Tag Archive for 'love'

Gift(s) of the Spirit

Published by bcg on 30 December 2007 in *Starred, Bible and Church. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

This topic has been mulling over in my mind for a long time.  Since the 'rediscovery' of charismatic gifts and the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal church, I suppose it has been a hot topic for the church generally.

I am currently reading Knowing God by J.I. Packer, a chapter a night – a fantastic book, which I will review when I'm done – and last night I read chapter 12, 'The Love of God'.  Packer makes some excellent points which happen to coincide with my own feelings on this subject, so I will quote him, and then comment.

In Romans 5.5 Paul says, 'God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.'  Packer says:

Paul is not talking of faint and fitful impressions, but of deep and overwhelming ones.

...

Paul assumes that all his readers, like himself, will be living in the enjoyment of a strong and abiding sense of God's love for them.

Third, notice that the instilling of this knowledge is described as part of the regular ministry of the Spirit to those who receive him – to all , that is, who are born again, who are true believers.  One could wish that this aspect of his ministry was prized more highly than it is at the present time.  With a perversity as pathetic as it is impoverishing, we have become preoccupied today with the extraordinary, sporadic, non-universal ministries of the Spirit to the neglect of the ordinary, general ones.  Thus, we show a great deal more interest in the gifts of healing and tongues – gifts of which, as Paul pointed out, not all Christians are meant to partake anyway (1 Cor. 12:28-30) – than in the Spirit's ordinary work of giving peace, joy, hope, and love, through the shedding abroad in our hearts of knowledge of the love of God.  Yet the latter is much more important than the former.

...

It will be tragic if the concern for revival that is stirring at the present time in many places gets diverted into the cul-de-sac of a new Corinthianism.  The best thing that Paul could desire for the Ephesians in connection with the Spirit was that he might continue towards them the Romans 5:5 ministry with ever-increasing power, leading them deeper and deeper into knowledge of the love of God in Christ.

...

Revival means the work of God restoring to a moribund church, in a manner out of the ordinary, those standards of Christian life and experience which the New Testament sets forth as being entirely ordinary; and a right-minded concern for revival will express itself, not in a hankering after tongues (ultimately it is of no importance whether we speak in tongues or not), but rather a longing that the Spirit may shed God's love abroad in our hearts with greater power.  For it is with this (to which deep exercise of soul about sin is often preliminary) that personal revival begins, and by this that revival in the church, once begun, is sustained.

J.I. Packer, Knowing God, 133-134

I wholeheartedly agree with Packer.  The Spirit's work is so much more than we might sometimes be led to believe – he gives so many gifts to each and every Christian, not least the fact that they are believers!  Of course the 'sporadic gifts' are important – I have no doubt that God heals people today – but focussing too much on them leads us to forget the more important, universal gifts.

I want to sit down one day and read a proper and full exposition of the work of the Spirit – I believe Calvin in particular does this well.

Everything we do as a Christian is a gift of the Spirit!  We live entirely by grace, which God gives us in the power of the Spirit.  In talking so much about 'the gifts', in constantly asking the question 'what is my gift?', 'what is my ministry', we forget that all we have is a gift, and that we are given all we have in order that we might serve God and each other, and steward creation aright.  If we get this sorted in our Christian lives, then we will have the right perspective on the 'sporadic gifts' as well – they are not for ourselves, but to enable our service of others, to build up the church.

Given all this, I would argue that it is not just 'conservative' Christians who 'quench the Spirit' (1 Thessalonians 5.19) by refusing to allow space for his work publicly – 'charismatic' Christians do the same by focussing too much on the particular gifts the Spirit gives, and too little on the primary, universal gifts that he gives.  Both are important in the life of the church – but the universal gifts are much more so; the balance needs to be restored.

I think that the greatest miracle is not a dramatic healing but someone who dies in Christ.

The wrath of God was satisfied

Published by bcg on 18 December 2007 in Bible, Church and Theology. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

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)

‘One single being’?

Published by bcg on 19 November 2007 in Theology. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

God is not just one single being. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit: he is Trinity, he is community. And so therefore God is mutual love.

Graham Tomlin, The Praise of Creation, Holy Trinity Brompton, Sunday 29 October 2006

I have a couple of sermon podcasts on my iPod and I was listening to this one on the train home yesterday afternoon. This sentence hit me square between the eyes.

The question is, how far should we reduce and simplify doctrine in our preaching? I think quite a lot – but not so what we say is misleading (at best) or wrong (at worst). The example above is a case in point. 'God is not just one single being' is an extremely misleading statement. What I think he means is this: to say God is 'one' is not all we can say about God. Because, God actually is a 'single being'. We do not believe in three gods, Christians are not tritheists. It is language like the sentences above that makes people think we are.

In our language about the Trinity I think we need to make three things clear: 1) God is one, 2) God is one-in-three and three-in-one, 3) God's unity is primary. Point (3) is the traditional way of Christian theology, and of course it has its dangers – which Moltmann emphasises – but it safeguards the divinity of Father, Son and Spirit, and the unity of their work in Creation. Given the clear demarcation in the New Testament between Father and Son especially, theologically the unity needs to be our starting point, and needs to be stressed. 'Community' is simply too weak a concept for the unity of God. This is one of Moltmann's biggest problems – if you stress the threeness of God first, how can you explain the unity of God in strong enough terms?

Graham Tomlin's point is that God did not need to create us because he needed someone to love him, to glorify him. In Godself, God is perfect love, because the one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To that, I say, absolutely. I have no problem with that. However, you do not need to say 'God is not just one single being' in order to be able to say 'God is mutual love'.

It is here that the question I raised initially is important: how far should we reduce and simplify doctrine in our preaching? How can we explain that God is mutual love in Godself, in a couple of sentences? Sometimes we may only be able to say what God is not, to define boundaries, beyond which language fails miserably. Here's my attempt.

The Bible tells us that God is one, that there is no other God besides him. But the Bible also tells us that God reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit. The Father did not need to create the world to be loved, because from all eternity he loves and is loved by the Son, who shares that love with the Spirit. The one God is perfect, mutual love.

I know it isn't perfect, and it is perhaps more complicated, but it does seek to emphasise both the oneness and threeness of God together.

Passing Judgement

Published by bcg on 10 November 2007 in Church. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

At the sermon I heard on Sunday the preacher told a story which effectively made two points:

  1. we should derive our sense of self-worth from the fact that God loves us, not from what other people think of us;
  2. judging others is often hurtful, and usually wrong – we should leave it up to God.

After the service I reflected that the reason we often allow other people's judgements to 'stick' to us, is because we actually deserve judgement. It is of course God's judgement that we deserve, however, not other people's – we have no right to judge each other simply because we all equally deserve judgement ourselves. In judging others we demonstrate our hypocrisy.

I would argue that the place of 'accountability', close friends/family telling you where you are going wrong, is not the same as 'passing judgement', because 'accountability' is only that if it works both ways. Passing judgement is a one-way street from one person to another.

That leaves two reasons why other people's judgements shouldn't stick to us:

  1. only God has the right to judge us – when others do (and when we judge others) it is hypocritical;
  2. God doesn't punish us when he judges others, because Jesus took that punishment on himself, and gave us his righteousness – so although we deserve judgement, actually we don't because Jesus has taken that judgement on himself.

So, given that, is it ever right for humans to pass judgement on other humans? Well, yes actually, in two situations I think:

  1. secular authority, law and order, criminal justic;
  2. Church discipline, where we sometimes have to deal with difficult and damaging situations here and now (as opposed to waiting for God's final perfect judgement).

But when we judge others in these situations, it should always be done with humility, acknowledging that the authority to judge comes only from God, and that ultimately we all deserve judgement. These two situations are God exercising his authority through us – which, again, calls for humility.

‘The Love of God’ or the Cross?

Published by bcg on 22 April 2007 in Bible, Church, Quotations and Theology. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Susie and I visited our local church today for a baptism communion service. In some respects it was my ideal service (over in just under an hour and a quarter, very friendly, lots of families and kids), but I was deeply disappointed with the sermon.

The preacher had two passages, from Acts and John. In Acts, Saul was struck blind and spoken to by Jesus. In John, Jesus told the disciples how to catch a load of fish and then asked Peter if he loved him.

The preacher began by talking about the debate between nature and nurture, relating it to the child about to be baptised, and to his own recently baptised granddaughter, as the family and friends of each wonder about the child's future.

He wanted to offer a 'third way'. This 'third way' was above, beneath and beyond nature and nurture. The 'third way' was the love of God. This love is the foundation of life, given equally to all, unchanging no matter what kind of person we are, no matter what our nature is, or how we are nurtured.

It was a short sermon (5-10 minutes), and mentioned Jesus once. The two Bible passages were simply 'illustrations' of the love of God in action (we weren't told how, or in what way), and mentioned in a maximum of five sentences towards the end of the sermon.

I was left wondering what in fact was Christian about it. It seems to me that many people could have spoken about love as a third way, between nature and nurture, and found a couple of illustrations in the Bible, or in some novels. The rather nebulous phrase 'the love of God' occured many times.

Many people appear to use this phrase as a way of not offending anyone, of saying something without really saying anything at all. After all, what is this 'love of God'? Is it acceptance? Is it a gift of something? Is it simply 'being there'? Is it all three? Or something else? I couldn't help but wonder if the sermon wouldn't have been a whole lot better if the preacher had talked about Jesus instead of 'the love of God'.

Richard Hays writes this: 'the content of the word "love" is given fully and exclusively in the death of Jesus on the cross.' (Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997, p.202)

If we follow Hays, the main reason the preacher told us very little in his sermon, is because he never thought to give real content to 'the love of God'. He could have given us, from the passages he had, a blinder of a sermon about discipleship and life following Jesus, how difficult it is, following the way of the cross, yet how possible it is, in the power of the cross. What a sermon for a baptism! To say nothing of the baptismal symbolism of dying and rising with Christ, or of Jesus' call to follow him (in both passages).

As you can tell, I was left extremely unsatisfied by the sermon. Christian leaders and preachers need to be teaching and demonstrating to their congregations a Christian way of understanding and living in the world. Otherwise, what is the point of being a Christian? And, at the deepest leve, that Christian understanding, that Christian way of living, is in fact the way of 'the love of God', but that way has a real, concrete and historical (and human) definition: the way of the cross.

Mark 8.34.

Archives

Categories