Moving to Blogger

I've made the decision to move to Wordpress finally!

Blogger's given me faithful service over a number of years, but the time has come to say goodbye...

You'll now find me at http://mustardseedkingdom.wordpress.com/

Please be patient as I'm sure I'll be fiddling around with the blog design there for a while!

If you subscribe to my feed it should automatically transfer over via Feedburner but if it doesn't please the link above (sorry!).

TIM KELLER on presenting the Gospel as both challenge and appeal

The following quotation is from a comment by Tim Keller in a blog discussion about his views on sharing the Gospel by connecting the story of Jesus to baseline cultural narratives. He says, "you have to show in line with the culture's own (best) aspirations, hopes, and convictions that its own cultural story won't be resolved or have 'a happy ending' outside of Christ." At the same time he explains that an effective presentation of the Gospel will both appeal to and challenge existing cultural narratives. He makes the following exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1.22-25 to help illustrate this:

1 Cor 1:22-25 is a good example of what I'm talking about. Your own Paul Barnett talks about it somewhat in his commentary on the text. Jews wanted a powerful Messiah, and the Greeks' ideal was the philosopher king. These were 'baseline cultural narratives.' For Jews--power, for Greeks--philosophy and wisdom. Paul preaches the cross to both challenge and appeal. He uses the weakness of the cross to show the Jews that they've made an idol of power, and the foolishness of the cross to show the Greeks they've made an idol of wisdom. And yet, he also is willing to preach Christ as the true power and the true wisdom. So on the one hand, he adapts and on the other hand he challenges. He is saying to Jews, 'You seek power? Well, here is the true power.' He says to Greeks, 'You seek wisdom? Well here is true wisdom.'

I thought this was a really helpful description of what Paul is doing here and a useful model for sharing the Gospel.

I was reflecting recently with someone about modern cultural narratives which provide opportunities for sharing the Gospel - connection points. We're all familiar with the way that films, for example, can provide what you might call 'leaping-off points' for talking about spiritual realities; for example, a movie like the Matrix gave us a whole new set of vocabulary for talking about choices and faith and reality. But are there other cultural narratives which we should be making better use of, thinking creatively about connections with the Gospel story? One I considered was the environmental narrative that's so current right now, as we think seriously about the consequences of our choices and our stewardship of this planet. Are there ways to speak into this theme and engage with these questions that bring the light of Jesus to bear? What about the big themes of national security, terrorism, personal liberty and the surveillance issue (privacy vs security)? How do we respond and what story are we telling in the light of these?


Tim Keller's 'The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism' sounds like an interesting read.


Thanks Matt!

Quote(s) of the Day, Olympic Style

"...a gold medal is a wonderful thing. But if you're not enough without one, you'll never be enough with one."
Irv Blitzer, Cool Runnings

"Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever."
1 Corinthians 9.24-25

Open Theism discussed

I've stumbled across another interesting discussion on Open Theism at The Sign of Jonah blog. The original blogger is critiquing Open Theism (although I didn't feel he was particularly successful in this. He seems a little confused about distinction between OT and the problem of evil/suffering, which although connected is not really the same question) and provokes some excellent (although very lengthy) discussion in the comments. I was particularly impressed by the contribution of a commenter called Wesley Brainard who is generally articulate and intelligent in his arguments for Open Theism - although I'm not sure I agree with everything he says about the way God has limited himself (e.g. spacially).

Here's a couple of examples of things which got me thinking:

...This began to take shape around the discussion of God’s freedom. Jim B admitted that God was free to create or not to create. If He was free to choose, then there was a time when God hadn’t yet foreknown. This demonstrates that foreknowledge is not eternal or essential. God is still God without exhaustive foreknowledge.

The open view says that God was free to create the kind of world you propose he created. Does the CV allow that God could have created a world with freedoms like His as the open view suggests?

Keith: I feel like you really ducked the issue with Cyrus. Your basic answer was, "I don’t know how God predicted Cyrus but I’m absolutely sure that it wasn’t through exhaustive foreknowledge". In all candor I think that’s pretty weak.

Wesley: Straw dummy... My argument was that what you offered does not prove exhaustive foreknowledge. I thought Will D.’s post was especially good on this point. If we use your argument for proving exhaustive foreknowledge, my wife would certainly qualify since she knows what I’m going to do or not do before I do or don’t do it. Knowing something does not prove that He knows everything. ...

Openness and Prayer

Blogger TC Robinson has been investigating open theism on his blog and starting various interesting discussions along the way. I recently commented (hopefully gently!) on his post about prayer:

I've always understood prayer to be pretty effective - not just in my personal relationship with God, but also for affecting what happens in the world. I agree there's definitely the sense in the Gospels of Jesus taking time out in prayer to learn his Father's will (as Duane and others have mentioned above) but surely the overwhelming teaching of Jesus is that God responds to prayer and our prayers therefore have real consequences in the world, e.g. Luke 21.36, Matt 7.11 'how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him', Luke 10.2 'ask for workers', Luke 22.32 (in verse 31 it sounds like Satan is also able to pray!)... and I haven't even mentioned some of the most famous verses about prayer!

What I understand from what Boyd and others teach is that because God is relational he has chosen to mediate his authority through free agents such as ourselves and angels etc.* Although the plan was for us to rule 'under authority' (c.f. Luke 7.8), we have real delegated responsibility. To this end God has chosen to limit his influence and authority in the world according to our direction and desire. The really challenging thing about this view is that it makes prayer absolutely critical. God's involvement - to a certain extent - depends on us asking for it! When we pray 'your will be done' we're apparently - in a really odd way - actually giving God 'permission' to act to bring about his will. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

I actually think this view has a lot to recommend it, as it makes sense of Jesus' instructions about prayer and the importance Paul obviously gives to prayer (e.g. 1 Thess 3.10). God is genuinely responsive to our prayers, relational even in the exercise of his sovereign authority. That sounds like a truly dynamic relationship! It's also interesting to note the way Paul talks about being coworkers with God.

[*At the beginning humankind is given dominion over the earth (Gen 1.26-28) but unfortunately it seems we surrendered our authority to Satan, who is now the 'prince of this world' (John 12.41). But Daniel 7 indicates that part of our final destiny is to finally reclaim this authority in the kingdom of Jesus.]

Comments?

GREG BOYD on what it looks like when God reigns

Last week at camp I finally got hold of my own copy of Greg Boyd's talks on the Kingdom of God from Revive! 2005. I've listened to them before but these are such fantastic talks that I wanted my own copies to listen to and lend out!

I first heard these talks on CD about two and a half years ago and they made a huge impact on me. I'm not sure any sermons, or indeed speaker, have been as influential in my life. I remember listening to them and just going 'yes, yes, yes - that's what it's about!' and being completely moved, even overwhelmed by the truth of it. Faith-growing, brain-stretching, life-giving...

Here's a 3 minute clip of Greg Boyd talking about what the kingdom of God - the "dome (domain) in which God is king" - is like:

'What does it look like when God reigns?'

Link to mp3 if the player's not working for you.

Learning moments at Revive! 2008

[Something of a scrapbook of quotes etc from camp last week. Apologies for the lack of order - just getting them down!]

Jonathan Oloyede
- Luke 4.1 - the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness. The Spirit can lead us into difficult and strange places. Jesus fasted for 40 days before going out in the power of the Spirit.
- If you want to follow the Lord he will ask you to drop some things...are you ready for that?

Christen Forster
- Matt 16.13-19. Jesus tells Peter 'on this rock I will build my church'. Jesus was not specifically a carpenter but more likely a builder (Greek: tekton, which is the general term for a builder/craftsman).
- this reminded me of Aslan telling Lucy "I am the master Bridge-Builder" in 'Voyage of the Dawn Treader'.

- Proverbs 30.21 "Under three things the earth trembles, under four it cannot bear up: a servant who becomes king, ..." It is a dangerous thing for those with the insecurities of a servant to be put in positions of leadership. The primary responsibility of a leader is to be proactive in putting themselves in a position to encounter God and be open for God to change them.
- everything we do is motivated either by fear or love. Fear is born out of our slavery, love of our sonship.
- two fear-based behaviours that hit Christian leaders are competitiveness and striving.

Debbie Laycock
Matt 25.1-13 - the Wise and Foolish Virgins
'This is a Parousian Parable about God's People; Jesus makes it Personal and asks "Are you Prudent, Prepared and at your Post?"'
- do you have enough fuel to be burning hot on the day Jesus arrives? Are you filled with the oil of the Holy Spirit?
- You can't lean on the spiritual lives of others - do you have the Spirit in you?
- Are we being proactive in taking practical steps to fuel our spiritual lives?
- Are we taking our role in the kingdom seriously?

Sarah Fordham
- Need spirituality and religion in balance. Religion gives boundaries to our spirituality. Without structure we are easily swept away into the 'New Age' (no boundaries).
- 'Religion' comes from the Latin religio 'to bind'. As Christians we are to bind Christ - the Word - to ourselves in the same way Jews bind the Torah to themselves (Deut 11.18)
- The truth is to be encountered in Jesus
'Do what I say and then you will know that what I say is true' (Sarah's paraphrase of John 7.31-32)

Jackie Pullinger-To
- look at the world: there must be justice! there is so much pain that must be accounted for, retribution that must be made.
- without justice there is no mercy
- Isaiah 53. Jesus took the pain of those wronged and the punishment for the wrongdoers
- there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood
- The day of Jubilee: 'the slave driver is forgiven and the slave goes free'

- what the Scripture says is true: 'my soul thirsts for you'. We may not feel it but it's our feelings that aren't true.
- a man is a slave to what he worships.

Faith Forster
- 'a seeking soul and a seeking Saviour are sure to meet'
- we shouldn't be running after signs and wonders because signs and wonders should be following us!

John Paul Jackson
- if people don't find answers to spiritual things in the church they'll go elsewhere
- What is true spirituality? You cannot be spiritual by yourself - be filled with the Spirit of the living God
- the Spirit brings true 'enlightenment' while anything else brings only 'endarkenment'. Satan left the light and source of life and is therefore continually deteriorating...joining the dark side literally sucks the life out of you.
- Light always overcomes darkness. Darkness never wins unless there is no light.
- Fear / Faith are two sides of the same thing: a belief in something invisible that has not happened yet. Fear is the belief that something bad will happen, faith is the belief that something good will happen.

The power of the Nudge

Here's an interesting article on the power of the 'nudge' from the Sunday Times.

Politicians are devouring a book called Nudge, written by two American academics, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, which demonstrates how "thoughtful choice architecture can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice". That is, by knowing how people think, we can design 'choice environments' that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society.

The article mentions one example of this type of 'choice environment' - an ingenious little gadget called the Wattson which displays the amount of electricity you are using through colours and numbers, thus encouraging users to reduce the amount they use.

As the article explains, 'Nudge' is also encouraging politicians to think creatively about the power of social norms to influence our behaviour. As well as reducing our electricity consumption, other examples of areas in which social norms might provide a 'nudge' include organ donation and rubbish disposal.

...Realising that financial incentives and penalties such as green taxes had a limited effect on behaviour, Schultz set out to analyse how the energy usage of 300 people in San Marcos, California, could be changed for the better by invoking social norms.

He arranged for the participants to be told on their energy bills what the typical usage in the area was.

"Telling people what others are doing does tend to have an effect," he said. "But there are instances where it can boomerang – if you are using less energy than your neighbours, say by making a sacrifice by not running your air-conditioning, you can feel like a sucker." The result: your energy consumption goes up, not down, to meet the norm.

...Schultz’s solution was to add a little nudge. Some of the participants in his study had a smiley face added to their bill if they used less energy than the norm and a sad face if they used more. The results were startling. Among the participants receiving the emoticon, the boomerang effect completely disappeared. High users reduced their consumption by even more and low users kept their own down.

Disarmingly simple. So simple, in fact, that you wonder why no one's done it before!

Or, what about this "clever use of choice architecture [to] find a middle way for organ donation":

... "We quite like the idea of ‘mandated choice’ in this context," he said. This does not involve any presumption of opt-in or opt-out. Instead it requires people to make a deliberate choice by tacking the process onto something else, such as applying for a driver’s licence or a passport. That solves the problems of both our inertia and bias in the system.

You can see why the politicians are interested in this stuff. Something so simple is surely worth a try? But, as the article states, "it sounds too good to be true. Is it more wishful thinking than sensible policy? Can social norms really change our behaviour?"

Surface Design Websites and Wall Decals

Check out the Print & Pattern blog - a website showcasing surface design of all kinds. There are some awesome prints on there.

Also, I just stumbled across Wall Decals - self-adhesive vinyl 'stickers' that you use to decorate walls etc (and can be repositioned). I bought some for a birthday present for someone recently without realising what they were (they're selling kiddie versions in B&Q). But there are some fab designs out there...


Urban Outfitters - trendy but sadly US-based

Supernice Blik Graphics - lots of cool designs here, but not cheap!

The Threadless designs are pretty groovy as well.

  

Openness, the future and God's foreknowledge

One of the points that's often misunderstood about the Open Theism that Greg Boyd and others espouse, is that they are not saying that God does not know the future. On the contrary, they affirm that God does indeed have knowledge of everything, including what is still to come. What openness argues against is the idea that God only knows one future, in other words that the cosmos runs along a single timeline of 'ordained' possibility (Boyd calls this the 'blueprint worldview'). Open Theism states that God knows every possible future, an infinity of real possibilities (which exist within certain boundaries, of course). Openness asserts that God has given real freedom to individuals within creation to make choices that actually affect what happens in the world, choices for which they are responsible and will be held accountable. Within this He has set out certain conditions and boundaries - e.g. there will be a time of judgement and new creation etc. And of course God is not a detached observer of these events, but in fact the most active participant, always at work to redeem and restore His creation.

It is worth emphasising in this view that while free agents make real choices about the future, no choice or possible future is outside God's (fore)knowledge. God is never caught unaware! (although Jer 32.35 is interesting!) Every choice you make, every infinite possibility of decision has indeed been known by God since before the creation of the world. And in every single one of those infinite possible timelines God has been working for the good of those who love him. Not only has every  individual ever created been loved by God, but every single timeline has been known and lovingly worked into his glorious purpose.

This infinite, sovereign 'intelligence' is much more difficult for us to grasp than infinite controlling power. We have examples of controlling power that we can 'multiply up', but we have very few analogies for the type of intelligence required to weave together infinite possibilities. Perhaps the nearest model we can think of (although it has some significant flaws), and an example I've heard Boyd use, is that of the Chess Grand Master. If I play a Grand Master at Chess he doesn't have to know for certain every move I will make to predict (with 99.9999999% certainty!) that he will win. In fact probably most of the moves I make will be boringly predictable! Really good chess players see possibilities many moves in advance. But God, to use the same analogy, has seen every single possible move, planned his 'counter-attack' for each one and seen the final endgame before the first move was even made!

There are many other ideas I could talk about that fit alongside openness: for example, what it means for God to be in genuine relationship with us; the understanding that God's will is not always done (thus Jesus teaching us to pray "Your will be done...") and so on, but I think this post is long enough for now!

Altogether I find Boyd, in particular, pretty persuasive on this whole topic. I don't agree with everything he states (he's generally more systematic than I'm comfortable with), but I have a feeling that he - and folks like Prof John Polkinghorne - may be on the right lines. And part of why I find it so compelling is that it seems to match up with what the physical universe is actually like. The argument about the relationship between epistemology (what may be known) and ontology (what actually is) in quantum physics may have a little ways to go (does the limit of what it is possible to know correspond with what actually is?), but most physicists will tell you that at the most fundamental level it makes no sense to talk about certainties (future or present). In the strange universe we live in there seems to be something more 'real' about possibilities. As Polkinghorne says, reality is a lot 'fuzzier' than we'd like to think.

[See also: Ben Witherington's view on the 'script']