see Kings Mission and Community
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Smiling Jesus
I really love this picture for some reason. The children and the women are lovely - and Jesus has such an amazing smile. He's totally in the moment and you can completely understand why they love him! The picture just makes me grin and grin when I look at it!
Thursday, November 22, 2007
EUGENE PETERSON on Well-Worn Paths
"Christians tramp well-worn paths: obedience has a history.
"This history is important, for without it we are at the mercy of whims. Memory is a databank we use to evaluate our position and make decisions. With a biblical memory we have two thousand years of experience from which to make the off-the-cuff responses that are required each day in the life of faith. If we are going to live adequately and maturely as the people of God, we need more data to work from than our own experience can give us. ...
"A Christian who has David in his bones, Jeremiah in his bloodstream, Paul in his fingertips and Christ in his heart will know how much and how little value to put on his own momentary feelings and the experience of the last week. ...
"What we require is obedience - the strength to stand and the willingness to leap, and the sense to known when to do which. Which is exactly what we get when an accurate memory of God's ways is combined with a lively hope in his promises."
From 'A Long Obedience in the Same Direction' by Eugene Peterson
"This history is important, for without it we are at the mercy of whims. Memory is a databank we use to evaluate our position and make decisions. With a biblical memory we have two thousand years of experience from which to make the off-the-cuff responses that are required each day in the life of faith. If we are going to live adequately and maturely as the people of God, we need more data to work from than our own experience can give us. ...
"A Christian who has David in his bones, Jeremiah in his bloodstream, Paul in his fingertips and Christ in his heart will know how much and how little value to put on his own momentary feelings and the experience of the last week. ...
"What we require is obedience - the strength to stand and the willingness to leap, and the sense to known when to do which. Which is exactly what we get when an accurate memory of God's ways is combined with a lively hope in his promises."
From 'A Long Obedience in the Same Direction' by Eugene Peterson
God IN the story
I've been struck recently on the amazingness of 'God IN the story'. That it makes no sense at all to talk about God being 'unchanging' - partly because of the compassion issue - but primarily because of the incarnation. God is not so 'outside' time to the extent that it makes nonsense of the fact that at a particular time in history he changed in his very being... humanity has been 'added' to God (thus says the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity!). Yes, God's character has not changed, but fundamentally something has been added to his very being and importantly this has happened IN history. Wow!
Atonement ...further remarks
Here are a couple of things I've been reminded about in looking at the different theories of the atonement recently. I've called them 'things to keep in mind'.
Substitutionary Penal Atonement
In talking about the Father’s wrath on the Son it is important not to draw too firm a line between them. God takes sin on himself and suffers his own judgement in the person of Jesus. Ultimately God satisfies himself.
Christus Victor
It is important to remember that in talking about the triumph of Jesus over the powers of evil, that this is not a military triumph, a triumph of violence over violence, but a triumph of love. This kind of love is something that evil cannot understand… thus the powers are ‘disarmed’.
Substitutionary Penal Atonement
In talking about the Father’s wrath on the Son it is important not to draw too firm a line between them. God takes sin on himself and suffers his own judgement in the person of Jesus. Ultimately God satisfies himself.
Christus Victor
It is important to remember that in talking about the triumph of Jesus over the powers of evil, that this is not a military triumph, a triumph of violence over violence, but a triumph of love. This kind of love is something that evil cannot understand… thus the powers are ‘disarmed’.
Monday, November 19, 2007
The Atonement and onwards
As I mentioned in my last post, I've recently been considering some aspects of the atonement and the different ways of explaining what God has done for us in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In recent years I have become more sympathetic to the 'Christus Victor' theme as a way as describing in a cosmic sense what Jesus accomplished in his death and resurrection. In the context of this overarching triumph over the forces of evil, there are clearly many aspects to what Jesus' death means for us in particular. He took on himself the punishment for our rebellion against God and our evil deeds (penal substition), he paid the price (took the full consequences) for our sin ("the wages of sin is death" Rom 6.23), he died and rose again that we might have new life in him, he closed the book on the old covenant (see Romans 7)... and so on.
However, my recent re-reading of the NT and OT texts has given me lots of new things to ponder (some of which I hope to return to in later posts), and I am currently pursuing some avenues of thought in the OT (about blood if you want to know!). In my short investigation so far, none of the standard ways of speaking about the atonement (except for the most straightforward - e.g. 'Jesus died in my place'), have not felt entirely satisfactory, not quite telling the whole story. My hope, and it is a naive one perhaps, is that I will find a way to construct for myself a way of talking about the atonement that relies on Biblical language and reflects as best I can the fullness, and yet simplicity, of what God has done for us in Jesus' death and resurrection. I cannot pretend that I expect to complete this search but I'm sure it will be an interesting journey!
In my wanderings, I aim to keep three markers in sight. Firstly, I will keep foremost in my mind's eye a vision of the cross that once held the creator and saviour of the universe - but is now empty. In this I hope to follow Paul's insistence in 1 Corinthians 15 that "If Christ has not been raised... you are still in your sins."
Secondly, I shall keep my eye to the picture of Jesus that we have in Revelation chapter 5.
Finally, I will strive to keep in mind Paul's warnings about 'earthly wisdom' in 1 Corinthians 1. Ultimately it's not a question of wisdom, but of power: while the cross seems like foolishness to those that are perishing, to us who are being saved it is the power of God. At the end of the day, as my friend Archie says, 'It works'.
In recent years I have become more sympathetic to the 'Christus Victor' theme as a way as describing in a cosmic sense what Jesus accomplished in his death and resurrection. In the context of this overarching triumph over the forces of evil, there are clearly many aspects to what Jesus' death means for us in particular. He took on himself the punishment for our rebellion against God and our evil deeds (penal substition), he paid the price (took the full consequences) for our sin ("the wages of sin is death" Rom 6.23), he died and rose again that we might have new life in him, he closed the book on the old covenant (see Romans 7)... and so on.
However, my recent re-reading of the NT and OT texts has given me lots of new things to ponder (some of which I hope to return to in later posts), and I am currently pursuing some avenues of thought in the OT (about blood if you want to know!). In my short investigation so far, none of the standard ways of speaking about the atonement (except for the most straightforward - e.g. 'Jesus died in my place'), have not felt entirely satisfactory, not quite telling the whole story. My hope, and it is a naive one perhaps, is that I will find a way to construct for myself a way of talking about the atonement that relies on Biblical language and reflects as best I can the fullness, and yet simplicity, of what God has done for us in Jesus' death and resurrection. I cannot pretend that I expect to complete this search but I'm sure it will be an interesting journey!
In my wanderings, I aim to keep three markers in sight. Firstly, I will keep foremost in my mind's eye a vision of the cross that once held the creator and saviour of the universe - but is now empty. In this I hope to follow Paul's insistence in 1 Corinthians 15 that "If Christ has not been raised... you are still in your sins."
Secondly, I shall keep my eye to the picture of Jesus that we have in Revelation chapter 5.
"See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah...has triumphed!"I am convinced that no doctrine of the atonement can be complete unless it embraces fully the picture of Jesus we see in these verses: both triumphant Lion and slain Lamb.
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the centre of the throne...
Finally, I will strive to keep in mind Paul's warnings about 'earthly wisdom' in 1 Corinthians 1. Ultimately it's not a question of wisdom, but of power: while the cross seems like foolishness to those that are perishing, to us who are being saved it is the power of God. At the end of the day, as my friend Archie says, 'It works'.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Widow and the King
I've just finished re-reading 'The Widow and the King' by John Dickinson, a teenage medieval fantasy that my brother Leo bought me a couple of years back. We both read and enjoyed his first book, 'The Cup of the World' and then had to read the sequel. They're a great couple of books, engaging and intelligent, and I'm always left with plenty to think about.
'The Widow and the King' is about a boy's escape from, and finally battle against, an enemy he variously calls the 'Heron Man' or 'The Prince Under the Sky'*. The Prince is a formidable and very creepy enemy who is always working in the background, whispering in peoples' ears, bringing down kings and corrupting the wise, bringing despair and destruction. It's not hard to see why I found in this book a worldview I could understand! The book is really quite scary at times, and there is a coherent (and occasionally heartbreaking) inevitability to the character development.
(*this works well as a title for Satan doesn't it?)
This is ultimately a story of good against evil. The boy, Ambrose, is the son of a previous king and an obvious heir. He tries to do the right thing, but he's innocent of the realities of the world he lives in. The book tells the story of his journey to wisdom, whilst at the same time vindicating him in his innocence and goodness. Of course we know that, in this book as well as in life, goodness will conquer evil in the end, but in the meantime, the Prince is depressingly successful in his destructive and corrupting aims.
One of the major and most compelling themes in the book is the theme of forgiveness. Ambrose is convinced that forgiveness is necessary and that a king must have mercy. He argues this out with Aun, who knows by experience that a king who forgives an enemy instead of destroying him may suffer the consequences:
I've been thinking a lot about atonement recently and I'll probably be posting some of my reflections this week.. so until then.
'The Widow and the King' is about a boy's escape from, and finally battle against, an enemy he variously calls the 'Heron Man' or 'The Prince Under the Sky'*. The Prince is a formidable and very creepy enemy who is always working in the background, whispering in peoples' ears, bringing down kings and corrupting the wise, bringing despair and destruction. It's not hard to see why I found in this book a worldview I could understand! The book is really quite scary at times, and there is a coherent (and occasionally heartbreaking) inevitability to the character development.
(*this works well as a title for Satan doesn't it?)
This is ultimately a story of good against evil. The boy, Ambrose, is the son of a previous king and an obvious heir. He tries to do the right thing, but he's innocent of the realities of the world he lives in. The book tells the story of his journey to wisdom, whilst at the same time vindicating him in his innocence and goodness. Of course we know that, in this book as well as in life, goodness will conquer evil in the end, but in the meantime, the Prince is depressingly successful in his destructive and corrupting aims.
One of the major and most compelling themes in the book is the theme of forgiveness. Ambrose is convinced that forgiveness is necessary and that a king must have mercy. He argues this out with Aun, who knows by experience that a king who forgives an enemy instead of destroying him may suffer the consequences:
"And as for forgiving - it's not free, not even for a king. It's like taking on debt. And a king who forgives too much pays with his life. Remember that."There are so many interesting subthemes in the books, and half-references to a worldview which makes sense to me, that I'd probably be surprised if John Dickinson was not a Christian. But if he isn't - he's stumbled on some significant truths about the world. CS Lewis talks about all stories reflecting something of the 'BIG Story', so perhaps that's what's happened here.
I've been thinking a lot about atonement recently and I'll probably be posting some of my reflections this week.. so until then.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
War Poetry
I've been reading poetry. I discovered a book of metaphysical poetry on Seymour's bookshelf and I've been enjoying some more John Donne, although my favourite remains his sonnet 'Batter my heart'.
On the Today programme this morning I listened to Brian Turner reading his striking poem 'Here, Bullet', written while serving in the American army in Iraq in 2003. You can listen to him read it on the Fishouse (sic) website.
Finally, this evening I came across 'The Sorrow of God' by Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy on Ben Witherington's blog. Like Job, but with the insight of the cross, this is one poem I'll be going back to.
There's nothing quite like poetry for expressing truth...
On the Today programme this morning I listened to Brian Turner reading his striking poem 'Here, Bullet', written while serving in the American army in Iraq in 2003. You can listen to him read it on the Fishouse (sic) website.
Finally, this evening I came across 'The Sorrow of God' by Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy on Ben Witherington's blog. Like Job, but with the insight of the cross, this is one poem I'll be going back to.
"So it isn't just only the crown of thorns
What has pierced and torn God's head
He knows the feel of the bullet too,
And he's had his touch of the lead."
There's nothing quite like poetry for expressing truth...
Sunday, July 15, 2007
No Neutral Ground?
“There is no neutral ground in the universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan.”
CS Lewis
CS Lewis
Saturday, July 07, 2007
God at War
I've finally finished reading 'God at War' by Greg Boyd and I find I have mixed feelings about it as a book. The overall thrust of his argument is very compelling and his analysis of the warfare motifs in the ministry of Jesus particularly persuasive. I find his reading of the NT as being fundamentally about the Kingdom of God 'at war' with the world/the kingdom of Satan is hard to dispute.
However, attempts to build a coherent 'theory of everything', to systematize the Biblical material, should always be treated with caution. As NT Wright points out, when we come to the Bible "looking for particular answers to particular questions...we have thereby made the Bible into something which it it not" ('How can Scripture be Authoritative?' 1989, see also 'Scripture and the Authority of God'). Systematic theology never sits completely comfortably alongside the Bible taken as a whole - just when you think you've 'got it' an unruly verse turns up to confound the theory.
As with any thesis of this nature, 'God at War' seems a bit 'rough at the edges', where at times the thesis is stretched just that little bit too far. Boyd is an enthusiastic theorist and always interesting, but there were moments in the book when I felt uncomfortable with the extent to which he seemed to be 'trying too hard' to pull in a variety of Biblical material to support the warfare theme. Notable in my mind is his warfare re-interpretation of the Lord's Prayer.
Despite these criticisms, I found 'God at War' a provocative and always-interesting book which I would definitely recommend - if only as a starting point for conversation. Those who know me well will know I am a big fan of Greg Boyd - although more in his preaching and energetic exposition of ideas than in his books - and I came to the book already persuaded by his God-at-war theodicy and understanding of Jesus' ministry.
In my view, Boyd is most challenging and convincing in his teaching on Jesus and the Kingdom of God and I know that he would agree that it is these ideas that are worth paying the most attention to. As I mentioned in a previous post it is his high view of Jesus (as with NT Wright) which I find most compelling. I've often heard him start teaching / preaching with the statement 'God looks like Jesus Christ', from Jesus' statement in John 14.9 "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." He will then go on to explain how we should always move from the known to the unknown - our understanding of God should start with Jesus, who is "the exact representation of his being" (Heb 1.3). If we want to know what God is like we should start by looking at Jesus (as opposed to philosophy or religion). As Boyd often says, "God looks like a man dying on a cross for those who crucified him."
The strength of this concept is what anchors his theodicy - his starting place in explaining the problem of evil. Since, he argues, the evil in the world around us does not accord with a God who, as Jesus Christ, rebuked sickness (and the wind and waves - Mk 4.39) and battled Satan (e.g Mk 3.23, Lk 13.16) it cannot be God's will. Evil is the result of wills other than God's. This fits with the NT's teaching that Satan is the archon (ruler) of the world (Jn 12.31, 16.11), the "god of this age" (2 Cor 4.4) and the "ruler of the kingdom of the air" (Eph 2.2), who has the whole world under his control (1 Jn 5.19).
Further explanation I will leave to Boyd as he is much more articulate than I! 'God at War' is the first book in a Trilogy, of which the second is 'Satan and the Problem of Evil' (onto which I shall move) and the last is as yet un-published. I would highly recommend his January 2005 sermon 'Being the Kingdom in a Groaning Creation' - given in the aftermath of the Boxing Day tsunami - as a summary of some of these ideas.
'God at War' concludes with a declaration of hope:
"The hope that the New Testament offers is not the hope that God has a higher, all-encompassing plan that secretly governs every event, including the evil intentions of malicious angelic and human beings, and that somehow renders these evil wills 'good' at a higher level. To my way of thinking, at least, that supposition generates a truly hopeless position... If justice is, on some secret transcendental plane, already being served, what do we have to look forward to? If God is already vindicated because 'the big picture' justies [a victim]'s torment 'for the good of the whole', then we really have no reason to hope that things will fare better for [a victim] or ourselves in the world to come.
"In direct contrast to all this, the ultimate hope that the New Testament offers is eschatological. As sure as the Lord came the first time to defeat his cosmic enemy and our oppressor in principle, just as certainly he shall return again to defeat him in fact. Because sickness, disease, war, death, sorrow and tears are not God's will, and because God is ultimately sovereign, we can have a confident assurance that someday, when his foes are ultimately vanquished, God will end all sorrow, and will wipe away every tear from our eyes (Rev 20:4). Precisely because our present suffering is not God's will - however much he can now use it for our ultimate good - we can have an assurance that it shall not always be this way."
As Boyd likes to say, "we live in a Good Friday world, but Easter Sunday is coming!"
However, attempts to build a coherent 'theory of everything', to systematize the Biblical material, should always be treated with caution. As NT Wright points out, when we come to the Bible "looking for particular answers to particular questions...we have thereby made the Bible into something which it it not" ('How can Scripture be Authoritative?' 1989, see also 'Scripture and the Authority of God'). Systematic theology never sits completely comfortably alongside the Bible taken as a whole - just when you think you've 'got it' an unruly verse turns up to confound the theory.
As with any thesis of this nature, 'God at War' seems a bit 'rough at the edges', where at times the thesis is stretched just that little bit too far. Boyd is an enthusiastic theorist and always interesting, but there were moments in the book when I felt uncomfortable with the extent to which he seemed to be 'trying too hard' to pull in a variety of Biblical material to support the warfare theme. Notable in my mind is his warfare re-interpretation of the Lord's Prayer.
Despite these criticisms, I found 'God at War' a provocative and always-interesting book which I would definitely recommend - if only as a starting point for conversation. Those who know me well will know I am a big fan of Greg Boyd - although more in his preaching and energetic exposition of ideas than in his books - and I came to the book already persuaded by his God-at-war theodicy and understanding of Jesus' ministry.
In my view, Boyd is most challenging and convincing in his teaching on Jesus and the Kingdom of God and I know that he would agree that it is these ideas that are worth paying the most attention to. As I mentioned in a previous post it is his high view of Jesus (as with NT Wright) which I find most compelling. I've often heard him start teaching / preaching with the statement 'God looks like Jesus Christ', from Jesus' statement in John 14.9 "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." He will then go on to explain how we should always move from the known to the unknown - our understanding of God should start with Jesus, who is "the exact representation of his being" (Heb 1.3). If we want to know what God is like we should start by looking at Jesus (as opposed to philosophy or religion). As Boyd often says, "God looks like a man dying on a cross for those who crucified him."
The strength of this concept is what anchors his theodicy - his starting place in explaining the problem of evil. Since, he argues, the evil in the world around us does not accord with a God who, as Jesus Christ, rebuked sickness (and the wind and waves - Mk 4.39) and battled Satan (e.g Mk 3.23, Lk 13.16) it cannot be God's will. Evil is the result of wills other than God's. This fits with the NT's teaching that Satan is the archon (ruler) of the world (Jn 12.31, 16.11), the "god of this age" (2 Cor 4.4) and the "ruler of the kingdom of the air" (Eph 2.2), who has the whole world under his control (1 Jn 5.19).
Further explanation I will leave to Boyd as he is much more articulate than I! 'God at War' is the first book in a Trilogy, of which the second is 'Satan and the Problem of Evil' (onto which I shall move) and the last is as yet un-published. I would highly recommend his January 2005 sermon 'Being the Kingdom in a Groaning Creation' - given in the aftermath of the Boxing Day tsunami - as a summary of some of these ideas.
'God at War' concludes with a declaration of hope:
"The hope that the New Testament offers is not the hope that God has a higher, all-encompassing plan that secretly governs every event, including the evil intentions of malicious angelic and human beings, and that somehow renders these evil wills 'good' at a higher level. To my way of thinking, at least, that supposition generates a truly hopeless position... If justice is, on some secret transcendental plane, already being served, what do we have to look forward to? If God is already vindicated because 'the big picture' justies [a victim]'s torment 'for the good of the whole', then we really have no reason to hope that things will fare better for [a victim] or ourselves in the world to come.
"In direct contrast to all this, the ultimate hope that the New Testament offers is eschatological. As sure as the Lord came the first time to defeat his cosmic enemy and our oppressor in principle, just as certainly he shall return again to defeat him in fact. Because sickness, disease, war, death, sorrow and tears are not God's will, and because God is ultimately sovereign, we can have a confident assurance that someday, when his foes are ultimately vanquished, God will end all sorrow, and will wipe away every tear from our eyes (Rev 20:4). Precisely because our present suffering is not God's will - however much he can now use it for our ultimate good - we can have an assurance that it shall not always be this way."
As Boyd likes to say, "we live in a Good Friday world, but Easter Sunday is coming!"
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Send the Fire!
I've recently been appreciating the usefulness of the Kingsway music site for downloading individual worship tracks.
But I'm disappointed to find that one of my current favourites isn't yet available for MP3 download...
O GOD OF BURNING, CLEANSING FLAME:
Send the fire!
Your blood-bought gift today we claim:
Send the fire today!
Look down and see this waiting host,
And send the promised Holy Ghost;
We need another Pentecost!
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
God of Elijah, hear our cry:
Send the fire!
And make us fit to live or die:
Send the fire today!
To burn up every trace of sin,
To bring the light and glory in,
The revolution now begin!
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
It’s fire we want, for fire we plead:
Send the fire!
The fire will meet our every need:
Send the fire today!
For strength to always do what’s right,
For grace to conquer in the fight,
For power to walk the world in white:
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
To make our weak hearts strong and brave:
Send the fire!
To live, a dying world to save:
Send the fire today!
Oh, see us on Your altar lay,
We give our lives to you today,
So crown the offering now we pray:
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
William Booth (1829 –1912)
Adpt. Lex Loizides
Copyright © 1994 Thankyou Music
I especially love the last verse of this song. I love the beauty of the line 'to live, a dying world to save'. And the last few lines are, for me, the heart of the song. Their profound truth - and challenge - hit me every time I sing it. There's a principle which I've only recently been coming to grips with: the fire comes on the offering, on the sacrifice.
If I want to see the fire and the power of God in my life there has to be sacrifice. The power and righteousness of God is revealed in me when my life is given over to him. The fire comes to crown the offering - the sacrifice of my life. And as the first verse indicates, this is a consuming fire 'to burn up every trace of sin'. When I ask God to send the fire I better realise what I'm asking for! But how can we live with anything less?
This is my theme song right now - appropriate for the season maybe!
We need another Pentecost! It's fire I want, for fire I plead. Send the fire today!
But I'm disappointed to find that one of my current favourites isn't yet available for MP3 download...
O GOD OF BURNING, CLEANSING FLAME:
Send the fire!
Your blood-bought gift today we claim:
Send the fire today!
Look down and see this waiting host,
And send the promised Holy Ghost;
We need another Pentecost!
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
God of Elijah, hear our cry:
Send the fire!
And make us fit to live or die:
Send the fire today!
To burn up every trace of sin,
To bring the light and glory in,
The revolution now begin!
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
It’s fire we want, for fire we plead:
Send the fire!
The fire will meet our every need:
Send the fire today!
For strength to always do what’s right,
For grace to conquer in the fight,
For power to walk the world in white:
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
To make our weak hearts strong and brave:
Send the fire!
To live, a dying world to save:
Send the fire today!
Oh, see us on Your altar lay,
We give our lives to you today,
So crown the offering now we pray:
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
Send the fire today!
William Booth (1829 –1912)
Adpt. Lex Loizides
Copyright © 1994 Thankyou Music
I especially love the last verse of this song. I love the beauty of the line 'to live, a dying world to save'. And the last few lines are, for me, the heart of the song. Their profound truth - and challenge - hit me every time I sing it. There's a principle which I've only recently been coming to grips with: the fire comes on the offering, on the sacrifice.
If I want to see the fire and the power of God in my life there has to be sacrifice. The power and righteousness of God is revealed in me when my life is given over to him. The fire comes to crown the offering - the sacrifice of my life. And as the first verse indicates, this is a consuming fire 'to burn up every trace of sin'. When I ask God to send the fire I better realise what I'm asking for! But how can we live with anything less?
This is my theme song right now - appropriate for the season maybe!
We need another Pentecost! It's fire I want, for fire I plead. Send the fire today!
Monday, May 07, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Principles and Rules
Greg Boyd on Principles and Rules (MP3)
From Luke 6.1-11
Rules are made for people, not people for rules.
Be inflexible and uncompromising with the principles – love, mercy, justice, faithfulness – but be flexible with the rules. A least a little…
Sometimes in order to stick to the principles, we have to bend the rules.
Manifest life. Manifest love, mercy, justice, faithfulness.
Love people as they are – they don’t have to adhere to your rules.
Rules can make you stupid, preventing you adjusting to ambiguous circumstances.
Sometimes rules kill. They sometimes take on a life of their own.
Have wisdom: there’s a time to keep the rules and there’s a time to let them go.
(Sermons online at Woodland Hills Church)
From Luke 6.1-11
Rules are made for people, not people for rules.
Be inflexible and uncompromising with the principles – love, mercy, justice, faithfulness – but be flexible with the rules. A least a little…
Sometimes in order to stick to the principles, we have to bend the rules.
Manifest life. Manifest love, mercy, justice, faithfulness.
Love people as they are – they don’t have to adhere to your rules.
Rules can make you stupid, preventing you adjusting to ambiguous circumstances.
Sometimes rules kill. They sometimes take on a life of their own.
Have wisdom: there’s a time to keep the rules and there’s a time to let them go.
(Sermons online at Woodland Hills Church)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Death into Life
I've been reflecting recently on symbols, particularly symbols of death and the way that God likes to subvert them. The NT is littered with symbols of death that mean life for us: sacrifice, blood, the cross. God has literally, and symbolically, turned death into life. Our life is in death: Jesus' death on the cross brought us life, we're cleansed by his blood, we die with him in baptism, we die to ourselves, we die to live. Jesus triumphed over death, for it had no hold on him. God raised him from death, as he will raise us all. Blood, sacrifice, the cross no longer mean death to us, but life!
"We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body." 2 Corinthians 4.10-11
I've heard people compare wearing a cross to wearing a little electric chair around the neck. A useful analogy perhaps, expressing some of the absurdity of wearing an execution device as a fashion statement, but I suggest it doesn't go half-way far enough. The electric chair doesn't have a fraction of the symbolic power wielded by the cross two thousand years ago.
Crucifixion was the Roman's preferred method of execution: gruesome, public, efficient. It was an excruciatingly painful way to die, deliberately lengthy and public. Part of its usefulness for the Romans was the way it allowed them to humiliate their enemies in defeat, and display publicly the consequences of disobedience and rebellion. Famously, in 71BC, Emperor Crassus ordered 6600 rebellious slaves crucified, one every 1000 paces, on the Appian Way between Capua and Rome, the defeated followers of Spartacus, who led the slaves in an uprising against Rome from 73-71BC. Crassus never ordered the crosses taken down, so this gruesome reminder of the consequences of rebellion remained to warn travellers on his highway for many years, perhaps decades.
To the first century Roman world the cross signified Roman domination, the power of the Roman state to subdue its enemies. To the nations controlled by Rome the cross was a symbol of occupation and oppression, slavery and fear. I cannot think of a modern equivalent that comes close.
The electric chair, if anything, symbolises the kind of bloodless, clinical death favoured by the American judicial system, in which most states now favour lethal injection (the electric chair is seen as too barbaric). Executions, as carried out in the modern Western world, are tightly controlled, relatively private and carefully designed not to offend the sensibilities of law-abiding citizens. These methods of execution have no power as symbols, hardly even summoning up the reality of death, from which we all live happily sheltered. Most of us have never even seen a dead person, let alone watched them die in agony.
It is hardly possible for us to grasp the magnitude of the change in fortunes of the cross as a symbol. Jesus' death and resurrection turned the most disgusting and oppressive symbol of death and bondage the world had ever seen into the most powerful symbol of love and freedom in the earth and heavens. Talk about a victory! This is subversion of the highest order. God took the worst the enemy could offer and made it his most potent symbol of love and grace.
"..having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." Colossians 2.15
You need the resurrection to complete the story, the victory over death, but that doesn't diminish the eternal significance of the cross. Jesus isn't only the risen King, he's our crucified Lord. At God's right hand, but still displaying the wounds of death, in his hands and side. Jesus' death is forever part of who God is; the Lamb who was slain,"chosen before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1.20), now stands "in the centre of the throne" (Rev 5.6).
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and praise!" Revelation 5.12
Amen!
"We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body." 2 Corinthians 4.10-11
I've heard people compare wearing a cross to wearing a little electric chair around the neck. A useful analogy perhaps, expressing some of the absurdity of wearing an execution device as a fashion statement, but I suggest it doesn't go half-way far enough. The electric chair doesn't have a fraction of the symbolic power wielded by the cross two thousand years ago.
Crucifixion was the Roman's preferred method of execution: gruesome, public, efficient. It was an excruciatingly painful way to die, deliberately lengthy and public. Part of its usefulness for the Romans was the way it allowed them to humiliate their enemies in defeat, and display publicly the consequences of disobedience and rebellion. Famously, in 71BC, Emperor Crassus ordered 6600 rebellious slaves crucified, one every 1000 paces, on the Appian Way between Capua and Rome, the defeated followers of Spartacus, who led the slaves in an uprising against Rome from 73-71BC. Crassus never ordered the crosses taken down, so this gruesome reminder of the consequences of rebellion remained to warn travellers on his highway for many years, perhaps decades.
To the first century Roman world the cross signified Roman domination, the power of the Roman state to subdue its enemies. To the nations controlled by Rome the cross was a symbol of occupation and oppression, slavery and fear. I cannot think of a modern equivalent that comes close.
The electric chair, if anything, symbolises the kind of bloodless, clinical death favoured by the American judicial system, in which most states now favour lethal injection (the electric chair is seen as too barbaric). Executions, as carried out in the modern Western world, are tightly controlled, relatively private and carefully designed not to offend the sensibilities of law-abiding citizens. These methods of execution have no power as symbols, hardly even summoning up the reality of death, from which we all live happily sheltered. Most of us have never even seen a dead person, let alone watched them die in agony.
It is hardly possible for us to grasp the magnitude of the change in fortunes of the cross as a symbol. Jesus' death and resurrection turned the most disgusting and oppressive symbol of death and bondage the world had ever seen into the most powerful symbol of love and freedom in the earth and heavens. Talk about a victory! This is subversion of the highest order. God took the worst the enemy could offer and made it his most potent symbol of love and grace.
"..having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." Colossians 2.15
You need the resurrection to complete the story, the victory over death, but that doesn't diminish the eternal significance of the cross. Jesus isn't only the risen King, he's our crucified Lord. At God's right hand, but still displaying the wounds of death, in his hands and side. Jesus' death is forever part of who God is; the Lamb who was slain,"chosen before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1.20), now stands "in the centre of the throne" (Rev 5.6).
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and praise!" Revelation 5.12
Amen!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Reading Genesis after Darwin
I attended a fascinating series of lectures today, hosted by the Theology Department and the Institute of Advanced Study (IAS) here at Durham, on science and theology, specifically looking at the impact of Darwin on theology - and on the reading of Genesis in particular. This is part of an ongoing series of interdisciplinary lectures put on by the IAS, which this year is looking at The Legacy of Charles Darwin.
I made it to four out of the five lectures today, all of which were extremely stimulating and covered a range of topics from Paley to Dawkins and Augustine to Koko the Chimp.
I've left with a range of responses to the different ideas presented, and plenty of questions. I'm left pondering the nature and status of evil, the pervasiveness of the 'God of the Gaps' and Deism, the significance of rationality and language in apes, the place of humans in the natural world...
Here's a selection of the some of the ideas presented today (some I agree with more than others):
o Does the idea that creation must have been instantaneous have more to do with a Deist God who creates the universe and then "goes off to have a cup of tea" than with the God of the Bible? (DW)
o Perhaps drawing the line between humans and animals on the basis of rationality, language or other qualitative differences is a 'God of the Gaps' approach. Are all of these elements, including moral choices, just a matter of degree? (DC, JA)
DC discussed one particularly fascinating example, Koko the Gorilla. I also recently came across the story of N'kisi, an African Grey Parrot with a vocabulary of 950 words and the ability to form sentences and even to use humour.
o In the early church and beyond, the understanding of the incarnation has moved from 'God became a Jew' through 'God became a man' to 'God became a human'. Can this be taken further, to 'God became a Creature'*? (DC) [*I have some issues with this from a Biblical perspective..]
o The question of evil, in terms of suffering and death, is more complicated than we at first imagine when we look at nature. "Competition, struggle, suffering, death and extinction" appear to be completely entangled in the way that nature functions - in reproduction, predation, life cycles, adaptation, evolution and so on.. Intended or permitted? (JA)
o The universe is so complex that it makes little real difference on a practical level to distinguish between which models of deism / theistic evolution / God of the gaps you employ to explain the Creator's relationship with the Creation. The universe is just as complicated whether you believe that God is constantly acting at the level of quantum uncertainty or you think he created the laws which govern it 'at the beginning'. The point at which the question becomes important is the difference in what you expect from God. (JA)
One of the ideas which I thought was most interesting, was Prof. Jeff Astley's observation (borrowed from Holmes Rolston III), that evolution makes a necessity of waste and suffering. That every part of nature has a 'cruciform' shape, a passion play in which the innocent die so that many may live. As Rolston puts it, in this 'slaughter of the innocents' we have perhaps,
"vignettes hinting of the innocent lamb slain from the foundation of the world. They share the labor of the divinity. In their lives, beautiful, tragic and perpetually incomplete, they speak for God; they prophesy as they participate in the divine pathos. All have 'borne our griefs and carried our sorrows'." (Science and Religion: A Critical Survey, 1987, p.145)
This is Karl Barth on a similar theme:
"The suffering, by which the whole created world of men and things is controlled, is His, His action, His question, and His answer." (The Epistle to the Romans, ET 1933, p.309)
JA argued that 'errors' in DNA copying are a 'happy fault' when seen from a species-wide or planet-wide perspective. It's hard to argue with the sense that the "imperfections of the world are a driving force for its perfections". (JA)
I also liked Astley's description of the way in which the way we look at nature can be likened to a religious experience. He talked about the way that in viewing nature we are both attracted and repelled for it is both lovely and terrible. The proper response is a 'shudder of otherness', akin to our experience of God, to have both awe and fear.
Lots to ponder here I think!
[DW - Dr David Wilkinson, DC - Dr David Clough, JA - Prof Jeff Astley]
I made it to four out of the five lectures today, all of which were extremely stimulating and covered a range of topics from Paley to Dawkins and Augustine to Koko the Chimp.
I've left with a range of responses to the different ideas presented, and plenty of questions. I'm left pondering the nature and status of evil, the pervasiveness of the 'God of the Gaps' and Deism, the significance of rationality and language in apes, the place of humans in the natural world...
Here's a selection of the some of the ideas presented today (some I agree with more than others):
o Does the idea that creation must have been instantaneous have more to do with a Deist God who creates the universe and then "goes off to have a cup of tea" than with the God of the Bible? (DW)
o Perhaps drawing the line between humans and animals on the basis of rationality, language or other qualitative differences is a 'God of the Gaps' approach. Are all of these elements, including moral choices, just a matter of degree? (DC, JA)
DC discussed one particularly fascinating example, Koko the Gorilla. I also recently came across the story of N'kisi, an African Grey Parrot with a vocabulary of 950 words and the ability to form sentences and even to use humour.
o In the early church and beyond, the understanding of the incarnation has moved from 'God became a Jew' through 'God became a man' to 'God became a human'. Can this be taken further, to 'God became a Creature'*? (DC) [*I have some issues with this from a Biblical perspective..]
o The question of evil, in terms of suffering and death, is more complicated than we at first imagine when we look at nature. "Competition, struggle, suffering, death and extinction" appear to be completely entangled in the way that nature functions - in reproduction, predation, life cycles, adaptation, evolution and so on.. Intended or permitted? (JA)
o The universe is so complex that it makes little real difference on a practical level to distinguish between which models of deism / theistic evolution / God of the gaps you employ to explain the Creator's relationship with the Creation. The universe is just as complicated whether you believe that God is constantly acting at the level of quantum uncertainty or you think he created the laws which govern it 'at the beginning'. The point at which the question becomes important is the difference in what you expect from God. (JA)
One of the ideas which I thought was most interesting, was Prof. Jeff Astley's observation (borrowed from Holmes Rolston III), that evolution makes a necessity of waste and suffering. That every part of nature has a 'cruciform' shape, a passion play in which the innocent die so that many may live. As Rolston puts it, in this 'slaughter of the innocents' we have perhaps,
"vignettes hinting of the innocent lamb slain from the foundation of the world. They share the labor of the divinity. In their lives, beautiful, tragic and perpetually incomplete, they speak for God; they prophesy as they participate in the divine pathos. All have 'borne our griefs and carried our sorrows'." (Science and Religion: A Critical Survey, 1987, p.145)
This is Karl Barth on a similar theme:
"The suffering, by which the whole created world of men and things is controlled, is His, His action, His question, and His answer." (The Epistle to the Romans, ET 1933, p.309)
JA argued that 'errors' in DNA copying are a 'happy fault' when seen from a species-wide or planet-wide perspective. It's hard to argue with the sense that the "imperfections of the world are a driving force for its perfections". (JA)
I also liked Astley's description of the way in which the way we look at nature can be likened to a religious experience. He talked about the way that in viewing nature we are both attracted and repelled for it is both lovely and terrible. The proper response is a 'shudder of otherness', akin to our experience of God, to have both awe and fear.
Lots to ponder here I think!
[DW - Dr David Wilkinson, DC - Dr David Clough, JA - Prof Jeff Astley]
Monday, February 19, 2007
'Party on!'
The first miracle (or sign) in John's Gospel is the Wedding in Cana where Jesus turns the water into wine. I heard Steve Chalke point out that in a world of poverty and brokenness, the miracle he chooses to do first is to provide more wine for some people who were probably already less than sober! As Steve puts it, it's Jesus' first miracle, and it's "Drinks on me!" A reminder that the kingdom of God is something of a party and Jesus says to us, 'Come on in, let's party!'*
*See also Mt 8.11, Mt 22.1-14, Lk 14.15-24, Rev 3.20 ... :-)
*See also Mt 8.11, Mt 22.1-14, Lk 14.15-24, Rev 3.20 ... :-)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
The Cosmic Trilogy
I've finally got around to re-reading CS Lewis' Cosmic Trilogy: Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength.
Overall, I'd best describe the trilogy as Very Odd, although not necessarily in a bad way! Not science fiction as you'd know it, but fantasy as Lewis does best, with talking beasts and fantastic creatures, only set this time in space. As in the Narnia stories he has woven in the 'Deeper Magic', the Story above - and below - all stories, while creating a cosmology entirely his own.
The Trilogy tells the story of a man called Ransom, a Christian professor who finds himself quite unexpectedly taken to Mars (or Malacandra), and then later to Venus (Perelandra). His journey out of the 'Silent Planet' (that is, Earth) leads to some remarkable discoveries about the universe, and a radical perspective change in his theology and cosmology.
My favourite book was the second. It's thoroughly fantastic, functioning as a myth in the way that Lewis does best. Ransom goes to Venus and witnesses the birth of a new race and its first temptation. Will this Eden also fall?
One of my favourite pieces of dialogue in the book is the conversation between the Green Lady and Ransom about why she is human and why fantastic creatures occur only on the more ancient worlds.
She is bewildered by his question and asks him, "How could they come again? Since our Beloved became a man, how should Reason in any world take on another form? Do you not understand? That is all over. Among times there is a time that turns a corner and everything on this side of it is new. Times do not go backward." Jesus is the turning point of all history. Nothing will ever be the same again.
The 'black archon' of Earth, whom Maleldil has blockaded on the planet (thus, 'the Silent Planet') has found a way to travel to Perelandra in the body of a twisted physicist called Dr Weston. In some of the most interesting scenes in the book, Ransom is forced to watch as the 'Un-man' uses every trick in the book to tempt the Lady to disobey Maleldil. Until finally, the Presence himself turns up.
Much to Ransom's dismay, there will be no supernatural intervention. He is Maleldil's representative on Perelandra and, not only must he 'do his best', in fact the very outcome of the battle is in his mortal hands. Literally in his hands, for the struggle he must have with the Tempter is a physical one, to destroy the human body that he inhabits. This is not what he expects, for "no such crude, materialistic struggle could be what Maleldil really intended...it would degrade the spiritual warfare to the condition of mere mythology." But he comes to realise that in the Incarnation, the spiritual has been bound up with the physical to such a degree that they can no longer be separated. He cannot draw a parallel between Eden and Perelandra because "What had happened on Earth, when Maleldil was born a man at Bethlehem, had altered the universe for ever."
It is Lewis' high view of the nature of humanity and his reflections on the universe-shattering nature of the Incarnation which is the most distinctive theme in the book. His use of Ransom reflects his understanding that God has chosen to effect his redemptive purposes through men and women:
"When Eve fell, God was not Man. He had not yet made men members of His body: since then He had, and through them henceforward He would save and suffer."
The task has come to this man, Ransom, to save a world from a fall. But, in one of the most thrilling lines in the book, the Voice tells him, "My name is also Ransom". He comes to understand that if even he fails "this world also would hereafter be redeemed. If he were not the ransom, Another would be...Not a second crucifixion: perhaps - who knows - not even a second Incarnation... some act of even more appalling love, some glory of yet deeper humility... her Redemption was beyond conceiving".
The outcome of the story I'll leave to you to find out!
Lewis' creations are always memorable, his fantasies tend to stick around in your consciousness, invading your worldview. You're left having to remind yourself that no, Mars really is just a cold and barren rock. And there's almost a sadness in coming back to reality and remembering the facts. Yet at the same time, it's a short-lived sadness, for his re-telling of the Big Story leaves me with a deeper, wider view of the real story. For, however fantastic the universes that Lewis creates, the reality is infinitely more glorious! Who can comprehend the mind of God, the intricacies of his plan, the delights he has in store for us?
(I've lots more I could say about That Hideous Strength, but that will have to wait for another day.)
I'd certainly recommend the first two books of the trilogy, for although they don't represent Lewis' best writing, they'll unsettle and stretch your worldview and that's never a bad thing!
Overall, I'd best describe the trilogy as Very Odd, although not necessarily in a bad way! Not science fiction as you'd know it, but fantasy as Lewis does best, with talking beasts and fantastic creatures, only set this time in space. As in the Narnia stories he has woven in the 'Deeper Magic', the Story above - and below - all stories, while creating a cosmology entirely his own.
The Trilogy tells the story of a man called Ransom, a Christian professor who finds himself quite unexpectedly taken to Mars (or Malacandra), and then later to Venus (Perelandra). His journey out of the 'Silent Planet' (that is, Earth) leads to some remarkable discoveries about the universe, and a radical perspective change in his theology and cosmology.
My favourite book was the second. It's thoroughly fantastic, functioning as a myth in the way that Lewis does best. Ransom goes to Venus and witnesses the birth of a new race and its first temptation. Will this Eden also fall?
One of my favourite pieces of dialogue in the book is the conversation between the Green Lady and Ransom about why she is human and why fantastic creatures occur only on the more ancient worlds.
She is bewildered by his question and asks him, "How could they come again? Since our Beloved became a man, how should Reason in any world take on another form? Do you not understand? That is all over. Among times there is a time that turns a corner and everything on this side of it is new. Times do not go backward." Jesus is the turning point of all history. Nothing will ever be the same again.
The 'black archon' of Earth, whom Maleldil has blockaded on the planet (thus, 'the Silent Planet') has found a way to travel to Perelandra in the body of a twisted physicist called Dr Weston. In some of the most interesting scenes in the book, Ransom is forced to watch as the 'Un-man' uses every trick in the book to tempt the Lady to disobey Maleldil. Until finally, the Presence himself turns up.
Much to Ransom's dismay, there will be no supernatural intervention. He is Maleldil's representative on Perelandra and, not only must he 'do his best', in fact the very outcome of the battle is in his mortal hands. Literally in his hands, for the struggle he must have with the Tempter is a physical one, to destroy the human body that he inhabits. This is not what he expects, for "no such crude, materialistic struggle could be what Maleldil really intended...it would degrade the spiritual warfare to the condition of mere mythology." But he comes to realise that in the Incarnation, the spiritual has been bound up with the physical to such a degree that they can no longer be separated. He cannot draw a parallel between Eden and Perelandra because "What had happened on Earth, when Maleldil was born a man at Bethlehem, had altered the universe for ever."
It is Lewis' high view of the nature of humanity and his reflections on the universe-shattering nature of the Incarnation which is the most distinctive theme in the book. His use of Ransom reflects his understanding that God has chosen to effect his redemptive purposes through men and women:
"When Eve fell, God was not Man. He had not yet made men members of His body: since then He had, and through them henceforward He would save and suffer."
The task has come to this man, Ransom, to save a world from a fall. But, in one of the most thrilling lines in the book, the Voice tells him, "My name is also Ransom". He comes to understand that if even he fails "this world also would hereafter be redeemed. If he were not the ransom, Another would be...Not a second crucifixion: perhaps - who knows - not even a second Incarnation... some act of even more appalling love, some glory of yet deeper humility... her Redemption was beyond conceiving".
The outcome of the story I'll leave to you to find out!
Lewis' creations are always memorable, his fantasies tend to stick around in your consciousness, invading your worldview. You're left having to remind yourself that no, Mars really is just a cold and barren rock. And there's almost a sadness in coming back to reality and remembering the facts. Yet at the same time, it's a short-lived sadness, for his re-telling of the Big Story leaves me with a deeper, wider view of the real story. For, however fantastic the universes that Lewis creates, the reality is infinitely more glorious! Who can comprehend the mind of God, the intricacies of his plan, the delights he has in store for us?
(I've lots more I could say about That Hideous Strength, but that will have to wait for another day.)
I'd certainly recommend the first two books of the trilogy, for although they don't represent Lewis' best writing, they'll unsettle and stretch your worldview and that's never a bad thing!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Comedic scenes in Matthew
A curious title, you say?
Surely Holy Scripture is not allowed to make you laugh...?
A couple of scenes in Matthew's Gospel have made me chuckle recently.
Matt 14.51
Jesus has been telling parables about the kingdom of God - the mustard seed, the yeast, the pearl, the seed in the field, the hidden treasure and the net... It's not his plainest teaching, put it that way. He comes to the end..
"Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked.
"Yes," they replied.
Try reading all these parables out loud to someone, with all their varying scenes and images, and then coming to the end with this verse. Tell me it doesn't pull you up chuckling, raising your eyebrow and going 'Oh, really?' I can imagine them nodding vigorously in response, "Yes, absolutely, like a pearl, yes, that makes complete sense. It always reminded me of a net..." It reminds me of times when I was teaching and I'd stupidly ask the class, "Does that make sense? Do you understand?" If I got any response at all it would be nodding heads and confident expressions. Did they have any idea what I was talking about? No.
Matt 16.5-12
Jesus and the disciples are in a boat, crossing the lake. But the disciples have forgotten to bring bread. Perhaps they're blaming each other, or sitting shame-faced. Jesus tells them, "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples are convinced he's telling them off for forgetting the bread and they discuss it among themselves. (It makes you wonder if Jesus is playing with them, but his serious response in v.8 probably rules that one out!) I like that the disciples found Jesus just as cryptic as we often do! It's hard to imagine Matthew writing this without a smile on his face.
Anyone got any more?
Surely Holy Scripture is not allowed to make you laugh...?
A couple of scenes in Matthew's Gospel have made me chuckle recently.
Matt 14.51
Jesus has been telling parables about the kingdom of God - the mustard seed, the yeast, the pearl, the seed in the field, the hidden treasure and the net... It's not his plainest teaching, put it that way. He comes to the end..
"Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked.
"Yes," they replied.
Try reading all these parables out loud to someone, with all their varying scenes and images, and then coming to the end with this verse. Tell me it doesn't pull you up chuckling, raising your eyebrow and going 'Oh, really?' I can imagine them nodding vigorously in response, "Yes, absolutely, like a pearl, yes, that makes complete sense. It always reminded me of a net..." It reminds me of times when I was teaching and I'd stupidly ask the class, "Does that make sense? Do you understand?" If I got any response at all it would be nodding heads and confident expressions. Did they have any idea what I was talking about? No.
Matt 16.5-12
Jesus and the disciples are in a boat, crossing the lake. But the disciples have forgotten to bring bread. Perhaps they're blaming each other, or sitting shame-faced. Jesus tells them, "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples are convinced he's telling them off for forgetting the bread and they discuss it among themselves. (It makes you wonder if Jesus is playing with them, but his serious response in v.8 probably rules that one out!) I like that the disciples found Jesus just as cryptic as we often do! It's hard to imagine Matthew writing this without a smile on his face.
Anyone got any more?
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Revelation on the Road
In Luke 24 Cleopas and his friend are leaving Jerusalem and on the road to Emmaus when they meet Jesus, although of course they don't recognise who he is.
They recount the events in Jerusalem for him:
- Jesus was a prophet from God, "powerful in word and deed", they hoped "he was the one who was going to redeem Israel."
- he was handed over by the chief priests and crucified
- three days later, the tomb is empty (v.23,24)
- the women reported seeing "a vision of" angels who said he was alive
(But they're clearly not convinced! In fact, they're leaving and going home. Alive! That's crazy...)
[Jesus] tells them to pay attention and he opens up the Scriptures regarding himself. Later, they recall how their hearts were "burning within [them]".
Finally, as they eat together in Emmaus, their eyes are opened and they recognise Jesus! They immediately return to Jerusalem, running the 7 miles in the dark (v.29) to tell the disciples (though sadly, their news is already out-of-date because in the meantime Jesus has also appeared to Peter!)
It's not the fact of the empty tomb that convinces them, it's not the angels (the women aren't credible witnesses to start with and with a story like that..?), nor have they simply understood from the Scriptures what it was all about. Their new excitement, as they rush back to Jerusalem, is because they have met the risen Christ himself. As always, it's about revelation, not information!
Richard Briggs pointed out that Christian belief is not based on the fact of the empty tomb, but on the experience of Jesus, alive from the dead. The disciples went from a scared bunch of nobodies, hiding in an upper room, to being passionately excited about Jesus, missionaries and martyrs and church leaders, not because they'd seen an empty tomb, but because Jesus was alive from the dead! They had met him, seen his hands and feet (v.40), seen him eat "broiled fish" (v.41-43 present a funny scene, easy to imagine.. they're all standing there, amazed, and he's trying to convince them he's not a vision. 'Give me something to eat, ' he says.).
There's also a sweetness to this story in the way that Cleopas and his friend don't miss out. If Jesus had not caught up with him (and his wife?) on the road they would not have returned to Jerusalem, where Jesus then appears to all of them and tells them to wait in the city until the Holy Spirit comes. It's also worth noting that Jesus has apparently appeared to Peter individually before this point (see also 1 Corinthians 15.5 for the earliest account of the resurrection appearances), significant because of Peter's earlier betrayal.
The Road to Emmaus story gives us the paradoxical truth:
"Scripture reveals Jesus but you need Jesus to reveal Scripture."
(see also Luke 24.45)
They recount the events in Jerusalem for him:
- Jesus was a prophet from God, "powerful in word and deed", they hoped "he was the one who was going to redeem Israel."
- he was handed over by the chief priests and crucified
- three days later, the tomb is empty (v.23,24)
- the women reported seeing "a vision of" angels who said he was alive
(But they're clearly not convinced! In fact, they're leaving and going home. Alive! That's crazy...)
[Jesus] tells them to pay attention and he opens up the Scriptures regarding himself. Later, they recall how their hearts were "burning within [them]".
Finally, as they eat together in Emmaus, their eyes are opened and they recognise Jesus! They immediately return to Jerusalem, running the 7 miles in the dark (v.29) to tell the disciples (though sadly, their news is already out-of-date because in the meantime Jesus has also appeared to Peter!)
It's not the fact of the empty tomb that convinces them, it's not the angels (the women aren't credible witnesses to start with and with a story like that..?), nor have they simply understood from the Scriptures what it was all about. Their new excitement, as they rush back to Jerusalem, is because they have met the risen Christ himself. As always, it's about revelation, not information!
Richard Briggs pointed out that Christian belief is not based on the fact of the empty tomb, but on the experience of Jesus, alive from the dead. The disciples went from a scared bunch of nobodies, hiding in an upper room, to being passionately excited about Jesus, missionaries and martyrs and church leaders, not because they'd seen an empty tomb, but because Jesus was alive from the dead! They had met him, seen his hands and feet (v.40), seen him eat "broiled fish" (v.41-43 present a funny scene, easy to imagine.. they're all standing there, amazed, and he's trying to convince them he's not a vision. 'Give me something to eat, ' he says.).
There's also a sweetness to this story in the way that Cleopas and his friend don't miss out. If Jesus had not caught up with him (and his wife?) on the road they would not have returned to Jerusalem, where Jesus then appears to all of them and tells them to wait in the city until the Holy Spirit comes. It's also worth noting that Jesus has apparently appeared to Peter individually before this point (see also 1 Corinthians 15.5 for the earliest account of the resurrection appearances), significant because of Peter's earlier betrayal.
The Road to Emmaus story gives us the paradoxical truth:
"Scripture reveals Jesus but you need Jesus to reveal Scripture."
(see also Luke 24.45)
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
The Gate of the Year
I said to the man
Who stood at the gate of the year,
“Give me a light that I may tread safely
into the unknown.”
And he replied,
“Go out into the darkness
and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you
Better than the light
And safer than a known way!”
So I went forth
And finding the hand of God
Trod gladly into the light.
Minnie Louise Haskins, 1908
Who stood at the gate of the year,
“Give me a light that I may tread safely
into the unknown.”
And he replied,
“Go out into the darkness
and put your hand into the hand of God
That shall be to you
Better than the light
And safer than a known way!”
So I went forth
And finding the hand of God
Trod gladly into the light.
Minnie Louise Haskins, 1908
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Christmas Eve in London
A fairly recent Christmas tradition in our family is the St Martin in the Fields' Christmas Carol Service on Christmas Eve. The Carol Service is always excellent - lots of great carols and drama. But mostly it's just an excuse to be out in the city at night, seeing the lights along the river, wrapped up warm as we wander dark and festive streets. We park near Waterloo station and cross the river on the beautiful Hungerford Bridge. Getting a good seat requires queueing, but that's part of the adventure. Trafalgar Square is always humming with activity and this night is no different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
