and religion in general (particularly the bit Libby Purves quotes above), I do find it amusing that he enjoys singing carols so much.

The Perfect Christmas

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 19 December 2007
in Culture and Theology
. 2 Comments

This evening we watched Heston Blumenthal's Perfect Christmas on BBC2. Normally I love watching Heston - the 'culinary alchemist' - with his very male cooking; it's all gadgets, industrial equipment, perfectionism, and lots of lovely rich butter. And he gets to use liquid nitrogen!!

However this evening's episode left a bitter aftertaste. One of his first comments was about his starter - apparently there are three vital elements to a nativity play: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. We heard all about the 'three kings' travelling through Oman where they probably picked up their frankincense. And who were they for? 'The newborn baby' - not once in the whole programme did I hear the name 'Jesus'.

Now, I know that it isn't a Christian programme - Heston's comments about his perfect Christmas, which involves roaring fires, the smell of Christmas trees, roast goose and so on, reveal the total secularisation of Christmas into something sentimental, an excuse for the family to eat a slap-up meal in front of a roaring fire - but to talk about Christmas, including the nativity story, without mentioning Jesus' name, is quite something.

But that wasn't the worst part. He managed to come up with something tasteless at best, at worst extremely offensive. He served communion wafers dipped in something that smelled of babies. I have a high tolerance level - I am not offended by The Life of Brian, for example - but that really jarred with me. Using communion wafers in a Christmas meal is crass and, I think, offensive.

Of course, if anyone complains, the media will probably make them out to be fundamentalists who can't take a good joke. However, taking one of the central acts of the Christian faith and turning it into a starter for your Christmas meal, is not a good joke.

The wrath of God was satisfied

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 18 December 2007
in Bible, Church and Theology
. 0 Comments

I have been reading some of the minor prophets recently, and it hit me quite how angry God is with his people, and with the nations surrounding them. Of Ninevah God says, 'Behold, I am against you, declares the Lord of hosts...' followed by some fairly graphic and disgusting things (Nahum 2.13, 3.5-7 etc). Micah begins with the promise of destruction for Israel's idolatrous behaviour. Obadiah condemns Edom, Jacob's brother Esau, for gloating over Israel's misfortune. And so on.

This made me think. Most obviously I suppose, it highlights just how angry God gets with sin. A stereotype of Protestant preaching is 'fire and brimstone from the pulpit', which reflects God's anger and just wrath, while perhaps being a bit over the top. It is an uncomfortable message, and not one people want to hear - it doesn't sit easily with the general understanding of God as a benevolent father with a big white beard. More serious are Richard Dawkins' attacks on 'the God of the Old Testament' for such unpleasant displays of vengeance and anger; unpleasant, that is, to our modern 'tolerant' sensibilities.

There are two dangers here. The first, corresponding to the uncomfortableness that people feel, is to deny God's wrath. This underestimates sin, and reduces God's holiness. Even claiming it is part of the Old Testament understanding of 'territorial gods' is false, because it is in the New Testament too. It is simply not the case that the God of the Old Testament is vengeful and the God of the New Testament is peaceful.

If we are seeking to be faithful to the Bible we cannot avoid the fact that sin makes God angry. Therefore, just as sin is not confined to the Old Testament, so God's anger isn't confined to the Old Testament. If you want proof, look in a concordance under 'wrath' and 'anger' - not to mention Jesus' display of anger in the temple (Matthew 21 etc). God's righteous anger is a central part of the message of the whole Bible, perhaps at its clearest in the prophets.

The second danger, corresponding to Dawkins' attack, is to stop here, and simply emphasise how angry God is with us 'miserable offenders', effectively denying the message of grace clearest in the New Testament (though present also in the Old). For the Bible tells us that yes, God justly punishes sin, and therefore we sinners deserve death, but that he also loves us and wants to have mercy on us. The interchange in Hosea is particularly astonishing, as we read of God's love and justice wrestling with each other.

It is for precisely this reason that the cross is absolutely central, for on the cross God's love and justice meet - they are both defined entirely and exclusively by the cross. It is on the cross, as Jesus bears the penalty for our sins, their consequence, that God fulfils his justice, whilst at the same time fulfilling his love, as he sets us free from that penalty through Jesus.

If we take the Bible as a whole, we see the Old Testament preparing us for and pointing us to the cross. It is on the cross that the tension between God's love for his people and his righteous judgement of their sins is resolved. The curses of the Old Testament, the condemnation that God speaks over the nations, over his own people, all of that wrath is poured out on Jesus, and we are saved by his blood.

And so we return to the minor prophets. As I was reading Nahum I realised that on the cross, God spoke those curses to his own Son, who willingly and obediently put himself under those curses. And he did that because he loves us so much, and because we have disobeyed him so much, and because he is so holy and just and righteous and faithful.

So on the cross, God's wrath was indeed satisfied - and, in the frequent alternative words to In Christ Alone, God's love was glorified also. However, we need to make sure we strike the balance between God's wrath and his love, so we don't cheapen his love, and so we don't turn God into Dawkins' stereotype. This balance is struck by Paul in some important verses in his letter to the Romans, on which note we will finish.

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die - 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Romans 5.6-9 (ESV)

Barth on Human Wickedness

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 9 December 2007
in Theology
. 0 Comments

This was originally published as a comment on this blog on 13 May 2006. The author asked: 'And what is the difference between the wickedness exhibited in the actions that led to that young man's death, and the wickedness of ordinary folk muddling their way through life?'

Karl Barth's answer to your question,

'If wickenedness belongs to human nature, how would it possible for the incarnation to take place?'

is basically that we are not truly human - Jesus is. We are corrupted, so that what we do does not flow directly from what we are. We are liars, appearing to be something we are not. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but this isn't the time (or space..!), and I'm not the person.

This is one of his reasons for starting his anthropology with Christology - looking at Jesus (rather than ourselves) for his definition of 'human'. We can know ourselves more truly through Jesus, whose nature is revealed in the Bible and through the Holy Spirit, than through looking at ourselves. Our actions are symptoms of our corruption, they do not show us what it is to be human.

That does side-step rather neatly the problem of Jesus being 'just like us', when we are fallen and corrupted.

Thus 'evil' within us is not a characteristic, but something deeper than that, twisting and corrupting our very being. It cannot be trained out of us, and it is common to us all.

Hueston's final question is the tricky one! In human terms of course, we would say there is a huge difference between beating someone to death and lying to your boss. The 'sound' answer is to say that sin is sin is sin - any black mark on something white spoils it. There are effectively two states of being - holy (God) and sinful (us).

While that last statement is undoubtedly true, it's difficult to accept the previous one. A couple of little black marks are hardly noticeable - a great splodge of ink is surely much worse. Surely lying to your boss is nowhere near as bad as murder.

On one level, that is correct. Our society recognises that in the criminal justice system. There are set fines and jail sentences for difference crimes, increasing with the severity and circumstances of the crime, and so on.

But on another level, it isn't. We come back to Barth's idea that we are basically liars. We do not behave as we should, we do not act like true humans, because we are corrupted. Any lie is a lie, no matter how big or small. Any act which is not in line with our humanity is a lie, it de-humanises us (quite literally for Barth - when we sin we give up our humanity and become something else).

The bar is high, and we'll fail to jump it every time we try, because of our corrupted nature. We can't win! But that's where Jesus comes in - as the only true human that has ever lived, he sealed that achievement on the cross when he died. Through his achievement, on his return all those who belong to him will be transformed to be like him: fully and truly human, incapable of sin and free from the power of death.

God has promised to forgive all who turn back to him in repentance - whoever they are, whatever they've done. God's forgiveness is open to those people who beat that poor boy to death, hard as that may be for us to accept, in the same way as it is there for the rest of us.